Great question. This is a perspective that I had when I first founded my company -- how do I convey to my customers that I'm the best solution for their problem?
What I have discovered is that it doesn't matter. There's room for lots of companies. All things equal, you want to be the best (which is my shorthand for "stand out from each other in a positive way for the customer's context"). But many customers just want to solve their problem, and don't care about solving their problem in the optimal manner.
As hackers, we're obsessed with the idea that the best solution wins. As an entrepreneur, I've discovered that second rate products with first rate sales and marketing will likely outshine a better product that has outreach as a secondary priority.
This used to upset me, because I was focused on the product. As someone trying to run a business, I'm looking at the company as a whole. That means that sales, marketing, product, support, organization, strategy, vision... they're just 1 component of the whole.
It makes the sales side easier if the product is unique or clearly the best.
--
Back to the original point -- companies don't need to stand out from each other when they are the only solution a customer has heard of.
Imagine you are a sandwich shop. When you started, you could just send your marketing by BCCing people through your gmail. Now your list is 2500 people, and you need a way to send to everyone.
You just want to send your email to 2500 people. You don't want to spend a day to compare the relative merits of mailchimp versus constant contact.
Flip the perspective (mailchimp's perspective, looking at the sandwich shop owner). Mailchimp's challenge isn't to differentiate from constant contact, but to simply communicate that they exist and can solve an existing problem.
--
This may be more relevant for b2b versus b2c. I confess I do not understand marketing in b2c much at all.
that's a very good answer. product is only part of the big picture.
for arguments sake, what if a user can only send to 2349 people instead of the 2500 people, would it make them turned off because it didn't do the job completely 100%? is the job "2500 emails and no less"? I wonder if this is an optimization vs a fundamental necessity for the user.
would pricing scheme matter to a non-consumption individual? A) pay as you go B) pay monthly for 10,000 emails a month?
I guess I would answer by saying, it depends, and possibly.
If 1 user needed 2501 emails and your plan only offered 2500, then chances are they would be at least a little turned off.
Pricing is really important. If a 0-3000 person list at MailChimp was $20 per month, but Constant Contact tier required (2000-10000) $50 per month, the user could say something like "MailChimp solves my problem for $20, CC is $50. I can't tell the difference so I'll go with the cheaper one."
Again, though -- I doubt there is much focus on targeting competitors' users, but are competing against the user not knowing of their existence.
MailChimp's free tier allows up to 2k list members. They know most people with lists that small won't pay for a solution. As their list grows, MailChimp can ride their success into a paid tier.
There are lots of mail newsletter providers (mailchimp, constant contact, etc.)
They aren't trying to compete against each other. Rather, they are trying to compete against nothing -- people with no ESP.