Here’s what a bizarre competitor report taught me about trusting automated business intelligence.
I've spent years working in tender writing, helping businesses understand procurement requirements, prepare stronger submissions and compete for contracts.
So imagine my surprise when I discovered that one of my competitors was apparently the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Yes. That Sydney Harbour Bridge.
The enormous steel structure spanning Sydney Harbour. The one that connects the CBD with the North Shore. The one that has been standing there since 1932.
Apparently, we're in the same line of business. I must have missed the announcement that it was branching out into tender writing.
How Did a Bridge Become my Competitor?
It started innocently enough.
I was reviewing backlinks to my TenderWise website when I came across a listing on SitePrice, a website that generates automated information about websites, including traffic estimates, valuations and competitor comparisons.
Naturally, I was curious.
Competitor analysis can be useful. Understanding which businesses compete for similar search terms, attract relevant traffic and earn backlinks can help identify opportunities to improve a website's visibility.
But when I looked at the businesses SitePrice considered competitors to TenderWise, something was clearly amiss.
There were construction-related businesses.
And there was the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
Now, I work with construction businesses, among many other industries. I write tender submissions for companies pursuing government and commercial contracts.
But that doesn't mean I'm competing with the companies I help.
And I certainly don't compete with a bridge.
When Data Looks more Intelligent than it is
This is where automated business intelligence can become misleading.
A platform may identify relationships using keywords, website content, backlinks, industry terminology or other signals.
Those connections can be statistically meaningful without being commercially meaningful.
For example, TenderWise publishes content about construction tenders, civil works, security contracts and government procurement.
A construction business might use some of those same terms. A major infrastructure landmark might appear in pages associated with construction, engineering or government projects.
But sharing terminology doesn't make two organisations competitors.
A genuine competitor offers something comparable to a similar customer, often addressing the same commercial need.
A tender writer and the Sydney Harbour Bridge do not pass that test.
The Danger of Taking Automated Reports at Face Value
Imagine a business owner receiving a professional-looking report that confidently identifies the wrong competitors.
They might use that information to:
Benchmark their website against irrelevant organisations.
Pursue keywords that attract the wrong audience.
Copy content strategies that have nothing to do with their customers.
Spend money on SEO activities that won't generate useful enquiries.
Draw incorrect conclusions about their position in the market.
The report may contain perfectly valid data points.
The problem is the interpretation.
And that's a distinction that matters well beyond SEO.
There's a Tender Writing Lesson Here Too
I see a similar risk when businesses use AI and automated tools to help prepare tender submissions.
These tools can be genuinely useful for organising information, identifying themes, summarising documents and improving efficiency.
But they don't automatically understand the commercial realities behind the information.
They may misunderstand a requirement, overlook an important qualification or present an assumption as a fact.
In tendering, that can be much more expensive than getting your competitor list wrong.
A response that sounds confident isn't necessarily a response that's correct.
That's why I believe technology works best when it's combined with experience, commercial judgement and a healthy willingness to question what the screen is telling you.
Useful Information Still Needs a Human Brain
I haven't abandoned automated SEO tools because one of them thinks I compete with a bridge. I still find them useful.
But I treat their findings as starting points for investigation, not conclusions that must be accepted.
Before acting on any automated recommendation, I ask:
Does this make sense for my business?
Is the information relevant to the customers I'm trying to reach?
Can I verify the underlying assumptions?
What happens if the recommendation is wrong?
Those questions apply equally to website analytics, competitor research, AI-generated content and tender preparation.
Technology can help us work faster.
Good judgement helps ensure we're heading in the right direction.
And as for my newest competitor?
I'm not particularly concerned.
The Sydney Harbour Bridge may have a considerably stronger backlink profile than TenderWise, but I'm quietly confident I can outperform it when it comes to writing a tender.
Although I suspect it has the edge in structural engineering.