Category: Product

Posted on

Why Product-Market Fit Is Found In Strategically Boring Markets

streets, ordinary, boring

In the past decade or two, there have been a surplus of talent coming into Silicon Valley. In large part, due to the opportunities that the Bay had to offer. If you wanted to work in tech, the SF Bay Area was the number one destination. If you wanted to raise venture money, being next door neighbors to your investors on Sand Hill Road yielded astounding benefits. Barring the past few months where there have been massive exoduses leaving the Bay to Miami or NYC, there’ve been this common thread that if you want to be in:

  • Entertainment, go to LA
  • Finance and fashion, go to NYC
  • Tech/startup ecosystem, go to the Valley.

While great, your early audience – the innovators on your product adoption curve – should not be overly concentrated there. All these markets carry anomalous traits and aren’t often representative of the wider population. Instead, your beachhead markets should be representative of the distribution of demographics and customer habits in your TAM (total addressable market).

While Keith Rabois could have very much built Opendoor in Silicon Valley, where more and more people were buying homes to be close to technological hubs, he led the early team to test their assumptions in Phoenix, Arizona. On the same token, Nikita Bier started tbh, not in the attention-hungry markets of LA, but in high schools in Georgia.

“Boring” virtual real estate

Strategically boring markets aren’t limited to just physical geographies. They’re equally applicable to underestimated virtual real estate. You don’t have to build a mansion on a new plot of land. Rent an Airbnb and see if you like the weather and people there first.

As Rupa Health‘s Tara Viswanathan said in a First Round interview, “Stripping the product down to the bare bones and getting it out in front of people for their reactions is critical. It’s rare for a product not to work because it was too minimal of an MVP — it’s because the idea wasn’t strong to begin with.”

As she goes on, “If you have to ask if you’re in love, you’re probably not in love. The same goes with product/market fit — if you have to ask if you have it, you probably don’t.”

Test your market first with the minimum lovable product, as Jiaona Zhang says. You don’t have to build the sexiest app out there. It could be a blog or a spreadsheet. For example, here are a few incredible companies that started as nothing more than a…

BlogsSpreadsheets
HubSpotNerdWallet
GlossierSkyscanner
GrouponStitch Fix
MattermarkFlexiple
Ghost

The greatest incumbents to most businesses out there really happen to be some of the simplest things. Spreadsheets. Blogs. Facebook groups. And now probably, Discord and Slack groups. There are a wealth of no-code tools out there today – Notion, Airtable, Webflow, Zapier, just to name a few. So building something quick without coding experience just to test the market has been easier than ever. Use that to your advantage.

Patrick Campbell once wrote, quoting Brian Balfour, CEO of Reforge, “It’s much easier to evolve with the market if your product is shaped to fit the market. That’s why you’ll achieve much better fit between these two components if you think market first, product second.”

Think like a designer, not like an artist

The biggest alphas are generated in non-obvious markets. Markets that are overlooked and underestimated. At the end of the day, in a market teeming with information and capital and starved of attention, think like a designer, not like an artist. Start from your audience, rather than from yourself. Start from what your audience needs, rather than what you want.

As ed-tech investor John Danner of Dunce Capital and board member at Lambda School, once wrote, “[the founders’] job is to find the absolute maximum demand in the space they are exploring. The best cadence is to run a new uncorrelated experiment every day. While demanding, the likelihood that you miss the point of highest demand with this approach is quite small. It is incredibly easy to abandon this kind of rigor and delayed gratification, eat the marshmallow and take a good idea and execute on it. Great founders resist that, and great investors do too.”

Spend more time researching and talking to your potential market, rather than focusing on where, how, and what you want your platform to look like. Obsess over split testing. Be scrappy.

Don’t fail the marshmallow test

We’re in a hype cycle now. Speed is the name of the game. And it’s become harder to differentiate signal from noise. Many founders instantly jump to geographically sexy markets. Anomalous markets like Silicon Valley and LA. But I believe what’ll set the winners from the losers in the long run is founder discipline. Discipline to spend time discovering signs of early virality, rather than scale.

For instance, if you’re operating a marketplace, your startup is more likely than not supply-constrained. To cite Brian Rothenberg, former VP of Growth at Eventbrite, focus on early growth loops where demand converts to supply. Ask your supply, “How did you hear about our product?” And watch for references of them being on the demand side before.

Don’t spend money to increase the rate of conversion until you see early signs of this growth dynamic. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5% or even 0.5%. Have the discipline to wait for organic conversion. It’s far easier to spend money to grow than to discover. Which is why startup life cycles are often broken down into two phases:

  • Zero to one, and
  • One to infinity

Nail the zero to one.

In an increasingly competitive world of ideas, many founders have failed the marshmallow test to rush to scale. As Patrick Campbell shared in the same afore-mentioned essay, “Product first, market second mentality meant that they had a solution, and then they were searching for the problem. This made it much, much more difficult to identify the market that really needed a solution and was willing to pay for the product.”

The more time you spend finding maximum demand for a big problem, the greater your TAM will be. The greater your market, the greater the value your company can provide. So, while building in anomalous markets with sexy apps will help you achieve quick early growth, it’s, unfortunately, unsustainable as you reach the early majority and the late majority of the adoption curve.

Photo by rawkkim on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

Battle of the Supers: Superpowers and Super-Weaknesses

mario, supermario, superpower, startup

For today’s blogpost I’m going to try something new. It was requested by a reader of this blog, which for anonymity’s sake, I’ll call P. For those who live a busy life, prefer audio over text, or just find my font choice appalling, I thought I’d record myself reading the below text. Think of it like the audiobook version of this essay.

