This week I revisited David Sacks’ essay Your Startup Is a Movement. It was first brought to my attention during my conversation with Yin Wu, founder of Pulley. And again, with a friend who recently jumped into venture after an operating career, particularly around the topic of our investment theses. Our conversation underscored his fourth point in his Movement Marketing playbook.
It’s much easier to compete in the market of one – the only one – than in a market to be the best one. As some VCs call it, companies that are “allergic to competition.”
Why?
The goal for any startup is to achieve product-market fit before your competitors, especially your incumbents, notice the market opportunity. Frankly, the incumbents have more cash, more talent, more resources, more in every regard except one… problem obsession. Insatiable desire to fundamentally change the way we live. And with that desire comes speed.
It reminds me of a time over a decade ago, right after the spectacular Olympics which put the greatest Olympian of all time on center stage. Our swim coach asked the team, “How do you beat Michael Phelps?”
A few of my teammates suggested we work longer and harder. Another suggested that we should’ve started younger. And another suggested we wait till he retired. But my coach responded, “Just don’t race against him in butterfly. Race him in breaststroke.” While Michael Phelps is by no means slow in breaststroke, still faster than 95% of swimmers out there in it, the theory holds. It’s the stroke one would have the best chance to beat him in. But what stood out to me most was what the wisecrack on the swim team shouted out as an answer.
“He can swim while I run.”
And he was right.
Another fascinating aspect I realized in hindsight was that no one suggested the question was impossible.
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!
Last week, I was lucky enough to jump on a call with the founder of Pulley, Yin Wu. Backed some of the best investors out there including Stripe, General Catalyst, YC, Elad Gil, just to name a few, Pulley is the ultimate tool for cap table management. In addition, Yin is a 4-peat founder, one of which led to an acquisition by Microsoft, and three of which, including Pulley, went through YC.
In our conversation, we covered many things, but one particular theme stood out to me the most: how she built a culture of ruthless prioritization.
Over the weekend, my friend and I had this fascinating conversation about how we found our other friends. I know, metaphysical, nerdy even. But nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed it. She posed the question: “Is it just based on how long you’ve known each other? And how often you see each other?” For most of my life, I would have said yes. Classmates that became friends were people I met and could chat with over lunch or after school. The same is true for colleagues. And strangers. Some happened exceedingly fast – within 24 hours. Others have taken over half a year before we “warmed up” to each other.
Unsurprisingly, it gave birth to the question: At what point does an acquaintance become a friend?
The PMF parallel
To be honest, I didn’t have a good answer then, nor do I have one now. Part of the reason I’m sharing this is to open up dialogue and draw inspiration from you, my readers.
Pushing up my glasses, which I’ve got to get a new pair (open to any recommendations), I couldn’t but analogize it to startups finding product-market fit.
How do founders know when they hit product-market fit? The TL;DR version: when you’re too busy to even ponder if you have product-market fit. Or simply, you’ll know it when you have it. For the longer, less nebulous answer, I recommend checking out Lenny Rachitsky’s piece on it, and some of other essays I’ve written on the topic:
Or as Casey Winters, Chief Product Officer at Eventbrite, says:
“Product-market fit isn’t when your customers stop complaining, it’s when they stop leaving.”
Some more examples include, when:
You’re focused on upgrading your servers rather than acquiring customers.
There’s so much demand, you’re writing “I’m sorry” and “Not yet” emails to your customers who are asking when can they get off the waitlist.
Laggards on the adoption curve start using your product and saying wow. In Airbnb’s case, that was Joe Gebbia‘s mom using the product.
There are handwritten love letters in your office mailbox.
Customers are asking how they can pay (more) for your product.
You’re feeling the pull of the market rather than pushing your product in front of people.
