Do you have an in-between step when you go from planning to execution? Eg. have a PLAN.md file you then ask the execution model to implement.
310 karma · joined May 17, 2020
This is going to radicalize people (especially conspiracy theorists) who now think have actual, indisputable "proof" these companies are there to get them.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25529479
[2] https://www.firstpayingusers.com
[3] The only exception were e-commerce companies, they were much more likely to rely solely on FB vs. SaaS Companies
Later in the post:
> Had we had more funding, we would have taken the time to rewrite our app in $ELITELANG instead. Our startup could have been a unicorn.
Although this is satire, it's something a lot of funded startups do. They think they've solved user acquisition by getting investors money (hey, let's throw a couple thousands at Google/FB Ads, although there are 15+ viable acquisition channels we could try [1]), and spend time on building things in their own bubble.
Also, the launch mention is pretty accurate:
> We launched v2 of our product with a splash.
Wonder if many startups would have better results if flipped the switch and treated product creation as a "launch" (a bunch of big sprints with a deadline) and user acquisition as something they do steadily, over a period of time.
[1] https://zerotousers.substack.com/p/15-acquisition-channels-i...
I just went and opened 10 random Reddit threads on the front page to read the top comments, and found only 2 where this was true, and 8 where this was totally false, most notably [1].
The main reason for negative comments here on HN (IMO) is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People have learned that usually the #1 comment is a negative one, so you have a bunch of people "competing" to be #1 by trying to nitpick whatever is wrong with the original article (even if there is none) in hope to win the popularity contest.
This is why I've seen some friends recently leave HN (their exact words: "couldn't hand the toxicity"). I hope that you, as a Head of Growth, can actively work to break this cycle.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyChest/comments/jw8xbe/if_w...
"A Product Hunt launch can easily get you a spike in traffic, but afterwards I really don't know what I'm doing".
Here are some tips to help with this:
1) Explore more "steady" acquisition channels. Yes, PH/HN are "spike-y" channels and they're often not enough to have a business generating sustainable income. Read "Traction" by Gabriel Weinberg (I'm also doing some research on this topic [1]).
2) Maybe flip the script and do the opposite? Choose 1 or 2 promising projects, and do "six months of exploring user acquisition". Test SEO, FB/Google Ads, partnerships, affiliates, appstores and so on.
Good luck!
That's the whole point of micro-bets. You acknowledge the fact that a small % of them will generate any meaningful $, so you deliberately minimize your losses by making the bets small.
Take this from a guy who spent 2 years studying distribution channels [1]. There's nothing wrong about spending a week or two developing a MVP before focusing on distribution.
I think the key is to start with 1) The minimum thing you can do and call a 'product' 2) Try to promote/distribute it to see the response. So far you've done:
a) A web page explaining what your product is about
Some steps to (progressively) get to a "better" MVP may be:
b) Make a video showcasing your product (which can be a simple Figma design with static screens that show once you click on them)
c) Build a feature that's high on the ICE Scoring model [2], and distribute that
d) Build a meaningfully different feature than c) and promote it as a SEPARATE product. Let your features be like split tests you promote on the same/different distribution channels and see how they perform.
[1] https://firstpayingusers.com
[2] https://university.hygger.io/en/articles/2288376-ice-scoring
I wonder if the "law of shitty clickthroughts" [2] applies here as well. What if you have a huge # of founders reading the advice; acting on it and starting new businesses just because Paul Graham told them so? Then starting a startup in a bad economy would no longer be an advantage. Somewhere in May Gumroad founder tweeted that they have record numbers of people signing up, and that may be an early sign that thing sort of thing is already happening.
1) They define "growth" as a stage that goes AFTER raising money. As a founder, growth (planning, executing) should come before you ask for a single dollar (unless you're something like a hardware startup that needs bigger upfront investment). I write about this topic extensively [1] and one of the main differences I found between successful vs. failed founders is whether or not they found viable acquisition channels from the moment they started. Also, in many cases, raising money (too fast) was associated with a bigger chance of failure.
2) They associate a "startup" with getting financing rounds. 0 mentions for bootstrapped founders. Last time I checked [2], a startup is "a company or project undertaken by an entrepreneur to seek, develop, and validate a scalable economic model."
A better title for this article would be would be: "There are only 3 startup stages for funded startups requiring bigger upfront investment".
