When Microsoft Says Community is "Strategic Imperative," You Should Listen

Last year, Vasu Jakkal - Microsoft's Corporate VP of Security, Compliance, and Identity, published something that stopped me mid-scroll.

"In today's threat landscape, no single organization can stand alone," she wrote. "Community building isn't just a nice to have; it's a strategic imperative for resilience."

A Microsoft executive, someone who leads security strategy for one of the world's most valuable companies, just said community is a strategic imperative. Not a marketing tactic. Not an engagement strategy. Strategic.

If you needed validation that community matters, there it is. From someone operating at the absolute highest levels of corporate strategy.

But here's where it gets interesting: Jakkal and I are talking about completely different types of community. And understanding the difference might be the most important strategic decision your business makes in the next 18 months.

I spend a lot of time telling founders and executives that community is their last defensible competitive advantage. That while AI commoditises everything else, technology, operations, customer service, data insights, authentic community remains unreplicable.

And I get pushback. A lot of it.

"Community is nice to have, but we need to focus on our core business."
"That's a marketing thing, not a strategic thing."
"We don't have time for engagement tactics right now."

So when someone at Jakkal's level, running security for Microsoft, advising on strategy at the highest levels, explicitly calls community a "strategic imperative," that's not just validation. That's ammunition.

She's talking about cybersecurity specifically, where the threat landscape changes daily and "no one succeeds alone." But the principle transcends industry. When threats evolve faster than any single organization can respond, community becomes survival strategy.

Replace "cyber threats" with "AI disruption" and you'll see why her thesis matters for every business, not just cybersecurity firms.

There are two fundamentally different types of community, and most businesses confuse them.

Type 1: Industry Communities
Cross-organizational collaboration. Open sharing. Collective defense.

This is what Jakkal describes in cybersecurity - vendors, researchers, and organisations sharing threat intelligence, detection methods, and post-mortems. Competitors collaborating because the threat is bigger than competition.

"At the heart of effective community defense is a culture of openness," Jakkal writes, "where sharing a detection method, a post-mortem, or even a failure is ultimately a contribution to the collective good."

This is beautiful. And strategically important for advancing entire industries.

Type 2: Tribal Communities
Customer communities built on shared identity. Proprietary belonging. Individual competitive moats.

This is Apple customers camping outside stores. Patagonia owners defending the brand's controversial stances. CrossFit members incorporating the identity into who they are. MAGA supporters buying merchandise that sells out instantly with zero marketing spend.

These aren't industry collaborations. These are tribal identities so strong that members become unpaid evangelists, loyalty becomes irrational, and price becomes irrelevant.

Both matter. But only one creates defensible competitive advantage for your specific business.

Here's something fascinating buried in Jakkal's article. She interviews Thomas Roccia, a threat researcher at Microsoft, who says this about AI:

"Four years ago, it used to take me a week to analyze a data leak, but today I spawn a crafted agent, feed the data and guidelines, and get a report with the most relevant information in less than an hour."

AI made him 10x more productive. Incredible.

But let's think about what that actually means for competitive advantage.

If AI makes Thomas 10x more productive, that's a massive win for him personally and for Microsoft's security team. But what happens when AI makes everyone in cybersecurity 10x more productive?

When every threat researcher, every analyst, every security team suddenly has access to the same AI tools producing similar productivity gains, what's left to compete on?

The relative advantage disappears.

This is the paradox of AI productivity: it helps everyone equally, which means it helps no one differentially. When everyone can analyze a data leak in an hour instead of a week, speed stops being a competitive advantage.

This is exactly what I mean when I say AI commoditizes competitive advantages.

The technology that makes you better makes everyone better simultaneously. The efficiency gains that give you an edge give your competitors the same edge. The insights that took you years to develop, AI generates for everyone in weeks.

What's left that AI cannot give to everyone equally?

Authentic human community built on shared identity.

