---
title: "Using the competitors field to avoid generic listing copy"
description: "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."
excerpt: "If the field feels hard to fill in, the honest answer is usually \"what users would use instead of this app.\""
source_url: "https://appstorehelper.com/guides/competitor-input-for-differentiated-copy"
mirror_url: "https://appstorehelper.com/mirror/guides/competitor-input-for-differentiated-copy"
section: "Editorial guides for app-store growth teams"
locale: "en"
published_at: "2026-08-08"
updated_at: "2026-08-08"
reading_time: "3 min read"
tags:
  - "competitors"
  - "differentiation"
  - "positioning"
  - "project setup"
---

## 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.