

This Tech Founder’s Blind Spot: Building Over-Generalised Products - iancackett
http://iancackett.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/tech-founders-blind-spot-over-generalised-products/

======
nate
> People don’t want a general-purpose framework for logging and visualising
> their progress towards personal goals. They want an app that tells them not
> to eat the donut, that they lost 2lbs this week, or that they just achieved
> their personal best running time.

Actually, they don't want an app at all. They want to just be skinnier so that
they look more attractive to their significant other or potential mate.

> Likewise, they don’t want an app for general-purpose list-based
> collaboration. They want an app for smoothly collaborating in precisely the
> ways that collaboration works best in their organisation, whether that is
> list-based, project-based, chat-like discussions, whatever.

They don't want that either. They just want their boss to stop bugging them so
they can feel autonomous at work and have their work mean something. And they
want their work to go as fast as possible so they can go home to their kids
and be good parents.

\------

The biggest lesson that I've learned building products is that people don't
want these products at all. But sometimes they find a product that they hope
will help them become better at the things they actually do want.

People don't want to buy a camera. They want to be better photographers. So
help them become better at what they actually want to do, and you'll find
yourself selling more cameras.

That's something I try my hardest to stick to with Draft
([http://draftin.com](http://draftin.com)) and it's been working really well.
I realize my users don't want yet more writing and collaboration software. But
they do want to be better writers. They want more people reading their blog,
or they finally want to tell their friends they finally published a book. So I
constantly try to find ways for the app to help them get better. And not just
the app, but I'll even have webinars, blog, teach my methods at writing,
storytelling, getting more readers, etc. and now I have people paying
attention to the things I make and sell.

\---------

For these apps of yours, they look like really great places to start from. I
think you could do a lot on their homepages and on your blog helping people
get better at what they actually want to do with these things, and you'll
probably find they are paying more attention.

I'm happy to help brainstorm some more on this if it would help. Hit me up on
Twitter (@natekontny) or email (nate.kontny gmail).

~~~
bfell
This is a great point which I just boiled down in my head to: people don't
want a product, they want to solve a problem.

I think entrepreneurial developers lose sight of that a lot of times even
though it is common sense.

~~~
nate
Absolutely. But I think there might even be a little more nuance to this. The
classic quote is "people don't want drills, they want holes" that's why they
buy drills.

But I think you could get a lot more out of asking why they want the hole to
begin with. Are they trying to build a house to help raise their family
better, or to become a better investor. Or are they trying to become better at
being a contractor, which is the business they run? When you ask Why a few
more times about the problem they think they have, you come up with all sorts
of useful things you can help them with.

~~~
AznHisoka
If you boil down everything the answer will be 1 of 2, or 3 things: \- Get
laid more, or experience better/more orgasms. \- Get richer \- Leave a legacy.

------
boothead
Perhaps we should be shooting for generality in the implementation - i.e. a
well factored, flexible code base that models the domain well and supports a
high level of reuse (and is written in Haskell :-D). Coupled with specificity
in the solution - i.e. solves the problem perfectly for a narrow niche of
people/organizations.

If you want to support many, or wider niches you re-use parts of your well
factored code and produce separate solutions for each smaller sub-niche.

~~~
iancackett
I think you hit the nail on the head.

------
jjguy
People spend money to solve problems. If the problem you solve is not clearly
defined, you cannot define your customers and cannot target your marketing.

The validation you need might be "that's cool!" The validation your company
needs is "that solves my problem."

~~~
iancackett
Very true, and you're right that these are totally different forms of
validation. It's a steep learning curve (for me), but I figured this
particular blind spot may be encountered by some (definitely not all) other
tech folks on this path.

~~~
smokeyj
I reached out to my ideal customer and told them I have an idea to solve a
problem of theirs. They said they would love to use something like that, and
they're helping me build my MVP.

Without reaching out to my customer first, my MVP wouldn't have solved their
needs as effectively -- and there would have been too many holes in critical
use cases.

After watching all the Steve Blank videos on Youtube, I'm a believer in "get
out of the building and talk to customers".

~~~
iancackett
I began like this, with some market research amongst potential users that I
know directly. Worked closely with a few. But my problem was that I let myself
lose track of this and, when I came back to them with my MVP, it had deviated
(by virtue of me generalising it too much) from what they actually wanted to
use. So you're spot-on, and sticking with a few customers whilst building the
MVP is probably a hugely important step.

------
mbesto
I call this the "Men's Soap Principle". Men's soap is no different than
regular soap, but the fact that brands call it Men's, make's it applicable -
and therefore men buy it.

