Pretty much all winning software is B2C in the sense that individual human beings have to love using it and succeed.
The most user centric product will always win in the end. Even if the business model is ostensibly b2b.
The b2b software that goes beyond the business user and helps the end-user the most, will destroy (b2b2c).
And in the fullness of time, b2c software companies will disrupt many of the incumbents and their crappy b2b Software.
When it comes to building a successful consumer app, there are 3 pivotal things you have to get right.
- A new or novel behavior that makes users feel something or achieve something.
- An elevated design that makes the experience feel delightful.
- An unfair distribution advantage and growth engine with continuous monitoring and improvement.
This does not guarantee success, but it makes it much more likely.
Keep grinding until you figure out all three!
You don't need to work so hard to help your colleagues.
Often, when a colleague asks you to answer a question about your strategy, project, department, or other area of work, your first instinct can be to craft a bespoke answer to the question. This can often involve making a new document, diagram, or even a whole slide deck!
Stop.
You can avoid doing so much work.
Instead, consider how you might develop an evergreen canonical document, slide deck, or diagram that would answer the question (and probably many other questions) that you can use over and over each time someone asks the same or similar question.
The wonderful advantage of this approach is not just saving your time and effort. It also gives your colleagues who might keep circling around the same topics the confidence that there is one consistent plan that is always in effect and driving all decisions (and if there isn't - there SHOULD be).
By showing them the same diagram each time, their visual memory is triggered and they can think "Oh thaaaat's right - I've seen this before, and the answer is obvious and consistent each time I ask".
I always like to have these kinds of diagrams and documents laying around (to name just a few).
1 x product strategy deck (including principles, assumptions etc).
1 x product stack diagram
1 x roadmap
1 x problem/persona description/diagram
1 x org chart
And so on...
Stop doing so much work.
Stop making up your answers on the fly.
Stop re-formulating your information over and over.
Take advantage of reusable documents and your audience's visual memory to engender more confidence and deliver better, more consistent results.
You need something CRITICAL before you create your MVP.
MVP standards for Minimum Viable Product.
Most founders think that the FIRST thing they need to do is develop their MVP
This is WRONG.
What they ACTUALLY need FIRST is their Minimum Viable PROBLEM.
This is an embarrassingly narrow subset of the broader problem that you want to solve. A very specific persona, problem and use-case that is far, far more conservative and narrowly scoped than is typically suggested by your full vision.
Having a Minimum Viable PROBLEM allows you to build a TRULY Minimum (small) Viable (actually solves the problem) Product (Usable and delightful).
I am hereby coining the phase MVP(roblem).
Ship early and often.
Consumer app?
Try a waitlist. It can create scarcity, buzz and enthusiasm even while allowing you to throttle growth and measure app improvements by cohort.
There are a lot of good ways to make waitlists that really work for you.
Drop me a line if you're interested in learning more
Never underestimate the value of forcing people to document their thinking.
It uncovers subtle misalignment and confusion.
It also helps to force them to think about how they think, which tends to improve their thought process!
It's amazing when restructuring a scaleup for true scale and efficiency how many new fertile areas and insights emerge when you deconflate and decouple each aspect of the business and its processes.
It really helps you uncover and dig into important details for standardization and scale.
If you have no real product and you start pitching to customers, your "market validation" can often just be a mirage. This is because people often try to appear kind, helpful, or smart - so they just say hollow things like, "Oh, that sounds like a great idea!"
This kind of feedback does not prove they will actually use your product when you put a real thing in front of them.
Similarly, if you have no real traction and you start pitching VCs, then they will start firing brain farts at you, which can be really distracting. They will say stuff like "oh, this would be better if it was in this other vertical".
Focus on growth before pitching VCs. Particularly if you're a first-time founder and/or you're getting this kind of feedback/objection.
Growth transforms your hypothesis into fact. It will minimize or eliminate debate with well-meaning but misguided investors.
Everything else is academic.
Some cultures and companies can be afraid to be "nit-picky" with each other.
I have recently noticed this in a group of PMs reviewing a product iteration on staging. Much of the feedback was prefaced with "this is just nitpicky but..."
Don't be afraid to dig into pixel-level details.
As a leader, be intentional about building a culture where teammates don't feel a need to apologize for this kind of rigor.
The details are the difference between good and great.
A big watch-out for AI customer support chat bots:
Don't just deploy a chatbot. Build incredible documentation and a searchable knowledge base, then use THAT as the RAG for the bot.
You get to kill two birds with one stone + some people hate bots.
Chatbots are a layer of abstraction above knowledge bases and product info - not a replacement for them.
Startups and products are about solving real problems from first principles.
Sometimes, a fundamental change occurs in regulation, culture, macroeconomic conditions, and/or technology, allowing you to re-think the problem and solution space from new principles.
Generative AI is such a fundamental change.
But the original intention/goal/pattern doesn't change. Solving real problems.
Don’t do this.
Founder running a company with huge potential - but it’s going sideways. He reaches out asking for help getting to the next level and unlocking growth.
We engage.
We have 1 meeting.
He cancels.
Months later he reaches out to engage again.
I decide to give it another chance despite my reservations.
We have 1 meeting.
Then he emails saying he wants to switch to working via written questions.
I explain this is a bad idea but I’m open to trying it as an experiment.
His submits written questions that are about me, not his business.
