It seems like the default answer to every question is "build a good product." I hate that answer. It feels lazy to me and doesn't help teams decide what to do or change.
What "good" is in one situation isn't "good" in another. "Good" is different based on customer, market, value props, and overall strategy.
Let's think about the definition of "good" from the customer perspective. When they say "I use X product because it is better than Y", what are they really saying? My opinion is that they are expressing differentiation. The product is better on some value prop that is important to them vs others in the market.
The best product teams are able to narrow in on what the most important thing is for their customers and growth loops and over invest in that thing compared to all others in the space.
An Example From Zoom
I think a good example of this is Zoom. Zoom launched, competed and won a market where there were tons of both well embedded competitors as well as attempts at competition (even pre-covid).
If you pulled a Product Manager or Product Designer off the street, fired up the Zoom product and dashboard, and asked them to rate how good the product is, I imagine most would give a medium to low rating.
The design and usability of certain pieces are miserable. Want to add a user to your paid account? Here are the steps:
You have to find the users admin..
add the user
get a message that you don't have enough Licenses
then go find the billing part of the admin
know to click edit your plan
add licenses to your account
go back to the user admin and add them.
🤯 Painful to say the least. Alternatives to zoom have better UI, polling features, and a whole lot more.But here is the thing. It doesn't matter.
If you asked core customers of Zoom why they use Zoom over others, they will say something to the effect of "It just works" or the "Video/audio quality is better." That is because that's their differentiator and they've over invested in it compared to competitor's and alternatives. They've built infrastructure, desktop clients, and other product work that other's haven't specifically to improve the quality. In addition, in the Zoom Case in Reforge's Growth Series we talk about how not only the most important value prop to their customers, but it is also the thing that drives the most influential pieces of their growth model.
Why Differentiation Is So Difficult
So why is investing in differentiation so difficult?
Customer Feedback - Customers can't communicate how to invest in differentiation. Advances in differentiators aren't obvious. Customers in feedback will reach for the quickest solution they can think of in their mind which is typically something they've seen in a competitive product or alternative (which is literally the opposite of differentiation).
"The Unforseen" - The same thing exists with internal teams. As humans we tend to gravitate to things we can visualize more clearly. Investing in differentiation often involves leaning into something where there isn't as clear of a path and we have to trust that we can create it.
Trying To Repeat Past Successes - Along the same lines of doing what we know and can see is that product teams try to repeat what was successful in their past companies. But once again, differentiation and what a "good" product is changes with every situation.
The Gravity of Competitors - Be careful who you name as competitors internally. Teams will tend to pay attention to them and we tend to gravitate towards the things we pay attention to. One of the hardest product strategy questions to decipher is when to copy and when to ignore.
Depth Is Hard - Investing in differentiators requires you to go deeper on some vector than anyone else. Depth is just plain hard. Requires commitment, focus, solving problems others haven't, and so much more.
Related Posts: Alternatives, Not Competitors, Doing The Opposite
Comments