Friends
On a similar note, when the entropy of a relationship and the subsequent conversations break into an impetuous nature that eclipses the inciting reason for the relationship, you might have something going. Or in simpler words, you can’t stop the momentum of the relationship. “What about this?” “Let’s do that!” “Ahhh, not enough time!” Of course, as all relationships go, it takes two to tango. Just like product-market fit, when you don’t have it, it’s not obvious what you need to do make it click. But when you do have person-person fit, everything makes sense. And quite obvious, in retrospect.
While the above was my answer on Sunday, I’m not completely sold it’s the end all, be all. And as I continue to find new sparks and rekindle old flames, I’m sure I will learn more about myself and others. A provocative question that may require a more provocative answer.
#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!
In a number of recent conversations with friends outside of venture and “aspiring entrepreneurs”, a couple myths, which I’m going to loosely define here as popular beliefs held by many people, were brought to my attention. 4 in particular.
If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.
That idea/startup is over-hyped.
The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.
If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.
Quite fortuitously, a question on Quora also inspired this post and discussion.
If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.
Unfortunately, most times, it won’t. As Reid Hoffman puts it: “A good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.” As a founder, you have to think like a salesperson (for enterprise/B2B businesses) or a marketer (for consumer/B2C businesses). People have to know about what you’re building. ’Cause frankly you could build the world’s best time machine in your basement, but if no one knows, it’s just a time machine in your basement. Probably a great story to tell for Hollywood one day (even then you still need people to find out), but not for a business.
That idea/startup is over-hyped.
I’ll be honest. This really isn’t a myth, more of a common saying.
Maybe so, at the cross-section in time in which you’re looking at it. But if you rewind a couple months or a year or 2 years ago, they were under-hyped. In fact, there’s a good chance no one cared. While everyone has a different technical definition of over- and under-hyped, by the numbers, time will tell if it’ll be a sustainable business or not. If it’s keeping north of 40% retention even 6 months after the hype, we’re in for a breadwinner.
Take Zoom, for example. Pre-COVID, if you asked any rational tech investor, “would you invest in Slack or Zoom?” Most would say Slack. Zoom existed, but many weren’t extremely bullish on it. Today, well, that may be a different story. As of this morning (Oct. 12, 2020), while I’m editing this post before the market opens, the stock price of Zoom is $492 (and same change). Approximately 343% higher than it was on March 17th, the first day of the Bay Area shelter-in-place. And, right now, the price of Slack is $31. Approximately 56% up from the beginning of quarantine.
Neither are startups anymore, but the analogy holds. Also, a lesson that predictions, even by experts, can be wrong.
The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.
“There’s too much money being invested (wasted) on startups.”
From the outside, it may very well look that way. Every day, every week we see this startup gets funded for $X million or that startup gets funded for $YY million. According to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), $133 billion were invested into startups last year. Yet, it pales in comparison to the capital that’s traded in the public markets.
VC funds see thousands of startup pitches a year. Per partner (most funds 2–3 partners), they each invest in 3–5 per year (aka about once per quarter). Meaning >99% of startups that a single VC sees are not getting funded by them. That doesn’t mean 99% never get funded, but it’s just to illustrate that proportionally, capital isn’t being spent willy-nilly.
If we look at it from a macro-economic perspective, if we are reaching saturation in the startup market, we should be getting closer to perfect competition. And in a perfectly competitive market, profit margins are zero. The thing is profits aren’t nearing zero in the startup/venture capital market. In fact, though the median fund isn’t returning much on invested capital. A good fund is returning 3–5x. A great one >5x. And well, if you were in Chris Sacca’s first fund, which included Uber, Twitter, and more, 250x MOIC. That’s $250 returned on every $1 invested.
If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.
Revolutionary ideas aren’t meant to conform. If an idea is truly ground-breaking, people have yet to be conditioned to think that a startup idea is great or not. As Andy Rachleff, co-founder of Wealthfront and Benchmark Capital, puts it: “you want to be right on the non-consensus.” Think Uber and Airbnb in 2008. If you asked me to jump in a stranger’s car to go somewhere then, I would have thought you were crazy. Same with living in a stranger’s home. I write more about being right on the non-consensus here and in this blog post.
