[MUSIC] Let's look at one other example, online giving. Over the last 10 years an enormous amount of philanthropy has migrated from the office to the Internet. Many people now prefer to do their giving online. And as a result a number of organization have popped up to try to meet this need. Try to give people an online giving experience that is positive, that is rewarding and that gives them the opportunity to feel like they are participating in the organizations that they're supporting. So out there, there's Global Giving, Kiva, Donors Choose, See Your Impact, Just Give, and then a new entrant, Jolkona. Before they launched Jolkona, the founder said, is there really space in this environment for a new online giving platform? And they started to look at those three big questions. Who else is out there and providing the same product? Who else is out there providing the same customer or serving the same customer base? And who else is focused in the US on donors that are young, budget conscious and seeking to have social impact? And they concluded that there might be a combination of those three dimensions that had not been adequately covered by existing enterprises. As they began to map out the space, they did the exercise where they thought about what are the products that are similar to ours? Which ones are working with customers like the one's we're interested in, particularly younger professional people? And third, who's operating in the US, and focusing on that market? Instead of a competitive matrix, they actually came up with a set of kind of two-by-twos. Which said, how do we think about our position when it comes to two critical dimensions? So instead of having a matrix which five traits across the top they chose a pair and said who's doing really good work at tracking impact of giving? Who else has a really easy, smooth donating experience? And how do we stack up across these two dimensions? And they concluded that they have a better tracking system for assessing impact of the grants that are made on their system and they have an easier, smoother, simpler operating system than their competitors. And so, they used a simple kind of two-by-two to show their position as being better on at least those two first critical dimensions. But they also kind of turned around and said, who else is working with a target audience of young people and who has kind of the ability to kind of make the donor experience easy as opposed to difficult? And this was tracked in terms of how long would it take to make the actual donation. And again, when they constructed this different graph they said, look we're better. We stand out on these two dimensions. So instead of putting it all into a matrix, I just show this as a possible alternative frame that you can say, if they're a couple of key dimensions, why are we different? Why do we stand out in the space that these dimensions create? So think about Jolkona's work as saying it's leading into the point where they have to make the case for why they've got something better and different. And they came up, ultimately, with the case statement that said we focus on local giving in the US, we're easier to use than other organizations, we're focused on young people who want to do philanthropy, and we're geared towards them. We can track impact better than other online opportunities, and we've sent all the money through to the recipient organization without taking overhead. And so the competitive analysis that they did convinced them that there was a place in the market for this service and this product. Now, I've translated their two-by-twos into that competitive analysis matrix just so we that we can turn it around and put it back the other way. So here it is. Looking at the kind of dimensions that they think matter. Functionality, number of partners that they engage in, the youth focus, proof of impact, entire amount of the donation going through. And you can see that across these different dimensions they have something that looks better and different than others in the space. [MUSIC]