SUMMARYThe idea that successful companies should pursue only one strategy and avoid being ‘stuck in the middle’ between several strategies – originally articulated by Michael Porter – has become an important tenet of corporate strategic thinking. This paper attempts to distinguish and appraise several different interpretations of the advice.It is sometimes interpreted as advice about market positioning in a narrow sense; it is sometimes presented as prescribing broad strategic clarity; and it is sometimes viewed more descriptively as a scheme for classifying firms by strategic outcomes.When interpreted narrowly as referring to the appeal of a product to its target buyers, the proposition that firms should not be ‘stuck in the middle’ should not be taken to imply that companies must be down‐market or up‐market, but nothing in‐between. Such a view is belied by the evident success of companies such as Sainsbury's, which earn substantial economic rents in a mid‐market position.Porter can be interpreted more broadly as suggesting that firms need strategic clarity and that they will do better to pursue one or other of cost or quality objectives than to seek a mix of the two. PIMS data and other evidence shows, however, that intermediate positions are indeed profitable and are successfully exploited by many firms.We conclude that ‘don't be stuck in the middle’ is best employed as a classification scheme of strategic outcomes – it says that firms which fail in both cost and quality