全栈产品经理 | Anuj Rathi(Swiggy、Jupiter Money、Flipkart)
The full-stack PM | Anuj Rathi (Swiggy, Jupiter Money, Flipkart)
Three Questions for Leaders
Anuj Rathi: There are only three reasons why things do not happen the way you want them to happen as a leader. You can look at a person, and you would say either that person can’t do, which is a capability issue, or they won’t do, which is a motivation or an alignment issue, or they were not set up to do, which is really your problem that you didn’t set up the ways of working now design properly. So, as a leader, do you have the right people in terms of capability? If not, is the right answer for us to coach them or to really put them… or mentor them and so on, or move them to some other place because maybe their capability is suited elsewhere? If they won’t do, why won’t they? Are they not aligned to you? Do they not agree with your vision? Do they not just have enough time? So on and so forth. So you need to really go deeper there. Why won’t they do?
India’s Most Popular Product Leader
Lenny: Today, my guest is Anuj Rathi. I’ve been looking to get more India-based product leaders on the podcast because this podcast has a large audience in India. When I put out a call on Twitter and LinkedIn asking people who I should have on, Anuj was the single most requested person. Anuj is Chief Product and Marketing Officer at Jupiter Money. Previously, he was Senior Vice President of Revenue and Growth at Swiggy where he spent seven years. He was also VP of Product at Snapdeal, a Senior PM at Walmart Labs, and the very first Product Manager at Flipkart where he led the buyer experience team.
In our conversation, we dig into how product management is different in India, Anuj’s lessons about building product experiences for new users, how he operationalized the working backwards process at the companies he’s worked at, why he pushes his teams to explore three divergent directions before settling on a plan, why he thinks product managers and companies should be much more full stack than they are. Also, a bunch of frameworks and contrarian takes about building product and your career in product. A big thank you to Sayan Maiti and Nikhil Kulkarni for helping me navigate the product scene in India. Look for more amazing India-based product leaders to come. With that, I bring you Anuj Rathi after a short word from our sponsors.
Forward-thinking companies like Figma, Amplitude, Loom, Riot Games, Linear, and more use Sanity to build content growth engines that scale, drive innovation, and accelerate customer acquisition. With Sanity, your team can dream bigger and move faster. As the most powerful headless CMS on the market, you can tailor editorial workflows to match your business, reuse content seamlessly across any page or channel, and bring your ideas to market without developer friction. Sanity makes life better for your whole team. It’s fast for developers to build with, intuitive for content managers, and it integrates seamlessly with the rest of your tech stack. Get started with Sanity’s generous free plan, and as a Lenny’s Podcast listener, you can get a boosted plan with double the monthly usage. Head over to sanity.io/lenny to get started for free. That’s sanity.io/lenny.
Anuj, thank you so much for being here, and welcome to the podcast.
Anuj Rathi: Thank you so much, Lenny. Thank you for having me.
What Makes Indian PM Different
Lenny: It’s my pleasure. I haven’t told you this, but when I put a call out on Twitter and LinkedIn for people’s favorite India-based product leaders, you are the single most recommended person, and so I just wanted to start with how does it feel to be the most loved India-based product leader at least according to my Twitter followers and LinkedIn followers?
Unique Evolution of Indian PM
Anuj Rathi: Well, it feels really good, and I really feel it’s come together because I’ve been doing product management for the longest time. In 2010, when I started the product management journey with Flipkart. I think that that was a time when there were not a lot of products being built for India. So I think one part is just the tenure, and B, I think it’s just a lot of people have known the work.
Rise of Modern Product Thinking
Lenny: Awesome. You’re very modest. I wanted to start with a question about product in India, and I’m just curious just how is product management and product building in general just most different in India?
Anuj Rathi: Yeah. I think that’s a very interesting question, and I think about this all the time. When I look at product management in India, and I do have a lot of friends comparing product management versus in US or even in Europe versus even in China, Southeast Asia, et cetera. I think India has had a very interesting journey of products in general and hence, product management also. I think till about 2010-ish, there were not really many products built for the Indian consumers in the first place. There were a lot of products being built, a lot of technology being built, but largely, because it was a back office, so you had a lot of great engineers working in companies which would build products for the American customer or even for the European customer and so on. So once these startups started coming in, which were thinking about building for the Indian consumers, I think we did not really have that talent which we could directly tap into. We’re trained into product building. Forget product management as a field in the first place. There were no colleges which were teaching anything about this. There was no playbooks, and so on, and so forth. We would go to the internet, and look at YouTube, and look at SVPG and all of that, but what we would understand would not… you could not put directly to the Indian startups.
The way that they shaped up I think also shaped up the way product management field would evolve in India. So it’s taken a bunch of iterations, and I think there are two or three different waves that have come in, and we are way closer to how good product management should be done in India. We still have a little bit way to go compared to, say, US. I also think of it along… For example, in US, the product building culture probably started in 1970s, the modern software product building culture, and you didn’t only have product manager, but the entire ecosystem… If you think about a company, who is the VP of business, and who is the VP of supply, and sales, and ops, and technology, and all of that? That group knew how to work with each other to build software products. They understood how that would be built and what to expect.
I think in India, when we were in 2010, et cetera, even those different people who needed to come together to build, say, e-commerce, they would come from, say, FMCG, or they would come from manufacturing and so on. What they would have seen in their journeys in terms of what we expect is a very request response kind of understanding which is, “Here’s machinery. If I give this X resources, I expect, with a little bit of variability, why predictable output will come,” and that mentality also moved on to what I expect from product managers or product building journeys and so on. So I think over a period of time, a lot of those cycles have happened, and a lot more other leaders in companies have now seen those cycles and understood, “All right. Now, I understand software is not machinery. Consumers are not predictable as much as we thought.” That has led to, now, finally, I think, product management coming of age.
Scale and Complexity of India
Lenny: You said that, I guess, in the Bay Area, things started 1970s, something like that. When would you say things started to really ramp up in modern product thinking in India?
Anuj Rathi: I think 2010 was when it started because… Look, there were a few products that were built before that also, and I think somebody said this clearly that usually, when modern consumer internet starts coming in countries, it usually starts with travel, so you do have… Basically, any country, we would start with, usually, the first travel company. So I think India started with some companies like MakeMyTrip and so on way earlier. There were a few very interesting products being built in India which were solving uniquely for the Indian consumers that were in the matrimony side which is Shaadi.com, and Bharmatrimony.com, and so on. We’re like, “What do you think about Tinder?” India is famous for arranged marriages, so a product that would really understand that, “Hey, if you’re a parent, if you want to get your kid up for matrimony, how would you solve for them?” and that marketplace of matchmaking, et cetera started.
So a few blips here and there which was following uniquely for India. I think 2010 was a decade or time when I can very clearly imagine that’s where a lot of people started building for India. So I think, again, Flipkart started that kind of journey, but in a couple of years, then they were like, say, Ola which was, in a way, similar to Uber, what they were doing elsewhere, and then a whole bunch of other startups that started coming in. So, for example, in food delivery, when I was working at Swiggy, that came in like, say, 2015, 2014, in that timeframe. Now, you see a whole bunch of startups which are trying to do not only things which are… what could an Uber for India look like or what could a DoorDash for India look like. Very different and also, very innovative. So I think now is the time when you see a lot more product building around that area.
Unique Insights on New Users
Lenny: Where are some numbers of just like companies in India, people in India’s money spent in India? I don’t know. Things that would be like, “Wow, that is a much bigger opportunity than I thought.”
Users Are Lazy, Vain, Selfish
Anuj Rathi: Okay. This is a very wide question, so I’ll tell you. Before the opportunity in India, I think I’ll talk about the complexity in India which I think a lot of people don’t understand. India has what? 1.4 billion people. So there were three waves, really, that happened in India, but also, in the globe. I think first wave was from desktop to mobile, and then even from mobile to smartphones. From smartphones, there was what we call the Jio revolution. There’s an Indian company called Reliance Jio that basically got internet at the cheapest prices for smartphones. So because of this, a whole population came onto the internet which was hungry for newer products, newer content, completely different ways of interacting with each other, and using internet for all sorts of different things. That was one of the waves.
The other part is really what the Indian government really enabled which is… especially in digitization of a bunch of absolute core fundamental citizen-related machinery which is either through digital payments, which is a whole bunch of Indians now started having a bank account by default, and something called UPI. So even if you do not have a bank account or that bank account is linked to your mobile phone number, but now everybody would pay through that, and that brought in a very different kind of revolution. So even if 5 rupees, that is basically 10 cents or less than that, that would be paid through UPI, and people started moving away from cash and so on. There’s something called the India Stack that is all of these things coming together, which is social security, identity, payments, and so on, that a whole bunch of other apps can now use to build their own layers on top of that. So many interesting cases started coming about. So that’s one which is just a number and the infrastructure.
Now, the other thing to look at is India is very diverse, so the number of languages spoken here, even the official languages is so high, and they say… There’s an elders’ quote in India like, “Every 15 miles, the language will change, and the people and the culture will change, and it’s a huge country of so many people.” So your traditional ways of thinking about products also, the “Who I’m building for?” is very different. “Are you building for this person or that?” Et cetera. So a bunch of frameworks break down because it’s not even that the same language will apply. While English is a language that is used by the people at least who have the money and who have the dollar to even give to you, but you have to think way more widely.
The other thing about India that is interesting is the price that people are willing to pay. Generally, it does look at the per capita money that people have. It is very low. It’s in the two, two and a half thousand dollar range compared to US which is maybe 30 times more and so on. So while there’s a lot of people who are going to give you traffic, and engagement, and so on, but the craft of actually choosing the right kind of paying customer who will actually come, and engage, and give you money is at a premium. So a lot harder work needs to be done. If you’re running e-commerce, who are the people who will pay me delivery fee? Who are the people who will actually buy this expensive stuff? So a whole bunch of different ways of thinking has evolved in this country, and that’s why it’s so vibrant and so different than any other global products.
Lenny: Wow. Fascinating. I could keep going, but I want to talk product. I’ve collected a bunch of questions from people that know you or people that have worked with you about a bunch of different stuff, so I’m just going to go a little bit all over the place. The first area I wanted to talk about is the user experience. Apparently, you have a interesting insight and a different approach of thinking about new users and new user experiences.
Practices at Swiggy and Jupiter
Anuj Rathi: One of the things that I realized once we started working with the products is that product managers and generally, companies are too engrossed in thinking about… because they are very close to the product. It’s close to their heart, and they’re looking at it all the time. They’re looking at a lot of minor nuances in terms of how this works and feels, and almost inherent into this is the bias that everybody is thinking about this product all day, all the time, and so on, and so forth. Whereas the reality is most consumers in the country or in your target market, they don’t care, and they may have sometime heard about your product. The word of mouth is not ever so strong, even if you’re the strongest brand, and so on, and so forth, but that is the customer that you’ve got to bring in, and then serve.
So there’s very interesting insight that I heard from Scott Belsky from Adobe, and then now, he’s doing very interesting stuff, and that stayed with me which was you have to think about users on modern internet consumers having three attributes. So they are lazy, they are vain, and they’re selfish. So lazy meaning, “I don’t have time for this, so blow my mind away. Otherwise, I’m not going to pay attention.” Vain which means, “I have a habit. I’m solving this problem in a particular way, and here, you come with your two-pack product and ask me to change my habit. Do you really expect me to do that?” That’s second. That’s their inherent attribute. The third one is that they’re selfish like, “Show me what’s in it for me.”
Once you start thinking about users in that vein, and if these users are not even using your product, suddenly, you realize, “Oh my god, it’s quite difficult even… How do I attract this kind of customer, and if my marketing team has done a good job at bringing this user to my product, how do I actually now empathize with this lazy, selfish, and vain customer, and build my product in a way so that I can make this appear on your site like this is the thing that you have to use, the way you write your copy, the way you build your onboarding, the way you do your first warm welcome?” It’s going to make the biggest amount of change in terms of a product success, then your core product features that you’re going to build for your loyal consumers.
So that one insight, and I’ve seen and applied that multiple times not only the companies that I worked with, the companies I’ve consulted and spoken with. Most neglect it. Well, they get user onboarding is important, but just how important is that is one, and B, the craft of thinking like a user who’s lazy, vain, and selfish, and basically, rejecting all your products, but this does not work for this kind of customer. It’s extremely hard. It’s very hard, but it’s totally worth it if you put that lens on.
Lenny: Is there an example of you using this framework on a product you worked on where you’re just like, “Here’s a thing we really did…” I don’t know, had a big impact or really surprised everyone?
Products Aren’t Plug and Play
Anuj Rathi: So we used it in two different areas. So one is, of course, products I worked on. So I worked in Swiggy for the last seven years, and really, when we started working towards this user, instead of thinking about everybody as, “This is what our onboarding experience looks like, and this is what our product is.” So, essentially, we used, basically, say, a key that it’s… “We are a food delivery app. We are a grocery delivery app, and we have these bunch of things.” Instead of that, we just started reframing it from the point of view of, “What would you want, and how could you use us? What is it in it for you?” and we started connecting all our marketing messages along with the onboarding. So even going out market and thinking, “Where do you actually find us? How did you know about us? It’s a reasonably large brand. Why have you not already downloaded us and used us? Have you used us and rejected us in the past?” So building that entire mental model and looking at a user from the point of view of, “Let’s assume that you have heard about us 20 times. What was that exact situation that brought you to download this app?”
So right from the entire journey of you hearing us, what was the trigger, and what was the marketing message, and what was the promotion that we were running? How do we continue that journey on your onboarding from your splash, that 200 rupees of… X rupees if you buy from us, continuing that entire journey in the language that they understand and with the user experience that is continuation from the marketing to product, other thing that we started focusing on a lot more, and it instantly started showing us results. But while I’m talking about just a very simple example and everybody should be doing it, that is true even when you have a particular app which has multiple products and many product lines. It’s the same principle that applies there, and that’s where I think the largest amount of delta that happens that people don’t know really why are we not able to cross-pollinate or cross-sell, and so on, and so forth.
Right now, I’m working with a company called Jupiter which is a financial services app, and it’s a neobank. So we care for personal finance, and it has a bunch of offerings. There’s a personal account or savings account. There’s a credit card. There’s mutual funds. There is investments in, say, gold, and FD, and so on, and so forth. It’s a bunch of things. But when people think about why using us only for one service and just go away, actually, the key is to recognize that this user has found value in… They are not interested in all the other things that you talked about, so be able to empathize with that user, and now thinking about the behavioral science aspects in terms of, “How do I convert this user from one to the other?” That I think is extremely important.
Lenny: So a couple things I’m hearing here. One is the importance of focusing on not people currently using your product, but this idea of maybe the marginal user or the adjacent user, the next state of users is who you should be thinking about when you’re trying to optimize onboarding the user experience, and then two is… Something that sounds like you’ve had a lot of success with is picking one value prop, maybe one positioning statement, and then following that through their entire journey versus like, “Here’s all the things we do.” Is that right?
