<aside> <img src="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/0901a6e7-f6db-47d6-bee4-8bcd02bd60a8/Logo_Collective_Icon.png" alt="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/0901a6e7-f6db-47d6-bee4-8bcd02bd60a8/Logo_Collective_Icon.png" width="40px" /> Présentez dans cette section une première vision des acteurs en place sur votre marché.
</aside>
Competition could come from 3 main competitor archetypes:
There is a huge whitespace to capture. Only a few players envision teams from the beginning. Collective.work is pioneering the market in Europe.
Another player was born in 2020 in the US (Stir, backed by tier1 VCs). They have the same convictions, with another starting point: they remain focused on creators when we're focused on freelancers and service industry.
They will try to enter this new market. Some platforms already tried, the others will plan to. Yet, pure players are in the best position to win over every freelancing stakeholders. Why?
Pure player effect. While pure player are creating a new supply, freelancing players are supporting an existing supply. A collective is not a "sum of freelancers", it's above all a shared offer (common brand, portfolio, network), a shared organisation (wallet, admin...) Managing newly created collectives is a totally different job/knowledge than managing a fleet of solo-freelancers. Model. Craiglist has not transformed itself into Airbnb, because they're not organised like Airbnb. They match suppliers with clients, while Airbnb empower a new supply through an admin tool, and this supply creates its own demand.
Legacy. When dealing with individual freelancers you create some legacy. Users, clients, network, community, product, SEO are focused on freelancers.
