One of the easiest ways to misunderstand strategy is to imagine that switching costs are simply a defensive moat.

They are not.

Switching costs are better understood as borrowed power. They give a company time, tolerance, and revenue continuity that pure product preference alone may not provide. They can come from contracts, implementation effort, data migration, retraining, workflow disruption, integration complexity, or simple organisational fatigue. Research on competition in markets with switching costs has long shown that these frictions shape customer retention and future profitability because leaving one provider is not frictionless.

That sounds attractive, and often it is. But the strategic danger begins when a company stops treating switching costs as a consequence of value and starts treating them as the value.

The first mistake is thinking all switching costs are equally good

Most discussions on switching costs are strategically shallow because they treat all forms of customer stickiness as broadly equivalent. They are not.

There is a major difference between switching costs that arise from embedded value and switching costs that arise from engineered inconvenience. One creates strength. The other creates delayed weakness.

Embedded value switching costs are earned. They come from the customer having built real operating confidence around your product. Your system holds useful history. Your workflows fit how teams actually work. Your controls satisfy internal governance. Your reporting is trusted. Your people understand the customer’s environment. Your product sits inside routines that matter. Leaving would be costly because you are woven into the way work gets done.

Engineered inconvenience switching costs are weaker and more fragile. They come from proprietary formats, messy exits, contractual traps, opaque pricing, overcomplicated migration paths, or dependence that feels more like captivity than partnership. These tactics can preserve revenue in the short term, but they quietly damage the customer’s interpretation of the relationship. Once that happens, every renewal becomes emotionally thinner, every competitor conversation becomes more dangerous, and every market shift becomes a threat.

Also Read: AI agents could help Southeast Asian firms untangle cross-border payment costs

The strongest switching costs are the ones customers privately think are fair

This is where the strategy becomes more subtle.

Not all customer dependence is unhealthy. In fact, some of the best businesses in the world benefit from very high switching costs. The difference is that customers often regard those costs as a reasonable byproduct of serious adoption rather than a cynical attempt to trap them.

That distinction matters immensely.

If a customer believes leaving will be painful because your product became important, reliable, deeply integrated, and institutionally trusted, that is defensible. The switching cost is not an artificial wall. It is the residue of real value creation.

If a customer believes leaving will be painful because you made the environment hard to unwind, the cost is no longer a mark of strategic strength. It is a mark of relationship debt.

This is why fair switching costs are usually built around memory, trust, and coordination.

The more original move is to design for justified dependence

Most firms either glorify lock-in or apologise for it. Neither stance is especially intelligent.

A stronger approach is to design for justified dependence.

By that I mean building a position where the customer does become meaningfully dependent on you, but for reasons they can defend to themselves and to others. The dependence has to feel proportionate to the value, operationally sensible, and institutionally legitimate.

That usually means focusing on four kinds of value that are harder to replace than features.

• First, decision memory. A product that becomes the trusted record of why things were done a certain way is far harder to remove than one that merely executes tasks. When your system helps the organisation remember, explain, and defend decisions, you are no longer just a tool.
• Second, workflow confidence. If your product reduces hesitation between teams, shortens approval cycles, or makes handoffs less risky, then the switching cost is not only technical. It sits in the organisational rhythm itself.
• Third, governance comfort. In regulated or operationally sensitive environments, a product that legal, procurement, security, finance, and audit have already grown comfortable with is carrying a very different kind of stickiness. Replacing it means reopening institutional uncertainty, not just running a new deployment.
• Fourth, reputational safety. If choosing your company helps an internal sponsor look prudent rather than reckless, that becomes a form of dependence competitors struggle to dislodge. The customer is not only buying the product. They are buying a safer internal story.

Becoming hostage to switching costs usually begins with one internal lie

We do not need to be meaningfully better this year because the customer cannot move anyway.

Once a company starts thinking like that, even quietly, strategic decline has already begun.

The danger is not immediate collapse. It is internal miscalibration. The company stops reading the market properly because it stops needing to win cleanly. It loses sensitivity to customer frustration. It becomes less interested in usability, service quality, implementation simplicity, and product coherence. More energy goes into preserving account economics than renewing product desirability.

Over time, the firm becomes optimised for persistence, not preference.

Also Read: AI will not cut costs or grow revenue until you redesign how work gets done

You should want switching costs that rise when value rises

This is the cleanest test I know.

Good switching costs increase because the customer is getting more value. Bad switching costs increase because the customer is getting more entangled.

That difference should shape the entire design logic of the business.

If a customer uses more of your product because it becomes more useful, more central, more trusted, and more embedded in meaningful work, then rising switching costs are a healthy outcome. They reflect earned relevance.

If a customer faces higher exit pain mainly because of technical obscurity, commercial lock in, fragmented ownership, or accumulated complexity, then rising switching costs are a warning sign. They may support revenue for a period, but they also signal that your defensibility is relying too heavily on customer burden.

The strongest firms therefore do something that sounds almost counterintuitive. They make exit possible even while building deep reasons to stay.

The best companies compete on recovery cost, not just replacement cost

Here is a more original way to think about the subject.

Most firms focus on replacement cost. How expensive is it for the customer to swap one product for another?

The more interesting strategic position often lies in recovery cost. How hard would it be for the customer to recover the same operating confidence, governance comfort, decision history, and internal trust somewhere els?

That is a much richer form of leverage.

A competitor may be able to replicate your feature list and even subsidise migration. What they cannot easily replicate is the years of interpreted reliability, the embedded memory of how exceptions were handled, the quiet confidence of control functions, the trust earned in moments of stress, and the institutional habit of using your system as part of serious work.

This is why a mature strategy is not about making the customer fear leaving. It is about making the customer recognise how much confidence would need to be rebuilt elsewhere.

That is a far more defensible form of stickiness because it comes from accumulated proof, not artificial obstruction.

—

The post Competing on switching costs without becoming hostage to them appeared first on e27.