I recently wrote about creating Mission and Vision statements, and how these documents are critical to set a company on the big journey toward success. However, in the early stages of a business or a new product launch, it is important to have focus and think like a minimalist. The most important thing is to get out there in the real world market, and start letting buyers guide you to success.
In the first release, we don’t have to solve every problem and we don’t have to support every process, but we do have to demonstrate and deliver a solution that seamlessly solves the hard problems. We have to do so in a way that the alternatives cannot get the job done. We want a competitive offering that is clearly differentiated, but we may not need a complete cover for every feature and function the competitors have. Provided our offering has a compelling new approach or feature set, it can gain traction with the early adopters and start us on your journey.
In this 40th anniversary year of the introduction of the Macintosh computer, we cannot forget what the first one looked like. At the time, the IBM PC had a hard drive, high-density floppy disks, color screens, communication ports, slots for all sorts of add-ons, and tons of applications. Apple launched the first Mac with just a small black and white screen, no hard drive, no communication ports, one single-density floppy, and no expansion slots. It sold like crazy (for a while). Apple delivered a graphical user interface that blew the world away – with only two integrated applications: word processing, and drawing. Apple is unique, and maybe we can’t pull off this type of launch, but in our own more mundane market we may be on the verge of launching a new product that can change the landscape. Our challenge is to think like Apple about what will rock the buyer’s world enough that they will see past what is missing.
The goal for the first release is often referred to as a ‘Minimal Viable Product’ (MVP). I have a particular aversion to the term MVP. The ‘minimal’ part suggests that we only have to find the smallest competitive bundle to launch. This sounds like a Macintosh concept, and I am generally aligned with the minimal part of the MVP. However, my issue is with the second word - ‘Viable.’ We may have different interpretations of the word ‘viable', but to me it sounds like we are aiming for an offering that only deserves a ‘C’ or just a mediocre passing grade . Who wants to just eek into a competitive market with a bland minimalist offering that may be slated to become the living dead - not a winner, but also not a total loser? I don’t know about you, but I never want to be just ‘viable.’
I prefer to replace the MVP goal with MSP - Minimum Successful Product. ‘Success’ is so much more energizing and powerful than ‘Viable.’ Aiming for success instead of merely trying to be viable will set a very different tone and direction for the team. It goes to the heart of creating a uniquely differentiated offering, and opens the discussion to build something different and better, instead of something that barely ‘covers’ what is already in the market. In fact, following the Macintosh example, it frees us to think about not covering the features of the competitors at all, but instead creating something innovative and new that is so compelling that people will buy it despite its shortcomings. The key is to surround the compelling new offering with market buzz and a believable roadmap and commitment to finish the feature set in a reasonable time frame. Even Apple had to eventually build a comprehensive offering.
This takes us back to focus. Too many businesses start out with a broad definition and try to do too much - to cover all of the competitor’s features and to be all things to all people. It usually slows down their time-to-market, and creates a posture of ‘me too, plus.’ Gaining traction requires differentiation and focus. If you can only do one thing or solve one problem, what is it going to be? For the early Macintosh it was to deliver a simple graphical user interface. In a prior post, I warned that including a conjunction (‘and’) in a mission statement will cause a lack of focus. The same logic applies to defining an initial product offering. An MSP needs to be tightly scoped, and you need to be confident that it solves a real need for a carefully understood ideal customer profile (ICP). If you know your buyer well, then you know their pain and you can engineer a winning MSP.