I did something I'm not proud of.
Subscribe to read the story that I'm not publishing on LinkedIn ;-)
(4 min read)
I did something I'm not proud of.
I built an underwhelming excuse for a product, bought a domain name for it, deployed it, and mentioned it a few times in social media.
It has only 1 feature, and it’s not even fast or elegant. (More details below.)
In other words, I lowered my standards.
I’m embarrassed by what I launched.
But let me explain why I’d deliberately release something second-rate.
I’ve been thinking a lot about micro vs macro.
Sometimes, a good plan at the macro level can look like a terrible idea at the micro level.
Example:
Recently I decided to mass unsubscribe from email newsletters I’ve been receiving.
Until then, my micro decisions had been “yes, I should stay subscribed to [some particular newsletter], because reading this issue was once again enjoyable”.
But in the macro, I realized that I’d create a much better lifestyle for myself by severely limiting others’ abilities to add to my to-do list.
And it was a good move.
My inbox feels much less of a burden.
Micro sacrifices have led to macro productivity and comfort.
Back to the launch—
Why would I produce something subpar and then associate my name with it?
(Is this a case where I’m making a micro decision that looks bad but in the macro is a good strategy?)
My hope is that by lowering my bar for distributing something I’ve created, I’m maximizing throughput.
I’m diversifying.
Which maximizes opportunities.
It’s the same concept I helped teach when working in the marketing department of the world’s #1 hedge fund.
Make an exceptionally large number of diversified small bets.
Investor legend Ray Dalio calls this principle “the holy grail”.
As a generalization, if I diversify by releasing 5 products out into the world at 20% quality instead of 1 solid product, I have ~5x the chance of hearing from others what resonates with them.
Knowing what resonates is exactly the early feedback I’m looking for.
Unlike in investing, I can then choose to triple-down on what works and abandon my efforts on the rest.
~
In business (as in much of life), feedback is critical.
Tight feedback loops allow massive momentum.
So how can we diversify AND invite a tight feedback loop?
Let’s consider the concept of the “minimum viable product”:
The drawing above conveys that an iterative approach lets you “ask for the sale” at many steps along the way.
If enough people say yes, you keep building to the next stage.
Now, imagine the drawing contains not just the “skateboard to car” row but also many other examples of iterative product development, starting with an easy MVP.
Building each of those quick minimum viable products = diversification.
You don’t know which one will gain momentum.
Maybe your skateboard will be popular, and you can triple down there, eventually building out a really impressive vehicle.
But maybe a different project of yours will be the one to perform best.
You let the market decide (ideally with their wallets).
~
To be fair, the opposite approach has many advantages, too.
Alex Hormozi, for example, recommends:
Create an excellent product, even if it takes years. An exceptional product is an asset that generates value (without marketing!) for the rest of your life.
Think about the most popular books in history. They continue to sell, just by word of mouth.
Be careful not to create products or services that require a lot of effort to promote, he says.
That makes sense to me, too.
If I can spend 100% of my time creating and 0% of my time marketing? 🎯😍
~
So, we have the “small bets” approach vs the “all in” approach.
There is so much contradicting advice in the world.
(I’ve even started collecting a list. I might turn that into something someday.)
My interpretation is that the “all in” approach is appropriate when:
You’re an expert in a particular sub-niche
You feel 100% confident that there is demand for what you’ll provide (based on prior feedback you’ve received)
You’re prepared for the long-term commitment
Most people are in more of a path-finding mode (myself included).
We feel more risk-averse.
We don't want to gamble substantial time building something nobody wants.
Too often we see people completely strike out.
Even massively funded companies do.
($1.75 billion Quibi comes to mind.)
We may be experts in various fields, but that doesn’t guarantee success.
Going “all in” on any one of them could still result in launching to crickets.
~
Is there a best of both worlds? A middle ground?
Can someone try to consistently get base hits while somehow also swinging for the fences?
Sort of.
I think the small bets approach is a solid strategy that should be my default.
But I don’t want to be oblivious to “all in” opportunities.
My plan will be to increase my speed of launching products (lower my standards so that I can get more projects out into the world sooner, looking for early feedback).
But also spend some percentage of my time researching markets, looking for an intersection of:
A problem people will definitely pay to solve, my commitment to working on it for years, and my expertise.
If the criteria above are satisfied, an “all in” bet looks compelling.
In other words, my strategy is all about opening doors and being perceptive about opportunities.
P.S. What I launched was https://smarthomelist.com, “Your Amazon Alexa lists. Here on the web.”