PMs Are Full-Stack Influencers
Anuj Rathi: That’s absolutely right. Let me give an example of this one. One of the reasons why I really feel product managers must, if not better, but equally understand, category consumers which are not in market or which are not really buying your products just yet. As good as the marketer or the brand expert in your team does… because they really are tasked with, “What is that one message that I can say that will make the user take attention or get to like, ‘Oh, this is interesting,’ and direct attention towards your product?” If the product managers are able to do that, then they will choose that positioning and essentially, understand, “What is my hope product, and what is the hope that…” At least get them to try my app or any of those things, right? So if they understand it as well as the marketer, and then understand, “Over a period of time, what is the right time when I introduce them to this other one rather than being very greedy about letting the new user try everything?” So that’s one.
The other thing that I feel a lot of product managers don’t do right is… “Forget about everything. Here’s my app. Go figure,” is how most of the products are designed unfortunately. Automatically, these things will happen without any intervention. I have created something which is so beautiful, and once you tap that icon, everyone can say, “That is my product that is so working perfectly,” but they don’t really think about, “At what moment do I actually get this user here, and will they use it?” Well, this user is lazy, vain, and selfish.
Lenny: That phrase reminds me of something I always think about. Marc Andreessen had this great quote that your user’s time is already allocated. They’re not looking for more apps to download. They already have a plan for the day. Basically, they have things to do. They’re not like, “Hmm, what’s another iPhone app I’m going to check out right now?” So somehow you have to convince them, “This is worth your time,” and I like this framework. Is there an example of a phrase you found really effective either at Swiggy, or Jupiter, or Flipkart, or anything just like, “Here’s a really quick example of something that had a big impact on either simplifying the value prop,” or if you don’t have an example top of mind, what was the impact you saw from implementing some of these ideas?
True Value of Working Backwards
Anuj Rathi: I’ll talk about a phrase that I now use with product managers a lot to simplify how they should be thinking. I think one thing is… and that’s not only for the consumers, but even how we operate. We are product managers, and we are in the business of influence. Users are doing something, and now we want them to do something else. Our engineers are doing something, and now we want to influence them into building something fast. Really, leadership has some plans. We’ll influence them to, essentially, look at a plan, and basically, sign off, and do something else. We are in the business of influence, and you are doing this all the time internally. Otherwise, you’re not successful even in shipping. Now, we have to extend this to our users and really think about it from that point of view. So you are a full-stack influencer and not only an external influencer. So we’ve got to think more like sales, more like marketing, more like influencers.
Lenny: One of the most important skills for a product manager is influencing people on team, and I like the point that you’re also trying to influence your user. That’s interesting. Just more reason to get really good at influence, so. I actually have a newsletter about how to get better influence based on Frodo Baggins and Lord of the Rings. We’ll link to that in the show notes. Okay. Let’s shift to a different topic. You have a really concrete way of actually implementing the working backwards process. We had one of the authors of the book Working Backwards on recently, and I’m excited to just hear what you’ve learned about how to actually put this into practice. It’s easy to hear about, “Let’s work backwards,” but doing it is a different beast, and so I’d love to hear what you’ve learned there.
The Power of Three Options
Anuj Rathi: So I think the people who invented working backwards is clearly Amazon. I think they started this entire process which are like, “Hey, why don’t you write a press release, and with that press release, we’ll work backwards from that one?” I thought that was a very cool idea, and I was trying to dig down into like, “Hey, why does it work?” My insight or at least the way that I thought about this one is it’s not working backwards only from a customer value proposition. “Will our customers love it, and will they pay for it? Is it noteworthy, and is it something that we should even be working?” While that is one of the most important things that the Working Backwards framework teaches us, but essentially, what you’re working backwards from is an entire machinery at a particular day that is working for… For the date of GTM, what do we need to do from here till that particular day so that the GTM is successful, but also, what will be the machinery we would have created so that this product is successful?
Now, because you’re already talking about GTM, you’re already thinking about, “How will users love it? What is the money that we’ll spend? What are the alternatives that we will… routes that we have explored that finally we have zeroed in on and all of those?” So they are all going to be a part of a PR review. If I take a slightly open stance on this one, what is a press release? A press release is you have a one-pager which talks about what are we building, what is a particular date, what is the exact value proposition, what will consumers say, what will the business manager say, how will they respond, how will they use it. But the one thing that comes out from this framework is that you can use it for a whole bunch of other things. You can use it for negotiation, for example, because you start with a date, and then you say, “This is the one-pager that I need to ship, and I want the consumers to see that.” You can use it to now go to our VP Engineering and say, “By this date, can we build all of this?” Now, they do not have all the PRDs and everything, but they can give you a sense that this is too aggressive or this is not and so on.
We can also use the quotes here to actually find alliances or find people who are going to actually derail this. So you actually use the customer quote to basically say, “I want my customers to say this. From marketing and from my pricing team, can we actually ship this so that consumers will say that?” Then, from the business owner’s quote, you actually say, “This is what we are shipping, but what are your goals? Can you say that within three months, we would have achieved this much?” So using that to build one entire picture is one way that I found it really powerful because if you find disagreements here, then say, “I can’t ship it,” then you change the date, and then you change the goals because all of these things are changing together. So instead of one, you find the other set of all the things that need to come together for that press release to go live is the real value.
The other part that I found interesting here is that I really truly believe in the power of three. So I actually ask my teams to write three press releases, alternative and divergent like, “What if we…” Suppose you’re launching a membership program. So, instead of two tiers, let’s do three tiers, or for example, let’s take another one which is instead of building a membership, let’s build up tiering pricing program with membership points. Instead of this segment, let’s use another segment. Let’s say within these three, and they all need to be fully thought-through, and that helps the leadership choose.
So the two things that work here. When you are in the product discovery phase, you would have heard from a lot of folks. Finally, if you show them just one roadmap, it feels like, “Hey, this person didn’t…” They listened to my interesting point which was valuable, but didn’t include it. But when you’re doing this three PR FAQs, I considered this, and this added up to a story that eventually is valuable, this alternative route. I considered your point of view, and I created a story, but unfortunately, it is not adding up so we rejected it. So, now, people can compare and contrast, and that’s a very powerful leadership tool. That, actually, is a very powerful tool even for CXOs. When they say, “Let’s build this,” you’ll say, “Here are three ways we can build this, and here’s the reason why I’m not building what you said because you would like these two more.”
Systemic Value of FAQs
Lenny: That’s a really cool idea of just using the PR FAQ and working backwards process to think very differently partly to make sure you’ve explored all the options, partly to just think through things that are in the back of people’s minds and see if there’s something there before committing to the one direction.
Anuj Rathi: So the FAQs also are very important to set processes in the system. For example, now, at Jupiter, we have a financial services app. So every FAQ will mandatorily have, “How are you going to make sure that it is fully compliant? Have you gotten sign-off from A, B, C people? Have you actually thought about legal aspects, and so on, and so forth?” So, for example, you can use the FAQs very effectively here. Whereas, for example, when it was Swiggy, and it’s a three-way marketplace, you have consumers, delivery executives, and restaurant partners. Now, any small change that you do on, say, delivery partners, for example, if you’re working on optimizing their earnings per hour which will lead to some changes in cost per delivery, but that may have a completely different impact on delivery fee.
I’m just making this up, but now, because of so many moving parts in your FAQs, you’re explicitly asking, “Have you thought about what are the implications on restaurant partners? Have you thought about what are implications on delivery partners?” We, in fact, also have that PR FAQ in terms of we write down the different segments of delivery partners, and sometimes it will have extremely weird correlations because those product managers on one side of the equation have started thinking or at least consulting the other part of the marketplace, “What could this mean for you?” It gets everybody together to create very crisp products that work for all sides of the marketplace.
Full-Stack PMs Own the Outcomes
Lenny: One thread I’m pulling out of a few of your stories so far is you often come back to this full-stack approach to many models. So you talked about how PM is like an influencer, but also, they’re influencing users. That’s a cool way of thinking about it. With this working backwards process, you can use it to think about the full stack of launch, not just what features you’re going to build. I know you also have some strong opinions about product managers, and they should be much more full-stack than most PMs. Does that ring a bell, and if so, can you talk about that?
Anuj Rathi: Yes. No, I think it is the same thread that is connecting the first and the second. I think product managers have to own outcomes and not only features and parts of the problem. Well, they will own some parts of the problem fully, but if they need to work with everybody to make sure that eventual product that they launch is successful and not only successful from the point of view of, “Hey, we launched something that works for users,” et cetera, that’s not the definition of success. Did it work in the way that it really changed the behavior of the kind of user that we wanted to achieve a business outcome that will build a capability that is important for us? All of those things combined will not happen if the product manager is only thinking about their part. So they have to think about external users, they have to think about competition, they have to think about other product managers and product leaders about engineering, about marketing, and so on because it’s such a diverse field.
Unless you really… and I’m not saying you need to be an authority of that. Either you are very, very good at that, or you have built partnerships, and have run your ideas or product through those people and gotten weighted from them, and finally made a decision around that part, I don’t think you’ll be very successful. So, in my opinion, the full-stack product managers are the ones who are going to be more successful rather than product managers who are doing very good at one particular area only. So there’s one book which is Range, right? I’m sure you may have heard about it, right? Even the first chapter, what they talk about is… They take two examples. One is the example of Federer, Roger Federer. So, with Roger Federer, for example, I think I’ll just continue that, that till 18, he played a bunch of racket sports, and this wasn’t even tennis. But then, you bring in ideas from one racket sport to the other, and second to the third, and so on, and so forth, and now you have such a range of ideas that you can connect a lot more dots and actually ship it. I think that’s a better playbook for being more successful in product.
Show, Don’t Tell
Lenny: I was just watching a documentary on… I think it was called Greatness and had Wayne Gretzky. He had exactly the same experience actually. When he was young, he played hockey just during the winter times, and during summer, he played other sports. Hockey was just like one sport he played, and then eventually started to focus on it, and they talked about how people that played different sports in their childhood actually ended up being much better at that one sport that they chose. So a lot of parallels. I know you also have a lot of interesting ways of thinking about coming up with a roadmap ideas, and ideating and building a roadmap backlog. So you already talked about this idea of going in very divergent directions and seeing if that leads anywhere. There’s a couple more someone shared. One is you have this idea of show don’t tell. What is that?
The Four BB Framework
Anuj Rathi: Actually, show don’t tell is an idea which is an extension of what we are talking about from what backwards. When we’re talking about working backwards, one is a PR FAQ which is a written documentation of what we are trying to achieve. Show don’t tell is essentially a way in where the product manager starts ideating with the entire experience, and they actually create all the collaterals together of a user they need to begin with if you’re working on a single-play product which is a single-user product. Then, you actually start bringing together your marketers and others in terms of, “What is literally the first screen, and how is my user getting here?” It’s not as simple as he imagines somebody who will be doing this and reaching here. We try to recreate an exact situation.
There’s a concept of person, not personas. So we’ll talk about personas, but we try to go to, “All right. No. Don’t think about agentic user. Let’s say Lenny, 30 years old, doing A, B, C things, earning this much, et cetera, et cetera. His relationship with this category of food delivery is X. These are the things that he has done in the last month. In the last three days, there were the needs, desires, aspirations, fears, frustrations, et cetera, et cetera.” We say, “Okay. It’s 11:00. What’s happened? Why is this user open, or what triggered this particular app, and then what happened?” So you literally start from there, and I think 50% of my product reviews are on that part, and then when we say, “All right. Then, this app got open. Do we have the right kind of way forward for Lenny to actually achieve what he came here for?” Literally, each pixel, and each copy, and each word is going to be in service of that part.
So that’s showing the entire journey rather than just staying and assuming. So that is something that I’ve found really powerful with respect to even designing products or even thinking about why are we building something. What it also helps is when we are building complex products, especially in marketplaces because once you are building this for the user, simultaneously, something is happening on the other part if it is simultaneous, if it’s a real-time marketplace, or something like that. So you’re building something for the user and saying, “All right. If this guy ordered, now there’s a 30 minutes time when our delivery executors will come to the user with food. What is happening? What’s the emotional state of the user, and let’s plot out the 30 minutes time, and let’s create various scenarios. Is it like, ‘Hey, maybe he went to the restaurant, and the food is delayed,’ or the dude on a bike, his bike got punctured, et cetera. Now, what is the consumer thinking at this time?” So you show all of those things in real time, and that cuts out a whole bunch of random ways in which the product could have looked like if you’re creating even a chatbot. So just having that showcase of all journeys coming together helps a lot in building your products in the right way.
Sharing Counterintuitive Viewpoints
Lenny: So, essentially, just getting very detailed and very concrete with the product experience that you’re building thinking about the user experience. Sounds like a lot of work. I can’t imagine you do this often. Is the advice here to do this once a year or once and just keep it updated? It sounds like you did this at Swiggy, and that was a really impactful way of building the product.
Anuj Rathi: Yeah. I think there’s not only one way actually. I think I recommend this every product manager to do a show don’t tell version of their current version. At the same time, there’s a new version all the time. So they can compare and contrast, and very easily explain to everyone why they’re doing something. In fact, that wall… So it’s called a wall. It also becomes one common place where you can get all the stakeholders in because it becomes… Instead of just doing the elevator pitch, you can actually do detailed discussions on why I’m choosing this versus something else, and so on, and so forth. That’s a product manager’s version of doing this.
There’s also a product leader’s version of doing this thing which is recycle strategy on a page, and a lot of people call it like growth loops. Right? Don’t show our user’s journey. Now, let’s see the entire strategy of the company together on one page. “All right. This is what the market looks like, and why will we get what kind of users? What is our activation budgets, and how many of them are we going to get to this next stage and get them to use it? How will we get them to cross-pollinate into different sections? Do we need a membership program? Are there any different levers which will press more or less and so on?” So that also is a show don’t tell, and not only one, but usually, I like to create three of them as well like, “Why did we choose a strategy versus the other?” That, for example, is a very good way for our product leaders to get to one strategy that their CXOs align with and something that they can essentially tell the entire product and other teams, “This is what we’re going to follow.”
How to Develop These Skills
Lenny:
What kind of impact have you seen from implementing something like this, or is there an example of something that came out of this that was a big unlock? Again, it’s probably a lot of work for someone to put together a whole board, keep it updated, screenshots, marketing, funnels of where people are coming from. What sort of impact do you see from doing this either on growth or people, what people think?
Can’t, Won’t, or Not Empowered
Anuj Rathi: I think the largest impact that happens here is on alignment, so how CXOs are thinking if that is not very clear, and that can be a document, and so on, and so forth. But for a lot of people, it’s not very clear on… I can see one part of the funnel. I can understand… The marketing team can understand the best why we are acquiring those users, but they don’t fully see the picture of, “If I attract this kind of users, why will these users become loyal, and what does that entire thing look like or, say, some other team which is building a part of the product? Where do I come in and so on?” So I think the largest impact that the show don’t tell has is on, basically, getting the entire company together on the same page and them being able to understand why I’m doing, and which part of the entire picture I am working on, and why others are working on so that I can actually work with them to solve that part. That’s one.
