Geoffrey Moore 谈如何找到滩头阵地、跨越鸿沟并主导市场
Geoffrey Moore on finding your beachhead, crossing the chasm, and dominating a market
Wisdom on Crossing the Chasm
Geoffrey Moore: The tendency when you’re in the chasm is, “I just need more customers. I should take any customer I could find,” because we need revenue. It’s like taking a match and running it back and forth under a log. It’s not going to light the log. So how do you start a fire? Well, you start it by putting a little kindling, little crumpled up paper, and you hold the match in one place until the fire starts. That’s why adjacency is so important. If you light the fire, the piece of kindling is here, but the log is in the other room. That doesn’t work.
Introductions and Opening Remarks
Lenny: Today, my guest is Geoffrey Moore. Geoffrey is the author of maybe the most influential and important book on go-to-market ever written, Crossing the Chasm. Even though it’s sold over a million copies, it still feels like people continue to reinvent many of the lessons that Geoffrey uncovered and shared in a seminal book. In our conversation, we discuss why it’s so important to get very narrow with your initial audience, how the bowling pin strategy helps you get past early adopters, what the specific go-to-market playbook is for every stage of the adoption lifecycle, why using the wrong playbook during the wrong phase will slow you down. Also, the seven deadly sins of trying to cross the chasm incorrectly. Also, how to sell your product at different personas, why you don’t need to focus on the problem and the pain when you’re selling to early adopters, plus some real good life advice that I didn’t expect.
Geoffrey has so much wisdom to share if you’re building a B2B company, and I’m really excited to bring you this episode. With that, I bring you Geoffrey Moore after a short word from our sponsors.
Let me tell you about CommandBar. If you’re like me and most users I’ve built product for, you probably find those little in-product pop-ups really annoying. Want to take a tour? Check out this new feature, and these pop-ups are becoming less and less effective since most users don’t read what they say. They just want to close them as soon as possible, but every product builder knows that users need help to learn the ins and outs of your product. We use so many products every day, and we can’t possibly know the ins and outs of everyone. CommandBar is an AI-powered toolkit for product, growth, marketing, and customer teams to help users get the most out of your product without annoying them.
They use AI to get closer to user intent, so they have search and chat products that let users describe what they’re trying to do in their own words, and then see personalized results like customer walkthroughs or actions. They do popups too, but their nudges are based on in-product behaviors like confusion or intent classification, which makes them much less annoying and much more impactful. This works for web apps, mobile apps, and websites, and they work with industry leading companies like Gusto, Freshworks, HashiCorp, and LaunchDarkly. Over 15 million end users have interacted with CommandBar. To try out CommandBar, you can sign up at commandbar.com/lenny, and you can unlock an extra 1,000 AI responses per month for any plan. That’s commandbar.com/lenny.
AuthKit’s design is stunning out of the box, and you can also fully customize it to fit your app’s brand. It’s an effortless experience from your first user all the way to your largest enterprise customer. Best of all, AuthKit is free for any developer up to 1 million users. Check it out at workos.com to learn more. That’s workos.com.
Geoffrey Moore, thank you so much for being here, and welcome to the podcast.
Geoffrey Moore: Well, it’s nice to be here, Lenny, and thank you for having me.
Still Misunderstood Core Concepts
Lenny: It’s incredibly cool to have you on. You’ve been at the top of my wishlist of guests to have on this podcast ever since I launched it, so it’s surreal to be chatting with you. It almost feels like maybe this podcast has crossed the chasm now that you’re on.
Geoffrey Moore: If you’d called me earlier, I probably would’ve been on it with you. But anyway, we’re together now.
Why Narrow Your Initial Target Market
Lenny: I thought it’d be fun to start with this question of just what frustrates you most about what people still don’t get about the things that you teach, particularly Crossing the Chasm. You wrote that, I think, 33 years ago at this point. You have a lot of follow-up books around the topic. What do you think people still don’t really understand or often get wrong?
