品类创建与品牌建设 | Barbra Gago(Pando、Miro、Greenhouse、Culture Amp)
Category creation and brand building | Barbra Gago (Pando, Miro, Greenhouse, Culture Amp)
Barbra Gago: When you’re building a category, you need to make sure that there is a category that’s validated by analysts and directory sites and things like that. But also, you want to have a lot of traction in terms of thought leadership like why is this the category? What are the unique value propositions of this particular thing? What are the pain points it solves? And then of course, getting a lot of content around because when you’re generating a new category, you’re also needing to educate buyers that there is a category that they can now budget for and why they should allocate budget for that.
Lenny: Welcome to Lenny’s podcast. I’m Lenny, and my goal here is to help you get better at the craft of building and growing products. I interview world class product leaders and growth experts to learn from their hard learned experiences, building and scaling today’s most successful companies.
Today, my guest is Barbra Gago. Barbra was chief marketing officer and global head of Marketing at Miro where she helped build their global brand and create a whole new software category for the space. Before that, she was VP of marketing at Greenhouse where she brought the product to market and led their go-to market strategy. And she was also head of marketing at CultureAmp where she helped build their go-to market plan and close their first 50 customers.
In our conversation, we focus on three topics: creating your own category, when it makes sense to explore that, when to avoid it and how to go about it; building your brand and rebranding when it makes sense to, and building opinionated software. I’ve never seen a post or a podcast get as deep into category creation or rebranding, and I’m confident that you will learn something valuable from this podcast. With that, I bring you Barbra Gago.
Product teams of startups and enterprises are using AssemblyAI to automatically transcribe and summarize phone calls and virtual meetings, detect topics and podcasts, pinpoint when sensitive content is spoken, redact PII from audio videos and way more. Visit assemblyai.com to try AssemblyAI’s API for free and start testing their models in their no code playground. That’s assemblyai.com.
Do you want to reduce friction in your onboarding flow? Then let me tell you about Stych, and that’s stitch with a Y. Stych is on a mission to eliminate friction from the internet. They’re starting by making user authentication and onboarding more seamless and more secure. They offer super flexible out of the box authentication solutions for companies of all sizes, from email magic links to SMS pass codes, one tap social logins to even biometrics. Stych is your all in one platform for authentication.
Stitch customers have been able to increase conversion by over 60% after spending just one day integrating. And with their API and SDKs, you can improve user conversion and retention and security, all while saving valuable engineering time. Your engineers will come and thank you for using Stych because Stych keeps you from having to build authentication in-house and the integration process is super fast and super smooth. To get $1,000 in free credits, just go to stytch.com/lenny to sign up, and that’s stitch with a Y.
Barbra, welcome to the podcast.
Barbra Gago: Thanks, Lenny. Excited to be here.
Lenny: Just to start off and set a little context for our listeners, can you give us a 55-second background on some of the wonderful things you’ve done in your career and what you’re up to now?
Barbra Gago: Definitely. So I’ve spent pretty much my entire career in B2B SaaS tech, building and scaling through hyper growth, oftentimes with disruptive technologies at the center of people, tech, future of work. I would say I helped bring products like CultureAmp and Greenhouse to market in the people space. Before that, I did some work in enterprise social networking in the Yammer days. And most recently, I was the CMO at Miro where I also led the rebrand and introduced that product to the world, which was very exciting.
Lenny: And you’ve got a startup now, so maybe you just mention that briefly and then we’ll talk about it at the end again. Yeah. What are you working on now?
Barbra Gago: Yeah. And now, I’m building a product which we’ll see about the category what it ends up being, but it’s what we call an employee progression platform. So basically, from the work that I’ve done as a leader, building and scaling teams and also the exposure I’ve had in the people tech space, I just have found that there’s been a lot of tools lacking for leaders to really coach and develop their team in the right way, creating enough structure and transparency into the process that creates accountability on both sides. So yeah, we’re taking on the big goal of killing performance reviews.
Lenny: Holy moly. Cool.
Barbra Gago: Very exciting
Lenny: Performance reviews. Very exciting. It’s true. We’ll talk about that a bit at the end more. And there’s a bunch of stuff I want to dig into. You have such a cool background on so many interesting experiences. The first is something that you mentioned just now, which is category and category creation, which I know is near and dear to your heart. I was reading a bit about your background, and I learned that at Miro, you invented this category that’s now called visual collaboration. And at CultureAmp, I think you helped lead the creation of this category, employee experience. I imagine at Greenhouse, you did something similar. And I know startups are often trying to decide, should I create my own category? Should I try to win in an existing category? And so I want to spend some time talking through your experience there.
And so the first question is just say at Miro or Greenhouse, can you just talk through your thought process of trying to decide, should we invent a whole new category that we’re going to win or should we just try to win an existing category and how did that go?
Barbra Gago: They’re both great examples because in one, we did create a new category and in the other, we tried and abandoned ship. With Miro, I think when I joined the company, there was this concept of an online whiteboard, which also is a category, but it’s a much smaller category and it wasn’t something that a lot of people searched for. And I think the biggest motivating factor of thinking about category creation at Miro was how do we become something really big and needed by every company and not just this little thing that maybe product teams would use or maybe engineering teams or schools or something like that.
When you’re thinking about category creation, it’s really, for us, it was really about the scope of what we’re trying to do and not wanting to be in something too small. And I think with Miro, the platform that it is, there is so much possibility. I used to joke that it was, even as a company, we were the ever expanding universe. There’s just so much to do there, but online whiteboard was really small.
Barbra Gago: Greenhouse is in the ATS category, which is applicant tracking system. And at the time, applicant tracking systems had a really bad name. I don’t know if folks that listen to this know of Jobvite or remember Jobvite, and there were a lot of systems before that. Jobvite had come in the mid-2000s as the new and improved ATS and it was all about social recruiting, but it was very transactional and it wasn’t very strategic. And so we wanted to steer clear of the ATS space even though we were an ATS. We can talk more about what we tried and what we ended up doing, but I think the main factors when you’re thinking about category creation is really what budget companies have, if they have a budget, if they don’t have a budget. Companies did have a budget for ATS, for example. Until now, I don’t think companies had a budget for visual collaboration. For example, what’s the language and the words that people use to describe their pain points and their situation, the things that they need? And then is their competition?
And sometimes, competition, you would think like, “Oh, we want to not have competition, so let’s build a new category.” But ultimately, you’re not building a category until there is competition. It’s not officially actually a category until there’s more companies that do that. And that was a big learning for me in this whole process of category creation, is that it’s actually okay when new companies come in that say they’re that category because it’s just validating the fact that there is a new category. So I think it’s really … If and when is really about what the overall objective is and also what the current situation is with competitors and the space. The ATS market is still the ATS market, for example, and Miro has created visual collaboration as a category but also ticks off boxes for other categories as well.
Lenny: I have a thousand questions I want to ask to dig deeper. Before we get in there, can you just define, well, what is a category? Folks that are just like, what the hell have you been talking about? What is a product category? What’s the high level way to think about this?
Barbra Gago: When we talk about category, I think it’s really what would be a good way to explore your space and your relevant categories would be to go to G2 Crowd or Software Advice or any of those type of review sites or directory sites and learn about how they’ve categorized products based on feature sets. And so within each industry, there’s going to be a bunch of different types of categories. Those categories are typically products that solve, at least in B2B products, that solve a certain pain point or a set of pain points, and they can be very wide like all in one and big solutions or they can be narrow. There’s this all in one versus best in class, for example. And I think that’s where the granularity of category comes into play and then how big the market is. Obviously, maps to granularity versus more broad and when are you granular versus when do you go broad? But I think ultimately, it’s just a set of features or products that are solving a specific pain point that customers most likely have a budget allocated for.
Lenny: And then the category ends up, the way you use it is it’s the way you pitch your product often. It’s like the big part of the headline, part of the way you sell it. It’s like you come back to this we’re the leader in visual collaboration, for example, or that’s how it practically ends up being used.
Barbra Gago: Exactly. It’s interesting because I would say that if you’re building a category as well, you can sometimes be selling into a category while you’re still building the appetite for a different category, which is a nuance, which is all about where’s the budget and how do customers describe their pain points?
Lenny: This reminds me, I was just trying to pitch my podcast in this little dock I’m writing. And initially, I was like, “Oh, it’s like a top hundred business podcast.” And I’m like, “No, it’s the number one product and growth podcast in the world,” which is true, but I created my own category. How about that?
Barbra Gago: There you go.
Lenny: Was that a good idea?
Barbra Gago: I think so. The thing is it’s like when you talk about ICP for how you’re going to sell your product and really build a repeatable sales process to scale that piece of your business. And the more specific the thing is that you’re selling initially, obviously you’re going to have more relevant users. They’re going to spread word of mouth, etc. You could always expand that scope later. The category can also evolve. You mentioned CultureAmp earlier. The category now is people experience. Actually, when I was there, it was more about people analytics platform or people intelligence platform because we were providing a deep set of data that companies didn’t have before, but that category has since evolved as their go-to market has changed, as they’ve added new products to their platform and new features and things like that.
Lenny: To make it even more concrete for people, what are other examples of categories that come to mind that are either invented recently or just generally?
Barbra Gago: In the early days, I was working on market automation, for example, so Marketo, now HubSpot, fits into that, even though back then, they were more of this inbound marketing platform/category performance management, which is the area of Pando. We’ve talked a lot about people, products. I think Gainsight did a great job with the customer success platform, so this is a different problem that they were solving within the organization for a group. The customer success team, basically how are they going to make their customers successful?
Lenny: Awesome.
Barbra Gago: Okay.
Lenny: Yeah, customer success. It’s a well name.
Barbra Gago: Yes.
Lenny: Okay. There’s many benefits to try to create your own category, right? We’re number one. That’s one main category. Two is you can lead the charge on understanding or just defining what’s important. I imagine there’s other benefits maybe you could share, but there’s also probably a lot of downsides. You mentioned oftentimes, it doesn’t work and it just ends up being a lot of wasted money. Maybe just talk about what are the reasons to pursue trying to create your own category and then some of the reasons you maybe shouldn’t.
Barbra Gago: Greenhouse is a great example to talk about a failed approach at creating a category. So I mentioned before the ATS or the applicant tracking system category at the time was just, it carried so much disdain. People had such bad experiences with that whole category of products. No matter what, they weren’t strategic. They didn’t help people be good at recruiting. It was just a pretty terrible, very transactional experience. And I came in and it was like, “Okay, let’s reposition ourselves. We’re going to create a new category.” We tried several things.
One of the main things that we zeroed in on was recruiting optimization platform, and it was really like we are doing that. We’re helping companies really structure the process, identify where they have gaps, where people are falling through the cracks, where they’re flying through the process and really tweak and iterate it and improve it. And we spent time getting content out there, talking to press about it, positioning it in this way. And ultimately, at the end of the day, the budget that customers had and the way that customers talked about what we did, no matter what we called it, was applicant tracking.
Barbra Gago: So it didn’t really make sense to continue to go against the grain of, no, we’re going to be this new thing or we’re going to call it this if everybody, even seeing the value and seeing the differentiation of our platform to others, still called it an ATS. We abandoned that process. But I think the main thing that we understood then was instead of spending the time and money to build a new category, we were going to spend the time and money to elevate the value of this category. So rather than changing the category to something else which we could value at whatever it was, we were just going to spend all of our resources to make this whole category much more valuable to the users, to companies. And that really was, along with what CultureAmp was doing at the time in the same space, what set off this whole trajectory of really good, strong people practices and people organizations that were really doing cool stuff on the recruiting side as well as employee engagement.