The other thing that it helps, Lenny, is it also helps in choosing directions, like I said, because we are not doing one, but three of them. I’m choosing one alternative versus the other, and sometimes these strategic discussions, they can get going all sorts of different ways, and maybe you will talk about one particular unique point and go deeper rather than look at the entire picture together and say, “This is good because of all of these five points that we presented in page one versus the other one.”
The AI Angle
Lenny: I think the other benefit, just one of the benefits of working backwards in Amazon’s whole written-down memo approach is it forces you to crystallize ideas and not stay superficial because there’s so many good ideas in theory. But then, when you have to get really concrete, that’s actually a terrible idea. Basically, it’s the same benefit in a lot of ways of get very concrete. What are you actually going to do? That will help you identify, “Okay. This isn’t going to work. What are we even thinking?” So I like that. Awesome. Okay. Another framework that you have is something that you call the four BB framework for product strategy. Can you talk about what that’s all about?
Anuj Rathi: We essentially saw that if a startup actually usually wants to do a bunch of things across the border, there’s always like, “Hey, I should be investing in tech debt or building core platforms. That would really help my product in the long term. That’s super important,” and that’s my engineering managers and largely, people asking for that bandwidth. Then, there is the product manager themselves who’s basically saying, “I want to do feature enhancement, bug fixes, my version twos, a few areas, experiments, and so on, and so forth.” That’s a regular product backlog that would work on screen by screen, and there’s this leadership which will say, “You know what? Now, we have a suite of products. Now, I want to take a large delta bit that may work. It may not work, but we need to make sure that it works, but I need work across teams, and it’s not only one person that needs to do it. I need contribution from four or five of you that come together and deliver that,” or there are places where a company is just reimagining their identity, or they’re pivoting which is like, “All right. We were doing X. Now, we are doing X plus Y. That’s how we want to be known,” or, “We were doing X. Now, we want to do very little of X because current consumers, okay, we will take care of them, but now we want to pivot into Y.”
So it usually is in four of these buckets, and what really happens is it gets down to product managers eventually prioritizing between these four. So I don’t think it’s a tactical prioritization product manager call. It really is a product strategy call, and the conversation that needs to happen is between, say, the head of product and the CEO or even the leadership. If I gave you a hundred focus points, how much will you put in each of these buckets, and what are those four buckets? Those are the four BB buckets, so what are the ones? We call them… First BB is Brilliant Basics. The reason why we call it BB, Brilliant Basic, you need to brand… You cannot brand it as tech debt, so it feels like very off because these are brilliant, these are important. That’s what the company’s built on, and the company needs to invest in that. So that’s one.
The second one is Bread and Butter. So that’s your backlogs. If the product managers had no big ideas, and they just were left on their own, what would they come up with in terms of just improving that line of business that they’re given? Then, there are Big Bets. Now, that’s where your larger ideas that have come together, but how many big bets should we take, or is this big bet even a big one? That’s where you’re working backwards or PR FAQs start becoming even more important because those are the kind of bets that cannot be taken without everybody basically signing up, working backwards, and saying, “We will all make this successful.”
Breaking Bad essentially is a different world altogether. That’s where you want to redefine your company. For example, in Swiggy, if we were doing food delivery, now we want to do grocery delivery as well. It’s like these are two companies working together, or from a food delivery company, we wanted to become a convenience company. So that’s almost breaking bad. Again, like I said, we got cheesy, but the good thing that happens is now what you can do is, along with your leadership, take stock, and the head of product essentially can say, “You know what? In the next year, I can invest a lot less on my brilliant basics, and we should as a company focus a lot on this breaking back because that is existential.” But then, we should not look back and say, “Why were tech systems a little bit broken this time? We had a little bit more down times.”
You can basically blow it out and almost showcase what to expect. For example, if we are just working on a whole bunch of bread and butters, so you’ll start seeing a lot fewer bugs, customers will be a little happier. You worked a lot more… drill in basics. Tech systems are nice, but you didn’t create any differentiators. Well, none of your bets went out, and your competitors are catching up. So does that sound like a better future? These are hard questions, and these privatization questions… I don’t think of product management questions so much as product strategy questions, but in a lot of cases, executors don’t know what they’re trading off against.
So if you are able to create the conversation around which buckets do we want to put in and create three alternatives… I have tried to do that a bunch of times. Let’s look at strategy A, and we see how to be divergent. Suppose we were putting a lot fewer focus points in brilliant basics and a lot more on, for example, big bets, then there will be a risk that they will be like, “We won’t have any experiments or very less experiments. Bugs will stay bugs, but we will get a shot at changing the game.” Is that a future that sounds better or something else which is like because you’re pained also by a lot of bugs and constant down times, which is more secure, but we won’t build something amazing, so which sounds better? Because you are able to drive that, now the clarity to the product managers is way clearer in terms of what will they do. Also, they would know that if they have been signed up for a big bet, then they will need to contribute to the PR FAQ. They will need to contribute to the actual working on that irrespective of what their product was, but now they’re part of something bigger.
Lessons in Building Marketplaces
Lenny: Awesome. I love it. Okay. So just to summarize so people can have just a very short definition of this framework. Brilliant Basics is essentially tech debt and things that you just have to do like hygiene almost. Bread and Butter is essentially optimizing the product, existing product. Big Bets are big bets, and Breaking Bad are just future big rocket like moon shots just transform the way the business works?
Value Orientation Across Marketplaces
Anuj Rathi: That’s right.
Some Final Parting Words
Lenny: I love it. It’s also interesting. Another thread that comes up again and again in your advice is exploring all the options before committing to one like you always… I think it sounds like you always try to recommend three. I guess let me say what I always find is important there is I think it’s important for the product manager to recommend one along with that. It’s not just like, “Here’s three. You tell me which one you do.” It’s like, “Here’s three. Here’s my recommendation why.” Is that your advice too, or do you see something-
Anuj Rathi: 100%, 100%. So when you have explored the three, you essentially have done the work one like, “I have covered all bases and also crystallized them into a concrete option. Now, I’m choosing one on the company’s behalf on the basis of whatever I know about the market, about the company, about our strategy, and about how we will make it successful.” Now, if I miss something, it’s also a time where you can actually work with leadership and other product managers to essentially get that knowledge complete, or if you’re 80% right, you can actually use elements of strategy two and strategy three to bring into one. So that’s always the way that your thing that… one very concrete option, but because you have these other tools so that you’re not missing and bringing it together. But ultimately, you’re the one who is going to champion this, and that’s where the other leadership element of Amazon comes in which is disagree and commit. But once we have aligned on this one, we’ll all commit to launching this, and then the leadership should not go back and forth on that part.
Rapid Fire Q&A
Lenny: Awesome. I want to go in a completely different direction. It feels like you have a lot of contrarian opinions about how to build product, and how to build teams, and build companies, and things like that, so I just want to start broad. What are some things you have contrarian opinions about, things you believe that a lot of other people maybe don’t believe or seek differently?
Anuj Rathi: So one, for example, excellence and speed. There’s always a question around that. “Hey, would you rather ship faster, or would you rather ship better?” In my opinion, when you have to make a choice, think more and ship better. Most experiments should be thought experiments. They should not even be tried out because they’re obviously going to fail which is contrary to, “Let’s try it out, and then let’s see.” I think that wastes a lot of company time. If you had smart people who could do metathinking, a lot of experiments would just not even be like… It’s not a rule, but it’s a preference. I think speed and excellence are two different axes. Ideally, you should be better at both, but if you had to choose one, choose excellence.
There’s another contrarian opinion which is… I think most product managers, and again, I’m probably talking a little bit of the kind of people that I work with and have interacted with in product. Most product managers should not even be product managers. They should think a little bit more around whether this is actually the right field for them because I think a lot of people from other areas have entered the field without fully realizing what it takes. So there is definitely a way in which you can coach yourself, and then work your way upwards of that one, but it can make you quite miserable if it’s not right for you.
Favorite Interview Questions
Lenny: Is there something folks should look for there that will tell them you probably shouldn’t be a product manager? Either motivation, or skill set, or background, or anything?
Favorite Products and Life Mantras
Anuj Rathi: No. I don’t think about particular domains that you come from. I have, again, a simple framework of three. I think the first thing is essentially raw sharps, and that can manifest itself into problem identification and problem solving. That’s one, and also, higher-order thinking and all of that. I think that is super important. The second one is what I call drive or grit. I think with that comes a whole bunch of qualities around curiosity, learnability, never giving up, consumer-backward thinking, “I really want to solve this,” and all of that that comes with that. Third, which is a little difference, we talked about that, is influence. You’re in the business of influence, and if you can see yourself that, “I’m built this way,” or, “I want to really get better at these,” that’s when I think this field is going to serve you well.
Lenny: I love that everything is three. How handy.
Anuj Rathi: Only the BBs are four. I wish I could compress them three.
Lenny: Yeah. There’s too many things to do there. Essentially, these are maybe your perspective on the most important PM skills. A good way to think about it. Influence, grit, and just being smart.
Anuj Rathi: Mm-hmm.
Lenny: I think what you said here is not like you have to be amazing at these to get into product and do well. It’s you need to be excited about getting better at these skills.
Anuj Rathi: Yes. That’s right.
Lenny: Awesome.
Anuj Rathi: Well, I think it’s not as if that everybody is born with a lot of influence. Of course, you can get better at it, but it’s a prospect of that, “Hey, I will need to be influential to succeed at this job.” That should excite you and not scare you away. You should not think like, “Hey, you know what? I can get away from this and still be very successful product manager,” because most likely, you will not.
Lenny: Maybe spending a little more time here. So, smart, you’re probably not going to be able to do a lot about. In terms of grit or influence, is there anything you can share about what you’ve seen most helps people develop at these skills other than just doing the job for a while, and then starting to get better at this?
Anuj Rathi: Yeah. I think even smartness, I think 80% of that smartness, I think, is something that’s very achievable. You don’t need to be outstanding on that. Domain knowledge, for example, is something just like… An average smart person with no domain knowledge versus you armed with a lot of knowledge around domain and so on can already take you there, but you can take better decisions. I think first one is more about decision-making, problem identification, problem solving, and all of that. So I think that really can be developed at least to a level where you are very effective. Drive, I think, is probably the hardest to coach, probably the hardest. I’ve not seen people with less drive actually eventually turning out with a lot of drive, et cetera, but they can be inspired. I think you need to be a person who can think about it that way, but the third one, influences, I think, there’s no negotiation there. You need to really think that, “I have to be good at this one.”
There’s another framework that, Lenny, I wanted to talk about. When I look at product leadership in general and how do you think about different people and so on. When is it a product manager problem, or your problem, or a company problem? There are only three reasons, again, why things do not happen the way you want them to happen as a leader. You can look at a person, and you would say either that person can’t do, which is a capability issue, or they won’t do, which is a motivation or an alignment issue, or they were not set up to do, which is really your problem, that you didn’t set up the ways of working now design properly, or we are okay as such and such, and so on, and so forth.
So, as a leader, it’s almost the opposite of what we talked about, great influence and raw sharps. Do you have the right people in terms of capability? If not, is the right answer for us to coach them or to really put them… or mentor them and so on, or move them to some other place because maybe their capability is suited elsewhere? If they won’t do, why won’t they? Are they not aligned to you? Do they not agree with your vision? Do they not just have enough time? So on and so forth. So you need to really go deeper there. Why won’t they do?
There are different answers for that, but if it’s a setup issue, and at least I’ve realized that apart from what product managers can do, almost 70%, 80% of problems why things don’t happen are a setup issue. Product leaders or other leaders have not thought through what OKRs are doing to my company, not really fully thought through around org design. If you’ve read the book called TEEN Topologies, that’s one interesting book which starts with Conway’s law and essentially saying, “Show me an engineering architecture, and I will actually tell you what the org design of this company is,” but that also manifests itself in products that you can basically look at a product. In most cases, you will be able to say what was org design that led to this kind of product.
Lenny: I have heard that book mentioned a couple of times recently. I got to check it out just to the three you just shared, which is another three. I love it. Can do, won’t do. What was the third one again, didn’t do?
Anuj Rathi: Not set up to do.
Lenny: Not set up to do. That one is long. That’s a long one. I think what’s cool about these are they’re essentially ways to measure performance. Maybe if you’re a product manager, like performance reviews, it’s like, “Did you have the skills to do this? Did you have the motivation to do this, or is it something not set up for you?” You weren’t set up for success, basically?
Anuj Rathi: Mm-hmm.
Lenny: Okay. Let’s go to AI corner, something I’m trying to do with every guest. Is there anything you’ve learned about working with AI that you think might be helpful to listeners?
Anuj Rathi: Yeah. I think a couple of things. I think working with AI, many, many teams and companies get too excited about AI, and the possibilities, and so on, and it’s almost like a solution ready to find a problem within their companies, which also is fine because now you’re thinking about possibilities on what this particular technology can do for my company. So it’s a good way to start, but many people don’t actually use it in the best way possible and force fit it. Instead of that, you can think about, “How do I get AI to work with HI?” Again, it’s connecting back with… and this is something that Swiggy CEO, Sriharsha, invented this term called HI just to make sure that everybody understands.
Artificial intelligence is important as much as human intelligence. If you’re not humanly intelligent, you’re not going to be artificially intelligent or AI really help your company a lot. So, literally, any product that you’re building, even when it is technologically quite interesting, and exciting, and so on, it needs to be balanced out and work together along with a great UX, along with behavioral science. The combination of those two will actually make sure that you’re getting the best outcome of that, unless you are building something which is completely backed and with no human interventions. We’re talking about consumer products largely.
Lenny: You’ve helped build some of the most successful marketplaces in India and in the world. I’m curious just what may be a lesson or two about building a successful marketplace?
Anuj Rathi: One thing that I would definitely want to talk about is when you’re thinking marketplaces, it’s not as a one plus one equals two, it multiplies. We’re thinking about three-way marketplaces. You almost not need to think like it’s a two-dimensional plane going into three-dimension. It becomes that amount of complexity, and your regular product management and leadership principles start failing. So a bunch of usual suspects will not work. Let me give an example. OKRs will not work. Why not? So, fundamentally, OKRs are a way to think about objectives and key results, but the fundamental assumption here is that it is solving for a kind of user, and that kind of user, you can divide and conquer. Of course, there will be a little bit of tussle between different teams, but you can get them to work with each other. But if it is working for three different kinds of users, then all the goals will all the time be in conflict with each other.