Frankly, you may not be the target market. You’re not the customer that startup is serving. The constant reminder we, on the venture capital side of the table, have is to stop thinking that we are the core user for a product. Most products are not made for us. Equally, when a founder comes to us pre-traction and asks us “Is this a good idea?”, most of the time I don’t know. The numbers (will) prove if it’s a good idea or not. Unless I am their target audience, I don’t have a lot to weigh in on. I can only check, from least important to most important:
How big is the market + growth rate
Does the founder(s) have a unique insight into the industry that all the other players are overlooking or underestimating or don’t know at all? And will this insight keep incumbents at bay at least until this startup reaches product-market fit?
How obsessed about the problem space is the founder/team, which is a proxy for grit and resilience in the longer run? And obsession is an early sign of (1) their current level of domain expertise/navigating the “idea maze”, and (2) and their potential to gain more expertise. If we take the equation for a line, y = mx + b. As early-stage investors, we invest in “m’s” not “b’s”.
In closing
While I know not everyone echoes these thoughts, hopefully, this post can provide more context to some of the entrepreneurial motions we’re seeing today. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt. I’m an optimist by nature and by function of my job. Just as a VC I respect told me when I first started 4 years back,
“If you’re going to pursue a career in venture, by nature of the job, you have to be an optimist.”
Happened to also be one of the VCs who shared his thoughts for my little research project on inspiration and frustration last week.
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!
I was raised a swimmer. From 4 years old, my parents sent me to take swimming classes for 2 primary reasons:
Learn how to not drown.
If we (my parents) are ever going to drown, you’re going to save us.*
*Note: I’d like to point out the irony is that both of parents know how to swim themselves. Not at a competitive stage, but enough to survive from drowning.
Oddly enough, I learned how to swim by drowning. Over the years, like many other children around me, on top of swimming, I also played ball in its various sizes and ran. And I learned that swimming and running are of the 2 purest forms of athleticism and exercise out there. There’s very little margin for error, if any. A tenth of a second is the difference between Olympic gold and not even qualifying for the semifinals. Because of that, in swimming, we’re taught to be efficient. We learned to maximize for our distance per stroke (DPS). And I believe in running, it’s distance per stride.
Efficiency. The ability to do more with less.
The market of efficiency
These days, getting from point A to B isn’t as difficult as it used to be. Cars made travelling miles easier. Planes, for hundreds to thousands of miles. Bikes and scooters, for last mile transportation – distances too close to drive, but take twice as long to walk. Outside of transportation, career development, information and skill acquisition have all seen massive developments not only in the last hundred years, but especially in the last 10 years. Online platforms, like Coursera, Masterclass, Google, and Wikipedia, helped us all shave off months, years, even generations of legwork and information acquisition. They made so many things more accessible.
Accessibility
Accessibility is platformitizing and democratizing information. What Yellow Pages did for services. Reddit for knowledge acquisition. Amazon for shopping. Google for information. And Food Network and food media did for cooks. The average person today is more knowledgeable about the culinary process and its accessories than someone two decades back. Laughable now, but 8 years ago, it’s how I learned not to burn frozen pizza. I could go on and on.
But, in the next ten years, accessibility may not be enough. Though there are many populations in this world who still have yet to access the knowledge I can readily find on my laptop, accessibility provides people with the tools, but not the means to use those tools effectively.
Ease
Ease does. Lower the barriers to entry and bundle the entire knowledge acquisition, or otherwise, what I would call onboarding, in an intuitive manner. Like what WordPress did for websites. Instagram for photos. Opendoor for home-buying/selling. TurboTax for, well, tax.
It’s a messy web of information out there. As economist Herbert A. Simon puts it:
“A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.”
Here’s an easy way to tell which industries and processes lack ease. Find where people have created hacks to solve a problem.