Lenny: You mentioned a few components of when it makes sense to come up with a category. One is there’s budget already against it. Two is people use the words associated with that category. I imagine with Miro and this idea of, what was it, visual collaboration, there wasn’t budget for that yet. So how does that work?
Barbra Gago: No. That is more of the vision piece, I would say. Sometimes you can have a vision that customers, they don’t have it yet or they don’t share it, but they can grow to share it and they did in that case. And I think that with Miro, we still worked to optimize where we could in terms of the categories that we did fit into or how people talked about us, but it was also such a new format and it was really a disruptive product that didn’t exist before in the enterprise so that it was called a lot of different things. So it was much more fluid and people talked about it in different ways, and this was our way of hearing the feedback about how people talked about it as online whiteboard or lots of jobs to be done were framed, mind mapping platform or diagramming or whatever, all of these little things.
And so visual collaboration was our way of putting a nice bow around this thing that could then be an enterprise product that solves a lot of different problems for a lot of different use cases and different types of users. We started out selling and having a lot of users that were in product and in engineering and teams that were used to using whiteboards anyway and then needed to do it in a distributed way, but very quickly packaged different types of jobs for HR teams or marketing teams or design teams and pretty much anybody in the organization. But it needed to all come together cohesively; otherwise, it was like everybody in the org just calls it a different thing because they use it in a different way.
Lenny: Part of what I’m hearing is that you don’t stop working on the other categories that it already sits within and just keep optimizing those but in parallel, start to try to pull together, hey, there’s this bigger vision of where this could be. Does that sound right?
Barbra Gago: I think so. And it’s really where you get the inputs from your customers and your users. We heard all these things. Miro, we did a lot of content marketing. That’s a big piece of doing category creation generally I would say. But there’s a lot of different ways that people talked about it, and so that’s an opportunity to actually come and say, okay, here’s what it is because no one knows, and it’s all of these things and all of these things together equals this now. And then that created momentum where other companies started thinking like that and then they started tagging themselves as that category as well, and then you had a category of multiple companies now that were doing similar stuff.
Lenny: Yeah, absolutely. How do you know when it’s probably a bad idea to try to create your own category?
Barbra Gago: The sooner, the better if you’re going to try and fail and iterate. I think if you already are well established, I don’t think category creation is really a meaningful effort if you already have … It’s not going to be necessarily a way to just all of a sudden generate new business by creating Q&A new category once you’ve already gone far enough down the path. I think that if you’re not getting … With the Greenhouse situation, as much as we used this other language and it did get picked up a bit in terms of context that people would use to talk about Greenhouse, it really just wasn’t sticking. And so I think it’s good to try things and also abandon them and that’s okay. You can always sit back into the category. If you really don’t fit into any other category, then you probably do need to figure out what the category is and package that. And that’s going to be done mostly by continuing to talk to customers and listening to how they talk about things. It all comes from what you hear from them ultimately and what will resonate.
So I think, yeah, if you’re already established, if you really aren’t differentiated from other categories in your space, then you probably are in that category. And doing category creation is a lot of work that is not going to be fruitful if you’re pretty squarely in something already. And then if you really aren’t but you need to figure it out, you’re just going to have to keep iterating until you figure out what makes sense to your customers.
Lenny: For founders who are listening to this and they’re just like, “Oh, this sounds interesting. I want to try to think about a new category maybe for my product.” Can you just talk about the mechanics of going through this process of trying to decide what category it should be called, how to roll it out, anything you could share by just the tactics of creating a category?
Barbra Gago: The main thing which we’ve talked a little bit about already is really understanding your customers and their pain points and how they talk about things. All of my best marketing and positioning literally comes from having a million conversations with customers and listening to how they solve problems and how our system helps them solve problems and what they’re doing and how they talk about stuff. I think that’s step one, is really understanding who those buyers are, how they talk about the product, what’s the unique differentiator and selling points?
One thing that’s really important in category creation as well is actually PR. You need to get this category and positioning out there at a high level in order to test it out and see if it makes sense and if it’s resonating. And then the other piece is really those directory sites, which the analysts like Gartner and Forrester and all these guys, at least in B2B and enterprise, they really shape for customers what the categories are. And you need to build relationships with them. You need to work with them to create your category as well. So with the visual collaboration, for example, we weren’t ranking, we weren’t categorized in visual collaboration on G2 Crowd, and we had to meet with them and explain what it was and talk to them about the differentiation of this category versus other categories in terms of features and all of that stuff so that they could understand how they would differentiate this category from another category.
Barbra Gago: So I think those are really good channels to look at. And then tactically, it’s a lot of content marketing and a lot of thought leadership. When you’re building a category, you need to make sure that there is a category that’s validated by analysts and directory sites and things like that. But also, you want to have a lot of traction in terms of thought leadership like why is this the category? What are the unique value propositions of this particular thing? What are the pain points it solves? And then of course, getting a lot of content around because when you’re generating a new category, you’re also needing to educate buyers that there is a category that they can now budget for and why they should allocate budget for that.
Lenny: Sounds like a hell of a lot of work.
Barbra Gago: It’s a lot.
Lenny: I’m curious. What percentage of say B2B companies do you think should pursue creating a category? Is it almost none or is it a meaningful percentage?
Barbra Gago: It goes in waves with the tech innovations. So for example, when there was the whole first web wave and then there was this whole social enterprise and consumerization of IT was a big change in how technology occurred in the workplace and a lot of new categories came at that point. So I feel like it’s less about the raw percentage and more about general inflection points that are happening that are causing the need for this.
And I take COVID for example and this very quick shift to distributed work was one of those type of inflection points that has changed a lot. A new category that has grown extremely fast is, and I don’t even know exactly what they call it, but it’s these employment platforms like Deel and Oyster that have cropped up and grown significantly fast and also have created a new category where there was already the ability to hire people in all of these distributed places, but you had to find a company in that place that would then hire the people. And then of course, they created these platforms where, hey, here’s a system, you can manage it all here, we’ll go and build all those relationships on the ground. And Nayya is a new set of a new category with four or five companies just in the last three years that have cropped up. So I think it’s more about what the market demands and what’s happening in the market rather than whether or not one company it makes sense for, if that makes sense.
Lenny: Yeah, makes sense. It depends on where the tide is pulling everyone. I think that makes a lot of sense.
Barbra Gago: Exactly. Yeah.
Lenny: Maybe one last question about category creation. So on the surface, there’s this binary choice. Either try to become the best ATS platform or we’re not ATS, we’re employee recruiting automation. Is there a middle ground? Do you have to go one or the other or is there some in between route, maybe positioning a little bit differently or how do you think about that?
Barbra Gago: There could be some middle ground. I would say for Pando, for example, performance management is a very established category that we technically fit into, and also there’s a line item on the budget and people have money to pay for performance management. But we’re introducing this concept of employee progression, which is more of a long tail strategy. So while we want to educate the market and build this new category of employee progression because it’s related to the differences between what we’re doing and traditional performance management, we’re still going to rate ourselves in directory sites, for example, or categorize ourselves as performance management and talk about performance management and sell to companies that are looking for performance management. But ultimately, we want to shift everybody’s mindset and change the category.
So it’s not necessarily one or the other, but I do think the investment is high if you want to build a new category, and we’re committed to an investment of time and thought leadership and content and all of that stuff, but it’s also not our strategy right now to go and create employee progression and own and dominate this. We’re going to work our way up to that over time.
Lenny: Got it. That connects to what you talked about with Miro. It wasn’t like we’re switching, we’re now visual collaboration. It’s like we’re still whiteboards, we’re the best white boarding tool, but let’s also start building this brand of visual collaboration so that people start to learn.
Barbra Gago: Exactly. And I think it’s a bottoms up mentality much like our business model was there because with marketing automation, it wasn’t a progressive buildup. It was marketing automation. That’s what the category was. I was working for a company that was doing marketing automation. There was Eloqua and Marketo and several others and we all were just telling everybody, educating the market on what that was, and that was very top down.
Lenny:
Beginning a SOC 2 report can be a huge burden, especially for startups. It’s time consuming, tedious and expensive. Enter Vanta. Over 3,000 fast growing companies use Vanta to automate up to 90% of the work involved with SOC 2. Vanta can get you ready for security audits in weeks instead of months, less than a third of the time that it usually takes. For a limited time, Lenny’s podcast listeners get $1,000 off Vanta. Just go to vanta.com/lenny. That’s V-A-N-T-A dot-com/lenny to learn more and to claim your discount. Get started today.
I know another area that you spend a lot of time thinking about and you’ve done a lot of work around is branding, rebranding even and just go to market in general. I know at Miro, you led the charge on rebranding Miro. It used to be called I think RealtimeBoard, the little two capital letters and no space.
Barbra Gago: Yeah.
Lenny: And with Greenhouse, you basically led the go-to market plan. And so I want to spend a little time here I guess just around rebranding. At Miro, it’s a rebrand. How do you know it’s time to rebrand your product and it’s worth investing there?
Barbra Gago: RealtimeBoard was interesting. I almost didn’t join because it was called RealtimeBoard. Honestly, I was like, “Oh my, god. This is so literal.” While I was walking the dogs with my husband, I’m like, “Am I really going to join a company called RealtimeBoard” Can this be a big company with that name?” I was really concerned about it and ultimately, I spent more time with the leaders there and I was like, “Okay, I think they’ll be open to changing the name.” So I think there’s a maturity piece. A lot of companies are started and you just come up with a name and you don’t put a lot of thought into it and then you grow to a certain level. At that time, I think we were a million users, maybe a couple of million in revenue so it was very early days. You had a name, you came up with it, you got the website and then the business grew, and at some point, can it be as big as we want it to be, as we think it can be with that name? And I think that was my biggest thing.
Barbra Gago: With RealtimeBoard specifically, it was so literal and matter of fact and the product itself had so much more potential than the name was doing justice for. So I think at some point, it’s common for companies to do a rebrand once they go into scale mode before you have too many people and before you invest too much obviously in building that brand. So I think the sooner, the better like rebrand before I even joined. Will they let me change the name was my criteria for joining. And I would say in general, the sooner, the better, but obviously after you know that you have product market fit and you have something to scale, so you don’t want to invest too much in a brand that isn’t going to get you as far as you want to get if you’re going to obviously scale.
Lenny: I was going to ask you what it took to convince the founders to rebrand because that’s often a big challenge, but it sounds like that’s part of your employee agreement. I will join if you give me the right to explore this.
Barbra Gago: They were pretty receptive to it. The company was not US-based. I had spent my whole career in Silicon Valley a lot of time with brand and inbound and community-focused brands. So they were pretty receptive. It was not that hard to convince them, which was great. I think the scary part for them and many people was just there was some equity. They did have advocates like how would this impact the people who really loved the product right now? And so one of the things that was really important as we transitioned was that we kept as much of the essence of the initial brand. Before, the logo was like a Post-it and then RealtimeBoard. And so that Post-it, for example, that yellow became the new M that we used, and we actually proposed a hot pink M initially and the yellow M was the, okay, we don’t want to go too far from the RealtimeBoard with the yellow Post-it and this was a way to nob to the early base of customers and keep something that was pretty standard and pretty core to the initial brand and name.
