Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

blog.nishantsoni.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#31

Post by wslh »

bko wrote: post #29

This article argues that PMF doesn't exist. Oh and if it does exist, it's not clear when it is achieved. And if you have it, you can lose it. Oh and even if you don't lose it, it doesn't guarantee success. Whenever I hear arguments for or against something structured like this, I'm immediately skeptical. You see this with people promoting vegan diets. It's better for the environment, and healthier, and meat is gross…

Agree but there are important points that the article doesn't address while trying to be very assertive, including:

- At the core of PMF is the idea that you are producing something novel in some business and/or technical aspect, NOT that your are selling a product or service that already exists and PMF is there. For example, if you want to compete with Salesforce you already know there is a PMF, it is a CRM! Your startup will have issues with GTM because PMF is already there.

- PMF is always risky. Not only for startups but also for corporations. GSE is the top search engine and one day OpenAI eats part of their cake. This is the innovation dilemma at play all the time. It is obvious that a startup will have a different financial impact from a moving PMF.

Finally, these discussions are fruitful when you start with more formal definitions [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product-market_fit

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#32

Post by m0llusk »

This is misunderstanding basic elements of marketing. Early microwaves were a failure because they were huge and expensive machines promoted for institutional use. It was only after much study that smaller, cheaper, and easier to use models were offered which resulted in an explosion of demand. Marketing is what enables understanding not only of customer needs, but also their desires and the language they use and so on.

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#33

Post by s1mon »

nine_k wrote: post #3
4pkjai wrote: post #2

Another PMF-inspired practice in vogue is using Google Adwords to channel keyword searches to a dummy product site listing various features. The idea is to establish PMF before even beginning work on the product. A certain click-through rate establishes a clear need and a ready market to consume the product. I've always disliked this strategy. It doesn't feel good to start off your relationship with a customer with d…

It should not be deception. The landing page should say: "We are building this product, but it's in the early stages. Leave us your email if you're interested to learn about its progress and availability before your competitors do. Early adopters will get discounts / free plans." If this page gains any traction, subscriptions, interest expressed via the "Contact us" page, then the product is likely worth building pas…

Email signups can be meaningful if the product doesn't cost the user much (e.g. ad-supported web or app), but for paid products, getting a commitment to buy something is more real. Even then, something can have a very successful Kickstarter (for example), but then the product itself is disappointing or fails in some way when it actually ships to the customers, and it never sells more than the initial batch.

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#34

Post by ricokatayama »

The author apparently does not fully understand the concept of PMF. I mean, I understand that we don’t necessarily have discrete events, but the pursuit is very clear. The article starts off wrong when it says that Marc created the concept. Steve Blank talked about PMF a bit earlier in The Four Steps to the Epiphany.

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#35

Post by ricokatayama »

ricokatayama wrote: post #34

The author apparently does not fully understand the concept of PMF. I mean, I understand that we don’t necessarily have discrete events, but the pursuit is very clear. The article starts off wrong when it says that Marc created the concept. Steve Blank talked about PMF a bit earlier in The Four Steps to the Epiphany.

https://review.firstround.com/how-superhuman-built-an-engine...

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#36

Post by lowkey »

I tend to agree with the autho’s point of view. PMF should be viewed as a point on a spectrum, not a binary state. You don’t achieve PMF so much as you progress from no PMF to extreme PMF with respect to progressively larger and larger target market segments.

Many pundits claim of PMF that you’ll know it when you see it because the market will suddenly be clamoring for your product faster than you can make it. This is categorically wrong to the point of being harmful advice.

You need a leading indicator of PMF so that you don’t delude yourself into believing you have achieved PMF prematurely, only to scale and find yourself in the valley of despair where customer response to your value proposition is mediocre or churn is high.

Clues you have product-market fit with a specific customer include:

1/ the prospect has the problem you think they have

2/ the problem is of critical importance for the prospect

3/ they know they have THAT problem, and not some adjacent problem or symptom

4/ they articulate the problem using the same language you use to describe it

5/ they have tried to solve the problem themselves and have allocated budget and time to solving it, but failed

Too many entrepreneurs and product managers trick themselves into believing they have PMF when they do not - because they fall in love with their particular solution and try to sell prospects on their idea instead of actually doing customer discovery interviews - unbiased interviews where the prospect tells you about their experiences in the problem space without you ever mentioning your idea.

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#37

Post by lowkey »

bko wrote: post #29

This article argues that PMF doesn't exist. Oh and if it does exist, it's not clear when it is achieved. And if you have it, you can lose it. Oh and even if you don't lose it, it doesn't guarantee success. Whenever I hear arguments for or against something structured like this, I'm immediately skeptical. You see this with people promoting vegan diets. It's better for the environment, and healthier, and meat is gross…

“This article argues that PMF doesn't exist. Oh and if it does exist, it's not clear when it is achieved. And if you have it, you can lose it. Oh and even if you don't lose it, it doesn't guarantee success.”