Using multiple tools/software to solve a single problem;
Using a “temporary” solution to solve a repetitive problem. Like a basin to catch the rainwater that leaks through the roof;
A public forum, like Reddit or a Facebook group or multiple similar questions on Quora, where people share their “life hacks”.
A How-to YouTube video that has tens/hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views.
And to know if you hit the nail on the head, you’ve got crazy pull. Product-market fit. PMF. When you don’t even have the luxury of time to worry if you have PMF ’cause your customer success inbox/sales inbox is filled to the brim. Or you’re getting so many new users that you’re figuring out how to upgrade your servers before your servers go blank. For more on PMF, I highly recommend checking out Lenny Rachitsky‘s recent post surveying 25 of the most successful companies on when they realized they had PMF.
In closing
Tools and platforms that make it easier for an individual to go the distance, to be more efficient, carry 2 traits: accessibility and ease. With each stroke, with each action one takes, they can go further. They can do more. With less. Technology, in the incoming years, will further do so.
And as a VC scout, I look for, what I call – distance per action. Or DPA, for short. So, if you’re working on something that will enable people to have higher and greater DPAs, I wanna talk.
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!
One of my favorite thought exercises to do when I meet with founders who have reached the A- and B-stages (or beyond) is:
“What will his/her company look like if he/she is no longer there?”
The Preface
While the question looks like one that’s designed to replace the founder(s), my intention is everything but that. Rather, I ask myself that because I want to put perspective as to how the founder(s) have empowered their team to do more than they could independently. Where the collective whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Have the founders built something that is greater than themselves? And is each team member self-motivated to pursue the mission and vision?
“Well, Mr. President,” the janitor responded, “I’m helping put a man on the moon.”
From the astronaut who was to go into space to the janitor cleaning the halls of NASAs space center, each and every one had the same fulfilling purpose that they were doing something greater than themselves.
And if the CEO is able to do that, their potential to inspire even more and build a greater company is in sight. Can he/she scale him/herself? And in doing so, scale the company past product-market fit (PMF)?
For the purpose of this post, I’ll take scale from a culture, hiring, operating, and product perspective, though there are much more than just the above when it comes to scale. Answering the questions, as a founder:
How do you expand your audience?
How do you build a team to do so?
And, how do you scale yourself?
And to do so, I’ll borrow the insights of 10 people who have more miles on their odometer than I do.
While many of these lessons are applicable even in the later stages of growth, I want to preface that these insights are largely for founders just starting to scale. When you’ve just gone from zero to one, and are now beginning to look towards infinity.
The TL;DR
Build a (controversial) shocking culture.
Hire intentionally.
Retaining talent requires trust.
Build and follow an operating philosophy.
Create, hold, and share excitement.
Align calendars.
Upgrade adjacent users as your next beachhead.
Capture adoption by changing only 1 variable per user segment.
Product-market fit is fluid. Just because you’ve attained it once doesn’t mean you’ll have it forever. The market is constantly changing. And that means the intersection where supply meets demand will always be changing as well. That said, regardless of how and where you move to, you’ll always have a subset of your customers who aren’t happy. Who might miss the old ways. Who might wish for something else entirely.
To put it into perspective, I’m going to quote Casey Winters (his blog), the current Chief Product Officer at Eventbrite:
“Product-market fit isn’t when your customers stop complaining, it’s when they stop leaving.”
Retention and its Touch Points
If you run a business, you’re going to have a leaky funnel. Your job is to minimize the leaks. Double down on not just adoption, but especially retention. What does that mean? Engagement and the often, overlooked category, for many early-stage teams, re-engaging those that have become inactive over a set period of time. Whether 30 days or 7 days. It depends on what solution your product is providing for the market and how frequently you normally expect them to use the product. For example, for most consumer apps, as investors, we expect a minimum of usage for 3 days out of the 7 calendar days a week. So I characterize inactivity aggressively as after a month of inactivity.
