Pricing strategy is a very interesting game of psychology, unit economics and gamification.
In two sided marketplaces it gets even more interesting. There are so many counter-intuitive ways to get creative to drive the kind of demand and supply side behavior you want.
It’s a cliché these days to say people are the most important part of any company. But it’s absolutely true.
Hiring strong people, particularly product managers, is a real art.
Prior to my experience at Uber, I considered myself pretty poor at interviewing and recruiting candidates.
However, seeing how Uber does it up close, and going through many, many, many interviews as part of the hypergrowth the company was experiencing, really gave me new insights into how to do it well.
One of my favorite compliments I received after leaving Uber was how effective a team builder I was.
Even though people can really make or break a company’s success, I find that most startups really don’t know how to recruit for key roles. So these days I’m increasingly helping the startups I work with think through how to describe their job requirements, find and reach out to candidates, and build interview loops that really test for a great fit with the company’s needs.
It’s so rewarding finding amazing people to supercharge the dreams of founders.
Startups are a sprint in the short term and a marathon in the long term. Very hard to balance.
Product is about nuance across multiple dimensions - context, intent, markets, personalities and more.
As someone who started out as an engineer, I’ve made the mistake of forgetting this over and over in my career.
As a (good) Engineer, you want to generalize things as much as possible. You want to look for common patterns and implement as few entities and workflows as possible.
An asset is an asset, right?
Wrong.
As a Product Manager you need to understand the difference between Persona A and B, Use Case A and B, Intent A and B etc. they can and should be very, very different.
Word choice, framing, UX metaphors etc should all radically change even while the underlying entities might remain the same.
The goal is not maximum system elegance/rationalization but, rather, maximum user understanding/alignment with their existing mental models and needs.
The worst sound you can hear from your team is silence.
As a product manager if you can avoid inventing something new to solve a problem, you've achieved something great.
Does it feel like you’re not shipping great features at a regular cadence? You likely have a product management problem.
In the early days of a b2c startup, doing bizdev activity for b2b2c distribution can feel so fun and gratifying.
It can feel like high-momentum, effective work that allows you to lock down glossy brands and partnerships who might get you big batches of users through the door. It also feels great to announce them to friends, family, media etc.
Often times, though, the reality is much, much different. Why? Because...
They often move very, very slowly.
They demand new features and behaviors that are tangential or orthogonal to your core product and business strategy.
They change their mind mid-stream
If you eventually get to ship the partnership/co-marketing program the results/conversion are often much, much smaller than you expect
If the results are marginal (which they almost always are at the beginning), your partner will often give up quickly and not put in the effort to optimise
For all these reasons, and many more, bizdev partnerships for a b2c app is really something to push off for later as a long-term bet and moat.
Instead, there's an axiom that says "Sell your own product'
Often times this feels like a harder, more data driven grind. However if you crack it (and you need to crack it!), it's high-scale, repeatable and has a huge, huge upside. It also forces you to really polish your product so that the user acquisition and retention really works.
You raise capital to trade money for speed & effective execution.
Executing a series of day-to-day tactical necessities without a strong product vision can only get you so far. At best it produces a confused and ineffective user experience. At worst it causes your team to spin their wheels, never quite shipping anything meaningful or polished.
So many startups need to stop inventing tech and instead start building product. Others need to stop building product and start selling product.
An interesting phenomena I’ve noticed when advising startups is the shallow understanding of what MVP means. Almost everybody uses the term now, but few understand how to successfully operationalize it.
It’s often difficult to determine exactly what the MVP is. It’s partly science and it’s partly art. The answer often requires a mix of experience and taste.
Often, after building the MVP, they continue to build more and more product without going deep on user acquisition and feedback.
Sometimes they build multiple MVPs of multiple major product areas leaving much of the product surface area in a largely broken state.
Remember, the purpose of an MVP is to get it into customer’s hands and learn and grow with your shared understanding. You need to continue to iterate and polish it until you can see your own face in the reflection.
Remember it’s “ship and iterate”, not “Build, build, build”. Shipping doesn’t mean just putting it on production. It also means putting it into customer’s hands at as much scale as possible.
Founders sometimes ask me if some piece of conventional wisdom they've heard or the advice that I'm giving is "necessary" or "mandatory".