Lenny: Looking back, do you think that was worth the effort and time to worry about those folks?
Barbra Gago: Oh yeah.
Lenny: Yeah. Okay.
Barbra Gago: Oh, the early folk, we definitely got feedback from along the way. We did case studies throughout the process. We got feedback on logos. We got feedback on brand and designs, and there were plenty of people who were like, “Oh, I like RealtimeBoard. It’s straightforward.” They loved their product, but ultimately, we kept many of them informed and we really involved them in the process to the degree of not slowing us down but still getting feedback, because we did all of this in a very short period of time on top of it. And I think it was worth it because they felt really good about the outcome as well.
And a big part of rebranding also means that you have to bring the whole company along too and make sure they feel really good about the outcome. And that was probably one of my big takeaways, is just at that time, we were already about a hundred people, so it wasn’t a super small company, and everybody had thoughts and feelings and the company had been around for quite a long time before that. So it was a big change for many people.
Lenny: Any other learnings from that experience about just going through a branding or rebranding? Maybe just focusing on rebranding. Any other learnings for future rebranding efforts?
Barbra Gago: So rebranding is just the visual aesthetic, and I think that’s important to make sure you can transition in a way that you’re still nodding to the original things but you’ve reinvented it or transformed it in a way that makes more sense for where you’re at and where you’re going. If you’re changing the name, it’s way more complicated because everybody has to be involved, legal, all the contracts, the website, the product, all the links. We changed our URL. Everything changed. And so I think it’s really important that you have to mobilize and align and have a very clear vision about the process and the steps and be very transparent about it. I think a lot of times, marketing teams just go and do their thing and come back and it’s like, “Here we go.”
With the rebrand at Miro, it was very much rebrand as a product approach. It was very much a product development process with sprint teams and agile, coming back, and you had owners for different parts of things and all reporting back and it really required everybody in some way to be involved. As I mentioned, we did it in a very condensed period of time. I think we kicked off the naming process in end of October and we launched publicly at South by Southwest with a fully three dimensional booth in March. So it was very short to get a name, and then once we had the name, to do all the actual brand and then not only that but produce an entire booth and event collateral and all of that stuff. So I think mobilizing, having a really strong clear process and delegating and letting go in the marketing role, not trying to own everything. It has to be owned by everybody else because you need sales decks and it’s just everything.
I think there’s also luck involved with any success and also in rebrands because a million things could go wrong. We got our domain name changed to miro.com, I think it was 48 hours before the event.
Lenny: Oh damn.
Barbra Gago: All the material had been printed with the new URL. We had to just make a leap of faith, super stressful, but thankfully, we had luck on our side. But ultimately, team process, clear structure, transparent for everybody, getting feedback from customers and making sure stakeholders feel like they’re involved. I think ultimately, it’s a really powerful way to create defensibility for a product and a brand in the market, but it’s also a lot of work related to category creation.
Lenny: I was just going to say that. It sounds like everything you do is just a hell of a lot of work. The rest [inaudible 00:37:34].
Barbra Gago: It’s fun. I love work.
Lenny: Me too. I always joke that I work for a workaholic, which is myself.
Barbra Gago: Yeah, I do. I know. I just love it. So I get into this stuff and I think rebranding and category creation and brand in general, I think what our goal with Miro was to create … There’s this concept of a love mark rather than a straight mark. It’s like how do you build a brand? I think Airbnb has done a great job with that as well, but how do you build a brand that people really love and so committed to and invested in? And that you have to put a lot of thought into it, and it needs to be authentic for it to really work, but if it does, it’s super, super powerful.
Lenny: Yeah. I was there during the Airbnb rebrand. It took I think a year and a half for them from start to finish to get to something they were really excited about ready to launch. And there’s also actually a similar story to the domain story shared with the font. I don’t know how much I could share, but they didn’t have the right to use the font until the last day or something. It was a close call.
Barbra Gago: Yeah, but you have to just like, “It’s going to happen.” There’s some blind faith.
Lenny: Right. It helps close it. We’re launching. I wanted to talk about just branding in general. You’ve worked on such great, big, successful brands and you’ve helped craft these brands, and I’m just curious what advice you have around just building a brand, a lasting brand, a global brand. What’s important when you think about creating a brand for your startup?
Barbra Gago: I think it’s something that companies should think about as early as possible and have it not be an afterthought. The product and the brand are the main things that will get customers and keep them and also keep them loyal and engaged. So I think you have to have both. You can’t have one or the other. You could have a great brand and if the product sucks, there’s only so far a brand can go. And you also can have a great product and maybe not that thoughtful of a brand, but what I’ve found is that the more the brand is interchangeable with the people at the company and the company itself, the stronger it is, the more authentic it is. When you talk about Google, you also talk about its people. They’re one and the same Googlers. And a lot of companies have that same approach.
And I think with Miro, we definitely incorporate our values into the brand. Our whole mission was to help companies build the next big thing. This is what we want to do. We want to be the platform that helps companies build the next big thing. We also had to be a big thing. We need to show what big things are. And so your company values, for example, can shape how big and how deep you go with your brand, how authentic it is to the experiences that people have because ultimately, values play a big part because values are foundational to how people behave at the organization, how they work together, how they work with one another, how they work with customers, how they talk to customers.
The best way to incorporate your brand and how people are interacting with people that you are selling to, customers or whoever, partners, is to have those values incorporated because then it’s every touchpoint isn’t something that you have to train people, okay, these are all the touch points and this is how the brand needs to manifest. It already will because it’s part of the DNA of the company. So I think really integrating the values can help with that and also, of course, make the brand itself human and authentic and something that people really feel emotional connection to.
Lenny: What’s an example of value informing the brand or change or helping you make a different decision maybe at Miro or CultureAmp or Greenhouse to make that a little more concrete?
Barbra Gago: Authenticity as a value. Candor as a value. Thoughtfulness as a value. If you have a value around a bias for action or something like that, these things can translate to how the brand manifests in terms of the language that’s used, the colors, the objects. With Miro, for example, we had each character of the word Miro in a different shape, and each shape had different characteristics and those were tied back to different values so they each represented something different.
Lenny: What’s an example of that? What were Miro’s values while we’re diving into there?
Barbra Gago: One of them was around agility. And so, one, I don’t remember which letter it was. Maybe the I. It was shaped wiggly, and then we also had a visual manifestation of it so they all behaved differently. They all had their own behavior. And one of the things that was really important to us is that we were creating a visual system or a visual language so that people that were from different parts of the world, working together could understand each other without necessarily speaking the same language. And so this was a way to invoke this connection of different perspectives and different languages in a way that got all pulled together.
Lenny: Got it. Cool. There’s a lot there. The way you all visualized the values were using the name Miro. I imagine there’s four values then.
Barbra Gago: Yeah.
Lenny: And then Agility as a value informed the product. It needs to be agile and make sure people can be flexible in how they use it.
Barbra Gago: Definitely. How we build the product, how people around the product act, and then that shape itself was agile and moved and agiley.
Lenny: That’s awesome. I love that. Were you there for coming up with the values? People are always wondering, just how do we come up with our company values? Do you have any insights into just developing company values?
Barbra Gago: We did iterations of it while I was there. They already had a stake in the ground. What I have done in the past with values is we just did an exercise with my leadership team, for example, where we did a workshop format. We actually used Miro where everybody just brain dumped their ideas around values, and then it was, okay, from there, let’s group them into themes. And then from there, let’s vote on the most important things. And then from there, how do we start to articulate and define these things? Ultimately, coming up with the definitions is not really something you can do as a group because it’s just not very productive. It’s better if somebody who knows how to write well can come up with the first stab of the sentences, if it’s operating principles, if it’s values, and then get feedback on it. But you can get everybody’s input and make the process pretty structured by doing something like that where it’s like brain dump, group, vote, and then you have your short list of things that you can then work to define.
Lenny: Awesome. Maybe one last question around brand. People that aren’t in, say, marketing hear brand and it’s, okay, it’s this fuzzy thing that I feel about our company. When you think about creating a brand, what are the bullet point things that you come up with? There’s a logo. There’s color palette. Can you just talk through, what is a brand when you’re creating a brand and building a brand, what are the elements of it?
Barbra Gago: So all of those things that you mentioned. I would say the logo, the colors, the fonts, all the general aesthetic. Do you have photography? Do you use illustrations? Is it all illustrations, all graphics, whatever? You decide those things. You need to understand what the voice is of the brand, how the brand sounds when you write things, when you market it, how people talk. All of that stuff is part of the brand. If you want to build a brand that’s really scalable, you think about it more as a system like a brand system. So this is creating things that … With Miro, for example, we had the letters and we had the colors and we had these concepts of agility. I don’t remember all of them off the top of my head, but all of these different concepts that then were represented by different shapes or different colors that could be used in various forms. So it’s really like how does it become an extension of all of the different things that you’re going to be doing visually or when you talk to customers or how you present the product, etc.?
Lenny: And all of that combines to this feeling you get eventually from the brand. All these things create that fuzzy feeling.
Barbra Gago: Yes.
Lenny: Yeah. It’s interesting you don’t remember all the values at Miro. With Airbnb, I’m just like, I will never forget the Airbnb values. They’ve been so drilled into our heads.
Barbra Gago: Yeah, it’s because they were too long. It was something that we were constantly working on because they were too long and there were too many things in them to remember. That was the problem.
Lenny: That’s a great learning there. Make them simple, but also don’t make them generic.
Barbra Gago: Yeah, it can’t be generic, but it also can’t be too much that nobody knows what they are. They need to be simple and straightforward and easy to remember.
Lenny: And potentially, illustrated with your company name. That’s a really cool idea.
Barbra Gago: Exactly. Yeah.
Lenny: Last topic I want to spend a little time on is something that I know you’re really passionate about, which is this idea of creating opinionated software that has clear opinions about how you should be using it and how you should be doing your work. And so maybe as a first question, just what is opinionated software? What’s important about it?
Barbra Gago: Opinionated software is basically software platforms that essentially have either best practices or maybe some rules integrated into the system. You have systems that you can customize any which way and however you want and then you have other systems that enforce a certain way of behaving or doing work, as you said. And so I think probably a pretty well known example for your audience especially is Atlassian really building tools for agile workflows and agile teams.
And Greenhouse is another example from a recruiting perspective in terms of what we called structured recruiting. There was a very specific way to create a pipeline, build an interview kit, and all of that was important because it made recruiting better and more transparent and obviously less bias and all of those things. So it’s principled, I would say. It’s anchored in some values. And because of those values, there will be certain rules that are built in that you can’t really work around.
Lenny: Do you have any advice for when it makes sense to be very opinionated about how you make people use your product and do the thing they’re trying to do versus just optimize for flexibility?
Barbra Gago: I think Atlassian built around a process that was already happening and growing momentum and it was like, okay, let’s build a solution to enable companies to do this with technology. So there was already a process that didn’t have a technology integrated, and then with Greenhouse it was like, there’s a better way to do it and this is how it should be done. So I think there’s two different approaches. Either find a process that just doesn’t have technology that is a best practice or growing best practice. I think the same thing happened in DevOps with many different tools. And then Greenhouse, which is more like, what are companies missing? How can they do it better? How can we train them and teach them a better way? And then by the way, our software helps you do that.