In the past few months, since the health and economic crisis began, the conversation has shifted from ‘growth at all costs’ to profitability. And similarly, from an overemphasis on adoption to a better understanding of retention.
Speaking of retention, 2 days ago, the afore-mentioned Casey Winters and Lenny Rachitsky published their homework on the the dichotomy between good and great retention, which you can find here and here, respectively. Their research provides some useful touch points about “golden” numbers from some of the smartest people in the industry. Of course, as their research suggests, everyone’s “golden” number is different. At different points in time.
So, how are you tracking how lovable your product is?
One of my favorite ways to track what keeps users coming back for more is the Depth vs. Breadth graph. Plotting how long people use certain features and how often they click into it. You can easily substitute length of time (depth) with the number of actions taken for each product feature you have. Or as you grow into having multiple product offerings, this graph works just as well.
Below are just a few examples of breadth and depth metrics:
Breadth
Depth
# of logins/week
# actions/session
Session count
Session time length
D1/D2/D7/D30 sessions
# concurrent devices logged in
Platform-specific sessions
DAU/MAU
# paid users/ # total
The above graph should also help you better optimize your features/offerings. For instance, let’s say you’re a startup in your growth stages. Going by Reid Hoffman‘s rule of thumb for budgeting, spend:
70% on your ‘popular‘ product offerings,
20% on your ‘niche‘ product offerings,
And 10% exploring your any hidden gems in your ‘broad‘ quadrant.
In closing
If you have your finger on the pulse about what your customers love about you at all times, you’ll be able to create a more robust product. As a final note, I want to add that while this piece has been dedicated to what your customers love, please always keep in mind what they hate as well. And why they hate what they hate. Who knows? You might discover a larger secret there.
My friend, Rouhin, sent me this post by a rather angry fellow, which he and I both had a good chuckle out of, yesterday about how VC is a scam. In one part about startup growth, the author writes that VCs only care about businesses that double its customer base.
The author’s argument isn’t completely unfounded. And it’s something that’s given the industry as a whole a bad rap. True, growth and scalability are vital to us. That’s how funds make back their capital and then some. With the changing landscape making it harder to discern the signal from the noise, VCs are looking for moonshots. The earlier the stage, the more this ROI multiple matters. Ranging from 100x in capital allocation before the seed stage to 10x when growth capital is involved. But in a more nuanced manner, investors care not just about “doubling”, unilaterally, but the last time a business doubles. We care less if a lemonade stand doubles from 2 to 4 customers, than when a lemonade corporation doubles from 200 to 400 million customers, or rather bottles, for a more accurate metric.
After early startup growth
Of course, in a utopia, no businesses ever plateau in its logistical curve – best described as it nears its total TAM. That’s why businesses past Series B, into growth, start looking into adjacent markets to capitalize on. For example, Reid Hoffman‘s, co-founder of LinkedIn, now investor at Greylock, rule of thumb for breaking down your budget (arguably effort as well) once you reach that stage is:
70% core business
20% business expansion – adjacent markets that your team can tackle with your existing resources/product
10% venture bets – product offerings/features that will benefit your core product in the longer run
And, the goal is to convert venture bets into expansionary projects, and expansionary projects to your core business.
Simply put, as VCs, we care about growth rates after a certain threshold. That threshold varies per firm, per individual. If it’s a consumer app, it could be 1,000 users or 10,000 users. And only after that threshold, do we entertain the Rule of 40, or the minimum growth of 30% MoM. Realistically, most scalable businesses won’t be growing astronomically from D1. (Though if you are, we need to talk!) The J-curve, or hockey stick curve, is what we find most of the time.
The Metrics
In a broader scope, at the early stage, before the critical point, I’m less concerned with you doubling your user base or revenue, but the time it takes for your business to double every single time.
From a strictly acquisition perspective, take day 1 (D1) of your launch as the principal number. Run on a logarithmic base 2 regression, how much time does it take for your users (or revenue) to double? Is your growth factor nearing 1.0, meaning your growth is slowing and your adoption curve is potentially going to plateau?