Lenny: What are examples of the three users? There’s like the delivery person, the restaurant-
Anuj Rathi: The end user. So if you have… I’ll give you an example of. On the consumer side, we need to collect more delivery fee. What does that really mean for those other two? On the restaurant side, hey, we need to get more commissions because profitability is a goal. On the delivery partner side, it means pay them less or optimize a little bit more. But once you start moving one lever, those two are already stretched towards the other directions. They’re not independent levers in the first place, and the way to even model them out… How will it work? What if we choose X versus what… Ys will change. Y on Z. Z will change. It’s almost impossible to do that.
So I’ve seen OKRs fail multiple times when you’re running this kind of a marketplace. Big bets work much better. That’s when you say, “Hey, we want to take this bit,” but it’s all going to be… It’s all going to come together as… If we pull this lever, then something else will change. So here’s the entire story of, “Let’s go make this profitable by making delivery fee higher, but maybe not touching earnings per hour, or maybe not touching restaurant commissions.” Things like that. So I’ve at least found that’s a better way to choose strategically which direction we have to go.
The other thing is managing multiple empathies together that’s not straightforward. So, again, Swiggy being a real-time, hyper-local marketplace, and we discussed about that, right? As soon as the order comes, what happens between when user does this and when delivery executor is doing something else, and what are absolute different kind of scenarios that are going to be faced by the delivery executor? At the same time, how will I really work with the user to manage their emotions? So you need to manage a whole bunch of these things together, and product management here, you cannot have… The delivery executive product manager only care about that side. They also need to be a champion on the consumer side and vice versa.
Lenny: Yeah. I find with marketplaces… Uber went through this, Lyft went through this where the supply often just gets squeezed because they need to deliver for the customer. So drivers end up getting housed. Airbnb hosts get pushed to do things they may not want to do. Imagine delivery people, same thing.
Anuj Rathi: Now that you mentioned Uber, for example, one of the things that companies which were running taxi businesses. If you have just one limited pool of money, for example, and you want to get the marketplace humming with respect to number of orders per day, how do you decide, “Should I incentivize my users, for example, for the first ride, first 10 rides, and so on, or put zero money in there, but incentivize my drivers?” You need to come here, so you have to think about liquidity also in very different ways, and sometimes you need to pull the lever completely towards the other side. So the experiments also. A/B experiments also don’t work, and that’s a very unique thing about marketplaces. I mean, not work the way that you would expect them to work because there are network effects all over. So if you have to run A/B experiments on your drivers side, if you put half drivers on A versus half on B, but there is a network effect between the both of them.
Lenny: When you’re trying to decide which side of the marketplace to focus on and prioritize, do you have any lessons or rules of thumb of just focus on the customer and index towards their happiness versus the supply versus, say, the delivery person?
Anuj Rathi: There’s one thing that I think marketplaces need to realize is that, A, you need to be operating in a stable marketplace. So all sides need to be stable enough so that they’re not going to go away. So I think that’s a starting point, and that’s an important point because once we have established that, then after a stable marketplace, then we say, “Which are the kind of customer that we are in the service for? Which are the customer that we will really focus on?” For example, Amazon is very, very clearly a customer-centric company. If they have to make a choice, they won’t because they need to have a stable marketplace. So sellers also are very… as important, but slightly more important than the customer.
For example, if you looked at, say, Taobao or in Alibaba, their way of thinking is their aim in life is to create life-changing experience for 10 million Chinese sellers, and they will create a marketplace from the point of view of sellers which can actually sell. Again, they will have the same consumer app, and a seller work, and so on. They are in the service of sellers, so you really need to derive from the company’s vision. I think the way we had thought about it at Swiggy that we had to clarify in our values that the first value is… Initially, it used to be customer comes first, but that was very confusing because everybody is a customer. Even a restaurant is a selling customer and so on. We had to clarify that consumer comes first, the end consumer which is actually eating food because we are a convenience company that delivers to the end consumer, and when you’re thinking about restaurants or delivery partners, we work with them because we both are… When you’re talking with the delivery partner, Swiggy and the delivery partner, we both are in the service of the customer. So you’ll build that app also from that perspective and even the restaurant side also from that perspective that we both are together in the service of the end customer.
Lenny: I feel like you have probably a hundred more frameworks, and processes, and acronyms we can talk about, but I know you got to go. Is there anything else you wanted to touch on, or is there anything else you want to leave listeners with before we get to our very exciting lightning round?
Anuj Rathi: Just last few words that I want to revise. Work backwards from an amazing future. So first thing is creatively imagine a future, and then work backwards from that, and essentially, think what will make that successful, and be paranoid about… that everything is going to go wrong. Hence, I need to just make sure that it all comes together.
Lenny: Only the paranoids survive. Great advice to leave people with. We’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. I’ve got six questions for you. Are you ready?
Anuj Rathi: Yeah.
Lenny: What are two or three books that you’ve recommended most to other people?
Anuj Rathi: One book is Working Backwards. We covered that. The other one that has shaped my beliefs a lot is called How Brands Grow by a professor called Byron Sharp. There are two paths to it, How Brands Grow 1 and 2, that’s both very good. The other book which I really love is… and recently, Kunal Shah, who’s the founder of Cred, an Indian startup, suggested is The Luxury Strategy. The reason why I love that book is because it gets into the depth of the human psychology behind hierarchies, and how lords, and kings, and those kind of social hierarchies have shaped how people think about aspirational products and so on. So highly recommend it.
Lenny: What’s a favorite recent movie or TV show that you’ve really enjoyed?
Anuj Rathi: I really like to do reruns of The Office. I was trying to think about this as, “What is a recent movie that I watched?” I’m like, “No.” I keep on going back to The Office and some other episode. Like today, I have a lot of stories from Michael Scott.
Lenny: Okay. The US one, not the British one, or do you watch both?
Anuj Rathi: No. I watch both, but the US one has a lot more seasons.
Lenny: Do you have a favorite interview question that you like to ask candidates when you’re interviewing product-manager-specific?
Anuj Rathi: “Which are the products where you decide speed is more important versus which are the products where you have to say excellence is what’s important?” I think that gives me a good understanding of their frameworks and why they’re just saying what, and then we go back into concrete examples where they chose one versus the other, and then take it from there.
Lenny: Then, what do you look for In a good answer to that question?
Anuj Rathi: I look for, essentially, their assessment of risk, their assessment of how important or how well have they assessed the market and the competition or the competitive products in that market. If their answer is, “Let’s ship something, and we’ll find out, and so on,” that also gives me, basically, a point of view that they really don’t understand that this product, what they’re talking about with the shipping speed, is not really… The V part of the MVP is not viable or is not… I don’t know. How do you call the MLP or whatever? But it’s not differentiated enough that it can be marketed. It is not worth enough where we can take it to user. It’s not going to work for a lazy win and selfish user, and maybe that’s not the answer towards speed versus excellence versus, for example, there’s some products which are… There’s a very clear competitive differentiation that we can find. There was a clear market gap. I want to launch something even if it is half-baked. No problem. I want to go, take it out, get user feedback, I trade, and so on. So understanding of the market, A, but B, also understanding of the core orientation.
Lenny: It comes back to your ongoing advice of being full-stack in a lot of ways, and in this case, being a full-stack PM thinking about marketing, launch, and adoption, all those things. Next question, what is a favorite product you’ve recently discovered that you really like?
Anuj Rathi: The very recent product that I like is called RISE. It’s a sleep track app because I am half insomniac, and for the longest time, I was thinking about, “How can I track this? What am I doing, and how can I actually get better at this?” So I really like the way that they actually help the end user. It’s just been a week since I’ve started using it, but recommend it.
Lenny: Has that helped your sleep yet or too soon to say?
Anuj Rathi: It’s helped me track my sleep, so it’s… Now, it’s getting into the zone where it is actionable, but I like it.
Lenny: Okay, okay. We’ll see.
Anuj Rathi: We’ll see.
Lenny: Do you have a favorite life motto that you often come back to, share with people, think about in either work or life?
Anuj Rathi: I would call it a life motto as much, but one of the things that I keep telling my people who work with me, alongside me, and so on is, “Stop externalizing.” That’s one, which also means the more artistic way to say that is you are the reason for your own misery. So that’s something that I keep using a lot more in a fun way. But if things go wrong, if that leadership meeting didn’t happen in that way, if my product bombed, and so on, go back and let’s ask ourselves what could we have done better, what I could have done better, and so on. Of course, because I’m also a poker player, so in a way, I understand there is half luck involved and half skill. But over a long period of time, if it’s only luck and you’re failing, and failing, and failing, you have to go and look back at your skill. So, yeah. You are the reason for your own misery.
Lenny: I love that advice. Be very empowering, and be responsible. Final question. I was stalking your LinkedIn. You host an event called The Secret Soiree, which is not that secret because you post about it, but I’m curious, just what is that all about, and what got you to do these sorts of events?
Anuj Rathi: So we just started, me and an ex-colleague of mine, Shivangi. So we essentially wanted to meet cool people around. So that’s how it started. Interesting people without agenda who can come together and discuss interesting stuff about entrepreneurship, about startups, about products, about connections, and so on, and so forth. So it just started like that, and now we are onto many, many more interesting things that we are bringing in terms of cohorts which will be team-based. So it could be around product management, around marketing, around growth, and so on. We are strictly keeping it not-for-profit for at least the next year, but long way to go.
Lenny: Amazing, and so for listeners, is this something they could join? Who should look into this? Who is this for?
Anuj Rathi: Absolutely. At that time, probably, we’ll not call it The Secret Soiree once we have probably expanded.
Lenny: No longer secret. Okay. Cool, and then I guess they just follow you on LinkedIn, right? That’s how they can keep up to date with these sorts of events. Okay. Cool.
Anuj Rathi: Yes, on LinkedIn as well as on Twitter.
Lenny: Awesome. Anuj, we’ve gone through so many topics. We’ve talked about breaking bad and full-stack product management, full-stack thinking, working backwards, bread and butter, rule of threes. I don’t know. So many things. Two final questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to reach out and follow up on anything we’ve talked about, and how can listeners be useful to you?
Anuj Rathi: Yes. So I’m on Twitter, so on twitter.com/anujrathi, and LinkedIn, you can just search my name. I’m pretty active on both of them. I do a bunch of… not podcasts all the time like you host, Lenny, but a bunch of other events as well as talks, so. I keep on posting on Twitter. They can find me there.
Lenny: Amazing. Anuj, thank you so much for being here.
Anuj Rathi: Thank you so much, Lenny, for hosting.
Lenny: It’s my pleasure. Bye, everyone.
Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.
Glossary
| English | 中文 |
|---|---|
| Big Bets | Big Bets(大胆赌注,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Bread and Butter | Bread and Butter(基本盘,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Breaking Bad | Breaking Bad(破局转型,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Brilliant Basics | Brilliant Basics(卓越基本功,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Conway’s law | Conway 定律(康威定律) |
| Cred | Cred(印度金融科技公司,保留原文) |
| cross-pollination / cross-sell | 交叉渗透 / 交叉销售 |
| CXO | CXO(首席高管,如 CEO、CTO 等) |
| disagree and commit | disagree and commit(亚马逊领导力原则:异议但承诺执行) |
| elevator pitch | 电梯演讲 |
| FD | FD(定期存款) |
| four BB framework | 四 BB 框架(four BB framework) |
| Frodo Baggins | 弗罗多·巴金斯(《指环王》角色) |
| full-stack PM | 全栈产品经理 |
| growth loops | 增长飞轮(growth loops) |
| GTM | GTM(Go-to-Market,推向市场) |
| HI | HI(人类智慧,Human Intelligence) |
| Jupiter | Jupiter |
| Kunal Shah | Kunal Shah(Cred 创始人,保留原文) |
| liquidity | 流动性 |
| Marc Andreessen | 马克·安德森(硅谷知名投资人) |
| metathinking | 元思考(metathinking) |
| Michael Scott | Michael Scott(《The Office》角色,保留原文) |
| MLP | MLP(Minimum Lovable Product,最小可爱产品) |
| neobank | neobank(新型数字银行) |
| network effects | 网络效应 |
| OKR | OKR(目标与关键成果) |
| personas | 人物画像(personas) |
| PR FAQ | PR FAQ(新闻稿/常见问题,Amazon 逆向工作法中的核心文档) |
| PRD | PRD(产品需求文档) |
| Range | 《Range》(《范围》,David Epstein 著作) |
| raw sharps | 基本敏锐度(raw sharps) |
| RISE | RISE(睡眠追踪 App,保留原文) |
| Roger Federer | 罗杰·费德勒(国际网球名将) |
| Scott Belsky | Scott Belsky(Adobe 高管,保留原文) |
| Shivangi | Shivangi(Anuj 的前同事,保留原文) |
| show don’t tell | 展示而非讲述(show don’t tell) |
| Sriharsha | Sriharsha(Swiggy CEO,保留原文) |
| Swiggy | Swiggy |
| Team Topologies | Team Topologies(《团队拓扑》,保留英文书名) |
| The Office | 《The Office》(办公室,保留原文) |
| The Secret Soiree | The Secret Soiree(活动名称,保留原文) |
| Wayne Gretzky | 韦恩·格雷茨基(加拿大冰球传奇) |
| working backwards | 逆向工作法 |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
全栈产品经理 | Anuj Rathi(Swiggy、Jupiter Money、Flipkart)
领导者的三个问题
Anuj Rathi: 作为领导者,事情没有按照你期望的方向发展,原因只有三个。你可以审视一个人,说他要么是”不能做”——这是能力问题;要么是”不愿做”——这是动机或对齐问题;要么是”没有被赋予做的条件”——这其实是你自己的问题,是你没有把工作方式和流程设计好。所以,作为领导者,你的人员能力是否到位?如果不到位,正确答案是去辅导他们、指导他们,还是把他们调到其他岗位——也许他们的能力更适合别的地方?如果他们不愿做,为什么不愿?是方向不一致吗?是不认同你的愿景吗?是时间不够?诸如此类,你需要真正深入探究——他们为什么不愿做?
Lenny: 今天我的嘉宾是 Anuj Rathi。我一直希望在这档播客中邀请更多印度的产品领袖,因为播客在印度有大量听众。当我在 Twitter 和 LinkedIn 上发起征集,问大家希望谁来的时候,Anuj 是被推荐最多的人。Anuj 现任首席产品与营销官。此前他在 Swiggy 担任收入与增长高级副总裁,任职七年。他还曾是 Snapdeal 的产品副总裁、Walmart Labs 的高级产品经理,以及 Flipkart 的第一位产品经理,领导买家体验团队。
在我们的对话中,我们深入探讨了印度的产品管理有何不同,Anuj 关于为新用户打造产品体验的心得,他如何在所服务过的公司中推行逆向工作法(working backwards),为什么他要求团队在确定方案之前先探索三个不同方向,以及为什么他认为产品经理和公司应该比现在更加全栈。此外,还有一系列关于打造产品和产品职业发展的框架与反共识观点。非常感谢 Sayan Maiti 和 Nikhil Kulkarni 帮助我了解印度的产品圈。未来还会有更多优秀的印度产品领袖登场。接下来,请听 Anuj Rathi。
印度最受欢迎的产品领袖
Lenny: Anuj,非常感谢你来到这里,欢迎来到播客。
Anuj Rathi: 非常感谢,Lenny。谢谢你的邀请。
Lenny: 这是我的荣幸。这件事我还没告诉过你——当我在 Twitter 和 LinkedIn 上征集大家最喜欢的印度产品领袖时,你是被推荐最多的那个人。所以我想先问一下,至少在我的 Twitter 和 LinkedIn 粉丝看来,成为最受喜爱的印度产品领袖,感觉如何?
