CPJs (Copy Paste Job) thinking may sound harmless, but it might just be the greatest threat to the long-term sustainability of start-ups and growth brands. What begins as a well-intentioned attempt to recruit experience into leadership positions can quickly spiral into misguided strategies that kill the magic of once great brands.

This post explores how CPJ thinking can creep into a company’s DNA, how it can undermine what makes your brand unique, and what you can do to protect your company from falling into the CPJ trap.

---

Shorthand for “Copy Paste Job”, CPJ is a term we use to describe a strategy or idea formed on the basis that it’s how other companies do things. While leaning on experiences of others can be valuable, CPJ recommendations are made with limited consideration for context, often turning a blind eye to the magic that makes a brand and its culture special. Instead it shortcuts important critical thinking by assuming that because someone else does something differently then it must somehow be better.

I saw this quite a bit during my time at Loaf. We, like many other growth brands finding their feet, could be unconventional in how we did things. We didn’t seek to do things because “it is the way it’s done elsewhere” – instead we focused on forming a crystal clear understanding of the problem we needed to solve (or the opportunity that we wanted to address) and then used our collective brainpower to work out the best way to solve it, convention be damned.

This might feel like common sense but it’s amazing how few people operate this way. To a new leader joining the business, a lack of conformity to more conventional thinking could be interpreted as a sign of naivety or the product of inexperience – and any difference in the way we did things was perhaps an opportunity to implement a “quick win” change and prove their worth. But an opportunity to make a change does not always equate to an opportunity to do things better – and what works for one company does not necessarily work for another.

The Dangers of CPJ Thinking: A Case Study

If we’re honest with ourselves, I suspect most of us can be a bit guilty of CPJ thinking (the human brain is, after all, hard-wired to create shortcuts that help us make decisions more easily). How much of the content on your website is featured because it’s something your competitors talk about and you feel compelled to “tick that box”? And how many meetings or business rituals do you engage in because it’s the way it’s done elsewhere, despite the niggling feeling it’s a waste of time? 

At its best, this type of thinking amounts to time wastage and distraction. But where CPJ thinking becomes particularly destructive is when it zeroes in on the very things that make your brand different.

Being so familiar with the furniture industry, my mind instantly thinks of sofa.com (at one time considered Loaf’s closest competitor). They once proudly claimed during the industry’s January sale period that they weren’t discounting “because they wanted to be great value all year-round”. The juxtaposition of this message against the bright lights of January promos made for a strong, confident message that helped sofa.com stand out from the crowd and hammer home their “premium quality without the premium prices” proposition. Their brand positioning struck a chord and they grew quickly, resulting in a place in The Sunday Times Fast Track 100 two years in a row. 

But it all changed after they sold to a private equity firm, installed new leadership and started to engage in the one thing they said they never would – discounting. And once that compromise was made, the floodgates opened. Now when you head to their homepage, it can feel like someone spewed discounts all over it. The brand is a shadow of its former self, having slipped into administration before being snapped up on the cheap by Mike Ashley.

The lure of discounting wasn’t the only thing that got sofa.com unstuck but it will have played a significant role. And while I can’t say for certain what exactly motivated the leadership’s decision to discount, what I can confidently deduce is a) the decision took place shortly after a change of leadership, b) it went completely contrary to how sofa.com positioned themselves and c) discounting is rampant in the furniture industry and was one of the most common CPJs suggested to me while I was at Loaf. The argument was that it would be a quick and easy way to drive sales (because that is what they had experienced elsewhere) without any consideration for what we were trying to build with the brand, how we were positioning ourselves and what the long-term impact of doing this might be. 

Why does this happen? : The founder dilemma

As seen with Sofa.com, growth businesses feel especially vulnerable to this, particularly when the founder is looking to exit the business. Founders typically establish the magic that makes a growth brand special. The great ones won’t compromise on that magic – or what it takes to succeed. And they surround themselves with talent who are bought into their vision and are motivated by the opportunity to build something special.

But with growth comes more people and management hierarchy. While you’d love to promote from within, you’ll inevitably need to bring in senior talent from elsewhere. With that comes a heightened risk of conformist CPJ thinking. And if the founder steps away, the leadership team left behind might not have the conviction to pushback on this.

This is especially challenging when the value of this brand magic is hard to quantify. For example, it’s very easy for someone to state the cost saving of reducing the call time in a call centre but much harder to quantify the magic that is created by creating a fun, immersive experience with your customers on the phone.

How to insulate your brand against CPJ thinking.

There are plenty of brands who have been able to rediscover their magic (Apple, LEGO), while brands like Innocent never really lost it, despite finding itself under the ownership of Coca-Cola. In the furniture industry IKEA continues to thrive as the stand-out brand in its sector (which notably is still under the ownership of the founder’s family).

How is this achieved? As with many things in life, the answer lies in principles.

1. Define your brand principles. Be crystal clear about what your brand stands for. What is your brand’s unique perspective on the world? Does your brand have an “opinion” when it comes to things like attitude, customer experience, price vs quality, sustainability, etc? All the great brands are underpinned by strong principles that are the bedrock of their identity, guiding every decision. It’s impossible to be steadfast about anything if you’re not clear on what you need to be steadfast about. 
2. Get in sync. Every person in the business needs to be aligned on these principles and absolutely clear that these are something one cannot compromise on*. Every moment a discussion risks moving the brand away from one of its principles, draw a line under it and use it as a teaching moment. If everyone is in sync and the principles are well understood, there will be no push back.
3. Persist with first principle thinking. It’s human nature to focus on how to improve upon what’s already there or imitate it. But this kind of thinking is the scourge of innovation and risks leaving more effective strategies or products unexplored. First principle thinking is the antidote to this, stripping a problem back to its purest form, until the “true” underlying problem/opportunity is understood, liberating the mind to explore new ways to solve a problem. Carl Benz would not have developed the first motor car if he had defaulted to trying to make the horse and carriage faster. Instead he focused on solving the real problem of how to get from A to B as quickly as possible using a personal mode of transport. If you rigorously apply first principle thinking, it’s impossible for CPJ thinking to take hold. Note: Discussing the merits of first principle thinking warrants its own article. But if you’re interesting in learning more about first principle thinking then here is a link to a fantastic article by James Clear.
4. Recruit critical thinkers. CPJ thinking is generally the domain of people who struggle to think critically (and they may show a tendency to put their need to make their mark over what’s right for the business). You should do everything you can to avoid recruiting this type of person. When interviewing a job candidate, ask questions that look to get an understanding of the assumptions that underpin any strategy or proposal they’ve devised. Do they demonstrate making recommendations on the foundations of first principle thinking? Or do you get the sense they are imitating strategies executed elsewhere?

*Principles can of course evolve over time but this has to be a very deliberate and well-considered decision made by whoever is ultimately responsible for crafting the brand.

Conclusion: Beware the risks, protect the magic

CPJs can be a stealth threat to growth brands, especially when imported through more senior leadership recruits, who can end up shifting the focus from innovation to imitation, and ultimately stagnating growth. But by defining your brand principles, ensuring alignment and prizing critical thinkers who utilise first principles thinking, you can safeguard your brand against the CPJ mindset.

Creating a brilliant business isn’t just about growth — history has shown that the best brands do so by relentlessly staying true to what made their brand great in the first place.