Growth Factor = Δ(# of new users today)/Δ(# of new users yesterday) > 1.0
Why 1.0? It suggests that you could be nearing an inflection point when your exponential graph start flattening out. Or if you’re already at 1.0 or less, you’re not growing as “exponentially” as you would like, unless you change strategies. Similarly, investors are looking for:
ΔGrowth Factor > 0
Feel to replace the base log function with any other base, as the fundamentals still hold. For example, base 10, if you’re calculating how long it takes you to 10x. Under the same assumptions, you can track your early interest pre-traction, via a waitlist signup, similarly.
While in this new pandemic climate (which we can admittedly also evaluate from a growth standpoint), juggernauts are forced to take a step back and reevaluate their options, including their workforce, providing new opportunities and fresh eyes on the gig economy, future of work, delivery services, telehealth, and more. Stay safe, and stay cracking!
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!
Over the weekend, my friend and I were chatting about the next steps in her career. After spending quite some time ironing out a startup idea she wants to pursue, she was at a crossroads. Should she leave her 9-to-5 and pursue this idea full-time, or should she continue to test out her idea and keep her full-time job?
Due to my involvement with the 1517 Fund and since some of my good friends happen to be college dropouts, I spend quite a bit of time with folks who have or are thinking about pursuing their startup business after dropping out. This is no less true with 9-to-5ers. And some who are still the sole breadwinner of their family. Don’t get me wrong. I love the attention, social passion, literature and discourse around entrepreneurship. But I think many people are jumping the gun.
Ten years back, admittedly off of the 2008 crisis, the conversations were entirely different. When I ask my younger cousins or my friends’ younger siblings, “what do you want to be when you grow up?” They say things like “run my own business”, “be a YouTuber”, and most surprisingly, “be a freelancer”. From 12-yr olds, it’s impressive that freelancing is already part of their vocabulary. It’s an astounding heuristic for how far the gig economy has come.
Moreover, media has also built this narrative championing the college dropout. Steve Jobs and Apple. Bill Gates and Microsoft. And, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. There’s nothing wrong in leaving your former occupation or education to start something new. But not before you have a solid proof of concept, or at least external validation beyond your friends, family and co-workers. After all, Mark Zuckerberg left Harvard not to start Facebook, but because Facebook was already taking off.
Honing the Idea
The inherent nature of entrepreneurship is risk. As an entrepreneur (and as an investor), the goal should always be to de-risk your venture – to make calculated bets. To cap your downside.
Marc Benioff started his idea of a platform-as-a-service in March 1999. Before Marc Benioff took his idea of SaaS full-time, he spent time at Oracle with his mentor, Larry Ellison, honing this thesis and business idea. When he was finally ready 4 months later, he left on good terms. Those terms were put to the test, when in Salesforce’s early days, VCs were shy to put in their dollar on the cap table. But, his relationship he had built with Larry ended up giving him the runway he needed to build his team and product.
Something that’s, unfortunately, rarely talked about in Silicon Valley and the world of startups is patience. We’ve gotten used to hearing “move fast and break things”. Many founders are taught to give themselves a 10-20% margin of error. What started off as a valuable heuristic grew into an increase in quantity of experiments, but decrease in quality of experiments. Founders were throwing a barrage of punches, where many carried no weight behind them. No time spent contemplating why the punch didn’t hit its mark. And subsequently, founders building on the frontlines of revolution fight to be the first to market, but not first to product-market fit. Founders fight hell or high water to launch their MVP, but not an MLP, as Jiaona Zhang of WeWork puts it.
In the words of the one who pioneered the idea of platform-as-a-service,
The more transformative your idea is, the more patience you’ll need to make it happen.”
– Marc Benioff
As one who sits on the other side of the table, our job is to help founders ask more precise questions – and often, the tough questions. We act more as godmothers and godfathers of you and your babies, but we can’t do the job for you.