If you love or hate this format, I’d love to hear what you think. Feel free to comment below, or DM me across any of my channels. Any and all feedback welcome with open arms.

And thank you for inspiring me, P!

Two weeks ago, I happened to write about saying “yes” to more things. But what do you say “yes” to?

Over the years, I’ve used many different versions of the question: What would you do if you knew you would fail? Or, What would you do regardless of the outcome of the endeavor? And as long as the reason for doing so contains any combination of:

  • Skill acquisition
  • Invaluable experience
  • Or relationship/friendship that I value more than the project itself

… it’s a “Yes” for me. The “Yes” becomes an exploration of depth. An optimization strategy for my strengths. My superpowers. It’s something I learned from quite a few of my mentors over the years – both in an official and unofficial capacity.

Subsequently, I’ve had this belief for a long time, which will probably cause some uproar somewhere, that we shouldn’t optimize our life around reducing our weaknesses. But rather, focus our time on maximizing our strengths. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ever work to ameliorate our incompetencies. But:

  1. Just enough that we meaningfully reduce our risk of ruin. Any more, there are diminishing returns over time. Forgiving my esoteric economic jargon, we should only work on our weaknesses so that we don’t lose our ability to survive. For example, if you don’t know how to cook, you shouldn’t aim to be the best Michelin-starred chef in the world, but just enough so that you don’t starve to death. Assuming your goal in life isn’t in the culinary world.
  2. Mitigate our weaknesses that are the most adjacent to our core strengths. For instance, in my opinion, one of my greatest relative strengths is my ability to ask questions. I am by no means the best, but compared to the rest of my skills, this is one I find myself shining in a bit more than my peers. Which effectively meant I was always interested in what others were up to and how they thought. A mentor figure told me years ago that it didn’t matter how interested I was in others, no one had a reason to be interested in me. Which meant that one of my greatest and most adjacent weaknesses was to be interesting.

People who have superpowers often carry super-weaknesses. The greater their superpower, usually the greater their weakness. Humans aren’t great multitaskers. We were never designed to be. If you’re saying yes to one thing, you’re saying no to a hundred other things. Are you willing to shoulder that opportunity cost? Sometimes you are, but be very deliberate about it.

Fairly recently, I was presenting to an amazing cast of board members in a board meeting. There was a general consensus around the fact that we lacked focus as an organization, yet we were sitting on a wealth of talent. To which, one of our board members redirected us to Steve Jobs’ infamous speech when we returned to Apple in 1997. One line in particular stood out to me: “Apple is executing wonderfully on many of the wrong things.“

He follows up to say: “The ability of the organization to execute is really high though. I mean, I’ve met some extraordinary people at Apple. There’s a lot of great people at Apple. They’re doing some of the wrong things because the plan has been wrong.”

Taking a step back, as humans, as working professionals, as entrepreneurs in each and every one of our own rights, we often “execute wonderfully on many of the wrong things.” Often times, that’s on our own weaknesses, rather than our strengths.

Living in a simulation

Imagine that we live in a simulation – an MMORPG. Or, massively multiplayer online role-playing game. We start off with a finite number of stat points. The starting number of stat points varies from person to person, depending on your socio-economic class and your given genetic code. You can allocate those stat points however you want.

You can spread them all out evenly, where you’ll never have any true weakness, but neither any true strength. You’ve hedged your risk of ruin. It’s going to be really hard for you to lose, but you can never really win.

On the flip side of the token, you can minmax your build, using gaming terminology. Double down on a stat, to achieve the equivalent of a superpower, compared to your peers. But often times, if you are maximizing on a superpower, you’ve minimized your proficiency in another area. Luckily, as in any game, and as in reality, you can pick up tools and make friendships along the way that will supplement your weaknesses with their strengths.

Of course, as all analogies go, there are exceptions. But as far as I know, there are far fewer exceptions than those that fit into this analogy. And, technically, our ability to level up is infinite. The only upper limit is that, like everyone else, we have 24 hours in a day and a finite number of years to live.

So, where am I going with this?

Super-tools for (super)weaknesses

What do you not want or don’t care to have a superpower in? For the skills and tasks you use everyday, but don’t care to be the best in the world for, leverage software and tools to automate your work, so you only need to spend the minimal amount of time or energy to make sure it doesn’t become a stressor for your day. In the above gaming analogy, you use items to compensate for specific stat deficiencies. The more efficient the “item”/tool, the less energy you need to expend to make up for a super-weakness.

Here are the tools I use to supercharge my day, so I can spend more time enhancing my superpowers and less time mitigating my super-weaknesses.

Descript

Descript makes me feel like a god. As much as I love Adobe Premiere Pro, it had an incredibly high learning curve. But once you got it, they have some of the most robust tools on the market. On Descript, I love how I can edit an audio or video clip just by deleting words in the transcript. And if I mess up, and I do quite a bit, I can always voiceover in the editing process to make myself sound smarter than I actually am. Even better, I can drag and drop music, video and sound effects. If you’re listening to the audio version of this essay, you might have noticed I don’t have any of the afore-mentioned effects. The goal here was just to get you my thoughts as quickly as possible, without trapping myself in audio perfectionism.

If the Adobe Creative Suite is the endgame, Descript is the early game. And it helps you ace it remarkably well.

Notion

Notion is a dark horse (for me). I’ve seen startup data rooms, personal blogs, internal wikis, and even VC investment theses and fund strategies being produced on Notion. It always seemed like a nice-to-have. In all fairness, I didn’t give it the benefit of the doubt it deserved until late last year. Its greatest ability isn’t the ability to create a robust website or the prettiest blog. Its greatest ability is that it gets people to put ideas and thoughts on paper as quickly as possible. The barrier to entry is so low that its greatest competitors are note-taking apps, like Evernote or Google Keep, for early users. Then, you can go from notes to fully functional site in minutes.