Anuj Rathi: 感觉非常好,而且我觉得这一切是水到渠成的,因为我在产品管理领域已经深耕了很久。2010 年,我在 Flipkart 开启了产品管理之旅。那个时代面向印度本土打造的产品还很少。所以我认为一方面是从业时间足够长,另一方面是很多人了解并认可我的工作。
印度的产品管理有何不同
Lenny: 太好了,你很谦虚。我想先问一个关于印度产品的问题——产品管理和产品打造在印度整体上最大的不同是什么?
Anuj Rathi: 这是一个很有意思的问题,我也一直在思考。当我审视印度的产品管理时——我确实有很多朋友会将印度与美国、欧洲甚至中国、东南亚等地进行比较——我认为印度的产品整体上经历了一段非常独特的旅程,产品管理也因此而不同。大概到 2010 年左右,真正为印度消费者打造的产品其实很少。当时有大量产品和技术在开发,但基本上是作为后台支撑——很多优秀的工程师在为美国客户或欧洲客户构建产品。所以当那些开始为印度消费者做产品的创业公司出现时,我们并没有可以直接借鉴的人才储备,也没有接受过产品打造方面的训练。更不用说产品管理作为一个领域了——没有任何一所大学在教授相关内容,没有现成的方法论,什么都没有。我们会去网上看 YouTube,看 SVPG 之类的资源,但我们从中理解的东西并不能直接应用到印度的创业公司中。
印度产品管理的独特演变
Anuj Rathi: 这些产品最终成型的方式,我认为也塑造了印度产品管理这个领域的演变路径。所以经历了很多轮迭代,我觉得大概有两三波浪潮已经过去,我们现在离”印度应该怎么做好的产品管理”已经近了很多。不过跟美国相比,我们仍然还有一段路要走。我也从另一个角度来思考这个问题——比如在美国,产品打造的文化大概从 1970 年代就开始了,现代软件产品打造的文化。那个时候不仅仅有产品经理,而是整个生态系统都成熟了——如果你想想一家公司里,负责商业的 VP 是谁,负责供应链、销售、运营、技术的 VP 分别是谁,所有这些角色都清楚如何彼此协作来构建软件产品。他们理解软件产品是怎么被构建出来的,也知道应该期待什么。
我认为在印度,到了 2010 年左右,即使那些需要协同起来做电商等各类业务的人,他们可能来自快消行业,或者来自制造业等等。他们在各自经历中所形成的预期,是一种非常”请求-响应”式的理解——也就是说,“这里有一台机器,如果我投入 X 资源,我预期在可接受的波动范围内,会得到 Y 这个可预测的产出。“这种心态也延伸到了对产品经理或产品打造过程的期望上。所以经过一段时间,很多这样的周期已经经历过来了,公司里越来越多的领导者也经历了这些周期,逐渐理解了——“好吧,现在我明白了,软件不是机器。消费者并不像我们想象的那样可预测。“这些认知的转变,最终让产品管理在印度真正走向成熟。
现代产品思维在印度的起步时间
Lenny: 你刚才提到在美国,大概 1970 年代就开始了。那你觉得在印度,现代产品思维真正开始加速发展是什么时候?
Anuj Rathi: 我觉得 2010 年是一个起点,因为……当然,在那之前也有少数产品被开发出来,而且我记得有人很清楚地总结过——通常来说,当一个国家开始出现现代消费互联网时,往往从旅游行业开始。所以你会看到,基本上任何国家,第一批互联网公司通常都是旅游公司。印度也是如此,早些时候就有 MakeMyTrip 这样的公司。此外还有一些非常有趣的产品,是专门为印度消费者的独特需求打造的,比如婚恋领域的 Shaadi.com、BharatMatrimony.com 等等。你可能会想,“那 Tinder 怎么说?“印度以包办婚姻闻名,所以有一些产品真正理解了——“嘿,如果你是一个家长,想为孩子找对象,该怎么为这个需求服务?“于是这种婚介匹配的市场平台就开始出现了。
这些都是零星出现的、为印度独特需求而生的产品。而我认为 2010 年这个十年,是我能非常清晰地回忆起来的一段时期,很多人从那时开始真正为印度市场打造产品。Flipkart 开启了这段旅程,随后几年里又出现了 Ola,在某种程度上类似于 Uber 在其他地方做的事情,然后一大波创业公司开始涌现。比如在外卖领域,我在 Swiggy 工作的时候,那大概是 2014、2015 年左右的时间。现在你能看到大量创业公司,它们不仅在模仿——“印度的 Uber 应该是什么样的”或者”印度的 DoorDash 应该是什么样的”——而是在做非常不同、也非常创新的事情。所以我认为现在正是产品打造在这个领域更加蓬勃发展的时期。
印度市场的规模与复杂性
Lenny: 能不能给一些数据,比如印度的公司数量、人口规模、印度的消费支出之类的?我不知道,就是那种让人一看就会感叹”哇,这个机会比我想象的大得多”的数字。
Anuj Rathi: 好的,这个问题范围很广,我来谈谈。在谈印度的机会之前,我想先聊聊印度的复杂性,因为我觉得很多人并不真正理解这一点。印度有多少人口?14 亿。印度实际上经历了三波浪潮,这些浪潮不仅发生在印度,也影响了全球。第一波是从桌面端到移动端,然后又从功能机到智能手机。在智能手机之后,就是我们所称的 Jio 革命。有一家印度公司叫 Reliance Jio,它基本上把智能手机的上网费用降到了最低。正因为如此,一大批新用户涌入了互联网,他们渴望新的产品、新的内容、全新的互动方式,以及用互联网做各种各样的事情。这是其中一波浪潮。
另一个重要因素是印度政府真正推动的事情,尤其是在数字化方面——把一些最基础的、与公民相关的核心基础设施进行了数字化。比如数字支付,大量印度人因此第一次默认拥有了银行账户,还有一个叫 UPI 的系统。即使你没有银行账户,或者你的银行账户与手机号绑定,现在所有人都可以通过这个系统来支付,这带来了一场非常不一样的革命。即使是 5 卢比——大概 10 美分甚至更少——也会通过 UPI 支付,人们开始逐渐远离现金。还有一个概念叫 India Stack,把所有这些整合在一起——社会保障、身份认证、支付等等——大量其他应用可以在这个基础上构建自己的服务层。于是大量有趣的应用场景开始涌现。所以这是第一点,关于人口规模和基础设施。
接下来另一个需要认识的是,印度非常多元。这里使用的语言数量极其庞大,光是官方语言就非常多。印度有一句老话说,“每隔 15 英里,语言就会变,人和文化都会变。“这是一个拥有这么多人口的巨大国家。所以你传统上思考产品的方式——“我在为谁打造?“——会变得非常不同。“你是在为这类人还是那类人做产品?“等等。很多框架会失效,因为甚至不能假设同一种语言就能通用。虽然英语是一种被使用的语言——至少是那些有钱、有消费能力的人在用——但你的思维必须更加开阔。
关于印度的另一个有趣之处是人们愿意支付的价格。一般来说,这确实取决于人均收入。印度的人均收入非常低,大概在两千到两千五百美元这个范围,而美国大概是三十倍之多。所以虽然会有大量用户给你带来流量和活跃度,但真正找到那些愿意来使用、愿意互动、愿意付钱的付费用户,这种能力极其珍贵。需要付出更多、更辛苦的努力。如果你在做电商,谁会愿意付配送费?谁会真正购买这些高价位商品?所以一大批不同的思维方式在这个国家演化出来,这也是为什么印度的产品生态如此充满活力,与任何其他全球市场都如此不同。
新用户体验的独特洞察
Lenny: 哇,太有意思了。我可以继续聊下去,但我想聊聊产品本身。我从认识你的人或者跟你合作过的人那里收集了一堆问题,涉及各个方面,所以我会东一榔头西一棒子地问。第一个我想聊的领域是用户体验。显然,你对于新用户和新用户体验有一些有趣的洞察和不一样的思考方式。
用户是懒惰、虚荣、自私的
Anuj Rathi: 我在与各种产品合作的过程中意识到一件事——产品经理乃至整个公司,往往过于沉浸在自己的产品思维中。因为离产品太近,太在乎它,每天都在看它,关注各种细微的体验差异和交互感受。而这种状态本身就暗含了一种偏见:他们默认所有人都整天、每时每刻都在想着这款产品。然而现实是,你的目标市场里绝大多数消费者根本不在乎。他们可能偶尔听说过你的产品。口碑传播的力量再强也有限,即便你是最大的品牌也不例外。但正是这样的客户,你需要把他们吸引过来,然后服务好他们。
我听过 Adobe 的 Scott Belsky 分享过一个很有意思的洞察。他现在在做一些非常有趣的事情。这个洞察一直留在我心里——你必须把现代互联网用户理解为具有三个特质:懒惰、虚荣、自私。懒惰的意思是,“我没时间研究这个,所以你得让我眼前一亮,否则我不会关注你。“虚荣的意思是,“我有一个习惯,我用一种特定的方式解决这个问题。你拿着你的花哨产品跑来让我改习惯,你真的指望我会这么做吗?“这是他们固有的特质。第三点是自私——“告诉我,对我有什么好处?”
一旦你开始从这个角度去思考用户,而这些用户甚至根本没用过你的产品,你突然就会意识到,“天哪,光是吸引这类客户就已经很难了……如果我的营销团队已经成功把这个用户带到了我的产品面前,我又该如何真正与这个懒惰、自私、虚荣的客户产生共情?如何打造产品,让他在你的页面上觉得’这就是我必须用的东西’——你的文案怎么写、引导流程怎么设计、第一次欢迎怎么做?“这些事情对产品成功的影响,远大于你为忠实用户开发的核心功能。
这一个洞察,我不只在我工作过的公司多次验证和运用,也在我咨询和交流过的公司中反复看到。大多数人忽视了它。他们知道用户引导很重要,但到底有多重要,这是第一点。第二,去像一个懒惰、虚荣、自私的用户那样思考——本质上是在拒绝你所有的产品,觉得”这对我不起作用”——这种思维技巧极其困难。真的很难,但如果你戴上这副眼镜去看问题,绝对值得。
Lenny: 有没有一个具体的例子,你在某个产品上运用了这个框架,然后你觉得”这件事我们确实做得……”产生了很大影响,或者让大家都很意外?
在 Swiggy 和 Jupiter 的实践
Anuj Rathi: 我们在两个不同领域运用过。一个是当然是我亲自做过的产品。我在 Swiggy 工作了七年,当我们开始针对这类用户做优化,而不是把所有人都一视同仁地当作”这就是我们的引导体验,这就是我们的产品”——我们基本上改变了思路:与其说”我们是一个外卖应用,我们是一个生鲜配送应用,我们有这些东西”,不如从用户的角度重新构建——“你想要什么?你可以怎么用我们?对你有什么好处?“然后我们把所有营销信息和引导流程串联起来。从你第一次听说我们开始——你是在哪里看到我们的?你怎么知道我们的?既然这是一个相当大的品牌,你为什么还没有下载使用?你以前用过然后放弃了吗?建立一整套心智模型,从用户的视角看问题——“假设你已经听说过我们二十次了,到底是什么样的具体场景让你最终下载了这个 App?”
从你听到我们的整个旅程开始,触发点是什么,营销信息是什么,我们在做什么促销——如何把这个旅程延续到你的引导流程中:从开屏广告、到”用我们买就立减 X 卢比”的优惠,用他们能理解的语言,用从营销到产品无缝衔接的用户体验,把整个旅程打通。这是我们在一个层面上更加聚焦的地方,效果几乎是立竿见影的。不过,虽然我说的只是一个非常简单的例子,而且每个团队都应该这样做,但同样的原则在更复杂的场景中也适用——当你有一个包含多个产品和多条业务线的 App 时,道理是一样的。我认为最大的差距就出现在这里——人们不知道为什么自己无法实现交叉渗透或交叉销售。
现在我正在与一家叫 Jupiter 的公司合作,它是一个金融服务 App,一个 neobank(新型数字银行)。我们关注个人理财,它有一系列产品:个人账户或者说储蓄账户、信用卡、共同基金,还有黄金、FD(定期存款)等投资产品,很多东西。但当人们只使用我们的一项服务就离开时,你需要认识到,这个用户已经在那一个点上找到了价值——他对你说的一大堆其他东西并不感兴趣。所以你要能够与这个用户共情,然后从行为科学的角度思考:“我如何把这个用户从一项服务引导到另一项?“这一点我觉得极其重要。
Lenny: 我听到你说的几点。第一,关注的不应该是正在使用你产品的人,而是边际用户或者相邻用户——下一批用户,这才是你在优化引导和用户体验时应该考虑的对象。第二,听起来你很成功的一个做法是,选准一个价值主张,一个定位,然后贯穿用户整个旅程,而不是说”这是我们做的所有事情”。对吗?
Anuj Rathi: 完全正确。我举个例子说明为什么这一点很重要。我之所以强烈建议产品经理,即便不比营销人员更懂,至少也要同等程度地理解那些尚未进入市场、还没购买你产品的品类消费者,和营销或品牌专家理解得一样好——因为营销团队的核心任务就是找到那一个能让用户注意到、觉得”哦,这个有意思”的信息,把注意力引向你的产品。如果产品经理也能做到这一点,他们就会选择那个定位,理解”我的希望产品是什么,我给他们带来的是什么希望”——至少让他们愿意试试我的 App。如果产品经理能像营销人员一样理解这些,然后再去把握:“在什么合适的时机把另一项服务介绍给他们,而不是贪心地让新用户一下子尝试所有东西”——这才是关键。
产品不是”装上去就会用”
Anuj Rathi: 另一件我觉得很多产品经理没做好的事情是……大多数产品的设计方式不幸地就是”忘掉一切,这是我的 App,你自己摸索去吧”。人们默认这些事情会自然而然发生,不需要任何干预——“我做了一个如此精美的东西,只要你点击那个图标,每个人都能看出这是我的产品,运行得完美无缺”。但他们并没有认真思考:“我到底在什么时刻把这个用户带到这里?他们真的会用吗?“要知道,这个用户是懒惰的、虚荣的、自私的。
Lenny: 这句话让我想起我一直以来的一个想法。Marc Andreessen 有一句很棒的话:你的用户的时间已经分配好了,他们并不是在找更多的 App 去下载。他们今天已经有了计划,有事情要做,他们不会想”嗯,我现在再去看看还有什么 iPhone App 可以试试”。所以你必须以某种方式说服他们:“这值得你花时间。“我很喜欢这个框架。你在 Swiggy、Jupiter 或者 Flipkart 有没有一个具体的例子——一句话、一个表达,对简化价值主张产生了很大影响的?或者如果你一时想不到具体例子,实施这些想法之后你观察到了什么样的效果?