Lenny: With the product and company you’re building now, are you looking to make it very opinionated and here’s how you should be doing performance reviews or how are you thinking about it?
Barbra Gago: Yes, we are. It is opinionated, and it’s opinionated because the current way that performance reviews happen are full of bias and there’s a lot of problems with it. It’s like the best thing that companies can do and therefore, they continue to do it, but that just perpetuates a lot of issues. The reason that companies have to go and look at compensation data and fix pay gaps is because they have systemic problems with how people are promoted and progressed in the organization. So if they’re recruited in a certain way, they may or may not be developed and then they’re evaluated on their performance, which ultimately results in compensation and what people are paid, and that as we know, there’s plenty of problems.
So companies are fixing this compensation issue by updating the comp every year, but that doesn’t fix the systemic problem. And so yes, we have opinions about how to fix the problem and therefore, our building a system that when it comes to performance evaluation, employee progression, we require companies to be more transparent about the levels at the company, the expectations for different levels and competencies, and we create accountability both on the employee and the manager side, but it’s also the right thing to do. Employees should feel that they’re evaluated fairly, and without a system enforcing some of these things, there’s too much subjectivity in the process to make it good, unless you really do a lot of work, which most companies don’t do to create the right system. You don’t have to use a platform to do it, but if you don’t do the work anyway, you won’t have the outcome that you want, which is people feeling good about their career and paid fairly.
Lenny: Yeah. I found performance reviews to be one of maybe the most powerful tool as a manager to change the way people operate, help them improve, make them fulfilled and happy with where things are going. It feels like that’s the core of management, is the performance review cycle and giving people feedback on how they’re doing it and then continuing to come back to here’s where you’re underperforming, here’s what it’ll take to get to the next level. So I’m excited about what you’re working on.
Barbra Gago: Thank you.
Lenny: We’ve reached our very exciting lightning round where I’m going to ask you five rapid fire questions and you just tell me what comes to mind. We’ll go through it pretty fast. Does that sound good?
Barbra Gago: Yes.
Lenny: Okay. Awesome. First question, what are two or three books that you recommend most to other people?
Barbra Gago: Definitely Radical Candor. We give this out to customers. It’s really good for management and best practices around giving feedback. I love the Art of War just as strategic thinking. And then not work related, a book called Kafka on the Shore. It’s one of my favorite Murakami books that I highly recommend.
Lenny: What is that one again?
Barbra Gago: Kafka on the Shore.
Lenny: Kafka on the Shore. Wow, cool. I haven’t heard of that.
Barbra Gago: Yeah.
Lenny: Awesome. Going to use these in the show notes. What’s a favorite other podcast than the one you’re currently on?
Barbra Gago: I love Cautionary Tales. I don’t know if you know this one, but it’s a great podcast that basically identifies and tells stories about the mental mindsets that we’re in and the biases that we have and then historic events that have happened and just crazy things that have resulted from things that we do as humans because we’re biased.
Lenny: Irrational humans.
Barbra Gago: It’s really good. Yeah.
Lenny: What’s a favorite recent movie or a TV show that you watched?
Barbra Gago: I watched Sandman. I don’t know if you’ve heard of this.
Lenny: I’ve heard of it. I haven’t seen it.
Barbra Gago: It’s based off of an eight-part graphic novel series by Neil Gaiman. It’s really good. The TV version of it isn’t exactly about the books, but it’s about the characters, and I feel like the way that they portrayed the characters was really interesting and super diverse. It’s a great show.
Lenny: Awesome. That’s more plus one for that show. What’s a favorite interview question that you like to ask when you’re interviewing people?
Barbra Gago: Everybody hates it, but I like asking what someone’s top 10 accomplishments are. They hate it because it’s like, “Oh, God. Ugh.” But it’s really interesting to understand the level of quantitative versus qualitative in their accomplishments, what they value. And also if it’s a, “Oh, I ran a hundred miles or I have a great family,” whatever it is, it’s really interesting to get to know somebody and also what they value.
Lenny: Who else in the industry do you respect most as a thought leader or just influence on your career life?
Barbra Gago: Early days, I really appreciated Nancy Duarte. She is based in the Bay Area. She has an agency called Duarte Agency. She does a lot around storytelling and visual communication. She’s been really great for me just in my career as a mentor. I’ve worked with her a couple of times, but also just following all the work that she does. She’s amazing.
Lenny: Awesome. I remember learning about her when Al Gore gave his TED Talk and her whole agency was a-
Barbra Gago: Yes. She’s done an incredible thing with her agency because they started as making presentations more visually appealing, and then it migrated to storytelling, and then it’s evolved to change management and how to use story for driving change. And she’s also evolved the agency so much over the years as well. She’s done a lot of impressive work.
Lenny: Barbra, thank you so much for being here. This was amazing. Two last questions. Where can folks find you online if they want to reach out and learn more, and how can listeners be useful to you?
Barbra Gago: LinkedIn is probably the easiest place to find me /BarbraGago. And for me, we’re building a product in employee progression, so anybody who wants to share their stories or feedback, our insights around their experiences there or if they’re interested in getting product feedback, we’re really interested in actual user feedback, even though we’re selling to HR teams.
Lenny: And what’s the URL?
Barbra Gago: Pando.com.
Lenny: Awesome. Barbra, thank you for being here.
Barbra Gago: Thank you so much, Lenny.
Lenny: Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcast, 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 |
|---|---|
| all in one | 一体化 |
| ATS (Applicant Tracking System) | 招聘管理系统 |
| best in class | 同类最佳 |
| Brand building | 品牌建设 |
| Category creation | 品类创建 |
| Cautionary Tales | 《警示故事》 |
| customer success platform | 客户成功平台 |
| Employee experience | 员工体验 |
| Employee progression platform | 员工发展平台 |
| Go-to-market | 市场进入 |
| ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) | 理想客户画像 |
| Kafka on the Shore | 《海边的卡夫卡》 |
| market automation | 市场自动化 |
| opinionated software | 主张型软件 |
| people analytics platform | 人员分析平台 |
| people experience | 人员体验 |
| people intelligence platform | 人员智能平台 |
| performance management | 绩效管理 |
| PII (Personally Identifiable Information) | 个人身份信息 |
| Radical Candor | 《彻底坦率》 |
| recruiting optimization platform | 招聘优化平台 |
| Sandman | 《睡魔》 |
| structured recruiting | 结构化招聘 |
| The Art of War | 《战争的艺术》 |
| Thought leadership | 思想领导力 |
| Visual collaboration | 视觉协作 |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
品类创建与品牌建设 | Barbra Gago(Pando、Miro、Greenhouse、Culture Amp)
文字记录
Barbra Gago (00:00): 当你在做品类创建时,你需要确保有一个被分析师、目录网站等认可的品类。但同时,你也需要在思想领导力方面获得大量关注——比如为什么这是那个品类?这个特定事物的独特价值主张是什么?它解决了哪些痛点?然后当然,还需要围绕它产出大量内容,因为当你在创造一个新品类时,你还需要教育买家:现在有了一个新品类,他们可以为它做预算了,以及为什么他们应该为此分配预算。
Lenny (00:40): 欢迎收听 Lenny 的播客。我是 Lenny,我这里的目的是帮助你在打造和增长产品的这门手艺上变得更好。我采访世界级的产品领导者和增长专家,从他们在打造和扩展当今最成功公司过程中积累的宝贵经验中学习。
Lenny (00:54): 今天的嘉宾是 Barbra Gago。Barbra 曾是 Miro 的首席营销官兼全球营销负责人,在那里她帮助建立了他们的全球品牌,并为这个领域创造了一个全新的软件品类。在此之前,她是 Greenhouse 的营销副总裁,负责将产品推向市场并主导他们的市场进入策略。她也曾是 CultureAmp 的营销负责人,帮助制定了他们的市场进入计划并完成了首批 50 个客户的签约。
Lenny (01:18): 在我们的对话中,我们聚焦于三个话题:创建你自己的品类——什么时候值得尝试,什么时候应该避免,以及如何着手;建设你的品牌——什么时候应该重新品牌化;以及打造有态度的软件。我从未见过哪篇文章或播客如此深入地探讨品类创建或重新品牌化,我相信你一定会从这个播客中学到有价值的东西。好了,有请 Barbra Gago。
AssemblyAI
Lenny (01:46): 本期节目由 AssemblyAI 赞助。如果你正在寻找为音频或视频产品构建强大的 AI 驱动功能,那么你需要了解 AssemblyAI。AssemblyAI 是一个提供业界领先 AI 模型的 API 平台,Spotify、Loom 和 CallRail 等数千家产品驱动增长型公司正在使用它将 AI 融入产品中。通过简单的 API,开发者和产品经理可以获取强大的 AI 模型,用于转录、摘要等数十种任务,快速、安全且可直接用于生产环境。他们所有的模型都由内部研究和训练,并由 AI 专家团队持续更新,对于产品经理来说,这使得构建和发布新的 AI 驱动功能变得轻松。
Lenny (02:30): 从初创公司到大型企业的产品团队都在使用 AssemblyAI 来自动转录和总结电话和虚拟会议、检测播客中的话题、精确定位敏感内容出现的时刻、从音频视频中脱敏处理个人身份信息(PII)等等。访问 assemblyai.com 即可免费试用 AssemblyAI 的 API,并在他们的无代码演练场中开始测试模型。网址是 assemblyai.com。
Stytch
Lenny (02:57): 你想减少用户注册流程中的摩擦吗?那让我给你介绍一下 Stytch,注意是拼成 Stytch 带个 Y。Stytch 的使命是消除互联网上的摩擦。他们从让用户认证和注册流程更加无缝、更加安全开始。他们为各种规模的公司提供超级灵活的开箱即用认证解决方案,从电子邮件魔法链接到短信验证码,从一键社交登录到生物识别。Stytch 是你的一站式认证平台。
Lenny (03:27): Stytch 的客户在仅仅花了一天时间集成后,转化率就提高了 60% 以上。借助他们的 API 和 SDK,你可以同时提升用户转化率、留存率和安全性,还能节省宝贵的工程时间。你的工程师会感谢你选择了 Stytch,因为 Stytch 让你不必在内部自建认证系统,而且集成过程非常快速、非常顺畅。要获取 1000 美元的免费额度,只需访问 stytch.com/lenny 注册即可,注意是 Stytch 带个 Y。
嘉宾介绍
Lenny (04:05): Barbra,欢迎来到播客。
Barbra Gago (04:07): 谢谢,Lenny。很高兴来到这里。
Lenny (04:10): 先开始吧,为我们的听众稍微铺垫一下背景,你能不能用 55 秒时间介绍一下你职业生涯中做过的一些精彩事情以及现在在做什么?
Barbra Gago (04:21): 当然。我几乎整个职业生涯都在 B2B SaaS 科技领域,经历从构建到规模化扩张的超高速增长,通常围绕着以人员、技术和未来工作方式为核心的颠覆性技术。可以说,我帮助将 CultureAmp 和 Greenhouse 等产品推向了人员领域的市场。在那之前,我在企业社交网络领域做过一些工作,那是在 Yammer 的时代。最近,我是 Miro 的 CMO,我也主导了品牌重塑并将那个产品介绍给了全世界,这非常令人兴奋。
Lenny (05:01): 你现在还有一个创业项目,也许你可以简单提一下,然后我们最后再详细聊。你现在在做什么?