Let me be clear: industry-wide communities like what Jakkal describes in cybersecurity are absolutely strategic. They advance entire fields. They make everyone better. They create collective resilience.

But they don't create individual competitive advantage.

When Microsoft, Google, and Amazon security researchers share threat intelligence openly, that's fantastic for collective defense. But it's explicitly designed to eliminate competitive advantage—to raise the baseline for everyone.

That's the point. That's why it's valuable.

But if you're trying to build defensible competitive advantage for your specific business, industry collaboration actually works against you. You're sharing your insights with competitors. You're helping them get better. You're raising everyone's capabilities simultaneously.

Again, this is good for industries. But it's the opposite of a moat.

Think about it this way:

If every restaurant in town shares recipes openly to improve collective culinary standards, that's wonderful for diners. But it means no single restaurant can compete on unique recipes anymore. Everyone has access to the same knowledge.

If every business in your industry shares best practices openly, collective performance improves. But individual competitive advantage disappears.

This is why industry communities are strategic but not moats.

The communities that create genuine competitive moats look completely different.

They're not about sharing knowledge across competitors. They're about creating tribal belonging among customers.

Apple doesn't share its design philosophy openly. Instead, it builds community among customers who identify as "Apple people" - creative, innovative, different. The community is proprietary. The identity is exclusive. The belonging is what competitors cannot copy.

Patagonia doesn't collaborate with other outdoor brands to raise industry standards. Instead, it builds community among customers who identify as environmental activists. The shared belief transcends the product. The loyalty survives price increases and controversial stances.

Harley-Davidson doesn't open-source its brand positioning. Instead, it creates identity as rebels and free spirits so strong that owners tattoo the logo permanently on their bodies.

These aren't industry collaborations. These are tribal identities. Proprietary. Exclusive. Defensible.

And here's what they all have in common: AI cannot replicate any of it.

AI can analyze threat intelligence faster (Type 1 community).
AI cannot manufacture tribal belonging (Type 2 community).

AI can share best practices across industries (Type 1).
AI cannot create irrational loyalty based on shared identity (Type 2).

AI can make everyone more productive simultaneously (Type 1).
AI cannot build the kind of community where leaving means abandoning part of who you are (Type 2).

That's the difference. That's the moat.

Now let's connect the dots between Jakkal's cybersecurity insight and what's happening across every industry.

In cybersecurity, threats evolve faster than any single organization can respond. So community becomes strategic necessity. You collaborate or you fall behind.

But here's what's happening everywhere else: AI is creating the same dynamic across all industries.

The threat isn't cyber attackers. The threat is commoditization.

AI is evolving faster than any single business can respond. Your competitive advantages are being replicated in real-time. Your unique technology, your operational efficiency, your customer service, your data insights—all becoming available to everyone simultaneously.

Just like cyber threats force security teams to collaborate for collective defense, AI disruption should force businesses to build community for individual defense.

This is crucial. You need the right type of community.

Industry collaboration (Type 1) won't save you from AI commoditization. Sharing best practices with competitors just accelerates the commoditization. Everyone gets better together, which means relative advantage disappears faster.

Customer community (Type 2) does save you from AI commoditization. Because while AI can replicate your technology and match your operations, it cannot create the tribal identity and shared belief that makes your customers loyal regardless of what AI can do.

So here's where we are:

Jakkal is right: Community is a strategic imperative in a world where threats (cyber or otherwise) evolve faster than any single organization can respond.

But there are two very different strategic responses:

Strategic Response 1: Industry Collaboration
Share knowledge. Collaborate with competitors. Raise collective capabilities.

Value: Advances entire industries, makes everyone better
Outcome: Eliminates individual competitive advantage
Right for: Industries facing existential external threats (like cybersecurity)
Creates: Collective resilience, not individual moats

Strategic Response 2: Tribal Community Building
Build customer community on shared identity. Create proprietary belonging. Develop tribal loyalty.

