Polle de Maagt 
Polle de Maagt
Why not just your peers?
A simple table helps you look further: at your own work, a strong sister brand, the leader in your category and someone doing exceptional work outside it.
It is also a quick way to compare companies that are not direct competitors. I once used it in work on luxury products: brands that were not in exactly the same category, but all in the same big one. How does each of them score on each element?
The point is not a more sophisticated score. It is a better reference.
What does the table look like?
Agree on a few categories. Define what good looks like. Then give each reference a label. These five dimensions are a starting point, not a fixed framework.
| Dimension | Your brand | Strong sister brand | Category leader | Outside-category reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ContentUsefulness and relevance | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence |
| FormCraft and recognisability | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence |
| MaturityRepeatable process and learning | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence |
| DistributionReaching the right audience | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence |
| PlatformA useful, connected experience | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence | Not enough evidence |
The filled circles are labels, not percentages. Stars work too. Unknown is not the same as bad.
No sister brand? Use a strong adjacent organisation. The outside-category reference can differ by row: the best at distribution may not be the best at platform experience.
How do you use it?
- Pick the categories that matter. Add one or two observable criteria to each. Keep the table small.
- Define the labels before scoring. What counts as basic, on par, good or setting the bar for this criterion? Anchor “on par” to a stated standard, not to whichever competitor makes you look best.
- Bring evidence. Use comparable examples from the same period. Score together and keep a note explaining each label. Leave internal processes unknown if you cannot see them.
- Choose one improvement. Find a meaningful gap, name what you can learn and turn it into an action with an owner and a review date.
For example, a distribution criterion could be “how deliberately each piece reaches its intended audience”. Basic: publish and hope. On par: an agreed channel plan. Good: audience-specific distribution with measured results. Setting the bar: repeated evidence of effective distribution that others could learn from.
Do not average everything into one score. A strong visual identity does not cancel out a weak learning process.
And nobody sets the bar on every row. That is fine, and it is useful: it tells you whom to learn from for what.
What does it look like filled in?
Imagine a small watch brand. Next to it: a strong brand from the same group, the leader in watches, and a perfume house from the same big category of luxury. The watch brand’s work looks good, but its production process is inconsistent and its platform experience is fragmented.
| Dimension | Your brand | Strong sister brand | Category leader | Outside-category reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ContentUsefulness and relevance | On par | Good | Good | Setting the bar |
| FormCraft and recognisability | Good | Good | Good | Setting the bar |
| MaturityRepeatable process and learning | Basic | On par | Good | Setting the bar |
| DistributionReaching the right audience | On par | On par | Good | Setting the bar |
| PlatformA useful, connected experience | Basic | On par | Good | Good |
The useful conversation is not “how do we get another point?” It is “what does the better reference do that we could learn from?” Here, the watch brand might document a repeatable production process, test it for a month and review the evidence before changing its maturity label.
Benchmark to find your next move. Not to prove you are already doing fine. Pick one row, fill in the four columns with evidence, and choose one thing to learn from the best of them.
From my own client work, redrawn without brands or clients. First written in October 2026.