~~~
iancackett
That's fantastic! Never thought of that, and yet this very week, I was
laughing at my purchase of "Men's" shower gel. Great example.

------
geoffw8
Interesting article. I'm sort of here now with something I'm working on, its
incredibly general, and thats how I want it.

What I'm going to do however is pitch to the specific groups, the specific
uses. I'm going to get out and talk the moms and pops crowd, the artsy crowd,
the cyclist crowd and show them how/why they should be using it.

Maybe I've read it wrong, but it doesn't seem like a product/market fit
problem to me, it seems like a "I haven't showed these people sufficiently
how/why to use it for what matters to them" problem.

Edit: Rereading what I've wrote back I feel even more certain of something:
perhaps the problem with creating a product that is too generic is that the
gap has to be filled with education, if it isn't obvious on how to use it -
like the case might be with a product that is very specific - then you have to
fill that with a non-codey layer over the top.

Double edit: I think its funny how I see people write about "coder mindset" as
a reason that they've hit a snag but yet still manage to stick to a coder-
solution mindset. Maybe try a new layer of packaging, some education.
Literally detach from being a programmer. Source: Programmer, marketeer,
photoshopper background

~~~
teleclimber
That's what I was thinking. The ubiquilist product looks really neat, but
there isn't a single use case on the site.

I wouldn't change the product (yet), I would find great use cases and present
those in detail and with flair on the site, and then I would find ways to put
that use case in front of more people who are like the ones in the use cases.

Possible use cases: show how a family with a dog that needs treatment gets
organized to take care of their pet thanks to your product. How a mom & pop
shop get their orders right by using the estimate feature as they work on
them. And on and on...

Again, for my 2c, this is a marketing problem plain and simple. Close the IDE.

~~~
iancackett
lol - Thanks absolutely, spot-on! I'm not ditching UbiquiList, but I plan to
expose those few simple use cases more elegantly. I believe I can track back
from this general solution, with marketing / education, and encourage folks to
come on in.

------
iancackett
To clarify, I modified the title of the post slightly. Now "This Tech
Founder's Blind Spot", as I'm writing primarily about MY blind spot,
theorising other tech founders might have (or have had) the same. I definitely
know some who never struggled with this, and I quite expect to learn and
progress beyond this. Great comments, folks and good to hear everyone's
experiences, both similar and conflicting.

------
chrisdew
You can also get too specific -
[http://www.virtsync.com](http://www.virtsync.com) \- I've only made $1000,
but it was only a few day's work.

~~~
ma2rten
I don't think that problem is that your product is too specific. But it's
targeted at a market that is used to getting things for free. I guess the
market for $49 linux commandline tools is very small in general.

------
vikp
I think this is right on.

I'd like to add a bit of a corollary -- people tend to like products that fit
immediate and specific needs because they reduce the effort, mental or
otherwise, associated with coming to grips with the product (you may have been
going here anyways with your comment about friction).

We use things for a lot of different reasons, ranging from "my boss told me
to" to "I saw it on TV" to "it can help me track my running better." All of
these reasons get someone over their initial reluctance and get them to try
something. Having a specific product (I can track my running) offers a quicker
path to get over this reluctance than a more generic pitch (we have a system
that tracks anything! If you spend some effort on it, it can even track your
running).

~~~
iancackett
Totally agree - It's definitely a question of overcoming reluctance.
Sometimes, people can describe why they like a product but they just don't
translate that into actual use. They probably aren't aware of their own
reluctance, so we perhaps have to help them through it with those specifics,
and then reveal the general use beyond.

------
jcklnruns
Great post Ian! I can certainly relate on the lack of marketing experience
but, I can't say that I agree 100% with your verdict that the success of a
product rests solely on how specific a problem it solves. Depending on your
product's niche, you might find yourself struggling with marketing a product
because your potential paying customers are used to general purpose apps that
solve most of their pain points, even if not all. Just because those general
purpose apps, as you've put it, create such little friction.