Geoffrey Moore: All the books I write are about frameworks. They’re conceptual models about what patterns should you be looking for as something evolves? Because in disruptive innovation, there’s no history. You’re always projecting a possible history, and then seeing if you can make it come true. So that implies there’s a lot of freedom to exercise the framework however you choose to. People sometimes do that in ways that are just… They actually end up being very misleading about what’s possible. I can remember one person early on saying, “Yeah, we’re Crossing the Chasm. Our beachhead segments the Fortune 500,” and you went, “Well, I don’t think maybe you’re as clear on this as you could be.”
To be fair, that’s what the function of any third party advisor is, is to say, “Look, time out. You might be looking at this through an inside-out lens. Maybe you should be looking at it from an outside-in lens.” That’s probably number one. Gosh, after that, I’m just empathetic with the fact that their world’s more important than my world, so I try to work with their world.
Varying Needs Across Customer Segments
Lenny: That’s exactly where I actually wanted to go next is this idea of starting very focused with your initial target audience. I think people conceptually know this. They’re like, “Yeah, we should be really focused with our initial target market. We should stay very small, and expand this beachhead idea.” But I think they still don’t quite actually do this because it’s like, “Why not go wider?” So could you just talk about why that is so important, and how to actually think about how to do that correctly?
Chasm Phase: Problem-First Solution Model
Geoffrey Moore: If you’re essentially in a business where the category is emerging, then the most important thing for you to do is to be able to create enough power around your company that you can navigate your future on your own power. Where does power come from in an early adopting technology world? First of all, it’ll come from can you get a lighthouse customer? So one of the things we try to do even before you try to cross the chasm is can you get one or more customers who put you on the map? And they go, “Whoa, did you know that the CIA used AWS?” Like, “Holy smoke.” Okay, that’s great. It doesn’t make a company, but it makes a story, and it lets people know, “Oh, here are the guys that did the CIA project,” that kind of thing.
The Crossing the Chasm model is, “Can you create a viable repeatable business?” And in order to do that, you need to have an ecosystem of partners work with you in order to consolidate your position. Well, why would an ecosystem work with some startup that nobody’s ever heard of? The answer would be if you had consolidated a market segment where you were number one. So one of the things we’ve learned about company power is that basically it’s the company power plus the ecosystem together. So ecosystems form around market leaders, and they do not form around the rest of us. If you’re a category leader, if you’re like Oracle and Databases, you’re 40 years in. You’re still the leader, because the ecosystem organized around you.
But when you’re little, the only way you can get an ecosystem to organize around you is to go after a segment where you’re a big fish in that pond. We talk a lot about fish to pond ratio. You want to be… Your first pond, your target segment should be something that in the next two years, if you hit your really high growth rates, you could be 30, 40, 50% of the market share in that segment. That would cause partners to go, “Whoa, if we’re going to serve that segment, we got to work with these guys.” So that’s the key. The concept there is, “Well, why wouldn’t you also do two or three or four segments at the same time?” It’s sort of the same reason, “Why wouldn’t you run in three or four primaries at the same time if you want the presidential nomination?” Although why you would want that nomination, I have no idea.
But if you did, you realize if you’re running in New Hampshire, votes in Vermont do not count. It’s the same thing with Crossing the Chasm. You need to get three or four or five or six reputable companies in a segment to all pick you, for then the rest of the segment to go, “Well, it’s pretty obvious who the standard is.” I’ll just close with one last comment. And the reason, the mechanism behind all that logic, is that pragmatic people buy what they see their peers are buying. So if peer one is buying product A, and peer two is B and C and D, there’s no market leader, and the category goes sideways. But if A, B and C, if three out of four people are using the iPhone, it’s like, “Oh, I guess I’m supposed to get an iPhone,” that kind of thing.
Lenny: Awesome. I’m glad you went there, because that’s essentially the root of this Crossing the Chasm idea that people after the chasm, the pragmatists, wait for references and social proof, and they’re waiting for someone to tell them, “This is worth using,” versus visionaries right before the chasm. They’re like, “I just want to use the future. I need to be there before anyone else.”
