Got Customers, Part 2: The One in Which We Save the Startup but Lose Our Souls

Got Customers, Part 2: The One in Which We Save the Startup but Lose Our Souls

A couple months ago, I wrote about how we built MightyBrand without ever talking to potential customers about what we were building and whether they’d use it. Fortunately, a wise advisor offered us the cure of Customer Development before the disease was terminal (that’s what great advisors do for you!). So off we went.

Our advisor was actually very active in this area for us as well, both talking to people he knew about our product and connecting us with other companies who might be potential users of our service.

The big conclusion we got from the customer development process were that most companies were far too early in their social media marketing efforts to need a dedicated monitoring solution.

Shit.

However, as we continued to research, we found a bright spot: agencies. Marketing and PR agencies were actively looking for a solution like ours, really liked our product, and had money to spend on it. In fact, we consistently got feedback from agencies that we were charging too little relative to the other options in the market.

Elated at having finally identified a set of eager customers willing to pay for our service, we set to adapting our product to their needs and pursuing deals. Over the next month or two, we landed a couple decent sized agreements and were well on our way to being profitable before the end of the year.

During this time, we started seeing a few things about our new direction that concerned us, but we were following the Customer Development playbook to the letter, so we pressed on.

However, it was right around this time that Ben flew out to San Francisco (he lives in CO) and we sat down to do something important that we had neglected up to this point: figure out our mission and values. Ben and I have very strong beliefs about business and what we want this company to be. We’ve been very strongly influenced by the Virgin empire and what Richard Branson has created. We felt that it was important to define our own vision and commit it to paper. Over the course of a week, we spent time talking about the future and discussing what we want to grow this company into. I’ll talk more in-depth later about what mission and values we came up with, but suffice it to say for now that we’re passionate about helping companies create authentic and personal connections with their customers.

Having come to some valuable conclusions during this process, Ben flew back to CO and we went back to work on landing deals with agencies. It took us a few days to figure it out, but we finally realized that what we were doing was pretty much in direct contradiction with the mission and core beliefs we had just come up with. Here’s why:

  • As you can imagine from our name, creating a strong brand is very important to us. But we were creating white-label platforms for the agencies, which means our brand was effectively invisible.
  • Our passion is to especially help small businesses and startups learn how to use social media to engage with their customers. We started the company because the existing players were way too expensive for small companies. Raising our prices to match the market price took away a lot of what made us special.
  • I’ll have a lot more to say about this later, but we fundamentally disagree with the agency approach to social media, and what agencies are doing to the medium. Our passion is helping companies connect directly with their customers, not helping agencies convince companies to outsource that connection to them.

Having realized this, we spent a couple days talking about it, and we decided to immediately shift our strategy to reflect our mission, which meant a) no more deals with agencies, and b) examining our pricing and product features to ensure that we’re headed in the right direction. We also changed our Customer Development efforts to be more focused and targeted so that the information we’re getting informs our mission, rather than flailing about with no purpose. We’ve spent the last few months making some large changes to better reflect both our mission and the lessons we’ve learned from our ongoing Customer Development efforts. We hope they pay off, but at the end of the day, our big realization was that we’d rather try and build something we believe in and fail than build something shitty that makes money. YMMV.

One of the common comparisons I hear is between Customer Development and “vision-driven” development. But after our experience, I’m not sure that these have to be in conflict. Customer Development is an incredibly valuable tool for learning *how* to build your company so that customers want what you’re selling, but it can’t tell you the *why*. It can’t give you the heart and soul of your company for you. It can’t tell you what you care enough about to make the sacrifices you’ll have to make. And it can’t tell you what will make you happy if you had to do it for free.

Only you can do that.

Image thanks to Al_fred

Bookmark and Share
The MightyBrand App
People are talking about your brand. Listen and engage, all in one convenient place.
Signup Now!

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

6 comments

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ryan Waggoner, MightyBrand. MightyBrand said: Got Customers, Part 2: The One in Which We Save the Startup but Lose Our Souls http://bit.ly/8mZmeW [...]

    • Jon Stokes on January 6th, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Question: why wed yourself to the focus on small businesses? I'm really involved in this space and even the very large accounts are just now trying to figure it out. There is a need for social media expertise even at the Fortune 100 level, so why not approach those guys first?

    Anyway, I agree that the agencies are in trouble here (for a variety of reasons), but there is space for a new kind of agency that serves the same customer base of really large players.

  2. Fair question that we're still trying to work through, but here are a few things off the top of my head:

    1. We understand the needs and motivations of small businesses more.

    2. There are a litany of very expensive tools available to large companies already that are cost-prohibitive for small and medium businesses, which is one reason we did this in the first place.

    3. We've moved away from social media monitoring towards social media engagement tools and the problems in the engagement space are a lot harder for Fortune 100 enterprises.

    All that said, we're keeping an open mind and we're always open to discussions around how we can learn more about our customers needs and how we can better serve them. It wouldn't be any fun if we weren't scrambling to keep up :)

    • Rex M on January 6th, 2010 at 1:35 am

    I'll add to what Ryan said: It's extremely risky to target the F100 or even F500 space for a number of reasons:

    1. There's only 100 (or 500) possible customers *in the whole world*. Yikes.

    2. The people who make enterprise-wide solution decisions are difficult to "get in" with – not only getting their attention, but convincing them to convince tens or scores of stakeholders to commit the organization's time and money to something. Small businesses try things and drop them if they don't work – F500 have 2, 3, 5 and 10 year views on solution lifecycles, because they are dropping the kind of bank that requires them to do it. Not only on your solution, but on the organizational investment and ecosystem around committing to it.

    3. If you do manage to sign a few F100s, it's most likely your solution is not viable for anyone below the next level down (F500) without significant rework (see #1). That means your profitability – nay, income – is tied up in the whims of a few jerks who are well aware of their advantages over you. It's the golden handcuffs problem – you can't afford to not do whatever they want without serious investment and pain.

    *I know this because I am one of those jerks who makes solution decisions for an F500 company :)

  3. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by ryanwaggoner: New MightyBrand blog post: Got Customers, Part 2: The One in Which We Save the Startup but Lose Our Souls http://bit.ly/8mZmeW Read and RT!…

  4. This is great representation of the conflict between market direction and vision; thanks for sharing. A core principle In the leanstarup framework is the concept of pivot, i.e., of changing course based on negative lessons learned while keeping the positives. A less intuitive pivot, yet as valid as any other, is one where the fulcrum is based on values. I applaud the courage!

Comments