Running the firm
Why you cannot call yourself the best at anything
It is not squeamishness. Defending a superlative requires a documented survey in the file before publication, kept current, and it buys nothing the specific version does not.
Published
The rule
Under the Marketing Rule, an advisor must have a reasonable basis for every claim in an advertisement and be able to demonstrate it.
“The only platform that does X” is a factual claim about every competitor. Substantiating it requires a dated competitive survey, in the file, before publication.
And it expires
The claim is falsifiable the day anyone ships a comparable feature. Which means the survey has to be refreshed on a schedule, forever, or the claim quietly becomes untrue while still published.
Almost nobody does this. The claim usually just sits there.
The same applies to the softer versions
Leading. Premier. Best-in-class. Most innovative. Each implies a comparison and each carries the same burden.
A superlative is a promise to keep proving something. The specific version proves itself once and stays true.
Why the specific version is better marketing
“The best risk analytics” is a claim the reader discounts automatically, because everyone says it.
“Tolerance, capacity, and behavior are three different things and a single score collapses them” is a claim that is either true or false, that the reader can evaluate, and that I am willing to sign my name to.
Intensifiers are the same problem
Attaching “massive” to a factual claim makes it harder to defend, not more persuasive. The specific story is stronger than the adjective every time.
The rule I use
If a claim would need a document in the file to defend, either put the document in the file or write a different sentence.
Almost always the different sentence is better.