And ever since, I’ve been a geek over it. There’s this great thread on Twitter by @empirepowder about all the applications you can build using Notion extremely quickly – from creating a blog from scratch to publishing a course to tracking analytics on your page to the ultimate tweet tracking tool.

For many of us, the hardest part about doing anything is starting. Notion solves that.

Undock

Take scheduling as another example. I know very few people, if at all, who want to be the best scheduler in the world. I know I don’t. But I find myself spending an undeserving amount of time trying to schedule meetings, rather than actually having meetings or being productive. Enter Undock. “The fastest way to find time to meet with anyone.” That’s from their website. And it’s true. When I’m in my Gmail scheduling calls/meetings with founders or investors, I never leave my email tab nor do I ever touch my mouse. No matter how many people are on the email thread, I can find time for a meeting, on average, in two seconds. That’s no joke. I timed myself.

Having and empowering others to have superpowers is literally in their DNA.

Superhuman

I’ve heard many great things about Superhuman, and about a quarter as many bad things about the platform. Superhuman’s claim to fame is being able to get you to inbox zero via one of the most seamless and fastest email experiences ever – through shortcut keys, follow-up reminders, and social media insights just to name a few. Their user interface makes it incredibly easy to respond from one email to the next, even when you’re offline. They have this 100ms rule, where every interaction should be faster than 100ms to make communication feel instantaneous. And they do deliver.

Many of its customers include investors and founders. Busy people who have more unread emails in their inbox than they care to count. Most of the bad reviews I hear from friends and colleagues are that $30/month is just too expensive.

There are many ways to look at the $30 price tag. It’s $12 more than Netflix’s premium plan, and Netflix serves you new content you might not have access to otherwise. Superhuman serves you the same content that would have been yours anyway, just in a new light. On the flip side, $30/month is $1/day. Less than a cup of coffee a day, assuming you buy your coffee every day. But even if you only bought $3 coffee twice a week, $30/month would still be cheaper.

Or in a different lens, Superhuman’s core audience – founders, investors, busy people who have hundreds of emails a week, if not a day – their time is worth at or more than $30/hour. So, if on a 160-work month, Superhuman collectively saves their customers more than an hour of time every month, then it’s worth it to them.

The way I look at it, it’s a bargain. But I don’t use it. Why? It’s not because it’s too expensive. Neither because I don’t have enough emails to go through. But rather, I happened to optimize my email workflow before I even heard of Superhuman. I’ll save that topic for a later blogpost. But if you don’t have a way to get to inbox zero (unless you don’t care. I have a number of friends who have tens of thousands of unread in their inbox. That scares me)… but if you do care about the piling mound of emails, Superhuman’s really got it in the bag.

In closing

And maybe this post might serve helpful in reframing on how you can live your most optimal life. Supercharge your strengths. And find the best tools and mental models you can to protect your downside. It’s okay if you’re not the best at the latter; you don’t have to be.

I mentioned a few of the tools I use, but your mileage may and probably should vary.

While there are tools out there that supercharge your ability to execute and perform, equally so, you’ll find there are amazing people out there that complement your weaknesses. Friends, colleagues, co-founders, life partners. In the words of Steve Jobs, find and meet “extraordinary people.” To do so, as my mentor told me, you’ll have to be interested and interesting.

Stay openminded and stay frosty out there!

Photo by Cláudio Luiz Castro on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

How to Win at Net Dollar Retention

coffee shop, retaining customers

I was reading Sammy Abdullah of Blossom Street Ventures‘ Medium post not too long ago about the value of auto-price increases in a context I’ve never really thought about. Quoting one of his portfolio companies’ founders:

“We started including auto-price increases in our renewals at the start of this year and it’s been surprisingly effective. Our starting point is 10% and we get it more often than not; some customers negotiate us down to the 3–5% range.

“The automatic price increases are a beautiful thing because they give us leverage:

  1. we can trade an automatic price increase for an earlier renewal, longer contract period, or upselling to more features; and
  2. when we do waive price increases, the customer walks away satisfied. They feel like they’re winning.”

It’s a great way to win on net retention. But as I’ve written about before, the net retention equation is comprised of the upgrades, downgrades, and churn variables.

NDR = (starting MRR + upgrades – downgrades – churn)/(starting MRR)

So to maximize retention, you can:

  1. Level up your customers into higher tiers
    • Or convert more users into customers, if you’re running a freemium model
  2. Reduce the number of customers downgrading to lower tiers
  3. Reduce churn – customers leaving your platform
  4. Some permutation of the above variables

Leveling up upgrades

Shivani Berry, founder of Ascend’s Leadership Program, once wrote: “Buy-in is the result of showing your team why your idea achieves their goals.” In a similar sense, buy-in is the result of showing your customers why your product achieves their goals. The best thing is that their goals will change over time. As so, your product must contain increasingly more value to your customers as they level up in their lifecycle. As they grow, you have product offerings that grow with their needs.

Take, for example, one of my favorite startups these days, Pulley, a cap table management tool for startups. Don’t worry, this isn’t a sponsored blogpost. Although it’d be nice if it was. I have no chips in the bag; I just like them. They have three tiers of pricing. The lowest for startups with 25 stakeholders. The middle for startups with 40. And the highest is for larger businesses.

Why 25? The average seed-stage startup has about 25 stakeholders. Subsequently, top of mind for them is what SAFEs and convertible notes look like on their cap table and how to structure early equity pools.