产品经理是全栈影响者
Anuj Rathi: 我来讲一个我现在经常跟产品经理们使用的说法,帮助他们简化思考方式。我觉得有一点很重要……这不仅仅适用于消费者,也适用于我们自己内部的运作方式。我们作为产品经理,本质上是做影响力工作的。用户正在做某件事,我们想让他们做另一件事;工程师正在做某件事,我们想影响他们更快地构建东西;领导层有自己的计划,我们想影响他们去看某个方案并最终签字批准。我们本质上就是在做影响力工作,而你内部一直在做这件事,否则你连产品都发不出去。现在,我们要把这种能力延伸到用户身上,真正从那个角度去思考。所以你是一个全栈影响者,而不仅仅是外部影响者。我们必须更多地像销售、像营销、像网红那样去思考。
Lenny: 产品经理最重要的技能之一就是影响团队中的人,而我喜欢你提到的这个观点——你同时也在试图影响你的用户。这很有意思。这也更有理由让你把影响力练得更好。我其实写过一篇 newsletter,讲如何提升影响力,是基于 Frodo Baggins 和《指环王》写的。我们会在节目备注里放出链接。好,我们换个话题。你对实际落地逆向工作法有一套非常具体的方法。我们最近请到了《Working Backwards》这本书的作者之一来做节目,我很期待听到你在实践中总结出的经验。听别人说”我们来逆向工作”很容易,但真正去做完全是另一回事,我很想听听你在这方面的心得。
逆向工作法的真正价值
Anuj Rathi: 发明逆向工作法的显然是 Amazon。他们开创了这整套流程——“嘿,为什么不先写一份新闻稿,然后从那份新闻稿开始逆向推导?“我觉得这是一个非常棒的想法,我就去深挖了一下:“嘿,为什么它有效?“我的洞察,或者说我对这件事的理解是:逆向工作法不仅仅是从客户价值主张出发逆向推导——“我们的客户会喜欢吗?他们会付费吗?这值得注意吗?我们是否应该做这件事?“虽然这是逆向工作法框架教给我们的最重要的东西之一,但本质上,你是在从一整套在某个特定日期运转的机制逆向推导。对于 GTM(推向市场)的那个日期,从现在到那一天我们需要做什么才能让 GTM 成功?同时,到那个时候我们会建立起什么样的机制来保障产品的成功?
因为你已经在讨论 GTM 了,所以你已经在思考”用户会怎样喜欢上它?我们会花多少钱?我们探索了哪些路径,最终锁定了哪一条?“这些内容都会成为新闻稿的一部分。如果我把视角稍微打开一些——新闻稿是什么?新闻稿就是你的一页纸文件,写清楚我们在建什么、具体日期是什么、精确的价值主张是什么、消费者会说什么、业务负责人会说什么、他们会如何回应、会如何使用。而这个框架带来的一点是,你可以把它用在很多其他事情上。比如你可以用它来做谈判,因为你从一个日期开始,然后说”这是我要交付的一页纸,我希望消费者看到这个”。你可以拿着它去找工程 VP 说:“到这个日期,我们能把这些全部做出来吗?“他们可能还没有所有的 PRD 和细节,但可以给你一个判断——这个时间线太激进了,或者还行。
我们还可以利用新闻稿中的引言来寻找盟友,或者发现那些可能会阻挠这个项目的人。你可以用客户的话来推动:“我希望我的客户说出这样的话——从营销和定价团队的角度,我们真的能交付这个,让消费者那样说吗?“从业务负责人的引言出发,你可以说:“这是我们要交付的东西,但你的目标是什么?你能不能承诺三个月内我们能达到这个水平?“用这种方式构建出完整的图景,是我发现它真正强大的地方——因为如果你在这里发现了分歧,有人说”我交付不了”,你就可以调整日期,调整目标,因为所有这些东西是联动的。所以不是只调一个变量,而是找出那个新闻稿要上线所有需要协调一致的事项——这才是真正的价值。
“三个方案”的力量
我发现的另一个有趣的点是,我非常相信”三”的力量。所以我实际上要求我的团队写三份新闻稿,彼此不同、各有分歧——“如果我们……会怎样?“假设你要上线一个会员计划,那么不是两个档次,试试三个档次;或者换个例子,不做会员制,做一个带积分的阶梯定价方案;不用这个客群,用另一个客群。三套方案都需要充分想透,然后帮助领导层做选择。
这里面有两个好处。当你处于产品探索阶段时,你已经听取了很多人的意见。如果你最终只给他们看一条路线图,他们的感觉会是:“嘿,这个人听了我的观点、觉得有价值,但没采纳。“但当你做三份新闻稿时,你可以说:“我考虑过这个,它组合成了一个有价值的故事,这是另一条路线”;“我考虑过你的观点,也构建了一个故事,但遗憾的是它不成立,所以我们放弃了。“这样一来,大家就可以对比和权衡,这是一个非常强大的领导力工具。实际上这对 CXO 们也是非常强大的工具。当他们说”我们来做这个”的时候,你可以说:“这里有三种方式可以做这件事,而我不做你说的那个,原因是你其实会更喜欢这两个。“
FAQ 的系统性价值
Lenny: 用 PR FAQ 和逆向工作法来推动截然不同的思考,这真是一个很棒的想法——一方面确保你充分探索了所有选项,另一方面在确定方向之前,把人们脑海中的想法真正想透彻,看看里面有没有有价值的东西。
Anuj Rathi: FAQ 对于在系统中建立流程也非常重要。比如现在在 Jupiter,我们做的是一个金融服务 app,所以每份 FAQ 都强制要求回答:“你如何确保它完全合规?有没有拿到 A、B、C 各方的签字确认?你有没有真正考虑过法律层面的问题?“等等。FAQ 在这里可以非常有效地发挥作用。再举个例子,在 Swiggy 的时候,它是一个三方市场——有消费者、配送员和餐厅合作伙伴。你对任何一方做一个小改动,比如说优化配送员的时薪,这会导致单次配送成本的变化,但可能对配送费产生完全不同的影响。
我随便举的例子,但因为系统中有这么多相互关联的部分,在 FAQ 里你就要明确地追问:“你有没有考虑过对餐厅合作伙伴的影响?你有没有考虑过对配送员的影响?“我们甚至会在 PR FAQ 中把配送员的不同细分群体写下来,有时候会出现非常意想不到的关联性,因为负责某一端的 PM 开始主动去咨询市场另一端:“这个改动对你们意味着什么?“它把所有人都聚在一起,共同打造对所有市场参与方都真正有效的产品。
全栈产品经理要为结果负责
Lenny: 从你讲的几个故事中,我提炼出一个贯穿的线索——你经常回到”全栈”这个理念。你说过 PM 就像一个影响者,但同时也是在影响用户,这种思维方式很有意思。在逆向工作法中,你可以用它来思考完整的上线链条,而不仅仅是你要开发哪些功能。我知道你对产品经理还有一些很强的观点,认为他们应该比大多数 PM 更加”全栈”。这个说法对得上吗?如果对的话,能展开讲讲吗?
Anuj Rathi: 对,我觉得这和前面说的是同一条线索。产品经理必须为结果负责,而不仅仅是为自己负责的那部分功能和问题负责。当然,他们需要完整地承担问题的某些部分,但他们还需要与所有人协作,确保最终推出的产品是成功的——而且”成功”的定义不仅仅是”我们上线了一个对用户可用的东西”。真正的成功是:它是否真正改变了我们想要触达的那类用户的行为?是否达成了对业务有意义的成果?是否构建了对我们至关重要的能力?所有这些加在一起,如果 PM 只考虑自己那一亩三分地,是不可能实现的。所以他们必须考虑外部用户,必须考虑竞争对手,必须考虑其他 PM 和产品负责人、工程师、市场团队等等,因为这是一个高度多元化的领域。
除非你真的……我不是说你需要在每个领域都是权威。要么你本身就非常擅长,要么你建立了良好的合作关系,把你的想法和产品拿去跟这些人讨论、获得他们的反馈权重,最终围绕那部分做出决策——否则我认为你不会很成功。所以在我看来,全栈产品经理会比只在一个领域做得很好的 PM 更容易成功。有一本书叫《Range》(《范围》),你应该也听说过吧?光是第一章,他们讲的就是……他们举了两个例子,其中一个是费德勒,罗杰·费德勒。以费德勒为例,他一直到 18 岁都在打各种球拍类运动,甚至不全是网球。但你可以从一个球拍运动中汲取想法,带到另一个球拍运动中,再从第二个带到第三个,以此类推,最终你拥有了如此丰富的想法储备,能够连接更多的点,并把它们真正落地交付。我认为这才是产品领域取得更大成功的更好策略。
“展示而非讲述”
Lenny: 我最近刚好在看一部纪录片,好像叫《Greatness》,里面讲到韦恩·格雷茨基,他的经历几乎一模一样。他小时候只在冬天打冰球,夏天就玩其他运动。冰球只是他玩的运动之一,后来才逐渐专注上去。纪录片里谈到,童年时玩过多种运动的人,最终在他们选择专注的那一项运动上反而表现得更出色。所以有很多相似之处。我知道你在想出路线图创意、构建路线图需求池方面也有很多有趣的方法论。你已经谈到了向截然不同的方向发散探索、看看能通向哪里。还有几个别人分享过的——其中一个是你的”展示而非讲述”(show don’t tell),这是什么?
Anuj Rathi: 其实,“展示而非讲述”正是我们前面讲的逆向工作法的延伸。在讲逆向工作法时,PR FAQ 是把我们想要达成的目标以书面文档的形式呈现。“展示而非讲述”本质上是让 PM 从完整的用户体验开始构思,他们实际上要把用户所需要的一切素材都组合在一起——如果你做的是单用户产品的话。然后你把市场人员和其他人都拉进来,讨论”用户看到的第一屏到底是什么?我的用户是怎么到达这里的?“这不是简单地想象有人做某个操作然后就到了这里,我们试图还原一个精确的场景。
这里有一个概念叫”具体的人”,而不是”人物画像”(personas)。大家通常会讨论人物画像,但我们试图进一步追问:“好,不要想一个抽象的用户。假设是 Lenny,30 岁,在做 A、B、C 这些事,收入是多少等等。他与外卖这个品类的关系是 X。他过去一个月做了这些事。过去三天里有哪些需求、渴望、期望、恐惧、挫败感等等。“然后我们说:“好,现在是上午 11 点。发生了什么?这个用户为什么打开了 app?是什么触发了这件事?然后发生了什么?“你真的从这个起点开始推演,我的产品评审中大概有 50% 的时间花在这部分。然后我们问:“好,app 被打开了。我们有没有为 Lenny 提供正确的路径,让他真正达成来这里的目的?“每一个像素、每一句文案、每一个字,都要为这个目标服务。
Anuj Rathi: 所以这就是展示完整的用户旅程,而不是停留在假设上。我发现这种方式在设计产品甚至思考”我们为什么要做这件事”时都非常有效。它还有另一个好处:当我们在构建复杂产品时,尤其是在市场类平台中,因为你在为用户构建的同时,另一端也在同步发生事情——如果是实时市场平台的话。所以你在为用户构建产品的同时还要考虑:“好,如果这个人下了单,接下来有 30 分钟的时间,我们的配送员会带着食物来到用户面前。这段时间里发生了什么?用户的情绪状态是怎样的?让我们把这 30 分钟画出来,创建各种场景。是不是可能’嘿,他去了餐厅,餐被延迟了’,或者骑手的车胎被扎了,等等。那消费者此刻在想什么?“所以你把所有这些都实时地展示出来,这样就能避免产品呈现出各种随机的样子——哪怕你只是在做一个聊天机器人。把所有旅程整合在一起展示,对于用正确的方式构建产品帮助非常大。
Lenny: 所以本质上,就是对你正在构建的产品体验做到非常细致、非常具体,深入思考用户体验。听起来工作量很大。我没法想象你会经常做这件事。你的建议是一年做一次,还是做一次然后持续更新?听起来你在 Swiggy 做了这件事,而且对产品构建产生了很大的影响。
Anuj Rathi: 对。我觉得其实不止一种方式。我建议每个产品经理都为自己当前版本做一次”展示而非讲述”。与此同时,新版本一直在迭代。所以他们可以对比参照,很容易向所有人解释自己为什么要做某件事。实际上,那面墙……所以它被称为”墙”(wall)。它也变成了一个可以把所有利益相关方聚集到一起的公共空间,因为……你不再只是做电梯演讲,而是可以真正进行详细讨论——为什么我选择这个而不是那个,等等。这是产品经理版本的做法。
还有一种产品负责人版本的做法,就是把整个战略浓缩在一页纸上,很多人称之为增长飞轮(growth loops)。对吧?不是展示用户旅程,而是把整个公司的战略放在一页纸上一起看。“好,市场是这个样子的,我们会获得什么样的用户?我们的激活预算是多少?我们能把这些用户中的多少人带到下一个阶段并让他们开始使用?我们如何让他们交叉渗透到不同的板块?我们需要一个会员计划吗?有没有不同的杠杆可以或多或少地推动?“这也是一种”展示而非讲述”,而且不只是一份,通常我喜欢做三份,比如”为什么我们选择了这个战略而不是那个?“举例来说,这对产品负责人来说是一种非常好的方式,能够达成一个 CXO 们都能对齐的战略,然后他们可以告诉整个产品团队和其他团队:“这就是我们要遵循的方向。”
Lenny: 这种做法产生了什么样的影响?有没有什么具体的例子,某个成果是从中涌现出来的重大突破?毕竟,把一整面墙的内容整理出来、持续更新、截图、营销、用户来源漏斗——这对某个人来说确实是很大的工作量。你觉得做这件事对增长或团队认知产生了什么样的影响?