The “Tough” Questions
To early founders, aspiring founders, and my friends at the crossroads, here is my playbook:
What partnerships can/will make it easier for you to go-to-market? To product-market fit? To scalability?
What questions can you ask to better test product feasibility?
How can you partner with people to ask (and test) better questions?
What is your calculus that’ll help you systematically test your assumptions?
Do you have enough cash flow to sustain you (and your dependents) for the next 2 years to test these assumptions?
Simultaneously, it’s also to important to consider the flip side:
What partnerships (or lack thereof) make your bets more risky?
How can you limit them? Eliminate them?
And in sum, these questions will help you map out:
At this point in your career, does part-time or full-time help you better optimize yourself for reaching my next milestone?
I was recently inspired by a fascinating conversation between Mike Maples Jr., co-founder and partner at Floodgate, and Andy Rachleff, co-founder of Benchmark Capital and Wealthfront, but more interestingly, the founder of the term, product-market fit, or PMF – a term that signifies when a product is recognized by a strong demand in the market. Over the years, there have been various ways entrepreneurs, go-to-market strategists, and investors have defined when an idea reaches product-market fit. But before I dive into the PMF, let’s take a look at market definitions first, which admittedly is a step off the beaten path.
The Markets
How I Like to Think about Market Sizes. *Not drawn to scale
Traditionally, the total addressable market (TAM), serviceable addressable market (SAM), and the serviceable obtainable market (SOM) are defined according to the geographic location of your market. It makes sense – your market is as big as where you can offer the service. But now, in an increasingly connected world, technologies are less and less inhibited by the geographical boundaries that plagued the decades before. That said, there are still cultural, social and economic differences when accessing new demographics, which is why I like to characterize the TAM, SAM, and SOM by psychological resistances to new ideas. The TAM is still defined by the total upside potential of a product, where it still excludes laggards, or folks who would most likely never (seek to) use your product. The SAM is construed of people who would use the product after three to five friends in their network recommend and are using the product themselves. And finally, the SOM consists of customers who are desperate, as Andy Rachleff called it, for your product. They have spent sweat, blood, and tears finding or building their own solution. They have already traversed the idea maze themselves and put the dollar (or the euro, peso, krone, pound, yen, RMB, BTC, ETH… you get my point) here their mouth is at. And here, in the SOM, is where you find your product-market fit.
Product-Market Fit
PMF is most noticeable on the hockey stick curve. Before PMF, traction is slow and looks very much like the blade of a hockey stick. And after PMF, traction skyrockets and exemplifies exponential growth.
The Hockey Stick Curve
While there are many heuristics to assess PMF across different verticals, I’m the most fluent in consumer tech where I’ve spent most of my time in. And in consumer tech, I’d like to underscore the notion of ‘exponential organic growth’, and subsequently, a short analysis on each word of that phrase.
Exponential is probably the most straight-forward, where at the early stages of a business, we’re looking for rapidly compounding growth.
Organic growth, as opposed to paid growth, is a measurement for word-of-mouth. Investors tend to measure the effectiveness of a product by its virality from its initial customers to its nth customer – growth that is achieved without directly spending (ad) dollars on acquiring the new customers.
Growth is something I break down into – retention and adoption. Increasing adoption is great as measured by the growth of total users on consumer platform or for a consumer product, but focusing only on adoption leads to a leaky funnel, or in my case, trying to hold too many groceries in my hand without a shopping cart. Every time I grab another item on the shopping list, I drop some other item I was already trying to balance and hold. Of course, focusing only on retention means there’s no growth, which for keeping your best friend circle is fine (unless you want a thousand BFFs), but not for growing a startup.