I always try to explain that almost all of the tactics and advice I'm sharing can only increase the probabilities of success. It can't guarantee it. There's also always a chance you can succeed without following any given piece of "best practice" advice.
That being said, if you start bending or breaking too many of these guidelines you really start to diminish your chances of success.
Funny enough, many of the lessons I share day-to-day were not learned from a book or from someone else giving me the advice - I had to learn them the hard way by ignoring the advice in the first place (thinking I had a better way) and finding out I was wrong.
When dealing with conflicts or things that don’t go the way you wanted
Take maximum responsibility
Go out of your way to communicate as clearly as possible - your original intentions, current feelings and hopes for how to move forward
Think deeply about how you can mitigate the situation happening again
When needing to sell your company, there's a point when you need to let the posturing go and find a home for your investment of blood, sweat and tears
When considering build vs buy on M&A, never underestimate the value of a small team who’s already passionate and thought deeply about the problem.
Sometimes one of the hardest parts of Advisory is the way you initially “Land” in the team. Particularly if you’re coming in to assist with some friction or poor communication.
It’s essential that you introduce yourself well and position your participation as an opportunity rather than a corrective measure.
Sometimes the best advice is "stop doing that and move on"
One of the biggest challenges many young startups with global disruption ambitions face is an addiction to revenue.
In the early years, a startup’s job is to grow - fast - not to make revenue or profit.
This might sound counter-intuitive. So let me explain.
An undue focus on customer revenue forces you to pay too much attention to what your first paying customers ask you to do for them for fear of losing them (and your only source of cash). These are often feature requests that might be good for their business, but not necessarily good for yours.
Why? Because existing customers will typically ask for advanced features designed to solve more and more of their particular needs. These needs are often either very specific to the quirks of their operation or are very hard to polish and scale. Making things worse, the requests also tend to come thick-and-fast meaning that you end up developing a broad product surface area without taking the time to really polish everything that’s getting built.
Even with amazing product discipline (where you are translating each specific ask into carefully designed, future-proof and generic product capabilities), it’s very, very difficult to avoid falling into this trap when you are capital constrained and dependent on revenue. 9 times out of 10 it will ultimately be massively distracting, undermine your focus, create overstuffed products and stunt your business growth. It can, and often does, kill your company.
Instead, high-growth startups typically need to raise enough capital to invest in growth without being beholden to the needs of any particular customer or customer segment.
This typically means focusing on a number of key things. They include…
A focused product that initially does only 1 or 2 things really well
A clear marketing message delivered on a beautiful website
A polished self-serve onboarding funnel with standardized pricing
UI and UX that is simple and clear to understand for new users
Well oiled operations (sales, support, biz dev etc)
Referral and viral mechanics
With these features (and many others) you will hopefully be able to win and onboard many, many customers quickly.
Why is quantity better than quality? Because making software is relatively easy. The world is littered with small-scale software projects that were essentially custom-built for a few customers. That’s not building a high-growth startup. That’s building a small software business. The hardest thing in the world is getting broad (even monopolistic) adoption of a product by a whole category of users. It’s hard, therefore it’s valuable. Once you have that market position, you have a captive audience to which you can up-sell and cross-sell a range of new features (with attached fees & charges) over time.
Another important (and often overlooked) aspect of reducing your focus on revenue is that it allows you to consider disrupting rather than partnering with incumbents. It’s very easy to make the decision to run to big customers and partners to try to get big money and/or lots of distribution. However, oftentimes, a tech startup should be killing - not helping - some of the legacy players in an ecosystem. Or, at the very least, forcing them to play by new rules. This is the very definition of disruption.
To be even more concrete: Often times your first instinct will be to build some great b2b software for the existing players in a market where, perhaps, instead, you should be building a direct to consumer alternative to what’s gone before. A clear example of this is Uber. They didn’t build dispatch software for Taxi companies. They built a new kind of mobility business that dealt directly with riders and drivers - making Taxi companies obsolete. Had they tried the other thing, the story would have gone very, very differently.
One of my colleagues on ‘execution’:
“People always hear that execution is everything in startups.
The problem is that they think “execution” is all about more action. But that’s like an amateur running onto a pro basketball court and running around throwing the ball in the air.
Execution is about getting the ball in the hoop and all of the skill, experience and muscle memory it takes to make that happen”.