I answer the questions I’m willing to answer.
He cancels.
🤔
I’ve worked with only a few people who I would consider completely incompetent.
Very few people act like this.
But this is an (very) extreme version of a common trait amongst inexperienced operators: a lack of consistent execution and follow through .
NOTHING will work if you don’t do it consistently over time.
Making fast, thrashy decisions can feel decisive, but it’s likely to be wasteful and blunt any momentum you might have otherwise experienced.
Effective leaders walk the line between acting consistently and concienciously over time, and being agile enough to appropriately adjust to changing conditions.
Ineffective leaders get this balance wrong. They just spin their wheels and drive everyone around them crazy.
I've had a number of people ask me recently how I find and select the companies I work with.
The answer is quite straightforward. But the last method might surprise you.
My primary sources of deal flow:
- Ambient reputation: People have heard of me (but they're not quite sure how) so they google for me and reach out from my site.
- Word of mouth: Founders I've worked with tell other founders to reach out to me.
- Social media: People stumble onto my social media posts, go down a rabbit hole, and then reach out because my world view and advice resonates with them.
- Newsletter: People have read a newsletter (sometimes because someone forwarded it to them) that alerts them to a problem or opportunity in their business. They then reach out from my site.
- Podcast: People are discovering and listening to my podcast regularly. It's growing fast (from algorithms or listener shoutouts). Some founders and operators like what they hear and reach out.
.
- VCs: Investors suggest founders contact me under 2 very different scenarios. a) They meet a lot of companies that are not yet ready for investment, so they send them to me to help them get ready, and b) They invest in companies and then learn about an opportunity or a weakness that I can help with - so they introduce me - this de-risks and maximizes their portfolio outcomes.
- Licence plate: You wouldn't believe the number of people who have stopped my wife, my dad, or me at the lights and asked about the plates on our cars (STRTUPS) - and then they want to connect.
My criteria for choosing to work with a company:
- 6+ months of operating capital.
- Potential to disrupt some fundamental aspect(s) of the world.
- A founder with ambitious goals.
- A coachable team, eager to evolve and improve quickly.
- A deep appreciation for opportunity cost and the value of moving fast.
- A “Chris-shaped hole” in the team where I can add a lot of value quickly.
In the old world, your direct reports worked for YOU.
In the new world, YOU work for your direct reports.
It's YOUR job to fix org problems such as a lack of resources, context, clarity, causes of inefficiency and thrash, etc.
Are you doing a bad job? Does your team need your help? They will escalate to you. You better do a good job when they do!
Learn more about this in our escalation episode of The Startup Podcast - link in the comments.
One of the biggest mistakes that product managers make is to believe that their job is to capture and translate requirements for and into engineering.
This is wrong.
The job of a competent product leader is to triangulate a product vision and roadmap and translate it into ALL business functions - engineering, sales, marketing, biz dev, corp dev, operations etc.
Pretty much any piece of software you're building needs some basic fundamental capabilities.
These include...
- Identity + Authentication + Permissions
- Data persistence + Change logs
- User Notifications (Notification tray, email, SMS, and more + end-user controls)
Can you help me think of more?
Never underestimate how attaching a clear name for a discrete product module/deliverable can motivate engineers to create beautifully encapsulated components that can be more effectively iterated and improved over time.
Typically, you want to hire for first principles thinking, horsepower, and talent.
Domain expertise is typically a low priority or even works against someone joining a disruptive tech company.
As a go-to-market team at a well-run growth company you also need…
1. 30 Day Active users
2. Average engagements per month per Active User (whatever engagement looks like for you)
For each, you want to see a line chart over 12 months or so.
You want to see each of these numbers going up and to the right each month.
For a complete picture of growth, you should also consider a funnel analysis for the New User journey.
Something like this...
Potential new user clicks and Ad -> Potential new user hits Signup Button -> Signups -> First key engagement -> First repeat engagement.
This will allow you to see where Users are getting stuck.
The product team should have a FAR more detailed version of this funnel analysis showing every single step of signup, first engagement, and retention to figure out how they might optimize the funnel.
Big strategy offsites with leadership teams are often used to develop big important strategies for companies.
This is typically a flawed approach.
These offsites often produce long laundry lists of items that everyone believes need to be addressed. The inevitable outcome is that someone organizes the chaos into categories and calls it a “strategy.”
Strategy is as much about what you won’t do as what you will do.
In my experience, big strategy offsites are useful for two distinct purposes (these should not be combined in the same offsite):
1. A leader can gather a wide range of raw ideas, which should undergo extensive consideration and pruning (separate from the offsite) before being formed into any kind of strategy.
2. A leader can socialize a roughly pre-defined strategy with their team for debate, final refinement, and buy-in. The intention is for the strategy to be operationalized immediately after the offsite.
In both cases, however, there is so much that can go wrong.
Here are a couple of tips to minimize bad outcomes:
1. Ensure there are one or two people with clear discipline, taste, judgment, and knowledge of modern comparables from successful companies. This can be the difference between a successful offsite and a giant talk fest.
2. Be cautious about piecing together ideas and insights from "comparable" companies. Often, a) the companies are not truly comparable, b) piecing together different strategies from different companies with very different strategies can result in a confused outcome for your company, and/or c) you can learn the wrong lessons from those companies. Any combination of these things can be disastrous.
You must be consistent across your strategy and reason from first principles.