Not a week goes by when someone doesn't pitch me some idea that is a copy/paste of something else that already exists. There's nothing wrong with that except, more often than not, the person pitching it says it's new, unique, and innovative. After listening impassively, what I end up discovering is that they've simply tweaked something but, in the doing, have only made the initial idea unmistakeably original. Behind this trend, I think there's a correlation between the social pressure of being perceived as a nonconformist entrepreneur and a personal ambition of "wanting" to be singularly different. Fortunately enough, not everyone is made up to be either one.

Let's take a sandwich maker. Why does everyone want to make a different sandwich? Do many of the unusual combinations we're faced with today even qualify as a sandwich? When does the brand-new become ludicrous? There is a considerable amount of time, resources, and energy currently being deployed to differentiate on something with a relatively limited amount of extension. After all, there's only so far you can go with a concept that has remained nearly the same since 1762.

And that's a shame. Because there are people whose livelihood is put at stake. Raise expectation levels enough, and practically anyone will jump off a bridge. Make people believe they are someone else than themselves, and inevitably over time, all sorts of emotional, physical, and physiological dramas take place. And it's the peers, social networks, and moneymen who are to blame.

So what's wrong with making a "better" sandwich instead. Why not focus on improving the ingredients, the presentation, or even the preparation. Wasn't taste supposed to be the primary value proposition? Wouldn't it be better to try and make buying a sandwich an act that stood for something?

Most of the time, better is just as good as new.