As a startup levels up to 40 stakeholders, they’re probably jumping into their first priced round. As such, they’ll need a 409A valuation to appraise their fair market value, as well as finally putting together their first official board.

Every time founders raise another round of funding, the more complicated their cap table becomes. The more they need Pulley’s software. And it so happens, the less price sensitive they become. For Pulley, that means they can charge more as their customers have greater purchasing power.

You also always want an enterprise pricing tier, where pricing is custom. Don’t be afraid to charge more. As I mentioned in a previous essay, when Intercom was only charging IBM $49, an IBM exec once told the Intercom team, “You know, I go on a coffee run for the team that costs a lot more than your product. That’s why we’re wary of investing too much more in you. We just don’t see how you’re going to survive.” If it helps as a reference point, the median ACV (annual contract value) for public SaaS companies is $27,000.

Do note that the more you charge, the longer the sales cycle will be. For ACVs over $20K, expect 4-6 months of a sales cycle. For contracts over $100K, expect 6-9 months. Of course, the contrapositive would be that the lower the price point, the easier and faster it takes to make a decision.

Reducing downgrades and churn

I’ve been in love with Clayton Christensen’s “jobs-to-be-done” (JTBD) framework ever since I learned of it a few years ago. At the end of the day, you’re delivering value. Value in the form of doing a job. As Christensen says, “when we buy a product, we essentially ‘hire’ it to help us do a job. If it does the job well, the next time we’re confronted with the same job, we tend to hire that product again. And if it does a crummy job, we ‘fire’ it and look for an alternative.”

The better it can do the job your customer needs to get done, the more you can optimize for the variables in the net retention equation. Sunita Mohanty, Product Lead at Facebook, shared an amazing JTBD framework they use back at Facebook and Instagram:

When I… (context)
But… (barrier)
Help me… (goal)
So I… (outcome)

Here’s another way to look at it:

  1. What features should we have that would make our product great?
  2. What features should this product have that would make it a no-brainer purchase for our customers?

The “no-brainer” part especially matters. And to be a “no-brainer”, you have to deliver the best-in-class. Your features have to solve a fundamental job that your customer is trying to solve. The difference between a “great product” and a “no-brainer” is the difference between a 5 out of 5-star rating and a 6-star out of a 5-star rating. Effectively, the outcome in Facebook’s JTBD framework exceeds the goal, which makes the barrier irrelevant. As David Rubin, CMO of The New York Times and former Head of Global Brand at Pinterest once said: “Your service shouldn’t lead with ‘saving money’. You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.”

In closing

At the end of the day, in the words of Alex Rampell, building a startup is “a race where the startup is trying to get distribution before the incumbent gets innovation.”

You’re in a race against time. You’re trying to reach critical mass and growth before your incumbents realize your space is a money-making machine. And growth comes in two parts: acquisition and retention. While many founders seemed to have over-indexed on acquisition over the last couple of years, the pandemic has reawakened many that retention is often times much more difficult to attain than acquisition. While it may not be true for every type of business, hopefully, the above is another tool in your toolkit.

Photo by Joshua Rodriguez on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

The Puzzle Pieces

In the first decade of my life, my parents used to buy me different kinds of puzzles – from the Rubik’s cube to beautifully intricate LEGO sets to Luban locks. One of my favorites has always been these thousand-piece puzzles. Every time I poured those pieces out of the box, they scattered across our carpet like tiny ants scrambling to find meaning. I loved putting the puzzle together having only seen the completed image once – when I opened the box. That probably, at most, left a three-second impression in my mind. How awesome would photographic memory be. But alas, it wasn’t something I’d been blessed with. I only found out years later from friends that it wasn’t normal. That said, I imagine I took much longer than most people to piece together the whole puzzle.

Fresh out of the box, I start off knolling the various incongruous shapes. Like most others, I’m looking for similar designs, colors, lines, images – anything. Trying to make sense of disparate pieces. Frankly, I was drawing parallels wherever and whenever I found them. A more mature me would call it – pattern recognition.

As I progress, I spy colonies of color form in different areas on the living room floor. And therefore, try to see if any colonies, together, would tell a more robust, vibrant story. Sometimes I was right. Sometimes I was wrong.

As I near the end of the puzzle, I see everything come together. I’m not gonna lie. It’s extremely gratifying to see the rough picture in my head come to life. Often times, the final image has minor deviations from the loosely-defined vision I had when I started.

You probably caught on

You’re smart, and you probably guessed what I was trying to get at before you even finished reading my anecdote. And you’re right. In many ways, this puzzle journey is very similar to building a company. You start off with an idea, constructed upon anecdotal patterns you’ve seen in the world you know. And as you build the idea and talk to customers – other nearby pattern aggregations – you start to piece together a larger and more concrete goal. By the time you reach scale, you’re filling in the little details – the extra puzzle pieces – you missed when focusing on the more holistic vision. The little details of debugging, solving edge cases, and improving the user experience.

Listen to the silence

The initial idea comes from recognizing the patterns around you. Both what is being said, and what isn’t. Both what is there and what could be there.

One of my favorite stories on pattern recognition is about Abraham Wald, a Hungarian-Jewish mathematician and statistician, who’s credited with saving the lives of numerous pilots and airmen during WWII. Tasked with aircraft armor repair, Wald, then a faculty at Columbia University, was given a number of data points on bullet holes in the fighter planes that returned to base. Most were around the fuselage and a few around the motors.

As one would expect, the military anticipated to double down armor around areas with the most damage – the fuselage. But Wald took a different angle. Reinforce the plate metal around the motors, rather than the fuselage. Because the planes that didn’t make it back most likely had bullet holes where the planes that did make it back didn’t.