1. Credible ($2.5k/mo), a Shopify app to display recent sales:
"The other primary source of growth has been through Shopify itself. Shopify is amazing at promoting their apps. They take a 20% cut of your subscription fees, but it's well worth it in what they provide for you. When you first launch an app on the store, they feature it in the "New & Upcoming" section for store owners to get a first glimpse of your app. After you prove yourself with some solid growth and positive reviews, they will feature you in the main "Featured" section of the store. Both of these were huge for our growth. When Shopify put us on their main featured page, we netted about 180 new recurring customers." [2]
2. Shogun ($4.5k/mo), drag-and-drop page builder:
"When we launched on Shopify, sales began to trickle in and have been growing ever since. We've been attracting users in the Shopify app store from the beginning with very little marketing, and we got featured by Shopify fairly early on, which gave us a good boost. Now most of our new customers are through word of mouth or the Shopify app store." [3]
[1] https://firstpayingusers.com
[2] https://www.indiehackers.com/interview/how-i-grew-my-app-to-...
[3] https://www.indiehackers.com/interview/struggles-we-faced-bu...
1. SnapShooter ($1k+/mo), a tool to create daily backups of DigitalOcean droplets:
" I tried sponsoring blog articles with a little bit of success." [2]
2. BugFender ($35k/mo), a log storage service for app devs:
"Here's what didn't work: sponsoring developer newsletters and podcasts" [3]
The reason for this (IMO) is that most products that advertise themselves (especially on dev blogs) are not unique/compelling enough. Why should you buy a sponsored app logger when you know 10 other look-alikes with 5 other friends using them? The fact that these guys managed to invest $6k and get $200k in return from sponsoring a blog just shows how unique/compelling/valuable their value prop. is. Good luck!
[1] https://firstpayingusers.com
[2] https://www.indiehackers.com/interview/how-starting-small-he...
[3] https://www.indiehackers.com/interview/turning-an-internal-c...
I'm really glad there are sites like Failory [2] that talk about founder failures (I've seen them on HN front page several times). I'm also trying to do the same with my research project on acquisition channels [3]. I often found I can learn WAY more from people who failed at something and their advice on "things to be aware of" vs. people who succeeded. Many people who failed usually tried 10 different things and know the aspects of what worked/didn't vs. people who succeeded and tried 2-3 things and got lucky in 1.
It's also not bad IMO if you represent yourself as a direct PH competitor. I've done plenty of research on successful user acquisition channels [2] and seen a lot of look-alike companies and their only difference was they were successful at utilizing different acquisition channels. Maybe your main distinguishing point will be the acquisition channels you use, rather than your unique-value proposition.
At this point, I'm not entirely convinced your value prop. is compelling enough. Good luck with it, though!
For example, 36% of UK users may use an ad-blocker, and 90% of them may be a tech-oriented audience, which makes a different if your site is targeting moms.
I found the most valuable marketer's data to be qualitative data from people who've done something first-hand (I'm collecting such data on acquisition channels [1]). Qualitative data puts number-based-data in context and something you take take action on.
There's a current dispute between Bulgaria and (North) Macedonia. Basically, Bulgaria is not willing to recognize the Macedonian language, with their vice-prime-minister recently saying it's the "Esperanto language on the Balkans". They're also veto Macedonia's EU membership negotiations. It's an ongoing, heated discussion which has (unfortunately) caused hatred between the countries (North Macedonia and Bulgaria have been mostly friendly between each other in the past).
If you think about a) Your product b) Your market c) Your acquisition channels, the most flexible thing is a). You can shape your product in 100s of different ways. You can't, however, change how SEO works, or change the mindset of your market (there are hundreds of founders who tried to "educate" their market and failed, with rare exceptions).
This is why many people recommend to focus on your market and your acquisition channels FIRST, and then on your product. Because your product is the thing you can change/have the most influence on, and "shape" it depending on the factors you don't have much control over.
[1] https://brianbalfour.com/essays/product-channel-fit-for-grow...
Google Shopping is just 1 channel through which you could get customers. Since you're in Africa, my guess is that SEO is WAY easier than US/Canada, so that's a viable channel. Lack of ebay/amazons in Africa is an opportunity, because you don't have them dominating the top 10 SERPs. I could go on and on and on...
I liked the part where they also talk about "asymmetrical risk" and creating experiments where you may risk 10% of your capital, but if that thing works, it will double your business. I think this applies to all aspects of entrepreneurship, not just building the product. For example, I write about acquisition channels that consistently work for founders [1] and found the most successful ones place "small bets" that can potentially have "big results". Like mentioning their idea in a FB community where they could get 1000s of potentially interested people. Time invested: 10 minutes. Results: 1000+ potential users. Not bad.
Nassim Taleb also talks about this "asymmetrical risk" concept [2] and a lot of his "Antifragile" book was about it. I'm really curious who originally came with this concept (it seems to go by different names, the OP calls it "asymmetrical risk", Taleb calls it "convexity), and it seems the first person who came up with it was someone from the finance industry decades ago.
[1] https://firstpayingusers.com
[2] https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2013/07/16/nass...
Also, some categories are overlapping (AppSumo & Lifetime deals, for example, isn't AppSumo a lifetime deals website)?