Bowling Alley: Expansion Through Adjacency
Geoffrey Moore: You’re right. One of the ways we try to capture that in a thought bubble is before the chasm, the customers you work with are people who say, “We believe what you believe.” So in other words, they’re on the same side. After the chasm, they say, “I’m not sure about that, but we need what you have.” So transitioning from, “We believe what you believe,” which is how you sell to visionaries to, “We need what you have,” which is how you sell to pragmatists. That’s the shift.
Main Street: From Product to Service
Lenny: Let’s actually spend some more time there on what it is that each of these segments needs, and how you convince them to use it, because this is really useful. So in these pragmatists group, you’re saying the pitch there is you have a pain. I will solve this pain, and it’s important pain. I think people always assume that’s the pitch. But interestingly, your point is earlier in the two segments and maybe share what those two are, they use your product for a different reason.
The Documentum Success Story
Geoffrey Moore: In fact, if there’s a total in the model of the technology adoption lifecycle that we organize this all around, there’s actually four, I call them, inflection points. The first one we call the early market. That’s the one we were talking… That’s the visionaries and the technology enthusiasts. They are as excited about you as you are. I mean, they want the demo. They want to see the vision. They’re exciting. And the key to that market is to have an executive sponsor who has enough clout to essentially fund this thing, because there’s no budget for you. So they’ve got to create the funding, and then drive the organization to go all the way to bright.
They’re not that many visionary customers, but there’s always one or two. The reason why it’s so important to work with a marquee customer then is you… Look, nobody’s ever heard of you, and if they’ve never heard of your customer, I don’t care how amazing the win is. Nobody’s going to hear about it. So it’s really important you did it with Apple, or you did it with Verizon, or you did it with Mercedes, somebody that people have heard. So that’s number one, and that’s a project model. Even if what you sell is a product, those early mark… Every one of them is kind of a snowflake. It needs a ton of special services. There’s no ecosystem of partners to support you, so you throw a bunch of extra labor at it. You do whatever, because you got to make them successful. So you’ll do whatever it takes.
Okay, very cool. Got my marquee client, not scalable business, I mean, obviously. So then the second one is the Crossing the Chasm playbook. That’s the one that organizes around the problem. The good news is those customers are open to hearing from someone new, because they’ve already talked to everybody they already know, and the problem is still… It’s not that it’s unsolved. It’s being solved in a crummy way and, by the way, in a deteriorating crummy way. So it’s getting actually worse. So there’s pressure for them to act. This is where you go from the project model to the solution model, and as a vendor, you over commit to their problem.
From the very beginning, you talk to them. They don’t want to talk to you about you. They want to talk to you about them, and you need to ask them probing questions about them. Just like going to a doctor, you don’t want the doctor to come and say, “Hey, can I show you a movie of the operation I just did? I want to give you a demo. You mind if I give you a demo?” It’s like, “No. What I would like to do is talk to you about this pain I have in my side.” And then when the doctor asks you good questions about it, you go, “Ah, this is a good doctor. I’m going to trust this.” So that’s the whole point about that. Again, that scales a lot more than a project business, but it only scales up to the limit of the target segment.
So we had this bowling alley model of extending. You could go to a second segment, a third segment if it was adjacent. Adjacent means either it’s the same customer with a different use case, or it’s the same use case in a different customer base, because the one case, you use your customer references. The other case, you use your partners, because the partners who built the one use case will say, “Well, we got another segment that we work with. Let’s bring you into that segment too.” So that can take a company from, I don’t know, tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars in the bowling alley. And in specialized industries like computer-rated design or things like that, you can actually go to a billion dollars or higher.
But with most other categories, at some point, you have this third inflection point, which is it’s when people go, “Well, wait a minute, wifi isn’t just for financial analysts, or isn’t just for… Wifi is for everybody.” So instead of saying, “We believe what you believe,” which we’re not there anymore. And these people aren’t even really saying, “We need what you have.” What they’re saying is, “We want what they have. This is really cool. I want what they have,” and that creates what we call the tornado. That’s when people… This is when you do want sales coverage, and you do want to go broad, and you do want to have a standard product. Basically, you want to capture as much market share as you can. There’s a whole playbook around doing that, which was in a book called Inside the Tornado.