Listen to the sound

Sometimes you’re right. Sometimes you’re wrong. And if you’re wrong, follow the breadcrumbs of your market. Notice what their use cases are and how they’re spending their time. Even better if they’re developing hacks to circumvent the early inefficiencies of your product. What features or problems are getting a lot of attention?

For instance, Stewart Butterfield didn’t start off with the idea for Slack. After selling Flickr to Yahoo! and working at Yahoo! for three years after, he started with Tiny Speck, a gaming startup that raised $17M in venture funding to build Glitch. Unfortunately, it didn’t take off, outside of its cult following. But what did stick was the tool Stewart and his team had been using to chat in real-time with each other. Less than a year after it officially launched, it hit a $1B in valuation. Six years later, it became Salesforce’s biggest acquisitions at over $27B. And history is still being written.

Similarly, Kevin Systrom didn’t start off with Instagram. But rather Burbn – a location-based check-in app. Users would check-in, plan future meetups with friends, share pictures of their meetups, and earn points in the process. Unfortunately, the app was too complicated for the average user to use. After bringing on Mike Kreiger and analyzing how their users were using the app, they realized most of their traffic happened around posting and sharing photos. Scrapping everything else, they focused on their biggest use case – photo-sharing. And well, they were right on the pivot. In 2012, right before Facebook’s IPO, Facebook acquired Instagram for $1B. It was big then, but as we all know now, it’s even bigger now.

Back in 2012, Kevin once said, “It’s about going through false starts… Brbn was a false start. The best companies in the world have all had predecessors. YouTube was a dating site. You always have to evolve into something else.”

In closing

I love people who binge. It’s a sign that they capable of going all in and more on something they’re passionate about. I, myself, have binged time and time again on puzzles, shows, books, passion projects, and more. For Stewart, it was games. For Kevin, it was whiskey and bourbon. On the other hand, for Abraham, I can’t quite say. I have no idea if he was into plate armor or planes, but whether he liked it or not, he probably spent sleepless nights on it.

And in the process of binging, if you keep my mind and my senses open to inspiration, you may uncover some patterns in the mix. ‘Cause if you’re going to notice what’s being said and not said between the lines, you’re going to have to be in deep. Deep enough to take your breath away, but not deep enough to take your sight away.

Photo by Ross Sneddon on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

Why User Hacks Are Awesome to Get to Product-Market Fit

user hacks, product-market fit

I was introduced to a founder of an e-commerce marketplace recently trying to figure out what product-market fit looks like. Specifically what might be some early tells of PMF. And I told him, “If your users are sticking around long enough to try to game your system, you have something they want. While it might not be in the most efficient format, you’re close to PMF. Subsequently, solving that frictional point that users are trying to ‘hack’ will delight them.”

Last year, I wrote that one of the tells of a great unicorn idea is frustration with the status quo. And the lagging indicators of frustration are complaints, but even better, “hacks”. Life hacks. Career hacks. Cold email hacks. Any time a forum or community comes together to share best practices is a potential market opportunity. As Jeff Bezos once said, “Your margin is my opportunity.”

Similarly, if some of your users converge around circumventing your platform, they’re hacking their way to find a better solution. But the fact they’re sticking around on your platform means you have something they want. And while it could be more elegant, you’ve solved the rocks of the “rocks, sand, and water” framework. What’s left are the “sand” and the “water”. And they come disguised as a user hack.

Sarah Tavel of Benchmark once wrote: “You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.” Solving all the frictional points in the user journey will get you to that compelling offering – a lovable product.

A reader reached out to me last year and said, “Thank you… [But] you have no idea how long I spend reading your blogposts with a dictionary next to me.” While it wasn’t necessarily a hack, to know there was a reader out there willing to weather through my idiosyncratic vocabulary in my earlier essays meant a million to me. But at the same time, it was a sign I was too caught up in my own wordsmithing. So, I dialed it back. While there will still be some esoteric jargon from time to time, I try to make my writing more relatable when editing. And to that reader… if you’re still reading this essay, thank you.

Back in 2007, Marc Andreessen wrote: “The market pulls product out of the startup.” In this case, that pull becomes a race between you and your users’ frustration. Can you release an update that addresses your users’ pain point before they become so frustrated they pack up and go? Either to build their own version or try a competitor’s.

I love Max Nussenbaum of On Deck’s analogy here. “If the market is indeed pulling the product out of you, you sometimes feel less like a creator and more like a mere conduit.” You, as the team behind the product, are a conduit to satisfying your users’ needs. As Mike Maples Jr. says, “Getting storytelling right means the founder is the mentor of the story (ie Yoda), rather than the hero (ie Luke.).” Your customers are the heroes of the story. Of their story. And your story. How they spend their time should offer you brilliant product insights.

Photo by Florian Krumm on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

Startup Growth Metrics that will Hocus Pocus an Investor Term Sheet

Founders often ask me what’s the best way to cold email an investor. *in my best TV announcer voice* Do you want to know the one trick to get replies for your cold email startup pitches that investors don’t want you to know? Ok, I lied. No investor ever said they don’t want founders to know this, but how else am I going to get a clickbait-y question? Time and time again, I recommend them to start with the one (at most two) metrics they are slaying with. Even better if that’s in the subject line. Like “Consumer social startup with 50% MoM Growth”. Or “Bottom-up SaaS startup with 125% NDR”. Before you even intro what your startup does, start with the metric that’ll light up an investor’s eyes.

