Thursday, October 24, 2013

Founder Frameworks: Bet on one Miracle (because you are not Elon Musk)

I have talked to a lot of founders about their businesses.  One common problem I see in the plans of many founders is that they need way too many things to "go their way" (or what I call a "miracle") for them to have the outcome they want.  

Here is an example.  I recently talked to a founder who recognized that the early market for his product was about 1,000 professional users.  He felt like the number of potential users in this market could grow by around 10x over the next 3 - 5 years.  His plan was to build a product for the market as it is today and sell it to them for about $1,000 per year.  He felt like he could get about 500 users within 18 months.  Then as the market was growing 10x, he could add things to the offering that would allow him to charge around $10,000 per year.  As the market tipped toward this new model he felt like it could grow again to about 60,000 total professionals.  

So I told him that I have a simple framework for thinking about these things:  founders should get a huge return for making ONE miracle happen.  In his case, his first miracle would be getting 50% of a market to pay him $1,000 per year.  Unfortunately in this case that isn't a huge businesses ($500k per year).  For his plan to have a venture sized business required the following miracles:
  • 50% market adoption at $1,000 / year price point
  • 10x market growth (with no clear sign that market is growing at this rate today)
  • Ability to increase pricing 10x to $10,000 per year
  • Another 6x increase in market size (this is predicated on a downstream effect of his product)
So we need 4 miracles to get to a venture scale outcome.  This is another reason why venture investors look at size of the market as critical.  If the market is inherently small, you are signing up for a 2 miracles to occur... (1) you can build a product that the market will adopt and (2) the market will grow.  
Unless your name is Elon Musk, you should only have to create "one miracle" to achieve success, or else the premise is just too risky.  

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Founder Frameworks: Product Priorities


One of the most important jobs of a founder is to build and iterate on the product until the company reaches product / market fit.  Despite this being critical to the company’s success, most founders have no idea of how to prioritize product investments.  This is often due to the fact that many founders were previously individual contributors rather than product owners and they have never had this scope of responsibilities before.  Should they ramp the user base or figure out the business model?  Should they focus on usage or should they invest in new customer acquisitions channels?  Should they build another feature or work on their infrastructure so they scale?  What founders need in this situation is a simple framework they can use to manage their product priorities.

A critical first step for any software company is building out the data capture & analysis systems that will help the founders measure the impact of their various investments (I will write a post on this at a later date).  The second step (which of course happens in parallel to the first step) is building out the minimum viable product (mvp).  With their MVP built and analytics system in place founders can apply my simple “Usage, Users, & Monetization” framework to iterate their way to product market fit.  Here is how it works.

Launch - It’s all about “Usage”
Upon launching your MVP you want to focus on acquiring customers at a rate that allows you to iterate and learn from users, but no faster.  There is no point in getting lots of customers when you first launch because your product probably sucks, and your job right now is to figure out why it sucks.  You should do this by measuring retention for each weekly cohort and by measuring usage of key features.  Get on the phone and talk to user to get qualitative feedback.  Send out net promoter score surveys to each cohort.  Simply put, obsess about delighting your customers and you are in this phase until you have proof that a meaningful portion have been delighted.  At a later date I am going to write an entire post on a framework to use to work through this phase, but for now let’s assume we have created something that customers love.

Scale - It’s all about “Users”
So you have built something that customers want and you know it because they engage with it and have strong retention numbers.  It is now time to figure out how to scale up the user base.  You need to search for scalable and renewable customer acquisition channels.  The key here is that you need these channels to scale and not be one time acquisition vehicles (e.g. - PR).  A good example of a scalable & renewable acquisition channel is search (hey, there is a reason Google is worth a couple hundred billion dollars!).  Search can be both free (SEO) and paid (SEM) and like all customer acquisition channels each requires specific tactics to be successful.  

Some companies need to start working on monetization in this phase.  How do you know if your company needs to focus on monetization here?  It is simple, run through the following thought exercise:  Is it simple to see how your company will make money at scale with meaningful engagement, then don’t focus on monetization until you get to massive scale with meaningful engagement.  If it isn’t obvious how you will make money at scale with engagement, then you should start monetization work during this phase as well.  

Product / Market Fit - It’s all about “Monetization”!
I like to define product / market fit as the point where your product is solving the problem(s) of customers (proven by usage or other appropriate metrics) and that you can acquire users at scale.  When you hit this point it is now time to explore how to monetize your user base.  A great recent example of this is how Twitter focused on getting to product / market fit first and later figured out their monetization model since it was pretty obvious that if they could get an engaged user base to scale there would be plenty of monetization opportunities.  Some companies might want to wait until meaningful scale (like twitter did) before pushing on the business model while others should start right after they find their dominant distribution channel.  

Summary:
One framework that founders can utilize for their product priorities is the “Usage, User, Monetization” framework.  Founders should first focus on driving usage of their offering, then driving user growth and then layering in monetization investments based on the scale / engagement thought exercise outlined above.  

Tuesday, May 07, 2013

The Need for Founder Frameworks


Real life problems are often complex.  For example, trying to figure out what house to buy or how to save for retirement are multivariable problems that average people struggle with.  When confronted with these types of problems people typically don’t bother to think too deeply about them and they either “go with their gut” (e.g. - this house feels right) or they outsource the problem (e.g. - ask their financial advisor to invest for them).  

Founders of technical companies are confronted by problems that are much more complicated in nature.  The reason is that the challenges faced by founders are not only more complex but are often interrelated.  For example, the issue of fundraising (how much $ to raise, who to raise from, when to start the process, etc.) is going to be tied to how your product is performing in the market, which in itself is tied to both your product development process as well as your staffing levels / process, which is tied to how much money you have already raised, etc.  Founders don’t face a set of challenges, they typically face a web of interrelated challenges, which can have a paralyzing effect on some.  Unfortunately, this results in many founders reverting back to what typical people do when faced with complex challenges... they either “go with their gut” or outsource the problem to their friends / advisors / board members where they look for the “answer”.

The mistake founders make is that they focus on searching for the “answer” rather than searching for frameworks that will empower them to deconstruct the web of challenges they face so they can better analyze the situation and then make the optimal decision going forward.  The power of frameworks also come from the fact that they are in and of themselves concepts that can be debated, shared, reused, and the best are broadly applicable.  Additionally you get to have these debates prior to actually implementing the approach that they prescribe.  

In the coming weeks I am going to write a series of posts on Founder Frameworks where I will outline a number of the frameworks I have used to help me in my entrepreneurial endeavors.  

  • Fund raising
  • Recruiting / Building Teams
  • Product priorities
  • User acquisition
  • User retention
  • Monetization
  • When to pivot
  • Employee retention
  • Marketing strategy (Press, GTM, etc.)
  • Competition
  • Outsourcing tasks
  • Managing work-life balance / stress
  • etc.

It is my hope that by sharing some of my frameworks that I can help other founders as they face similar challenges as well as start a dialog around alternative & additional frameworks that founders have found to be powerful.