Barbra Gago (05:08): 好的。现在我正在打造一款产品——它最终属于什么品类我们拭目以待,但我们称之为员工发展平台(employee progression platform)。基本上,根据我作为领导者建设和扩展团队的经验,以及我在人员科技领域的接触,我发现领导者在正确地辅导和发展团队方面一直缺乏足够的工具——没有为这个过程创造足够的结构和透明度,而这对双方都能产生约束力。所以我们正在向一个宏大的目标迈进:消灭绩效评估。
Lenny (05:49): 天哪。酷。
Barbra Gago (05:50): 非常激动人心。
Lenny (05:51): 绩效评估。非常激动人心。确实如此。我们稍后再多聊聊这个。有很多我想深入探讨的东西。你有太多精彩的背景和有趣的经历了。第一个是你刚才提到的,就是品类和品类创建,我知道这是你非常热衷的话题。我读了一些关于你背景的资料,了解到在 Miro,你发明了这个现在叫做视觉协作(visual collaboration)的品类。在 CultureAmp,我想你也帮助推动了员工体验(employee experience)这个品类的创建。我猜在 Greenhouse 你也做了类似的事情。我知道初创公司经常在纠结:我应该创建自己的品类吗?还是应该在现有品类中去赢?所以我想花些时间聊聊你在这方面的经验。
品类创建的决策过程
Lenny (06:32): 第一个问题就是,以 Miro 或 Greenhouse 为例,你能不能谈谈你在决定”我们是应该发明一个我们将要赢得的全新品类,还是应该直接在现有品类中去赢”时的思考过程?结果如何?
Barbra Gago (06:45): 这两个都是很好的例子,因为其中一个我们确实创建了新品类,而另一个我们尝试了但最终放弃了。在 Miro,我想当我加入公司时,有一个在线白板的概念,它本身也是一个品类,但只是一个小得多的品类,而且没有多少人会去搜索它。我认为在 Miro 考虑品类创建的最大动力是:我们如何成为真正大的、每家公司都需要的东西,而不是那种也许产品团队会用,也许工程团队会用,或者学校之类会用的小玩意。
Barbra Gago (07:26): 当你思考品类创建时,对我们来说,这确实关乎我们想要做的事情的规模,而不是想待在太小的领域里。而 Miro 作为一个平台,有如此多的可能性。我曾经开玩笑说,即使作为一个公司,我们也是一个不断膨胀的宇宙。那里有太多事情可做,但在线白板这个品类真的太小了。
Barbra Gago (07:52): Greenhouse 属于 ATS 品类,也就是 applicant tracking system(招聘管理系统)。当时,招聘管理系统的名声非常差。我不知道听这个播客的人是否知道 Jobvite,或者还记得 Jobvite,在它之前还有很多系统。Jobvite 在 2000 年代中期作为全新升级的 ATS 出现,主打社交招聘,但它非常事务化,缺乏战略性。所以尽管我们本身就是 ATS,我们却想远离 ATS 这个领域。我们可以稍后详细聊聊我们尝试了什么、最终又做了什么,但我认为在考虑品类创建时,主要的考量因素是:企业是否有预算,有预算的话是多少,没有的话又怎样。比如,企业确实有 ATS 的预算。而直到现在,我认为企业才开始有视觉协作的预算。另外,人们用什么语言和词汇来描述他们的痛点、他们的处境、他们需要的东西?还有就是有没有竞争对手?
Barbra Gago (08:59): 有时候,关于竞争,你可能会想,“哦,我们不想有竞争,所以我们来创建一个新品类吧。” 但说到底,在有竞争之前,你并不算在创建品类。直到有更多公司做同样的事情,它才正式成为一个品类。这是我在整个品类创建过程中的一个重要认知——当新公司出现并声称自己属于那个品类时,其实是没关系的,因为这恰恰验证了新品类的存在。所以我认为,要不要做、什么时候做,确实取决于总体目标是什么,以及竞争对手和市场空间的现状如何。比如,ATS 市场仍然是 ATS 市场,而 Miro 既创建了视觉协作这个品类,同时也勾选了其他品类。
Lenny (09:53): 我有一千个问题想深入追问。在深入之前,你能不能先定义一下,到底什么是品类?有些人可能完全不知道我们在说什么——什么是产品品类?有没有一个高层次的思考方式?
Barbra Gago (10:04): 当我们谈论品类时,我觉得去 G2 Crowd 或 Software Advice 或者任何类似的评测网站、目录网站,看看它们是如何根据功能集来对产品进行分类,这是一个很好的方式来探索你的领域和相关品类。在每个行业内部,都会有 bunch 不同类型的品类。这些品类通常是——至少在 B2B 产品中——解决某个痛点或一组痛点的产品,它们可以是非常宽泛的一体化大型解决方案,也可以是很窄的。比如说有一体化(all in one)与同类最佳(best in class)之分。我觉得这就是品类粒度的体现,然后还有市场有多大。显然,粒度与更宽泛之间是对应关系,什么时候该做细粒度,什么时候该走宽泛路线?但我认为归根结底,品类就是一组功能或产品,解决一个特定的痛点,而客户很可能已经为这个痛点分配了预算。
Lenny (11:17): 然后品类最终——你使用它的方式——往往就是你推介产品的方式。它是你宣传语中很重要的一部分,也是你销售话术的一部分。比如你经常回来说”我们是视觉协作领域的领导者”,或者类似这样的话,这就是它在实践中被使用的方式。
Barbra Gago (11:31): 没错。有意思的是,如果你正在创建一个品类,你有时候可能一边在向某个品类销售,一边又在培育一个不同品类的需求,这是一个微妙的差别,关键就在于预算在哪里、客户如何描述他们的痛点。
Lenny (11:53): 这让我想起,我刚好在写一个短片脚本,想推介我的播客。一开始我说,“哦,这是一个排名前一百的商业播客。“后来我想,不对,应该说”这是全球排名第一的产品与增长播客”——这是事实,但我创建了自己的品类。怎么样?
Barbra Gago (12:09): 这就对了。
Lenny (12:10): 这主意不错吧?
品类创建的利弊
Barbra Gago (12:11): 我觉得是的。关键在于,当你谈到 ICP(理想客户画像)以及你如何销售产品、真正建立可复制的销售流程来规模化业务的那部分时,你最初销售的东西越具体,显然你就越容易获得高度相关的用户。他们会进行口碑传播等等。你以后总可以扩展那个范围。品类也是可以演化的。你之前提到了 CultureAmp。现在的品类是 people experience(人员体验)。实际上我在那儿的时候,更多是人员分析平台(people analytics platform)或人员智能平台(people intelligence platform),因为我们提供的是企业以前没有的一整套深度数据,但随着他们市场进入策略的变化,随着他们向平台添加新产品和新功能等等,那个品类也发生了演化。
Lenny (13:06): 为了让大家更具体地理解,你还能想到哪些品类的例子,不管是最近发明的还是一直存在的?
Barbra Gago (13:14): 早期的时候,我在做市场自动化(market automation),比如 Marketo,现在的 HubSpot 也属于这个,虽然那时候 HubSpot 更像是一个集客营销平台/品类。绩效管理(performance management),也就是 Pando 所在的领域。我们聊了很多关于人的产品。我觉得 Gainsight 在客户成功平台(customer success platform)上做得非常好,这是他们为组织内一个特定群体解决的一个不同问题。客户成功团队,基本上就是他们如何让客户取得成功。
Lenny (13:49): 太棒了。
Barbra Gago (13:50): 好的。
Lenny (13:51): 对,客户成功。这个名字起得很好。
Barbra Gago (13:53): 是的。
Lenny (13:55): 好。创建自己的品类有很多好处,对吧?第一,我们排名第一。这是主要的好处之一。第二,你可以主导对”什么是重要的”的理解,或者至少是定义。我想还有其他好处也许你可以分享,但同时也有很多弊端。你提到很多时候行不通,最后就是浪费了很多钱。也许你可以谈谈追求创建自己品类的理由有哪些,以及哪些情况下也许不应该这么做。
Greenhouse 的品类创建失败尝试
Barbra Gago (14:20): Greenhouse 是一个谈论品类创建失败尝试的绝佳案例。我之前提到过 ATS,也就是招聘管理系统品类,在当时名声极差。人们对那整个品类的产品体验非常糟糕。无论怎样,它们都不具备战略性,不能帮助人们做好招聘。就是一个非常糟糕的、高度事务化的体验。我加入后就想,“好吧,让我们重新定位自己,我们要创建一个新品类。“我们尝试了好几种方案。
Barbra Gago (14:57): 我们聚焦的主要方向之一是招聘优化平台(recruiting optimization platform),而且我们确实在做这件事——帮助企业真正结构化流程,识别他们的差距在哪里、人在哪个环节流失了、在哪个环节进展飞速,然后真正去调整、迭代和改进。我们花了时间推出内容、跟媒体沟通、以这种方式进行定位。但到头来,客户拥有的预算,以及客户谈论我们所做之事的方式——无论我们怎么称呼它——都是”招聘管理”。
Barbra Gago (15:33): 所以,如果每个人——即便看到了我们平台相对于其他产品的价值和差异化——仍然叫它 ATS,那么继续逆势而行、坚持说”不,我们要做一个新东西,我们要这样叫它”就没什么意义了。我们放弃了那个方向。但我认为我们当时理解到的关键在于:与其花时间和金钱去构建一个新品类,不如把时间和金钱花在提升这个品类本身的价值上。所以,与其把品类换成别的、然后我们自己随意定价,不如把所有资源用来让整个品类对用户、对公司变得更有价值。这确实是——再加上 CultureAmp 当时在同一个领域做的事情——开启了一整条良好、强健的人员实践与人员组织的发展轨迹,这些组织在招聘和员工敬业度方面都在做很酷的事情。
Lenny (16:35): 你提到了什么时候适合创建品类的几个要素。一是已经有对应的预算。二是人们在使用与该品类相关的词汇。我想在 Miro 的案例中,那个叫什么来着——视觉协作(visual collaboration),当时还没有对应的预算。那这种情况是怎么运作的?
Barbra Gago (16:53): 没有。我应该说那更多是愿景层面的东西。有时候你可以有一个愿景,客户暂时还没有、或者并不认同,但他们可以逐渐认同——在那个案例中他们确实认同了。我认为在 Miro,我们仍然努力在我们确实能归入的品类、或者人们谈论我们的方式上做优化,但它确实是一种全新的形态,而且是一个真正具有颠覆性的、在企业中从未存在过的产品,所以它被叫作很多不同的名字。所以它的流动性要大得多,人们用不同的方式谈论它,而我们的方式就是倾听反馈——听人们怎么谈论它,是在线白板也好,还是很多”待办任务”被表述为思维导图平台、图表绘制工具什么的,所有这些零散的东西。
视觉协作品类的包装
Barbra Gago (17:52): 所以视觉协作(visual collaboration)就是我们的方式,把这个东西漂亮地打包起来,让它可以成为一个企业级产品,为很多不同的用例和不同类型的用户解决很多不同的问题。我们最初销售和积累用户时,主要集中在产品和工程团队,这些团队本来就有使用白板的习惯,只是需要以分布式的方式来做,但很快我们就为 HR 团队、营销团队、设计团队,基本上组织里的任何人,打包了不同类型的工作场景。但这一切需要一个统一的凝聚力,否则就会变成组织里每个人因为使用方式不同而叫它不同的名字。
Lenny (18:37): 我听到的一部分是,你不会停止在它已经归属的现有品类上继续优化,而是同时并行地开始尝试整合,提出”嘿,这里有一个更大的愿景”。这样说对吗?