Below are some growth signs to pay attention to signify that your product is near/at PMF:
Retention
Adoption
> 25% DAU/MAU
100s of organic signups/day
40% are active day after signup
> 30% MoM growth
Usage 3 days out of every week
“Idea-Market Fit”
As a founder with an ambitious idea, reaching product-market fit is a great goal to have, but the truth is PMF is a mystical beast – a chimera – in and of itself. Market demands change; what satisfied the definition of PMF a decade ago may not satisfy it now and will most likely not satisfy it ten years from now. Many studies have shown that most startups don’t fail from technological risk, but rather the inability to reach PMF, which ends up leading to lack of investor interest, demotivation, and the founding team falling apart. And quite obviously, before you reach PMF, the hardest part about starting a business is reaching PMF, or what Peter Thiel and many call the Zero to One. I’ll dive into the lessons I learned about the journey to “1” in future posts, but for the purpose of this post, I’m going to focus on the “0” – or what I like to call, “idea-market fit“, or IMF.
What differentiates a good idea from a great money-making idea? I’m going to borrow Andy’s thought calculus exercise. In a 2×2 matrix with right/wrong on one axis and consensus and non-consensus on the other, “you want to be right on the non-consensus.”
Andy Rachleff’s 2×2 Startup Idea Matrix
Why? Discounting the situations where you’re wrong (because you don’t make much, if any money), if you’re right on consensus, it means the market’s already mature, and perfect competition in a capitalistic market squeezes you out of your profit margins. If you do pursue this option as a founder, you’re more or less tackling an execution risk. On the other hand, if you’re right on the non-consensus, the market is still nascent, and you have the potential for monopolistic control of the market. In other words, you’re taking a market risk.
It definitely isn’t intuitive. At the very least, it wasn’t to me when I was on the operating side of the table. I wanted validation. When I was at Localwise helping build a community of local talent, I wanted people to say “I totally agree” or “You’re onto something.” But often times, I just received friction and resistance, with the toughest to receive from some of my friends.
“No one would ever buy that.”
“You’re wasting your time.”
“When are you going to get a real job?”
And at some points in time, I did think, “Maybe they’re right.” Until I started meeting a few people who thought a hiring destination for local mom-and-pop shops wasn’t a bad idea, and especially when small business owners started opening up about their frustrations. Hiring platforms, at that time, focused on the sexier brands and companies to get more demand side traction – the Googles, the Big Four’s, or the Bains, but had seemingly completely underrepresented the population of local businesses. Even if these SMBs were on these other platforms, they were overshadowed by the presence of bigger brands.
When validating startup ideas, you don’t want consensus. If your idea is truly revolutionary, people have yet to be conditioned to accept the idea. Take Uber or Airbnb, for example. If you asked the average person if they would use such a product, most would have thought that you’d be crazy to have a stranger sharing a car ride or home with them. These days, take e-sports or streaming. If someone told me in my pre-teen days that I could make a living off of playing video games, I’d most likely think I was dreaming. After all, I grew up playing Snake on my dad’s Motorola Razr, which admittedly seems to have made a return to the markets.
IMF is about challenging convention and the status quo. That’s what makes an idea revolutionary, or as people in Silicon Valley like to call it, disruptive. A crazy good idea challenges the explicit and implicit biases we have about society and ourselves. In other words, we have to detect the deception we bestow onto ourselves to find the gems in the rough, which Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital explains in his 2019 Lux Annual Dinner Talk – one of the best VC thesis-driven thought pieces I’ve ever seen.
In closing
As a geeky quote collector, I’d like to close this piece not in my own words, but in the words of three brilliant investors who have a few more patches of scar tissue on their back than I do now.
“Most of the big breakthrough technologies/companies seem crazy at first: PCs, the internet, Bitcoin, Airbnb, Uber, 140 characters…you are investing in things that look like they are just nuts… it has to be something where, when people look at it, at first they say, ‘I don’t get it, I don’t understand it. I think it’s too weird, I think it’s too unusual. “
“Breakthrough ideas have the traditionally been difficult to manage for two reasons: 1) innovative ideas fail far more than they succeed, and 2) innovative ideas are always controversial before they succeed. If everyone could instantly understand them, they wouldn’t be innovative.”