Why? It’s a sales game. The goal of a cold email is to get that first meeting. Investors get hundreds of emails a week. And if you imagine their inbox is the shelf at the airport bookstore, your goal is to be that book on display. Travelers only spend minutes in the store before they have to go to their departure gate. Similarly, investors scroll through their inbox looking for that book with the cover art that fascinates them. The more well-known the investor, the less time they will spend skimming. And if you ask any investor what’s the number one thing they look for in an investment, 9 out of 10 VCs will say traction, traction, traction. So if you have it, make it easy for them to find.

That said, in terms of traction, most likely around the A, what growth metrics would be the attention grabber in that subject line?

Strictly annual growth

A while back, my friend, Christen of TikTok fame, sent me this tweetstorm by Sam Parr, founder of one of my favorite newsletters out there, The Hustle. In it, he shares five lessons on how to be a great angel investor from Andrew Chen, one of the greatest thought leaders on growth. Two lessons in particular stand out:

And…

Why 3x? If you’re growing fast in the beginning, you’re more likely to continue growing later on. Making you very attractive to investors’ eyes – be it angels, VCs, growth and onwards. Neeraj Agrawal of Battery Ventures calls it the T2D3 rule. Admittedly, it’s not R2-D2’s cousin. Rather, once your get to $2M ARR (annual recurring revenue), if you triple your revenue each year 2 years in a row, then double every year the next 3 years, you’ll get to $100M ARR and an IPO. More specifically, you go from 2 to 6, then 18, 36, 72, and finally $144M ARR. More or less that puts you in the billion dollar valuation, aka unicorn status. And if you so choose, an IPO is in your toolkit.

image001
Source: Neeraj Agrawal’s analysis on public SaaS companies that follow the T2D3 path

For context, tripling annually is about a 10% MoM (month-over-month) growth rate. And depending on your business, it doesn’t have to be revenue. It could be users if you’re a social app. Or GMV if you’re a marketplace for goods. As you hit scale, the SaaS Rule of 40 is a nice rule of thumb to go by. An approach often used by growth investors and private equity, where, ideally, your annual growth rate plus your profit margin is equal to or greater than 40%. And at the minimum, your growth rate is over 30%.

For viral growth, many consumer and marketplace startups have defaulted to influencer marketing, on top of Google/FB ads. And if that’s what you’re doing as well, Facebook’s Brand Collabs Manager might help you get started, which I found via my buddy Nate’s weekly marketing newsletter. Free, and helps you identify which influencers you should be working with.

But what if you haven’t gotten to $2M ARR? Or you’ve just gotten there, what other metrics should you prepare in your data room?

Continue reading “Startup Growth Metrics that will Hocus Pocus an Investor Term Sheet”
Posted on

#unfiltered #42 The Miracle that Catalyzes the Hero’s Journey

In the venture world, the word timing is thrown around in a very canonical way. Many investors and founders mythologize the concept of timing around a business. While there is some science and data that might be able to point in the general direction, success is a lagging indicator of timing. And arguably, the only way anyone can really determine if the timing is right or not is in hindsight. Investors that said they knew the exact timing of the market may just be attributing their success to survivorship bias.

To analogize it, it’s the same as knowing when to invest in the market or in a particular stock. Everyone wants to buy at the lowest, sell at the highest. Your ROI is positively correlated with the sell price, and negatively correlated with the buy price. But when is the lowest? No one really knows for certain. We can guesstimate a timeframe with reasonable confidence, but that’s the best we can do. The same is true for measuring timing in the market. Yet there is one thing that I’ve come to learn in my years in the venture world that’s as close as you can get to the “true” timing of the market. A miracle.

Let me explain.

One miracle

Every startup needs one miracle to succeed. One. No more. No less. Elad Gil said in an interview with James Currier at nfx, “Every startup needs to have a single miracle… If your startup needs zero miracles to work, it probably isn’t a defensible startup. If your startup needs multiple miracles, it probably isn’t going to work.” He further elaborates, “If you have more than one, you have compounding small odds and that means you’re very, very likely to fail.”

Before that miracle, if you’re truly creating a revolutionary business, by definition, you’re in the non-consensus. You have more non-believers than you do believers. If it were an obvious business, then everyone would do it. If everyone does it, economically-speaking, the ROI is low. In a situation, where every kid sells lemonade with the exact same recipe by the street corner, everyone is fighting for the exact same customers. Eventually, it’ll lead to a race to the bottom.

That single miracle is going to be that trial by fire. The true test of grit and founder obsession. That trial, whenever it is, predictable or not, determines if your product will stay a niche idea (and possible fizzle into obscurity) or a business that will change the world. For you and your business, that miracle could have been catalyzed by the pandemic, the GME short squeeze, ’08 recession (if you’re an older business), the inauguration, or something yet to come. The question is: How do you respond in the face of adversity?

Why is that miracle important?

Tim Ferriss once said, “Your superpower is very often right next to your wound, like your biggest wound. […] They’re often two sides of the same coin.” If you can survive and conquer that trial, the miracle – your superpower – becomes one of your strongest moats. The lessons you learned, the trust you (re)built, and the legacy you begin to construct. Those lessons – those earned secrets – while not impervious, will ideally be incredibly hard to obtain for others without walking through fire. A metamorphic journey from a vulnerable caterpillar to a beautiful monarch. What Joseph Campbell calls the “hero’s journey“.

And in the longer time horizon, that you are no longer just the protagonist of that miracle, but that you are also a producer of miracles for others. You are then capable of minting miracles systematically. Be it your customers, your team members, and your investors.

Why #unfiltered?