For example, I'm working on a startup that caters specifically to runners.
That's it. We analyze run data and create nifty little visualizations. The
upsell is even cooler forms of analysis that someone like a track coach,
amateur, or competitive athlete might use. It solves a very specific problem:
"how can I tell that I'm improving as a runner?" and it has very specific
answers like "you shaved 25 minutes off your 5K time based on your best runs
over the last 90 days" or "in the last 30 days, you've spent 65% of your
training at a pace faster than 7:30min/mi (your tempo pace) - you're in danger
of overtraining or, worse, getting injured!" Although, I can't even begin to
tell you how many people have told us to generalize our app. Include cycling,
swimming, hiking. Maybe somehow tie it to nutrition or weight loss. Maybe also
vie for the role of becoming the Facebook of fitness. And, of course, the
number of times that we chose to turn down the temptation to diversify... I'm
all for staying focused. Running is the first and last thing I think of each
day, but I think it's also safe to say that being specific can sometimes
equate to being esoteric and, that, can sometimes be a long and difficult road
to follow. I'm not saying it's not worth it. I'm pretty happy. Although, it
doesn't grease the wheels for success indefinitely.

~~~
iancackett
Thanks, that's useful to hear! Agreed, I'm highlighting one potential
"problem", but it's probably more complex and multidimensional than that: my
aspirations for a general product, marketing experience, educating users about
specific use cases. Great to hear that you're gaining traction with runners
and that you're resisting generalising your app. It must be tough, once you
gain users, to decide on a roadmap.

------
mathattack
Geoffrey Moore covers this in Crossing the Chasm [1]. He basically suggests
that you have to specialize in an industry vertical to get beyond the early
adopters and into the masses. Once you cross enough verticals, then you can
come back and be a more general product.

I've also heard YAGNI [2] shouted at generalizations. People can spend too
much time generalizing problems for broader application that never comes. I
don't know the right answer here, as it seems hard to measure how likely it
will be that any generalization will be reused later. Perhaps it's ultimately
judgment.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm-Marketing-Disruptive-
Ma...](http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Chasm-Marketing-Disruptive-
Mainstream/dp/0060517123)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren't_gonna_need_it](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren't_gonna_need_it)

~~~
iancackett
"He basically suggests that you have to specialize in an industry vertical to
get beyond the early adopters and into the masses" I think that pretty-much
sums it up!

------
khalilravanna
You make a good point that I've seen echoed in different ways in different
books/articles/talks.

If I can chime in with my take, and I think you had something to this tune in
your post, it's important to not only be specific but to be opinionated. You
not only have a problem that you've targeted specifically, but you also have
the a specific solution.

It reminds me of when I had to write papers in college and the professor would
say "Don't just summarize the different sides of the argument, choose one and
argue it. I don't care if you're wrong just argue it." I think startups are
similar. You pick a side and you come up with a market strategy/argument for
it. If you fail, you pivot. But at each step of the way you should have an
opinion, an obvious solution that can be conveyed to the user (or investors).

~~~
iancackett
Absolutely, I think you have to be bullish with whatever solution you first
present to a potential market. That belief and (apparent) momentum are, in my
opinion, part of what leads people to look harder at your offering.

------
Alex_Jiang
Nice article, some ideas reminded me of a passage I read on Chris Dixon's blog
a while ago.

"The successful products took big meals and converted them to snacks. The
Internet likes snacks – simple, focused products that capture an atomic
behavior and become compounded only by linking in and out to other services.
This has become even more so with the shift to mobile."-

His entire post wasn't necessarily about 'specificity', but I really liked his
'snack' analogy. Looking at currently successful products, many are incredibly
focused and snack-like.

1\. A defined use-case (flavor) they users easily distinguish from other
products.

2\. Efficient interaction (consumption) that addresses the problem: quickly,
simply, and mobile(ly).

------
Codhisattva
Time to invoke Zawinski's Law:

“Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which
cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.”

(Of course the contemporary version would tweet.)

------
gary__
Interesting take that this is down to software developer sensibilities. My
initial thought was that it was due to shooting for as big a market as
possible in the hopes that it would increase chances of success and non tech
people would fall just as easily into the 'trap'.

~~~
jtheory
This crossed my mind as well -- you start with a specific problem to solve,
you dig into building a solution... and realize that whoa, with only a few
tweaks this could be useful for this _whole range_ of related problems...

But the compromises add up one after another, and by the time the general
solution is built (with an immense theoretical target market), it's lost its
heart. The people with the original problem won't be interested any more
(because it doesn't speak to them anymore).

It's related to the problem of implementing every feature and permutation that
users request ("no problem; we'll add an option for that in the settings!"),
until the elegant solution becomes an unusable monster.

It's hard to say "no" to an addition that clearly adds value, but if you're
aiming for a sharply-defined target, you've got 1 degree of "yes" and 364
degrees of "no".