Anuj Rathi: 我觉得最大的影响体现在对齐上——也就是 CXO 们各自的思路如果不够清晰,可以用文档来呈现。但对很多人来说,问题在于不够清晰……我可能只看到漏斗的一部分。我能理解……市场团队最清楚我们为什么要获取这些用户,但他们并不完全看到全貌——“如果我吸引来这类用户,为什么这些用户会变得忠诚?整个图景是什么样的?“或者另一个正在构建产品某个部分的团队——“我在其中的位置是什么?“所以我认为”展示而非讲述”最大的影响,基本上就是把整个公司拉到同一页上,让每个人都能理解我为什么要做这件事,我在整个图景中负责的是哪一部分,其他人为什么在做他们的事,这样我才能和他们一起协作解决那个部分。这是第一点。
另外一件事,Lenny,它还有助于选择方向,就像我说的,因为我们不是做一份,而是做三份。我在选择一个方案而不是另一个。有时候这些战略讨论会朝各种方向发散,可能你会围绕某个独特的点深入讨论,而不是一起看整个图景然后说:“这个方案好,因为我们在第一页上列出了这五个理由,而另一个方案没有。”
Lenny: 我觉得另一个好处——亚马逊的逆向工作法那种全部写下来的备忘录方式的一个好处——就是它迫使你把想法结晶,而不是停留在表面,因为理论上有很多好想法。但当你必须做到非常具体的时候,你就会发现有些想法其实很糟糕。本质上,“做到非常具体”在很多方面有同样的好处。你到底要做什么?这会帮助你识别出:“好吧,这个行不通。我们到底在想什么?“所以我喜欢这个做法。太好了。好,你还有一个框架,叫做产品策略的”四 BB 框架”(four BB framework)。能聊聊这是什么吗?
四 BB 框架
Anuj Rathi: 我们基本上发现,如果一家创业公司通常想要跨界做一堆事情,总会出现这样的声音:“我应该投资于技术债务或构建核心平台,这从长远来看对产品真的很有帮助,这非常重要”,这是工程经理们以及很大程度上是那些在争取带宽资源的人的声音。然后是产品经理自己,他们基本上在说:“我想做功能增强、bug 修复、版本二迭代、一些实验等等。“这是常规的产品待办清单,逐屏推进的工作。然后还有领导层会说:“你知道吗?现在我们有了一套产品线。现在我想做一个大的增量尝试,可能成功,也可能不成功,但我们需要确保它能成功,而且这需要跨团队协作,不是一个人就能完成的,我需要你们四五个人共同贡献力量来交付。“又或者是公司正在重新定义自身身份,或者在做转型——“好的,我们之前做 X,现在我们要做 X 加 Y,这就是我们希望被认知的方式。“或者”我们之前做 X,现在我们想很少做 X,因为现有消费者我们会照顾好,但现在我们要转向 Y。”
所以通常来说就是这四个桶,而真正发生的事情是,最终由产品经理在这些四个桶之间做优先级排序。所以我认为这不是一个战术层面的产品经理决策,它实际上是一个产品策略决策,需要发生的对话是在产品负责人和 CEO 之间,甚至整个领导层之间。如果我给你一百个关注点,你会在每个桶里放多少,那四个桶是什么?这就是四 BB 桶,那具体是哪四个呢?我们叫它们……第一个 BB 是 Brilliant Basics。我们之所以叫它 BB、Brilliant Basic,是因为你需要给它一个好的品牌……你不能把它品牌化为技术债务,那样感觉很不合适,因为这些工作是出色的、重要的。这是公司赖以建立的基础,公司需要在这方面持续投入。这是第一个。
第二个是 Bread and Butter。这就是你的待办清单。如果产品经理没有什么大想法,就让他们自己决定,他们在被分配的业务线上能提出什么样的改进?然后是 Big Bets。那就是你的更大的构想汇聚之处,但我们应该下多少个大胆的赌注,或者这个赌注算不算大?这就是逆向工作法或 PR FAQ 变得更加重要的地方,因为这类赌注不可能在没有所有人签字确认、逆向推演并说”我们都要让这件事成功”的情况下就贸然投入。
Breaking Bad 本质上是一个完全不同的世界。那是你想要重新定义公司的时候。比如在 Swiggy,如果我们之前做外卖配送,现在我们也想做杂货配送,这就像两个公司在协同运作;或者从一个外卖公司,我们想变成一个便利服务公司。这几乎就是 breaking bad。再说一遍,我知道这有点俗,但这样做的好处是,现在你可以和领导层一起盘点全局,产品负责人基本上可以说:“你知道吗?明年我可以在 brilliant basics 上投入少很多,我们应该作为一家公司把大量精力放在这个 breaking bad 上,因为这是生死存亡的问题。“但我们不应该回头看说:“为什么这段时间技术系统有点问题?宕机时间比以前多了一些。”
你可以把它摊开来,几乎可以展示出未来的预期。比如,如果我们只做一大堆 bread and butter,那你会开始看到 bug 少了很多,客户会更满意一些。你在基础工作上投入了很多,技术系统也很好,但你没有创造任何差异化优势。没有下任何赌注,竞争对手正在追赶上来。这听起来是一个更好的未来吗?这些都是很难的问题,这些优先级问题……我认为与其说是产品管理问题,不如说是产品策略问题,但在很多情况下,执行者并不知道自己在做什么样的权衡取舍。
所以如果你能够围绕我们想把资源投入哪些桶来展开对话,并创建三个备选方案……我尝试过很多次这样做。让我们看看策略 A,看看差异化在哪里。假设我们把很少的关注点放在 brilliant basics 上,而把更多放在比如 big bets 上,那就会有这样的风险:“我们不会有任何实验,或者实验很少。bug 还是 bug,但我们会获得一次改变格局的机会。“这个未来听起来更好吗?还是另一个方案——因为你同时也在为大量 bug 和频繁宕机所困扰,另一个方案更稳妥,但我们不会构建出令人惊叹的东西,哪个听起来更好?因为你能够推动这样的讨论,现在产品经理们在应该做什么方面就清晰得多了。同时他们也会知道,如果他们被分配到了一个 big bet,那他们就需要贡献于 PR FAQ,需要贡献于实际的推进工作,不管他们原来的产品是什么,但现在他们是一个更大的事情的一部分。
Lenny: 太棒了,我很喜欢。好的,让我总结一下,让大家对这个框架有一个简短的定义。Brilliant Basics 本质上就是技术债务和那些你不得不做的事情,几乎是基础卫生性的工作。Bread and Butter 本质上就是优化现有产品。Big Bets 就是大胆的赌注,而 Breaking Bad 就是未来的大火箭级登月项目,彻底改变业务运作方式?
Anuj Rathi: 没错。
Lenny: 我很喜欢。还有一点很有意思。在你的建议中反复出现的另一个线索是,在承诺一个方案之前先探索所有选项——你总是……我觉得听起来你总是推荐三个方案。我想说的是,我始终觉得很重要的一点是,我认为产品经理应该在呈现三个方案的同时推荐其中一个。不是说”这里有三个,你告诉我选哪个。“而是”这里有三个,这是我的推荐以及理由。“这也是你的建议吗,还是你有不同的看法——
Anuj Rathi: 百分之百同意,百分之百。当你探索了三个方案之后,你实际上已经做了全部的工作——“我已经覆盖了所有基础,并且把它们结晶成了具体的选项。现在,基于我对市场、公司、我们策略的了解,以及我们如何让它成功的判断,我在代表公司选择其中一个。“如果我遗漏了什么,这也是一个可以与领导层和其他产品经理合作来补全认知的时机,或者如果你有 80% 是对的,你实际上可以把策略二和策略三中的元素融入到策略一中。所以这始终是你做事的方式——一个非常具体的选项,但因为你手头有其他工具,所以不会遗漏,可以把它们整合在一起。但最终,你是那个要为这个方案负责的人,这就是亚马逊另一个领导力原则发挥作用的地方——disagree and commit。一旦我们在这一方案上达成了共识,我们都要承诺推进上线,之后领导层就不应该再反复摇摆。
反直觉观点
Lenny: 太好了。我想换个完全不同的方向。感觉你在如何打造产品、如何组建团队和创建公司等方面有很多反直觉的观点,所以我想从一个宽泛的问题开始:你有哪些反直觉的观点?有哪些你相信但很多人可能不信、或者看法不同的事情?
Anuj Rathi: 举个例子,卓越与速度之间的关系。人们总是在这个问题上纠结:“你宁愿更快地上线,还是更好地上线?“我的看法是,当你不得不做出选择时,多想想,把东西做得更好。大多数实验应该是思想实验,根本不需要真正去试,因为它们明显会失败——这与”先试试看再说”的做法正好相反。我认为那会浪费大量公司时间。如果你有能够做元思考(metathinking)的聪明人,很多实验根本就……这不是一条硬性规则,而是一种偏好。我认为速度和卓越是两个不同的轴。理想情况下,你两者都应该擅长,但如果必须选一个,选卓越。
还有一个反直觉的观点……我认为大多数产品经理,再说一次,我说的可能更多是我接触和共事过的产品人群中观察到的情况——大多数产品经理根本不应该做产品经理。他们应该多想想这个领域是否真的适合自己,因为我觉得很多来自其他领域的人进入这个行业,并没有充分意识到这需要什么。当然,你可以通过自我训练逐步提升,但如果方向不对,这件事会让你非常痛苦。
Lenny: 有没有什么迹象可以帮助人们判断自己可能不适合做产品经理?比如动机、技能组合、背景,或者任何其他方面?
Anuj Rathi: 没有。我不太关注你来自什么具体领域。我还是有一个简单的三要素框架。第一是基本的敏锐度(raw sharps),它表现为问题识别和问题解决的能力。这是其一,还包括高阶思维等等。我认为这非常重要。第二个是我所说的驱动力或毅力(grit)。伴随而来的还有好奇心、学习能力、永不放弃的精神、以用户为中心的思维方式——“我真的想解决这个问题”等等一整套品质。第三点有点不同,我们之前也谈过,就是影响力。你所从事的就是影响力的生意。如果你能认识到”我就是这种人”,或者”我真的想在这些方面变得更好”,那我认为这个领域会非常适合你。
Lenny: 我喜欢你什么都是三,太方便了。
Anuj Rathi: 只有 BB 那个框架是四个。我真希望能压缩成三个。
Lenny: 哈哈,要做的事情太多了。本质上,这些也许就是你眼中最重要的产品经理技能,是一个很好的思考方式。影响力、毅力,再加上聪明。
Anuj Rathi: 嗯。
Lenny: 我想你这里说的并不是说你要进入产品领域并做好就必须在这些方面天赋异禀,而是你需要对不断提升这些技能感到兴奋。
Anuj Rathi: 对,没错。
Lenny: 很好。
Anuj Rathi: 我的意思是,并不是每个人天生就有很强的影响力。当然,你可以变得更好,但关键在于一种预期——“要在这份工作上取得成功,我需要具备影响力。“这应该让你感到兴奋,而不是被吓退。你不应该想”我能不能绕过这一点,仍然做一个非常成功的产品经理”,因为大概率是不行的。
如何发展这些技能
Lenny: 也许我们可以在这里多花一点时间。关于聪明,你可能很难有太大改变。但在毅力或影响力方面,除了做一段时间这个工作然后慢慢变好之外,你有没有看到什么方法最能帮助人们发展这些技能?
Anuj Rathi: 其实关于聪明,我认为其中 80% 是完全可以达到的,你不需要在这方面出类拔萃。比如领域知识——一个没有领域知识的普通聪明人,和一个掌握了大量领域知识的你相比,后者已经能让你达到很高的水平,做出更好的决策。所以第一点更多是关于决策制定、问题识别、问题解决等等,这些都是可以发展到非常高效的程度的。驱动力,我认为可能是最难培养的,大概是最难的。我没见过驱动力不足的人最终能变得非常有驱动力,但他们可以被激发。你需要成为一个愿意这样思考的人。至于第三个,影响力,我觉得没有商量的余地。你必须认真对待,“我一定要在这方面变得擅长。“
不能做、不愿做、未被赋能做
还有一个框架,Lenny,我想聊一聊。就是当我审视产品领导力,思考如何评判不同的人等等——什么时候是产品经理的问题,什么时候是你自己的问题,什么时候是公司的问题?作为领导者,事情没有按你的期望发展,原因只有三个。你看一个人,要么是他不能做(can’t do),这是能力问题;要么是他不愿做(won’t do),这是动机或对齐问题;要么是他没有被赋能去做(not set up to do),这就真的是你的问题了——你没有设计好工作方式,或者组织架构没有搭好,诸如此类。
所以作为领导者,这和我们刚才谈到的正好相反——不是关于卓越的影响力和敏锐度,而是:你在能力方面是否选对了人?如果没有,正确的做法是辅导他们、指导他们,还是把他们安排到其他更适合的地方,因为也许他们的能力在其他岗位更能发挥?如果他们不愿做,为什么不愿?是他们和你的方向不一致?不认同你的愿景?还是没有足够的时间?诸如此类。你需要深入探究,为什么他们不愿做。
这背后有不同的答案。但如果是赋能的问题——至少我认识到,除了产品经理自身能做的之外,事情做不成的 70%、80% 都是赋能问题。产品领导者或其他领导者没有深入思考 OKR 对公司产生了什么影响,没有真正想清楚组织架构的设计。如果你读过一本叫 Team Topologies 的书,那是一本很有意思的书,它从 Conway 定律出发,本质上说的是:“给我看一个工程架构,我就能告诉你这家公司的组织架构是什么样的。“但这也体现在产品上——你基本可以通过观察一个产品,在大多数情况下判断出是什么样的组织架构导致了这样的产品。
Lenny: 我最近听好几次有人提到这本书了,我得找来看看。你刚分享的三个——又是一个三要素,我很喜欢。能做、不愿做,第三个是什么来着,没做?
Anuj Rathi: 没有被赋能去做。
Lenny: 没有被赋能去做。这个比较长。我觉得这套框架很棒的地方在于,它们本质上是衡量绩效的方式。也许作为产品经理,在做绩效评估时就是这样的思路——“你有完成这件事的技能吗?你有做这件事的动力吗?还是环境没有为你提供成功的条件?“基本上就是你是否被赋能成功。
AI 角
Lenny: 好,接下来进入 AI 角,这是我每位嘉宾都会聊的环节。关于与 AI 协作,你有没有什么心得想跟听众分享的?
Anuj Rathi: 有几点想聊。我觉得在运用 AI 时,很多团队和公司对 AI 及其可能性过度兴奋,几乎是拿着一个现成的解决方案在公司里到处找问题——这倒也无可厚非,因为这样你确实在思考这项技术能为公司做些什么,所以作为起点是可以的。但很多人并没有用最优的方式去使用它,而是强行套用。与其如此,不如思考”如何让 AI 与 HI 协同工作”。这又回到了……Swiggy 的 CEO Sriharsha 创造了 HI 这个说法,就是为了让所有人都理解这一点:人工智力和人类智慧同样重要。如果你不够”人类智慧”,那你也不会真正变得”人工智慧”,AI 也无法真正为公司带来很大帮助。所以实际上,你构建的任何产品,即使它在技术上非常有趣、令人兴奋,也需要与出色的 UX 和行为科学相互配合、保持平衡。这两者的结合才能真正确保你获得最佳成果——除非你构建的是完全自动化、无需人工干预的产品。我们这里主要讨论的是面向消费者的产品。
构建成功市场的经验
Lenny: 你参与打造了印度乃至全球一些最成功的市场平台。我很好奇,关于构建成功市场,你有什么经验教训可以分享?