You might be wondering why I tagged this essay as #unfiltered. Frankly, it’s a new unrefined hypothesis that I’ve been playing around with. While it’s been inspired by others, I believe there’s more nuance I still need to uncover as well. That I’ll need to test a bit more to see if it can be a more robust thesis.

Going forward, I will continue to ask founders questions like:

  • What is the origin story of this idea?
  • If you were to fail in 18 months, what would be the most likely reason why?
  • Conversely, if you were to wildly succeed in that same time frame, what would be the biggest contributor?
  • Why are you a different person today than when you started this business? Who/what catalyzed this/these change(s)?
    • Examples of who: customers, team, partners, investors
    • Examples of what: black swan events, market trends, socio-economic habits, new technologies, an inflection point in your life when you faced impossible odds, failures, etc.

But I’ll be particularly looking for the earned secret among a miracle of adversity. Simply put, I’m looking to hear this song play in the background. The beginning of a mythical legend in the making.

Cover photo by Jon Ander on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

How to Find Product-Market Fit From Your Pricing Strategy

bread, value-based pricing, saas, revenue model, startup pricing strategy

As part of my work, I talk to many seed-stage SaaS founders. At the seed, most of these founders are thinking about how to get to product-market fit. The one in zero to one. They’re launching their product with a select few companies to really nail their pain points. And often times, pricing and the business model take a backseat when they offer their customers the product for free or at an extreme discount. While investors don’t expect founders to nail pricing at the seed, it’s useful to start thinking about your revenue model early on. After all, pricing is both an art and a science. And with the right pricing structure, it can also be your proxy for assessing product-market fit. Here’s how.

As a quick roadmap:

  1. How to use the pricing thermometer to understand value-based pricing
  2. The difference between buyers and customers
  3. What is your value metric? And why does it matter?
  4. How pricing influences positioning
  5. How to approach building a tiered plan, with a mini case study on Pulley
  6. Net dollar retention, what product-market fit looks like in dollars
  7. The SaaS version of engagement metrics

The pricing thermometer

Every product manager out there knows that customers don’t always know what they want, so asking them for a solution rarely nets valuable feedback. Rather, start with the problem. What are their frustrations? What sucks? What’s the last product they bought to attempt to alleviate their problem? Subsequently, what’d they like about that product? What didn’t they like?

There are two perspectives you can use to approach pricing: cost-plus and value-based. Cost-plus pricing is pricing based on selling the product at a given markup from its unit cost. The biggest mistake founders often make here is underestimating how much it costs to produce a product.

On the other hand, there’s value-based pricing. An approach where you determine the economic value of the service you are providing and give it to your customers for a bargain. Superhuman, for instance, prices the fastest email experience at $30/month. Or in a different light, a dollar a day. If you are saving more than a dollar of economic value a day by responding to emails faster than ever, then the product is worth it. The biggest pitfall here is that founders often don’t fully understand the value they’re bringing to their customers, which is a result of:

  1. They don’t understand your value,
  2. Or you can’t convince them of the value you think you offer.

To visualize both of these approaches better, let’s use the pricing thermometer, as YC calls it.

value based pricing

The greater the gap between two nodes (i.e. value and price, or price and cost), the greater the incentive. If you’re selling at a price far greater than its unit cost, you are far more motivated to sell your product. On the flip side, if your product is priced far below the value and benefits you provide, a customer is more motivated to purchase your product.

Buyers vs Customers

To take it a step further, if you’re planning to scale your startup, what you’re looking for our customers, not buyers. Buyers are people who purchase your product once, and never again. They learned from their mistake. Your product either didn’t deliver the value you promised or the value they thought you would deliver. Customers are repeat purchasers. Why? Because they love your product. It addresses your customers’ needs (and ideally more) again and again. Your customers’ satisfaction is evergreen, rather than ephemeral.

When you only have buyers, you have to push your product to others. It’s the epitome of a door-to-door salesperson. Think Yellow Pages.

When you have customers, you feel the pull. Customers are drawn to you. They come back willingly on their own two feet. As Calvin French-Owen, co-founder of Segment, once said: “The biggest difference between our ideas pre-PMF vs. when we found it was this feeling of pull. Before we had any sort of fit, it always felt like we had to push our ideas on other people. We had to nag people to use the product.”

value-based pricing

Value-based pricing is playing to win. Cost-plus pricing is playing to not lose. While the latter is convenient strategy when you’re a local business not looking to scale (i.e. coffee shop, local diner, local auto parts store, etc.), it’s incredibly difficult to scale with, especially as customer needs evolve. As you scale, your customers might include anyone from Microsoft who wants you to bring a sales engineer to integrate your product to a 5-person startup team who’s just testing your product out. With cost-plus pricing, you’ll be forced to determine price points on a case-by-case scenario. With value-based pricing, you can systemize dynamic pricing based on evolving customer needs. As their value received goes up, the price does too.

As the name suggests, to generate pull, we have to start from value. In this case, your value metric.

Continue reading “How to Find Product-Market Fit From Your Pricing Strategy”
Posted on

Four Signs of Startup Founders Prioritizing Growth Too Soon

scale, too soon, founders, startup growth metrics

Humans are one of the most awe-inspiring creatures that have ever graced this planet. Even though we don’t have the sharpest claws or toughest skins nor can we innately survive -50 degrees Fahrenheit, we’ve crafted tools and environments to help us survive in brutal nature. But arguably, our greatest trait is that we’re capable of writing huge epics that transcend our individual abilities and contributions. And share these narratives to inspire not only ourselves but the fellow humans around us.