Value: Creates defensible competitive advantage for your business
Outcome: Customers who won't switch regardless of competitive offers
Right for: Businesses facing AI commoditization and rising CAC
Creates: Individual moats, not industry advancement

Both are strategic. Both matter. But they're not interchangeable.

If you're in cybersecurity facing sophisticated threat actors, you need Type 1 community. Collaboration saves lives.

If you're in any other industry facing AI disruption and rising customer acquisition costs, you need Type 2 community. Tribal identity saves margins.

The question isn't "Should we build community?"

The question is "Which type of community does our strategic situation demand?"

Let's bring this back to the immediate threat.

AI is not just making individuals more productive. It's commoditizing entire categories of competitive advantage:

Technology differentiation? AI replicates your features in weeks.
Operational efficiency? AI optimizes everyone's operations simultaneously.
Customer service? AI agents provide 24/7 support with perfect recall.
Data insights? AI analysis tools give everyone similar insights.

Meanwhile, Customer Acquisition Costs are exploding across industries:

You're getting squeezed from both sides:

Industry collaboration (Type 1 community) won't solve this. Sharing best practices with competitors just means everyone has access to the same AI tools, the same efficiency gains, the same optimization strategies. You're accelerating the commoditization.

Customer community (Type 2 community) does solve this. Because tribal identity creates:

This is why Jakkal's "strategic imperative" language matters so much.

If community is strategic in cybersecurity, one of tech's most sophisticated fields, then it's strategic everywhere. The question is just which type of community your situation demands.

Here's what most businesses get wrong: they try to build Type 2 communities (customer loyalty) using Type 1 tactics (open sharing and collaboration).

They create "communities" where customers help each other, share best practices, and collectively solve problems. This feels good. It creates nice engagement metrics. Leadership sees activity and calls it success.

But it doesn't create competitive advantage.

Why? Because you're teaching customers to help each other instead of needing you. You're commoditising your own value proposition. You're training them that the community is valuable, not your product.

The community becomes the product. And communities based on utility are vulnerable to better utility.

The moment someone builds a better platform for customers to help each other, your community migrates. Because it was never about you. It was about the utility of peer support.

Contrast this with tribal communities:

Apple's community isn't about helping each other troubleshoot devices (though that happens). It's about shared identity as creative, innovative people who "think different."

Patagonia's community isn't about sharing gear tips (though that happens). It's about shared belief in environmental responsibility.

CrossFit's community isn't about workout optimization (though that happens). It's about shared identity as people pushing limits together.

The utility is secondary. The identity is primary.

And identity-based community is what creates the moat. Because you can't migrate identity. Switching means abandoning who you are.

When Jakkal says "security is a team sport" and emphasizes that "no one succeeds alone," she's articulating something profound about how work happens in high-complexity, high-stakes environments.

The cybersecurity industry understands that hoarding knowledge is suicidal. When a new attack vector emerges, sharing detection methods quickly means everyone's systems are more secure. Individual competitive advantage is worth less than collective survival.

But notice what Microsoft doesn't share openly:

They don't share their exact security architecture.
They don't share their proprietary threat intelligence sources.
They don't share their customer relationship strategies.
They don't share how they position against competitors.

They collaborate on industry advancement (Type 1) while protecting competitive advantage (Type 2).

This is strategic sophistication.

And it's what your business needs to develop: the wisdom to know which communities advance your interests and which ones commoditize them.

Ask yourself:

When you build customer community, are you creating:

If customers join your community to solve problems, they'll leave when someone solves problems better.

If customers join your community to express identity, they stay because leaving means abandoning who they are.

That's the difference between strategic community and tactical engagement.

Jakkal writes about cybersecurity where threats evolve daily. The urgency is obvious and immediate.

But AI commoditization is equally urgent even if it feels more gradual.

The math is brutal:

Most competitive advantages have roughly 18-24 months before AI replicates them to the point of commoditisation.

Meanwhile, building genuine tribal community (the kind that creates defensible moats) takes 12-18 months from initial strategy to meaningful defensibility.