Barbra Gago (18:50): 我想是的。而且这确实是你从客户和用户那里获取输入的地方。我们听到了所有这些东西。Miro 做了很多内容营销。这通常是做品类创建的一个重要组成部分,我一般会这么说。但人们用很多不同的方式谈论它,所以这其实是一个机会,让你站出来说:好,它就是这个东西——因为没人知道——它是所有这些东西,而所有这些东西加在一起就等于这个了。然后这就创造了势能,其他公司也开始这样思考,然后他们也把自己标记为那个品类,于是你就拥有了一个由多家公司组成的品类,它们在做类似的事情。
什么时候不该做品类创建
Lenny (19:35): 是的,完全同意。你怎么判断什么时候尝试创建自己的品类可能是个坏主意?
Barbra Gago (19:41): 如果要尝试、失败、迭代的话,越早越好。我觉得如果你已经发展得很成熟了——我不认为品类创建在你已经有了……一旦你已经走得足够远,创建一个新品类不一定是一种突然就能产生新业务的手段。我认为,如果你没有获得……在 Greenhouse 的情况下,尽管我们使用了另外的说法,而且人们在谈论 Greenhouse 时也确实会用一些这样的表述,但它就是没有真正扎住根。所以我觉得尝试一些东西、然后放弃它们,这是好的,没关系的。你总是可以退回到原有品类中去。如果你真的不属于任何其他品类,那你可能确实需要搞清楚品类是什么,并把它打包好。而这主要靠持续跟客户对话、倾听他们如何谈论事情来完成。这一切归根结底都来自你从客户那里听到的、以及什么能引起共鸣。
Barbra Gago (20:49): 所以我认为,是的,如果你已经成熟了,如果你跟所在领域的其他品类确实没有差异化,那你大概就属于那个品类。而在你已经明确处于某个品类之中的情况下,做品类创建是大量不会有成果的工作。然后,如果你确实不属于任何品类但需要搞清楚,你就得不断迭代,直到找出对你的客户来说最合理的方式。
品类创建的具体方法
Lenny (21:15): 对于正在听这个节目的创始人,如果他们觉得”哦,这听起来很有意思,我想试试看也许为我的产品想想一个新品类”,你能不能谈谈经历这个过程的具体操作——如何决定品类应该叫什么、如何推出它,关于创建品类的任何战术层面的东西都可以分享?
Barbra Gago (21:36): 最核心的一点——我们已经聊过一些——就是真正理解你的客户、他们的痛点,以及他们谈论事物的方式。我做过的所有最好的营销和定位,几乎都来自跟客户进行无数次对话,听他们怎么解决问题、我们的系统如何帮助他们解决问题、他们在做什么、以及他们怎么描述这些事情。我认为第一步,就是真正理解那些买家是谁,他们怎么谈论产品,独特的差异化和卖点是什么。
Barbra Gago (22:10): 品类创建中还有一个非常重要的东西,就是 PR(公关)。你需要把这个品类和定位以较高的层面推出去,以便测试它是否合理、是否能引起共鸣。然后另一块就是那些目录网站——像 Gartner、Forrester 等分析师,至少在 B2B 和企业级市场中,它们真正为客户定义了品类是什么。你需要跟它们建立关系,需要跟它们合作来创建你的品类。以视觉协作为例,我们在 G2 Crowd 上没有排名,没有被归入视觉协作品类,我们必须跟他们会面,解释这是什么,跟他们讨论这个品类与其他品类在功能等方面的差异化,这样他们才能理解如何将这个品类与另一个品类区分开来。
Barbra Gago (23:15): 所以我认为这些都是非常值得关注的渠道。然后在战术层面,主要是大量的内容营销和大量的思想领导力。当你创建一个品类时,你需要确保有一个被分析师、目录网站等验证过的品类。但同时,你还需要在思想领导力方面有很强的牵引力——比如为什么这是这个品类?这个东西独特的价值主张是什么?它解决了哪些痛点?然后当然,还需要围绕这些产出大量内容,因为当你创造一个新品类时,你同时也需要教育买家,让他们知道现在有一个新品类可以列入预算,以及为什么他们应该为它分配预算。
Lenny (24:02): 听起来工作量巨大。
Barbra Gago (24:03): 确实很多。
Lenny (24:05): 我很好奇。你觉得 B2B 公司中有多少比例应该去追求创建品类?是几乎没有,还是一个有意义的比例?
Barbra Gago (24:13): 这跟技术创新是一波一波来的。比如,最早的互联网浪潮,然后是社交企业和 IT 消费化,那是工作场所技术使用方式的一个重大变革,很多新品类就是在那个时间点涌现的。所以我觉得与其说是一个原始比例,不如说是跟总体上的拐点有关——正是这些拐点催生了对新品类的需求。
Barbra Gago (24:44): 以 COVID 为例,非常快速地向分布式工作的转变就是这类拐点之一,改变了很多东西。一个增长极快的新品类——我甚至不确定它们确切叫什么——就是像 Deel 和 Oyster 这样的雇佣平台,它们冒出来并快速增长,也创造了一个新品类。之前你本来就可以在所有这些分布式地区招人,但你得找到当地的一家公司来雇佣这些人。然后它们创造了这样的平台——这里有一个系统,你可以在这里管理一切,由我们去在各地建立所有那些关系。而 Nayya 也是一个新品类,在过去三年里涌现了四五家公司。所以我认为更多的是关于市场需求和市场正在发生什么,而不是某一家公司做这件事是否合理,如果这说得通的话。
Lenny (25:48): 嗯,说得通。取决于浪潮把大家往哪带。我觉得这很有道理。
Barbra Gago (25:52): 没错,是的。
Lenny (25:53): 也许关于品类创建最后一个问题。表面上看,这是一个二元选择——要么成为最好的 ATS 平台,要么我们不是 ATS,我们是员工招聘自动化。有没有中间地带?你必须二选一吗,还是有一条折中路线,也许是稍微不同的定位,你怎么看这个问题?
Barbra Gago (26:13): 可以有一些中间地带。拿 Pando 来说,比如绩效管理是一个非常成熟的品类,我们在技术上属于这个品类,而且预算里有这一项,人们有钱为绩效管理买单。但我们同时在引入员工发展(employee progression)这个概念,这更像是一个长尾策略。所以我们一方面想教育市场、建设员工发展这个新品类,因为这与我们正在做的事情和传统绩效管理之间的差异有关;但另一方面,我们仍然会在目录网站上把自己归入绩效管理,谈论绩效管理,卖给那些正在寻找绩效管理的公司。但最终,我们想改变所有人的认知,改变这个品类。
Barbra Gago (27:09): 所以不一定非此即彼,但我确实认为,如果你想创建一个新品类,投入是很高的。我们承诺在时间、思想领导力、内容等方面进行投入,但目前我们的策略也不是直接去创建员工发展这个品类并占领和主导它。我们会随着时间逐步向那个目标推进。
Lenny (27:34): 明白了。这跟你在 Miro 谈到的情况是相通的。不是说”我们转型了,我们现在是视觉协作”,而是”我们仍然是白板,我们是最好的白板工具,但同时我们开始建设视觉协作这个品牌,让人们逐渐了解它”。
Barbra Gago (27:48): 没错。我认为这是一种自下而上的思路,就像我们的商业模式一样。相比之下,市场自动化不是一种渐进式的积累。它就是市场自动化。那就是品类名称。我当时在一家做市场自动化的公司工作。有 Eloqua、Marketo 和其他几家,我们都只是在告诉所有人、教育市场这是什么——那是非常自上而下的方式。
品牌重塑
Lenny (28:19): 好了。本期节目由 Vanta 赞助,帮助你简化安全合规流程以加速增长。如果你的业务在云端存储任何数据,那你很可能已经被问过、或者将来会被问到关于 SOC 2 合规的问题。SOC 2 是一种证明你的公司采取了适当安全措施来保护客户数据的方式,能与客户和合作伙伴建立信任,尤其是那些有严格安全要求的客户和合作伙伴。而且,如果你想卖给企业级客户,证明安全性是必不可少的。SOC 2 要么能为你打开更大更好交易的大门,要么会让你的业务停滞不前。如果你没有 SOC 2,很可能连上桌的机会都没有。
Lenny (29:00): 启动一份 SOC 2 报告可能是一个沉重的负担,尤其对初创公司来说。它耗时、繁琐且昂贵。于是 Vanta 出场了。超过 3000 家快速增长的公司使用 Vanta 来自动化 SOC 2 相关工作中高达 90% 的部分。Vanta 可以在几周内而不是几个月内让你做好安全审计准备,不到通常所需时间的三分之一。限时优惠,Lenny 播客听众可享受 Vanta 1000 美元折扣。只需访问 vanta.com/lenny,也就是 V-A-N-T-A 点 com 斜杠 lenny,了解更多信息并领取折扣。今天就行动起来吧。
Lenny (29:38): 我知道你花了很多时间思考、也做了很多工作的另一个领域是品牌,甚至是品牌重塑,以及整体的市场进入。我知道在 Miro,你主导了 Miro 的品牌重塑。它原来叫 RealtimeBoard,好像两个首字母大写、中间没有空格。
Barbra Gago (29:52): 是的。
Lenny (29:53): 在 Greenhouse,你基本上主导了市场进入计划。所以我想花点时间聊聊品牌重塑这个话题。在 Miro,是一次品牌重塑。你怎么知道什么时候该对产品进行品牌重塑、值得在这方面投入?