Anuj Rathi: 有一件事我特别想谈。思考市场时,它不是一加一等于二,而是乘法关系。当我们考虑三方市场时,你几乎需要从二维平面思维跃迁到三维思维。复杂度会达到那种量级,你常规的产品管理和领导力原则会开始失灵。很多惯用的套路会行不通。举个例子,OKR 会失效。为什么?从根本上说,OKR 是一种用来设定目标和关键成果的方式,但它的基本假设是——你在解决某一类用户的问题,而且这一类用户你可以分而治之。当然,不同团队之间会有一些摩擦,但你能让他们协同配合。可如果你要同时服务三类不同的用户,那所有的目标就会一直处于相互冲突之中。
Lenny: 这三类用户具体是指什么?比如配送员、餐厅——
Anuj Rathi: 还有终端用户。举个例子——消费者这边,我们需要收取更多配送费。这对另外两方意味着什么?餐厅那边,我们需要提高佣金,因为盈利是一个目标。配送员那边,就意味着少付报酬或者进一步压缩。可一旦你拨动一个杠杆,另外两方已经被拉向相反的方向了。这些杠杆根本不是独立的。想要对它们建模——如果我选 X,Y 会怎么变?Y 对 Z 的影响是什么?Z 又会怎么变?这几乎是不可能完成的。所以我多次看到在运营这类市场时 OKR 会失效。Big Bets 的方式效果好得多。你可以说”我们想做这件事”,但所有东西都是联动的——如果我们拉动这个杠杆,其他东西也会跟着变。所以整个叙事是这样的:“我们通过提高配送费来实现盈利,但不碰配送员的时薪,或者不碰餐厅佣金。“类似这样的策略组合。我至少发现,用这种方式来战略性地选择方向要有效得多。
另一个点是同时管理多方共情,这不是件容易的事。Swiggy 作为一个实时、超本地的市场,我们之前讨论过这一点。订单一下来,从用户操作到配送员执行的这段时间里会发生什么?配送员会面临哪些截然不同的场景?与此同时,我如何跟用户沟通、管理他们的情绪?你需要同时管理所有这些事情。在这种情况下的产品管理,你不能让配送端的产品经理只关心他那一边——他也需要成为消费者端的倡导者,反之亦然。
Lenny: 对。我发现市场平台普遍存在这个问题……Uber 经历过,Lyft 也经历过——供给方往往被挤压,因为他们需要为客户侧交付结果。所以司机最终被压榨。Airbnb 的房东被推着去做他们可能并不愿意做的事。配送人员估计也是同样的情况。
Anuj Rathi: 既然你提到 Uber,举个例子,那些运营出租车业务的公司会面临这样的问题——如果你只有有限的一笔资金,想要让市场在日均订单量上跑起来,你怎么决定”我应该把激励投给用户,比如首单优惠、前十单优惠之类的,还是说用户侧一分钱不投,全去激励司机?“你需要让司机来这里,所以你对流动性的思考方式也要截然不同,有时候你需要把杠杆完全拨向另一边。实验也一样。A/B 实验也不行——这是市场平台非常独特的一点。我说”不行”是指不会像你期望的那样工作,因为网络效应无处不在。比如你要在司机端做 A/B 实验,把一半司机放在 A 组、一半放在 B 组,但两者之间存在网络效应,是互相影响的。
Lenny: 当你试图决定市场平台应该优先关注哪一方时,你有没有什么经验法则?比如优先关注消费者、以他们的满意度为导向,还是优先关注供给方,或者配送员?
Anuj Rathi: 有一点我觉得市场平台需要认识到的是:首先,你需要运营一个稳定的市场。各方都需要足够稳定,不会离开。我觉得这是起点,也是一个重要的前提——一旦确立了稳定的市场,之后我们再问”我们要服务的是哪类客户?我们真正要聚焦的是哪些客户?“比如 Amazon 非常明确地是一家以客户为中心的公司。如果必须做选择,他们不会只偏向客户,因为他们需要一个稳定的市场。所以卖家也同样重要——只是客户稍微更重要一点。
不同市场平台的价值取向
Anuj Rathi: 举个例子,如果你看淘宝或者阿里巴巴,他们的思维方式是:他们此生的使命就是为一千万中国卖家创造改变人生的体验,他们会从卖家能够真正卖出去货的角度来构建市场平台。当然,他们同样会有面向消费者的 App 和卖家端工具等等,但他们是以服务卖家为核心。所以你确实需要从公司的愿景出发来推导。我们在 Swiggy 的做法是,我们必须在价值观中明确——我们的第一个价值观是……最初是”客户优先”,但这非常令人困惑,因为人人都是客户,餐厅也是一个卖方客户。我们必须澄清:消费者优先,也就是真正吃食物的终端消费者,因为我们是一家服务于终端消费者的便利公司。当你思考餐厅或配送合作伙伴时,我们与他们合作是因为我们双方……当你和配送合作伙伴对话时,Swiggy 和配送合作伙伴,我们都是在为消费者服务。所以你也要从这个视角去构建那个 App,甚至餐厅端也是从这个视角——我们双方共同服务于终端消费者。
临别寄语
Lenny: 我感觉你大概还有一百多个框架、流程和缩写可以聊,但我知道你得走了。在我们进入非常精彩的快问快答环节之前,你还有什么想聊的,或者想留给听众的吗?
Anuj Rathi: 最后几句我想再次强调的。从一个美好的未来开始逆向工作。所以首先是要创造性地想象一个未来,然后从中逆向推导,本质上是思考什么能让它成功,并且对一切可能出错的地方保持偏执般的警惕。因此,我需要确保所有环节都能顺利衔接。
Lenny: 只有偏执狂才能生存。非常棒的建议来作为结束语。我们进入了非常精彩的快问快答环节。我为你准备了六个问题。准备好了吗?
Anuj Rathi: 好的。
快问快答
Lenny: 你最常推荐给别人的两三本书是什么?
Anuj Rathi: 一本是《Working Backwards》,我们已经聊过了。另一本深刻影响了我信念的书叫 How Brands Grow,作者是 Byron Sharp 教授。这个系列有两本,How Brands Grow 1 和 2,都非常好。还有一本我很喜欢的……最近 Cred 的创始人 Kunal Shah——一家印度创业公司——推荐的,叫 The Luxury Strategy。我之所以喜欢这本书,是因为它深入探讨了等级制度背后的人类心理学,以及领主、国王这类社会等级如何塑造了人们对渴望型产品的认知等等。强烈推荐。
Lenny: 最近你最喜欢的电影或电视剧是什么?
Anuj Rathi: 我很喜欢重温《The Office》。我刚才试着想”我最近看了什么新电影?“想了想,没有。我总是回到《The Office》,反复看某一集。比如今天,我就从 Michael Scott 那里得到了很多故事素材。
Lenny: 好的,美版的对吧,不是英版的,还是两个你都看?
Anuj Rathi: 两个我都看,但美版的季数多很多。
最喜欢的面试问题
Lenny: 你在面试产品经理时,有没有最喜欢的面试问题?
Anuj Rathi: “在你看来,哪些产品应该优先追求速度,哪些产品必须追求卓越?“我觉得这个问题能很好地了解候选人的思维框架,以及他们为什么这么说,然后我会让他们举出具体例子——什么时候选择了前者,什么时候选择了后者,然后从那里继续深入。
Lenny: 那你觉得什么样的回答算是好的回答?
Anuj Rathi: 我主要看他们对风险的评估,看他们对市场重要性的判断,以及对竞争产品的理解程度。如果他们的回答是”先发出去再说,我们看看效果”之类的,这也会给我一个信号——他们并没有真正理解,他们所说的这个产品,以那样的发布速度,其实并不……MVP 中的 V(可行性)并不成立,或者说……怎么说来着,MLP 还是别的什么概念?总之就是差异化不够,无法推向市场。它的价值不足以让我们拿给用户,对一个懒惰且自私的用户来说是行不通的。这可能不是关于速度与卓越的正确答案。而另一种情况是,有些产品的竞争差异化非常清晰,存在明确的市场空白。那我就想尽快推出一个东西,哪怕它还半生不熟也没关系。我要赶紧拿出去获取用户反馈、迭代等等。所以一方面是对市场的理解,另一方面是对核心导向的理解。
Lenny: 这又回到了你一直强调的建议——在很多方面都要成为全栈,而在这种情况下,就是成为一个全栈产品经理,同时思考营销、发布和用户采用等所有这些方面。下一个问题:你最近发现并非常喜欢的产品是什么?
喜欢的产品与人生信条
Anuj Rathi: 最近我喜欢的一个产品叫 RISE,是一个睡眠追踪 App,因为我有半失眠的问题,长期以来我一直在想”我怎么追踪自己的睡眠?我到底在做什么?我怎样才能改善?“所以我非常喜欢他们帮助终端用户的方式。我才开始用了一个星期,但推荐给大家。
Lenny: 它对你的睡眠有帮助吗,还是现在说还太早?
Anuj Rathi: 它帮我追踪了睡眠,所以……现在正在进入可以采取行动的阶段,但我挺喜欢的。
Lenny: 好的好的,我们拭目以待。
Anuj Rathi: 拭目以待。
Lenny: 你有没有一个经常回到、与人分享、在工作中或生活中都会想起的人生信条?
Anuj Rathi: 说不上是人生信条,但有一句话我经常对与我共事的人说——“停止外部归因”。这是一点,更有艺术感的说法是:你是你自己痛苦的根源。这句话我经常以一种玩笑的口吻使用。但如果事情出了问题,如果那场领导层会议没有按预期进行,如果我的产品失败了等等,回去问问自己:我们本可以做得更好吗?我本可以做得更好吗?当然,因为我也是一个扑克玩家,所以我理解其中一半是运气、一半是技能。但如果在很长一段时间里,你一直归咎于运气,而且一次又一次地失败,你就得回过头审视自己的能力了。所以,是的。你是你自己痛苦的根源。
Lenny: 我很喜欢这个建议。非常有力量,也让人学会承担责任。最后一个问题。我翻了你的 LinkedIn,你主办了一个活动叫 The Secret Soiree,其实也没那么秘密,因为你会发帖公开它,但我很好奇,这个活动到底是什么,你是怎么开始做这类活动的?
Anuj Rathi: 这个活动是我和一位前同事 Shivangi 一起发起的。初衷很简单,就是想认识身边有趣的人。一开始就是这样——不带任何目的,有趣的人聚在一起,聊聊创业、初创公司、产品、人脉连接等等各种有意思的话题。后来逐步发展,现在我们正在做更多有意思的事情,比如推出以小组为单位的学习社群,可能围绕产品管理、市场营销、增长等主题展开。我们承诺至少在接下来一年内保持非营利性质,不过未来还有很长的路要走。
Lenny: 太棒了。那对于听众来说,这个活动他们可以参加吗?适合什么样的人?目标群体是谁?
Anuj Rathi: 当然可以。等到规模扩大之后,可能就不会再叫 The Secret Soiree 这个名字了。
Lenny: 不再秘密了。好的。那大家关注你的 LinkedIn 就能跟进这些活动的动态,对吧?
Anuj Rathi: 对,LinkedIn 和 Twitter 都可以。
Lenny: 好的。Anuj,我们今天聊了好多话题——破局转型、全栈产品管理、全栈思维、逆向工作法、基本盘、三的法则……太多了。最后两个问题:如果大家想联系你或者跟进我们今天聊到的任何内容,在网上哪里可以找到你?另外,听众可以怎样帮到你?
Anuj Rathi: 我在 Twitter 上,账号是 twitter.com/anujrathi,LinkedIn 上直接搜我的名字就行。我在两个平台上都挺活跃的。虽然不像你 Lenny 这样经常做播客,但我也会参加不少其他活动和演讲,相关信息我都会发在 Twitter 上,大家可以在那里找到我。
Lenny: 太好了。Anuj,非常感谢你来参加节目。
Anuj Rathi: 非常感谢你的邀请,Lenny。
Lenny: 这是我的荣幸。大家再见。
感谢大家的收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。也欢迎给我们打分或留下评价,这对其他听众发现这个播客真的很有帮助。你可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多关于本节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| Big Bets | Big Bets(大胆赌注,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Bread and Butter | Bread and Butter(基本盘,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Breaking Bad | Breaking Bad(破局转型,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Brilliant Basics | Brilliant Basics(卓越基本功,四 BB 框架之一) |
| Conway’s law | Conway 定律(康威定律) |
| Cred | Cred(印度金融科技公司,保留原文) |
| cross-pollination / cross-sell | 交叉渗透 / 交叉销售 |
| CXO | CXO(首席高管,如 CEO、CTO 等) |
| disagree and commit | disagree and commit(亚马逊领导力原则:异议但承诺执行) |
| elevator pitch | 电梯演讲 |
| FD | FD(定期存款) |
| four BB framework | 四 BB 框架(four BB framework) |
| Frodo Baggins | 弗罗多·巴金斯(《指环王》角色) |
| full-stack PM | 全栈产品经理 |
| growth loops | 增长飞轮(growth loops) |
| GTM | GTM(Go-to-Market,推向市场) |
| HI | HI(人类智慧,Human Intelligence) |
| Jupiter | Jupiter |
| Kunal Shah | Kunal Shah(Cred 创始人,保留原文) |
| liquidity | 流动性 |
| Marc Andreessen | 马克·安德森(硅谷知名投资人) |
| metathinking | 元思考(metathinking) |
| Michael Scott | Michael Scott(《The Office》角色,保留原文) |
| MLP | MLP(Minimum Lovable Product,最小可爱产品) |
| neobank | neobank(新型数字银行) |
| network effects | 网络效应 |
| OKR | OKR(目标与关键成果) |
| personas | 人物画像(personas) |
| PR FAQ | PR FAQ(新闻稿/常见问题,Amazon 逆向工作法中的核心文档) |
| PRD | PRD(产品需求文档) |
| Range | 《Range》(《范围》,David Epstein 著作) |
| raw sharps | 基本敏锐度(raw sharps) |
| RISE | RISE(睡眠追踪 App,保留原文) |
| Roger Federer | 罗杰·费德勒(国际网球名将) |
| Scott Belsky | Scott Belsky(Adobe 高管,保留原文) |
| Shivangi | Shivangi(Anuj 的前同事,保留原文) |
| show don’t tell | 展示而非讲述(show don’t tell) |
| Sriharsha | Sriharsha(Swiggy CEO,保留原文) |
| Swiggy | Swiggy |
| Team Topologies | Team Topologies(《团队拓扑》,保留英文书名) |
| The Office | 《The Office》(办公室,保留原文) |
| The Secret Soiree | The Secret Soiree(活动名称,保留原文) |
| Wayne Gretzky | 韦恩·格雷茨基(加拿大冰球传奇) |
| working backwards | 逆向工作法 |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)