2026-08-083 min read

Using the competitors field to avoid generic listing copy

Why leaving the competitors field blank produces generic copy by default, and how to fill it in even when an app feels like it has no direct competitor.

competitorsdifferentiationpositioningproject setup

Author entity

App Store Helper Editorial Team

Research and editorial

The team publishes only after aligning public guidance with the real listing workflow, screenshot review process, and asset handoff patterns used in the product.

App Store and Google Play launch workflowScreenshot narrative and asset QABilingual app listing copyASO and creative operations collaboration

Machine-readable version

This public page also ships with a markdown mirror so AI retrieval systems, knowledge bases, and readers who need the raw body can fetch it directly.

Open the markdown mirror

Direct answer

The competitors field is a free-text input that gives the generation model something concrete to contrast against instead of writing generic category copy from category conventions alone. Naming one or two real, specific competitors is usually enough to shift a first draft from generic benefit language to claims that actually distinguish the app — leaving it blank is one of the most common reasons a first draft reads like it could describe any app in the category.

Why "no direct competitors" is rarely true

Teams sometimes leave this field blank because they believe their app has no direct competitor. In practice, users are always comparing against something — even a genuinely novel app is competing against the status quo, a manual process, or the closest adjacent tool users currently use instead. Naming that adjacent alternative, even if it's not a perfect category match, still gives the model a contrast point to write against.

Specific competitors beat vague ones

"Other productivity apps" gives the model almost nothing to differentiate against because it's a category description, not a competitor. Naming an actual app gives it a real reference point — something with known conventions, known claims, and known gaps the generated copy can position against.

Competitor input shapes claims, not accusations

The competitor field is context for differentiation, not a request to disparage another product. Good differentiated copy focuses on what the app does well and specifically, not on what a competitor does poorly — the field is there to sharpen focus, not to generate comparison claims that could misrepresent another product.

Common mistakes

  • Leaving the field blank because "we don't really have competitors," which produces generic copy by default.
  • Naming a category instead of a specific product, which gives the model nothing concrete to contrast against.
  • Expecting the field to generate direct comparison language rather than sharper, more specific positioning.

Checklist

  1. Name at least one real, specific competitor or closest alternative — even an imperfect match beats leaving it blank.
  2. Avoid category-level placeholders like "other apps in this space."
  3. Review generated copy to confirm it differentiates through the app's own strengths, not through claims about the competitor.

Operating rule

If the field feels hard to fill in, the honest answer is usually "what users would use instead of this app" — that's the real competitor, even when it's not a perfect category match.