Barbra Gago (30:06): RealtimeBoard 这件事挺有意思的。我差点没加入,就因为它叫 RealtimeBoard。说实话,我当时想,“天哪,这也太字面化了。“我跟丈夫遛狗的时候在想,“我真的要加入一家叫 RealtimeBoard 的公司吗?用这个名字能成为一家大公司吗?“我真的很担心这件事。后来我跟那里的领导者们多接触了一些,我想,“好吧,我觉得他们会愿意改名的。“所以我觉得这里有一个成熟度的问题。很多公司在创立时就是随便起了一个名字,没有花太多心思,然后发展到一定程度。那时候我们大概有一百万用户,可能几百万美元收入,所以是非常早期的阶段。你有一个名字,是你起的,你弄了个网站,然后业务成长起来了,到了某个节点,这个名字能否承载我们希望它成为的、我们认为它可以成为的规模?我觉得这是我当时最在意的事情。
Barbra Gago (31:08): 就 RealtimeBoard 而言,它的名字太过字面化、太过直白,而产品本身的潜力远远超出了这个名字所能承载的。所以我认为在公司进入规模化阶段时进行品牌重塑是很常见的——而且要在团队规模还不太大之前、在品牌建设上投入太多之前去做。所以我觉得越早越好,比如在我加入之前就改名。他们会不会允许我改名,这是我当时决定是否加入的标准。总的来说,我认为越早越好,但显然要等到你确认自己已经达到了产品市场契合度、有了可以规模化的东西之后——因为如果你要规模化,你肯定不想在一个无法带你走到预期高度的品牌上投入太多。
Lenny (31:58): 我本来想问你花了多大功夫才说服创始人做品牌重塑,因为这通常是一个很大的挑战,但听起来这已经写进了你的入职条件。“你们给我探索这件事的权利,我才加入。”
Barbra Gago (32:08): 他们其实很接受这个想法。公司不在美国,而我的整个职业生涯都在硅谷度过,在品牌、集客营销和以社区为核心的品牌建设方面积累了大量经验。所以他们相当接受,说服他们并不难,这很好。我觉得对他们和很多人来说,比较让人担心的是有一定的品牌资产在——他们确实有忠实的用户,这个改变会怎么影响那些真正热爱这个产品的人?所以在品牌过渡过程中,非常重要的一点是我们尽可能保留了最初品牌的精髓。之前的 logo 是一个便利贴加 RealtimeBoard 的文字。比如那个便利贴的黄色,就变成了新 Miro 的那个”M”的颜色。我们最初其实提议了一个亮粉色的 M,而黄色的 M 则代表了一种妥协——我们不想离 RealtimeBoard 的黄色便利贴太远,这也是一种向早期用户群体致敬的方式,同时保留了最初品牌和名称中相当核心的元素。
Lenny (33:25): 回头看,你觉得花时间和精力去照顾那些早期用户是值得的吗?
Barbra Gago (33:29): 当然值得。
Lenny (33:30): 好的。
Barbra Gago (33:31): 那些早期用户,我们在整个过程中确实收集了他们的反馈。我们在整个流程中做了很多用户案例研究。我们收集了关于 logo 的反馈、关于品牌和设计的反馈。确实有很多人说,“哦,我喜欢 RealtimeBoard,简单明了。“他们热爱这个产品,但最终,我们让很多人保持了知情,并且在一定程度上让他们参与了整个过程——在不会拖慢我们进度的前提下仍然获取反馈,因为所有这些工作都是在非常短的时间内完成的。我觉得这是值得的,因为他们对最终结果也感觉很满意。
品牌重塑中的团队对齐
Barbra Gago (34:09): 品牌重塑中很重要的一部分,也是要把全公司的人都带着走,确保他们对最终结果感觉良好。这大概是我最大的收获之一——当时我们已经有大约一百人了,不算一家很小的公司,每个人都有自己的想法和感受,而且公司在此之前也已经存在了很长时间。所以对很多人来说,这是一个很大的变化。
Lenny (34:38): 关于品牌重塑这个过程,还有其他什么经验教训吗?可能就聚焦在品牌重塑这个话题上,对将来做品牌重塑的人有什么建议?
Barbra Gago (34:46): 品牌重塑只是视觉层面的焕新,我认为重要的是确保你的过渡方式既致敬了最初的东西,又以某种方式进行了重新发明或转变,使其更契合你现在的位置和未来的方向。如果你要改名,那就复杂得多了——因为所有人都要参与进来,法务、所有合同、网站、产品、所有链接。我们更换了 URL。一切都变了。所以我认为非常重要的是,你必须动员起来、对齐目标,对流程和步骤有非常清晰的愿景,并且对整个过程保持高度透明。我觉得很多时候,市场团队就自己埋头做事,然后出来说,“好了,看吧。“
品牌重塑的执行方式
Barbra Gago (35:34): 在 Miro 的品牌重塑中,我们完全是把品牌重塑当成一个产品来做的。它是一个非常典型的产品开发流程——有冲刺团队、敏捷开发、定期回顾,不同部分有各自的负责人,所有人都要汇报进展,几乎需要所有人以某种方式参与。正如我提到的,我们在一个非常压缩的时间段内完成了这件事。我记得我们在十月底启动了命名流程,然后在三月的西南偏南(South by Southwest)上以一个完全三维化的展台公开发布。时间非常紧迫——要先确定名字,然后基于名字做所有的品牌工作,不仅如此,还要制作整个展台和活动物料等等所有东西。所以我认为,动员团队、建立非常清晰有力的流程、充分授权、在市场角色上学会放手、不试图掌控一切,这些都非常重要。这件事必须由其他人来主导推进,因为你要准备销售演示文稿等等,什么都需要。
Barbra Gago (36:39): 我觉得任何成功都有运气的成分,品牌重塑也一样,因为可能出错的地方太多了。我们的域名切换到 miro.com,大概是在活动开始前 48 小时才完成的。
Lenny (36:54): 天哪。
Barbra Gago (36:54): 所有物料都已经印上了新的 URL。我们只能抱着一种信念往前走,压力巨大,但幸运的是,运气站在了我们这边。但归根结底,团队协作、清晰的结构、对所有人透明、从客户那里获取反馈、确保利益相关方觉得自己参与了进来——我认为品牌重塑最终是为产品和品牌在市场中建立护城河的一种非常有力的方式,但它也是与品类创建紧密相关的大量工作。
Lenny (37:29): 我正想这么说呢。听起来你做的每一件事都是大量的工作。剩下的部分[听不清 00:37:34]。
Barbra Gago (37:35): 这很有趣。我就是热爱工作。
Lenny (37:36): 我也是。我总是开玩笑说我为一个工作狂打工,那个人就是我自己。
Barbra Gago (37:40): 是的,我知道。我就是热爱它。所以我一投入这些事情就停不下来。我觉得品牌重塑和品类创建以及品牌建设整体而言,我们在 Miro 的目标是创造一种……有一个概念叫”love mark”,与普通的”straight mark”相对——就是说你如何打造一个品牌?我觉得 Airbnb 在这方面也做得非常好——就是如何打造一个人们真正热爱、真正投入、真正有归属感的品牌?这需要你投入大量的思考,而且它必须是真实的才能奏效,但如果做到了,它的力量会非常、非常强大。
Lenny (38:22): 是的。我当时经历了 Airbnb 的品牌重塑。从开始到最终完成并兴奋地准备发布,我想大概花了一年半的时间。而且其实也有一个跟域名类似的关于字体的故事。我不知道我能透露多少,但他们直到最后一天才获得使用那个字体的权利之类的。非常惊险。
Barbra Gago (38:43): 是的,但你必须告诉自己,“一定会成的。“需要一种盲目的信念。
Lenny (38:47): 没错。这种信念有助于推动事情落地。我们要发布。我想聊聊品牌建设这个更广泛的话题。你参与打造过这么多优秀的、大型成功品牌,帮助塑造了这些品牌,我很好奇你对品牌建设有什么建议——如何打造一个持久的品牌、一个全球化的品牌。在为你的初创公司创建品牌时,什么是最重要的?
Barbra Gago (39:06): 我认为公司应该尽早考虑这件事,不要让它变成事后才想起来的附属品。产品和品牌是获取客户、留住客户、让他们保持忠诚和活跃的核心要素。所以我觉得两者缺一不可,不能只有其一。你可以有一个很好的品牌,但如果产品很差,品牌能走到的距离是有限的。你也可以有一个很好的产品,但品牌可能不太用心,但我发现,当品牌与公司员工、公司本身越融为一体,品牌就越强大、越真实。当你谈论 Google 的时候,你也会谈到它的人。它们是一体的——Googlers。很多公司也是同样的做法。
Barbra Gago (39:55): 我觉得在 Miro,我们确实把价值观融入了品牌。我们的整个使命就是帮助企业打造下一个大事物。这就是我们想做的事。我们想成为帮助企业打造下一个大事物的平台。我们自己也要成为大事物,我们需要展示什么是大事物。所以,比如你的公司价值观,可以塑造你的品牌能走多远、能有多深,决定了它对人们体验的真实程度,因为归根结底,价值观扮演着重要角色——价值观是组织成员行为方式的根基,决定了他们如何协作、如何相处、如何与客户合作、如何与客户交流。
Barbra Gago (40:40): 将品牌融入人们与你所销售的对象——客户或其他任何人、合作伙伴——的互动中的最佳方式,就是把价值观融入其中,因为这样一来,每一个触点都不需要你去逐一培训大家”这些是所有的触点,品牌需要这样呈现”——它自然会体现出来,因为它已经融入了公司的 DNA。所以我认为真正将价值观融入其中可以帮助做到这一点,同时当然也能让品牌本身更加人性化、更真实,让人们能真正感受到情感上的连接。
Lenny (41:18): 能不能举一个价值观影响品牌,或者改变决策的例子?在 Miro 或 CultureAmp 或 Greenhouse,让这个更具体一些?
Barbra Gago (41:27): 以”真实性”作为价值观。“坦诚”作为价值观。“深思熟虑”作为价值观。如果你有一个关于”行动偏好”之类的价值观,这些东西可以转化为品牌在语言、颜色、图形元素等方面的呈现方式。比如在 Miro,我们把 Miro 这个词的每个字母设计成不同的形状,每个形状有不同的特征,而这些特征与不同的价值观一一对应,所以它们各自代表了不同的东西。
Lenny (42:02): 能举个具体例子吗?Miro 的价值观都有哪些?我们正好深入聊聊。
价值观如何塑造视觉品牌
Barbra Gago (42:06): 其中一个是关于敏捷性的。所以有一个字母——我不记得是哪个了,可能是 I——它的形状是波浪形的,然后我们还有一个视觉化的呈现,所以它们各自表现不同,各有各的行为方式。而对我们来说很重要的一点是,我们在创建一个视觉系统或者说视觉语言,让来自世界不同地方、一起工作的人即使不说同一种语言也能互相理解。所以这是一种将不同视角、不同语言凝聚在一起的方式。
Lenny (42:47): 明白了。很酷。这里面东西很多。你们把价值观可视化的方式是用 Miro 这个名字。我猜有四个价值观。
Barbra Gago (42:53): 是的。
Lenny (42:54): 然后敏捷性作为价值观影响了产品——它需要是敏捷的,确保人们在使用方式上有灵活性。
Barbra Gago (43:01): 没错。影响了我们如何打造产品,影响了围绕产品的人如何行动,然后那个形状本身也是敏捷的、灵动的、具有敏捷感的。
Lenny (43:10): 太棒了。我很喜欢这个。你是参与了价值观的制定吗?人们总是在问,我们该怎么制定公司价值观?你对制定公司价值观有什么心得吗?
Barbra Gago (43:20): 我在 Miro 期间做了几轮迭代。他们之前已经有了一个初步的基础。我过去在做价值观的时候,做法是跟我的领导团队一起做了一个练习,比如以工作坊的形式。我们实际上用了 Miro,每个人都把自己的想法关于价值观倾倒出来,然后从中归组主题。然后从中投票选出最重要的东西。然后再从中开始 articulation 和定义。但最终,写出定义其实不太适合群组来做,因为效率不高。最好是由一个擅长写作的人来起草初版句子——不管是运营原则还是价值观——然后让大家反馈。但你可以让每个人都参与输入,通过这样的流程——脑力倾泻、归组、投票——让整个过程变得很有结构,最后你就得到了一个可以进一步定义的精简清单。
品牌的构成要素
Lenny (44:23): 很好。关于品牌也许最后一个问题。不在营销领域的人听到”品牌”,觉得它就是我对公司的一种模糊的感觉。当你考虑创建品牌时,你会列出哪些要点?有 logo、有色彩体系。你能不能谈谈,什么是品牌?当你创建品牌、建设品牌时,它包含哪些要素?