Do the math:

If you start building community today, you'll have a defensible moat in place right around the time AI commoditises everything else about your business.

If you wait to "see how AI plays out" before investing in community, you'll be 18 months too late.

By the time you realize you need the moat, you won't have time to build it.

This is why Jakkal's "strategic imperative" language isn't hyperbole.

In her field, the delay between recognising a threat and building defense can be catastrophic. Organizations that wait to implement collaborative defense until after they're breached learn painful lessons.

The same logic applies to AI commoditization:

By the time your competitive advantages are obviously commoditised, it's too late to build community as a defensive moat. The community you need takes 12-18 months to establish properly.

The window to build is now. While you still have some differentiation to leverage.

Let me be practical for a moment.

If you're reading this and thinking "Okay, I get it, community is strategic”, here's the framework for deciding what to build:

Question 1: What type of threat are you facing?

Industry-wide existential threat (like cyberattacks)
→ Build or join Type 1 community (industry collaboration)
→ Share knowledge, collaborate with competitors
→ Raise collective capabilities

Individual competitive commoditisation (like AI disruption)
→ Build Type 2 community (tribal customer community)
→ Create shared identity, proprietary belonging
→ Develop irrational loyalty

Question 2: What unites your customers beyond your product?

Shared problem they all face (utility-based)
→ Vulnerable to better utility
→ Not a moat

Shared identity/belief about the world (identity-based)
→ Transcends utility
→ Creates moat

Question 3: What would happen if you disappeared tomorrow?

Customers would just find alternatives
→ You don't have community, you have convenience

Customers would organize to recreate what you built
→ You have genuine community worth protecting

These aren't theoretical questions. They're strategic diagnostics.

And if you can't answer them confidently, you don't have a community strategy. You have community tactics hoping to become strategy.

Let's close by returning to where we started.

When a Microsoft executive says community is a "strategic imperative," that's significant. Microsoft doesn't throw around "strategic imperative" language casually. They operate at a level where strategy means competitive survival, market dominance, and long-term defensibility.

And they're right. Community is strategic.

But the question isn't just "Should we build community?"

The question is "What type of community does our strategic situation demand?"

Jakkal's cybersecurity world needs industry collaboration; Type 1 community that shares threat intelligence and raises collective defence.

Your world facing AI commoditisation needs customer tribalism; Type 2 community that creates individual competitive moats through shared identity.

Both are strategic. Both are imperative. But they're different strategies for different threats.

The businesses that understand this distinction will build the right type of community for their situation.

The businesses that don't will build "community" that looks active but creates no defensible advantage. They'll mistake engagement metrics for strategic value. They'll celebrate activity while their moats erode.

And 18 months from now, when AI has commoditised their competitive advantages and CAC has made customer acquisition unsustainable, they'll wonder why their "community" didn't save them.

The answer will be simple: they built the wrong type.

Jakkal ends her article with a quote from a book about ikigai—the Japanese concept of "a reason for being."

"Being surrounded by people who love you and support you makes it easier to find the meaning of life and live your ikigai."

There's something profound there for business strategy too.

The communities that matter, the ones that create genuine competitive advantage, aren't built on utility or engagement tactics.

They're built on shared meaning. Shared identity. Shared belief about what matters in the world.

AI can optimize utility. AI cannot create meaning.

That's your moat.

And that's why community isn't just strategic, it's the only strategy that survives what's coming.

Emeka Ogbonnaya is the founder of BuildMoat and creator of the MOAT Framework. After building thriving communities from scratch in Hertfordshire, England and working with major institutions including Bank of England, HSBC, and Mastercard on strategic positioning, he now helps businesses build AI-proof competitive advantages through strategic community.

References:

Want to explore if community is your right defensive strategy?

📊 Take the 5-minute MOAT Assessment
📞 Book a free discovery call
📖 Read: "AI Will Commoditise Your Business in 24 Months"

BuildMoat.co.uk | Build the Moat AI Can't Copy