A member of the our proud race, founders are no different. They are some of the greatest forecasters out there. To use Garry Tan’s Babe Ruth analogy, founders have the potential of hitting a home run in the direction they point. They build worlds, universes, myths and realities that define the future. They live in the future using the tools of today. In fact, there’s a term for it. First used by Bud Tribble in 1981 to describe Steve Jobs’ aura when building the Macintosh – the reality distortion field.

Yet, we humans are all prone to anxiety. A story nonetheless. Simply, one we tell ourselves of the future that restricts our present self’s ability to operate effectively. Anxiety comes in many shapes and sizes. For founders, one of said anxieties is attempting and worrying about the future without addressing the reality today. In the early days, it’s attempting scale before achieving product-market fit (PMF). Building a skyscraper without surveying the land – land that may be quicksand or concrete.

Here are four signs – some may not be as intuitive as the others:

The snapshot

  1. Your code architecture looks beautiful.
  2. You’re onboarding expensive experienced talent.
  3. Your cultural values lag behind the talent you hire (plan to hire).
  4. You’re bundling the market before you unbundle the needs.
Continue reading “Four Signs of Startup Founders Prioritizing Growth Too Soon”
Posted on

The Investor I Am Working To Be

I wrote an essay exactly a week ago about welcoming tough founder narratives. In it, the prerequisite to play in VC is to be open-minded – to “stay positive” and to “test negative”. I’m reminded of something Tim Ferriss shared in his recent interview with Jim Collins, “It is not that beauty is hard to find, it’s that it is easy to overlook.”

In a world where it is my job to evaluate people who stretch the margins – to stretch “common sense”, it’s easy to be cynical. On the same token, it’s also easy to be incredibly optimistic. As Blake Robbins of Ludlow Ventures puts it, “the best venture capitalists [are] able to perfectly toe the line of optimist vs. pessimist.”

Since then, partly due to the semi-recent influx of investment talks I’ve seen and been a part of – the holiday mad dash, if you will, I’ve had some time to myself to re-center my purpose in the venture world.

The role of an investor

As someone on the investing side of the table, it is our job to check founders’ blind sides. To consider things they may not be aware to even consider. Drawing parallels between seemingly orthogonal parts of the business that we know because we’ve seen hundreds, if not thousands of businesses. For example, if you’re creating a plug-and-play solution – a product whose main selling point is its ease of use, the more you have to spend on your customer success team, the less effective your product is.

Of course, we merely provide insight and context to a situation, but it is the founders who have the final say.

The brand of an investor

Craig Thomas, an LP, wrote on his Substack last month: “Brand is arguably the only thing that resembles a moat in traditional venture capital.” To summarize Nikhil Basu Trivedi words briefly, brand here is constructed by how strong the synergy between the various forms of acquisition channels (i.e. content, performance marketing/ads, virality/word-of-mouth) and the players in the ecosystem (i.e. founders, investors, LPs, operators, talent, etc.) are. In simpler terms, brand is about who knows and how well they know what you stand for.

Increasingly, in the world of venture, while “picking” the right investments via conviction and a thesis still matters, it’s becoming a world of VCs “getting picked“, as Fred Destin of Stride.VC tweets. This is especially true for the deals that investors expected outsized returns on – effectively, uncapped upside.

Craig provides a great graphic for why brand matters. The blue-dotted line, which he calls the Mendoza Line for VC firms, represents y = x + b. And the best VC firms have b’s where b > 1.

Craig Thomas’ chart plotting the relationship between brand and AUM (assets under management)

He points out that the fallacy here is when firms prematurely scale. Increasing their AUM (assets under management) before establishing and growing their brand. And it’s something I’m not keen on falling for.

Seen in another light, Correlation Ventures did a study that found almost 65% of venture-backed deals fail to return on investment. And only 4% make outsized “magical returns”. Proving that b > 1 is truly easier said than done.

returns on venture backed startups is very low in most cases based on data from Correlation Ventures

There’s a saying in venture: Luck only gets better with success. It’s largely described in the context that it only takes one epic investment to get you on the radar. And I believe building a successful brand is a leading indicator of success. Of course, having a strong brand and having outsized returns are not mutually exclusive either. In a 2015 Medium post, Blake quotes Brett deMarrais of Ludlow Ventures, which I think acutely sums up what it means to be a great investor. “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.”

As you might have guessed, I’m on the brand-building phase. Craig wrote: “Brand is reputation and access.” A great brand leads to better deal flow, which leads strong signals for downstream investors. Which leads to a stronger brand. Analogized, it’s what Reid Hoffman has said all these years: “a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.” As an investor, a VC is their own product.

In closing

To quote Ruben Harris’ first boss in Ruben’s recent interview with Garry Tan, “To become a billionaire, help a billion people.” Through a mutual friend, I first met Ruben, Artur, and Timur back in ’18 around the inception of Career Karma and when they were hosting office hours at their apartment for folks who wanted to break into tech. At the inflection point in my career, I went to one of these to meet the individuals I had only been communicating over emails with. And within 5 minutes, Ruben said: “Here’s who you’ve got to talk to…”. And gave me 2 names I hadn’t even considered reaching out to beforehand. Both ended up being great influences on my growth.

True to their mission, even prior to the founding of Career Karma, they’ve been playing the connective tissue between talent, education and occupation. From their podcast to their company, the triple threat have created an impressive brand and community of givers and hustlers. And I highly recommend checking out their podcast to hear some of their community’s stories. Here’s one of my favorites. Congratulations on your A led by Initialized, Ruben, Artur, and Timur!

Similarly, that’s the investor I’m working to be. While I still have miles more to go in building a brand, I believe I’m taking steps in the right direction.

Photo by Daan Stevens on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Proudly powered by WordPress