“MATH” of Positioning
Given a product and its journey from 0 to 1 and then a growth cycle of n(x) | where n>=2, what is considered more important? Is it the way products get built or is it the way they are positioned?
"When success is dear to everyone, there are very few who totally understand the importance of doing the right things at the right time so as to focus on hitting optimal levels which then converts to tangible results."
Handling failure…
First of all, the definition of “FAIL / FAILURE” itself may largely vary.
We have heard how “products don’t take off” could be a common quote which means to say they failed to reach a certain expectation level of adoption that creators of the product had set in mind, when in some other cases not reaching PMF (product market fit) could be termed a failure (or) not adding the required percentage of users MoM (month-on-month) could be deemed a failure.
In the graph up here, it is needless to mention how the red curve could be default expectations of any product team / organization, when the blue representing very slow progress could still be perceived as a failure when the black curve would mean no proper growth or stagnation even by the standpoint of the accounting standards followed worldwide.
So, let’s get a generic definition in of what failure is.
Product(s) could be termed a failure when they tend to fall short of what could be termed as the bare minimum expectation levels / benchmarks that happen to so represent the growth / goals that teams & orgs. have earmarked post release.
So, accepting failure and then advancing towards the causation, digging for facts, figures in trying to map & quantify it to an event or what could be a consequence of a decision / a move / a bet / a reaction to an action could be imperative towards making any worthwhile progress.
…Introspection!
In a broader sense of the word there could be a whole gamut of reasons behind why products fail, which could really vary depending on the case.
Listing out some of the common ones here:
Not building the product right
Not building for the right users
Not focusing on the right problem / THE problem
Not solving the problem completely & convincingly well enough
Not building awareness about the product in the market
Not improving the product offering at a regular cadence
Bolts & guardrails…
As it has been ongoing for ages now, there seems to be a varied set of notions about which team’s contribution is more important so that it stands out & ascertains the success of the product.
Well! Supposing marketing teams claim how positioning ought to be the ultimatum, the internal product and solutioning teams responsible for taking the product from 0 (idea) to 1 (build) stages could claim how their contributions over their respective jobs are comparably worth more by popping one question:
“In case the product wasn’t built well, what would even the best of marketing eventually yield & how could the product ever succeed?”
which seems to be worthy of an argument from their standpoint.
But the question that happens to be more important is:
is that really the behavior of customer-centric teams?
A pivotal shift in thinking is needed in these cases as compared to where they stand, largely owing to the culture of an organization. As long the teams and members don’t believe in putting customer centricity at the helm and learn to enjoy / celebrate their work, they would continue to remain individuals / entities and would never be able to collaborate seamlessly.
Also inducing customer centricity is a great way to break the ice (if any) between teams & members so as to motivate them to underpin the importance of carrying UX all the way through right from the ideation stage, the build stages and the way the product has to be positioned relevantly to each of those personae fostering optimal conversions across the funnel.
The MATH…!
Over the course of my experience in envisioning, building, scaling products as much as consulting with product orgs. & teams over evaluating ideas, conducting post-mortem analysis over why certain products failed to reach those set goals, in understanding whether or not the strategic initiatives undertaken would really get them to close in on those goals & whether teams are solving for the right problems, I have happened to arrive at a bit of MATH that has successfully lent that crucial insight.
I have termed it the “Delighters Scale” & “Product Success Quotient”.
Delighter’s Scale
Simply put, it is a scale that helps build an understanding of how all factors stack up and contribute towards estimating user DELIGHT.
The “DELIGHTER’S SCALE” runs on these main pillars:
And, here is how the implementation of the DS workflow would look: -
NOTE: And as is evident, DS could vary from 0 - 5.
Product Success Quotient:
As the name suggests PSQ (Product Success Quotient) measures the chances of the product hitting those success levels and also does a real good job in projecting a precise correlation between positioning & product development.
It is given by this equation:
where:
DS = Delighter’s Scale
Impact = how product decisions are expected to affect the immediate market(s) & customer segment(s) thereof
Positioning = relevance & success of all marketing activities undertaken
To understand how this equation fits in, let’s consider a few situations here.
Case 1: Ordinary Product & Teams
In this case when the teams are young / nascent / immature, it’d be natural that they may have faced tons of problems in envisioning, building the whole product with an outside chance that such a first version release would become widely acceptable / runaway success.
Sub-case a) Below Ordinary Positioning
On the DELIGHTERS’ SCALE it would really struggle with may be just 1 of those 5 factors getting a tick (✔️) - that could be considered a “1”
Expected IMPACT would also be very low, which is a “1” going by the scale
POSITIONING as given is below ordinary, so for calculation we’ll consider it to be “2 - Poor”
PSQ = (1 x 1) ^ 2 = 1
Sub-case b) Excellent Positioning
No other parameter but for POSITIONING is changing from the previous sub-case.
POSITIONING is excellent, let’s consider it a MAXIMUM = 5
PSQ = (1 x 1) ^ 5 = 1
VERDICT: Notice how positioning wasn’t able to convert to any great product success as the product itself wasn’t built well and may have failed to impress on various levels.
Case 2: Great Product & Teams
In this case teams could be absolutely great & supposing that’s led to an awesome product as well. Let’s get into the sub-cases.
Sub-case a) Bad Positioning
The DELIGHTERS’ SCALE would have all boxes checked which is a “5”
The IMPACT would be VERY HIGH, which is a “5”
But, POSITIONING is known to be bad, let’s consider it is a “1”
PSQ = (5 x 5) ^ 1 = 25
Sub-case b): Extra-Ordinary Positioning
No other parameter but for POSITIONING is changing from the previous sub-case.
POSITIONING is excellent, so that’s a “5”.
PSQ = (5 x 5) ^ 5 = 9,765,625
VERDICT: Notice how bad positioning was not able to lift a well built product to the expected heights but as soon as the positioning changed to extra-ordinary, it was able to shoot the success quotient through the roof as the product had all boxes ticked & was set for maximum impact. So, that’s VIRAL material there, a strong case for PMF, That’s perhaps representative of a case where early adopters could turn very loyal customers pretty soon.
NOTE 1: A PSQ above 1,000 could be well on it’s way towards experiencing hypergrowth given all those parameters {F1 - F5} contributing to DS continue to hold persistently all throughout.
NOTE 2: When a 5 / 5 rating on DS & IMPACT may be utopian, product teams & leadership would have to work with concerned teams towards getting the numbers up to a certain acceptable pedestal which could be a benchmark internal to the organization & making feasible improvements thereof.
Conclusion
Whether the product org. is a large MNC with a huge reputation to uphold or a start-up that is a new entrant into the market looking to break-in with a solitary product, this equation does stick.
So, for teams to build products and root that with an absolutely impeccable strategic positioning would lead to generating a great multi-fold impact when launched, which is ascertained by the PSQ (Product Success Quotient).
Product's successes ought to stick on for long.
But what it hinges on is a broad question with a broader answer:
➼ user centricity, a prominent factor perhaps⁉️
What if you could actually quantify the chances of that success?
Here's a follow-up thread to the article covering the entire concept of PSQ over a CASE STUDY -attempting to teardown a super-popular product "INSTAGRAM".
Link: - https://typefully.com/BgpInv/DJw8C47
#productmanagement #growth #success #insight
Very nicely articulated