Barbra Gago (44:47): 就是你提到的所有那些东西。我会说 logo、颜色、字体,所有整体的美学风格。你用摄影还是用插画?全是插画还是全图形?不管你决定用什么。你需要理解品牌的声音是什么——品牌在写作时听起来如何,在营销时听起来如何,人们如何表达。所有这些都是品牌的一部分。如果你想打造一个真正可规模化的品牌,你要把它更多看作一个系统——一个品牌系统。所以要创建一些可以复用的元素……比如在 Miro,我们有字母、有颜色、有敏捷性这样的概念。我不记得所有的了,但这些不同的概念分别由不同的形状或颜色来呈现,可以以各种形式使用。所以本质上就是——它如何成为你所有视觉输出、与客户沟通方式、产品展示等一切活动的延伸?
Lenny (45:50): 而所有这些加在一起,最终就形成了你对品牌的那个感觉。所有这些东西共同创造了那种模糊的感觉。
Barbra Gago (45:56): 是的。
Lenny (45:57): 是的。很有意思你不记得 Miro 的所有价值观了。在 Airbnb,我就永远不会忘记那些价值观。它们已经被深深植入了我们的脑海。
Barbra Gago (46:05): 是的,因为它们太长了。这是我们一直在改进的东西,因为它们太长了,里面内容太多,记不住。这就是问题所在。
Lenny (46:17): 这是一个很好的教训。让它们简单,但也不要泛泛而谈。
Barbra Gago (46:21): 是的,不能太泛,但也不能太多以至于没人记得住。它们需要简单明了、容易记住。
Lenny (46:32): 而且可以用公司名字来做视觉化呈现。这个想法真的很酷。
Barbra Gago (46:36): 没错。是的。
主张型软件
Lenny (46:37): 我想花点时间聊的最后一个话题,我知道你非常有热情,就是关于创建”主张型软件”(opinionated software)的理念——这种软件对你应该怎么使用它、应该怎么开展工作有明确的立场。那么第一个问题可能就是,什么是主张型软件?它为什么重要?
Barbra Gago (46:54): 主张型软件基本上就是将最佳实践或者某些规则集成到系统中的软件平台。有些系统你可以随心所欲地自由定制,而另一些系统则会强制你以特定的方式行为或工作,就像你说的那样。我觉得对您的听众来说一个比较知名的例子可能就是 Atlassian,他们确实是为敏捷工作流和敏捷团队构建工具的。
Barbra Gago (47:27): Greenhouse 是另一个例子,从招聘的角度来说,就是我们所说的结构化招聘。它有非常具体的方式来创建招聘漏斗、构建面试工具包,所有这些都很重要,因为它让招聘变得更好、更透明,显然也减少了偏见等等。所以我觉得它是有原则的,以某些价值观为锚定。而正因为有这些价值观,系统中会内置一些规则,你没法绕开它们。
Lenny (47:58): 你有没有什么建议——什么时候应该对人们如何使用你的产品、如何完成他们想做的事保持高度的主张性,什么时候又应该优先追求灵活性?
Barbra Gago (48:11): 我觉得 Atlassian 是围绕一个已经在发生且势头不断增强的流程来构建的,他们的思路是:好,让我们构建一个解决方案,让公司能用技术来做这件事。所以是已经存在一个流程,只是还没有集成技术。而 Greenhouse 的思路更像是:有一种更好的方式,而且应该这样做。所以我认为这是两种不同的路径。要么找到一个尚无技术支撑的流程,而且它是最佳实践或正在成为最佳实践的——我觉得同样的事情也发生在 DevOps 领域的很多不同工具上。要么就是 Greenhouse 这种,更像是:公司缺什么?怎么才能做得更好?我们怎么培训和教会他们一种更好的方式?然后顺便说一下,我们的软件能帮你做到。
Lenny (48:56): 那你现在正在做的产品和公司,你是想让它非常主张型——告诉人们应该怎么做绩效评估——还是你怎么想的?
Barbra Gago (49:03): 是的,我们确实如此。它是主张型的,而它之所以是主张型的,是因为目前绩效评估的方式充满了偏见,存在很多问题。它又是公司能做的最好的事情,所以公司一直在做,但这只会持续加剧很多问题。公司之所以不得不去审视薪酬数据、修补薪酬差距,根本原因在于人们在组织中晋升和发展的方式存在系统性问题。如果招聘方式本身就是某种特定的,人才可能得到发展,也可能得不到发展,然后他们的绩效被评估,最终反映在薪酬和人们的收入上——而我们知道,这里面有太多问题。
Barbra Gago (49:47): 所以公司每年通过调薪来修补这个薪酬问题,但这并没有解决系统性问题。所以没错,我们对如何解决这个问题有自己的主张,因此在构建系统时,涉及绩效评估、员工发展这些方面,我们要求公司对职级体系、不同层级的期望和胜任力更加透明,并且在员工和管理者双方都建立问责机制,但这也是正确的事情。员工应该感到自己被公正地评估,而没有一个系统来强制执行这些的话,过程中就会有过多的主观性,除非你真的做了大量的工作——大多数公司并没有做到——来建立正确的体系。你不必非得用一个平台来做这件事,但如果你本来就不做这些工作,你也不会得到你想要的结果,也就是让人们对职业发展感到满意并获得公平的报酬。
Lenny (50:59): 是的。我发现绩效评估可能是管理者手中最强大的工具之一,可以改变人们的工作方式,帮助他们进步,让他们对发展方向感到充实和满意。感觉管理的核心就是绩效评估循环——就人们的表现给予反馈,然后不断地回到这里:你在哪里做得不够,要达到下一个层级需要什么。所以我对你在做的事情很期待。
Barbra Gago (51:22): 谢谢。
闪电问答
Lenny (51:23): 我们到了非常激动人心的闪电问答环节,我会问你五个快问快答,你就说出脑海中浮现的答案。我们会很快过一遍。准备好了吗?
Barbra Gago (51:34): 准备好了。
Lenny (51:34): 好,太好了。第一个问题,你最常推荐给别人的两三本书是什么?
Barbra Gago (51:41): 肯定是 Radical Candor。我们会送给客户,对管理和反馈的最佳实践非常有帮助。我喜欢 The Art of War,在战略思维方面。然后非工作相关的,一本叫 Kafka on the Shore 的书,是我最喜欢的村上春树作品之一,强烈推荐。
Lenny (52:00): 那本叫什么来着?
Barbra Gago (52:01): Kafka on the Shore。
Lenny (52:03): Kafka on the Shore。哇,很酷。我没听说过。
Barbra Gago (52:05): 嗯。
Lenny (52:06): 不错,我会把这些放到节目笔记里。除了你现在正在上的这个,你最喜欢的播客是什么?
Barbra Gago (52:13): 我很喜欢 Cautionary Tales。不知道你知不知道这个,它是一个很棒的播客,基本上是识别和讲述我们所处的思维模式和偏见,以及因此发生的历史事件——因为人类的偏见而导致的疯狂结果。
Lenny (52:36): 不理性的人类。
Barbra Gago (52:37): 真的很好听。嗯。
Lenny (52:38): 最近看过的最喜欢的电影或电视剧是什么?
Barbra Gago (52:42): 我看了 Sandman。不知道你听说过没有。
Lenny (52:46): 听说过,没看过。
Barbra Gago (52:49): 它改编自 Neil Gaiman 的八卷图像小说系列,非常棒。电视剧版不是完全按照原著拍的,但围绕的是这些角色,我觉得他们对角色的塑造很有意思,而且超级多元。是一部好剧。
Lenny (53:09): 不错,又多一个推荐。你面试的时候最喜欢问的面试问题是什么?
Barbra Gago (53:17): 所有人都讨厌这个问题,但我喜欢问一个人的十大成就是什么。他们讨厌是因为会觉得”天哪,呃……”但这真的很有趣,能了解他们的成就是偏定量还是偏定性的,他们看重什么。而且如果回答是”我跑了一百英里”或者”我有一个很棒的家庭”之类的,真的很有意思去了解一个人,也能看出他们重视什么。
Lenny (53:46): 行业内你最尊敬的思想领袖,或者对你职业生涯影响最大的人是谁?
Barbra Gago (53:52): 早期我很感激 Nancy Duarte。她在湾区,有一家叫 Duarte Agency 的代理公司。她做了很多关于叙事和视觉传播的工作。对我职业生涯来说她是一位很好的导师。我跟她合作过几次,但也是一直关注她做的所有工作。她非常厉害。
Lenny (54:13): 太好了。我记得了解到她是在 Al Gore 做那次 TED 演讲的时候,她整个团队都——
Barbra Gago (54:17): 是的。她用她的代理公司做了一件了不起的事情,因为他们一开始只是让演示文稿在视觉上更吸引人,后来逐渐转向叙事,再后来演变为变革管理——如何用故事来推动变革。这些年来她也在不断推动这家代理公司的进化。她做了很多令人印象深刻的工作。
Lenny (54:42): Barbra,非常感谢你来参加节目。太棒了。最后两个问题。大家如果想联系你、了解更多,在网上哪里可以找到你?听众怎样能帮到你?
Barbra Gago (54:52): LinkedIn 应该是最容易找到我的地方,/BarbraGago。对我来说,我们正在员工发展领域做一款产品,所以任何愿意分享他们故事或反馈的人,分享他们在员工发展方面的洞察和经验,或者对产品反馈感兴趣的人——我们都非常希望获得真实用户的反馈,哪怕我们的客户是 HR 团队。
Lenny (55:16): 网址是什么?
Barbra Gago (55:18): Pando.com。
Lenny (55:19): 太好了。Barbra,感谢你来参加节目。
Barbra Gago (55:20): 非常感谢你,Lenny。
Lenny (55:24): 非常感谢收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcast、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅本节目。另外,也请考虑给我们评分或写一段评价,这真的能帮助更多听众发现这个播客。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 |
|---|---|
| all in one | 一体化 |
| ATS (Applicant Tracking System) | 招聘管理系统 |
| best in class | 同类最佳 |
| Brand building | 品牌建设 |
| Category creation | 品类创建 |
| Cautionary Tales | 《警示故事》 |
| customer success platform | 客户成功平台 |
| Employee experience | 员工体验 |
| Employee progression platform | 员工发展平台 |
| Go-to-market | 市场进入 |
| ICP (Ideal Customer Profile) | 理想客户画像 |
| Kafka on the Shore | 《海边的卡夫卡》 |
| market automation | 市场自动化 |
| opinionated software | 主张型软件 |
| people analytics platform | 人员分析平台 |
| people experience | 人员体验 |
| people intelligence platform | 人员智能平台 |
| performance management | 绩效管理 |
| PII (Personally Identifiable Information) | 个人身份信息 |
| Radical Candor | 《彻底坦率》 |
| recruiting optimization platform | 招聘优化平台 |
| Sandman | 《睡魔》 |
| structured recruiting | 结构化招聘 |
| The Art of War | 《战争的艺术》 |
| Thought leadership | 思想领导力 |
| Visual collaboration | 视觉协作 |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)