I would argue that these claims are all accurate, but with the clarification that PMF does exist, but on a spectrum, not as a binary state”

See my comment further downthread where I lay out a framework for determining your degree of PMF ideally BEFORE building anything, so you don’t waste time/money/effort on building the wrong thing because you think you ‘know what the market needs.’

If the only way you can validate PMF is by building something and then realizing no one is using it, you have wasted time and effort that would have been better spent validating PMF before building.

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#38

Post by lowkey »

wslh wrote: post #31
bko wrote: post #29

This article argues that PMF doesn't exist. Oh and if it does exist, it's not clear when it is achieved. And if you have it, you can lose it. Oh and even if you don't lose it, it doesn't guarantee success. Whenever I hear arguments for or against something structured like this, I'm immediately skeptical. You see this with people promoting vegan diets. It's better for the environment, and healthier, and meat is gross…

Agree but there are important points that the article doesn't address while trying to be very assertive, including: - At the core of PMF is the idea that you are producing something novel in some business and/or technical aspect, NOT that your are selling a product or service that already exists and PMF is there. For example, if you want to compete with Salesforce you already know there is a PMF, it is a CRM! Your st…

Respectfully disagree with this comment

“At the core of PMF is the idea that you are producing something novel in some business and/or technical aspect, NOT that your are selling a product or service that already exists and PMF is there. For example, if you want to compete with Salesforce you already know there is a PMF, it is a CRM!”

PMF is not about building something novel. It is about ensuring your product solves a real and critical problem for your target segment. Only customers are the experts on their problems and priorities. Entrepreneurs are experts on solving problems but we too often solve the wrong problems in elaborate ways.

Salespeople buy Salesforce today because everyone else buys Salesforce. CRMs come in all shapes and sizes. To find PMF for your CRM you need to niche down to find a segment that is underserved by Salesforce.

You can only do this by doing actual discovery interviews with prospects in an unbiased way where you explore their experience around specific problem areas without ever mentioning your brilliant solution - as proposing a specific solution is likely to bias your subject. This is hard for founders as we tend to fall in love with our ideas and often slip into pitch mode mid-interview. This is a fundamental mistake.

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#39

Post by wslh »

lowkey wrote: post #38
wslh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree but there are important points that the article doesn't address while trying to be very assertive, including: - At the core of PMF is the idea that you are producing something novel in some business and/or technical aspect, NOT that your are selling a product or service that already exists and PMF is there. For example, if you want to compete with Salesforce you already know there is a PMF, it is a CRM! Your st…

Respectfully disagree with this comment “At the core of PMF is the idea that you are producing something novel in some business and/or technical aspect, NOT that your are selling a product or service that already exists and PMF is there. For example, if you want to compete with Salesforce you already know there is a PMF, it is a CRM!” PMF is not about building something novel. It is about ensuring your product solves…

I am glad to continue the discussion and narrow it as much as possible:

Please forget the "novel" meaning for a while, and let's continue with the CRM example. I am a Hubspot customer now. As most companies we have used spreadsheets, vTiger [1], SugarCRM [2], among other apps. My main point was that if they are not/were succesful by the HN startup definition is because they had issues in the GTM not in PMF and this is a common confusion. There was always PMF for CRMs the problem is marketing/selling them. That market is so huge and known that thinking in PMF is deviating the attention from just selling! That is what my "middle east business side" says.

[1] https://www.vtiger.com/

[2] https://www.sugarcrm.com/

Re: The Myth of the Product-Market Fit (2013)

#40

Post by carbine »

lowkey wrote: post #37
bko wrote: post #29

This article argues that PMF doesn't exist. Oh and if it does exist, it's not clear when it is achieved. And if you have it, you can lose it. Oh and even if you don't lose it, it doesn't guarantee success. Whenever I hear arguments for or against something structured like this, I'm immediately skeptical. You see this with people promoting vegan diets. It's better for the environment, and healthier, and meat is gross…

“This article argues that PMF doesn't exist. Oh and if it does exist, it's not clear when it is achieved. And if you have it, you can lose it. Oh and even if you don't lose it, it doesn't guarantee success.” I would argue that these claims are all accurate, but with the clarification that PMF does exist, but on a spectrum, not as a binary state” See my comment further downthread where I lay out a framework for determ…

Yes exactly, it absolutely occurs on a spectrum. You can feel the difference in a startup when no one wants what you're selling, when some people are pretty into it but most people don't care, and when everyone has to have it.
Post reply on HN