And then the last one, which is actually becoming much more important in this century is called Main Street, but Main Street where products have become commoditized, services become the new place of innovation. We’ve had taxis for 100 years, but Uber is an incredibly valuable thing. You convert the product to the service, and how do you revolutionize services? That’s a situation where now people are saying, “Look, I don’t want to own the product. I don’t want to own it.” Well, kids, “I don’t want to own a car. I just want to call Uber. It’s convenient.” So anyway, those are the four models, and Crossing the Chasm was about that second one.
Lenny: Amazing. You touched on so many things that I want to talk about. I definitely want to dive into the bowling alley metaphor and strategy there. But to close the loop on this target audience to start with initially. First of all, you have this awesome bonfire analogy that I think might be useful to share. Then along that, is there any example or an example or two you could share of just someone that did that really well of picking a really good initial target?
Formula for Choosing Target Segments
Geoffrey Moore: Sure. Well, the bonfire analogy is just the tendency when you’re in the chasm is, “I just need more customers. I should take any customer I could find.” Because we need revenue, but the analogy I have is it’s like taking a match, and running it back and forth under a log. It’s not going to light the log. So how do you start a fire? Well, you start it by putting a little kindling, a little crumpled up paper, and you hold the match one place until the fire starts. Then you want to build… The bowling alley metaphor is a little bit about, first of all, how could you win your first segment, but then increasingly, how would you go forward to win it? That’s why adjacency is so important. If you like the fire and the piece of kindling is here, but the log is in the other room, that doesn’t work. So I think those are the key ideas.
There’s a lot of people that have made Crossing the Chasm successful. The one that we wrote about first was this company called Documentum, and it’s a good example. So it was a document management database back in the day that was not… that nobody had any, “Why would you need this?” It started with the pharmaceutical industry, because pharma said, “Well, new drug approvals are 500,000 page documents, and they really, really, really are hard to manage, and we’re screwing it up. And every day we screw it up, we lose a day of patent life of our drug, and the day of patent life’s worth about a million or $2 million a day. This is a bad situation. We need to do something.”
So “Okay, pharma, you got pharma.” Great. Well, then what happened was the guys in petrochemicals said, “Well, we’re in the chemical industry. We’re not in the pharmaceutical industry, but we have these standard operating manuals, and we have all these regulatory demands on us too. Not quite like the FDA, but this looks like this could be pretty useful to us too.” And then after the petrochemicals guys got… Well, the chemical guys got it, then the petrochemical guys got it. Of course, they’re oil and gas, and they say, “Well, in addition, we have all these leases. The lease holds them. It’s brilliant. This property is critical to our future plan, so we need a document database for the leases.”
So the guys on Wall Street who are financing these guys are going, “Well, wait a minute. Hell, I mean, we’re paper from wall to wall here. Why don’t we…” So what happens is you have this thing of this expansion, but in each case, it was into a new segment, but the use cases were close enough.
Lenny: So if a startup founder is listening and trying to decide is their initial target audience, their ICP too wide, do you have any advice for how to know if this is still too wide, and you should try to get more and more narrow? I know you talk about a single use case. What else should people be thinking about there?
Traits of a Beachhead Segment
Geoffrey Moore: Well, so first of all, before you try to cross the chasm, do you have a marquee? Have you won a marquee customer that puts you on the map? Because if you’re not… You need to make yourself visible before you can make the Crossing the Chasm play. Let’s assume you’ve done that. So then when we first saw, “Well, why don’t I just use that industry?” Turns out that the visionary person you work with… First of all, they did some very weird things because they’re visionaries and second of all, they don’t want to help their industry. The whole point of this was they wanted to get ahead of their competitors. They didn’t want to help. So normally you can’t use the visionary project as your beachhead. You’d love to from a point of view of reusing the work. You just can’t. So then the question becomes, “Okay, where am I going to go?”
So the key formula, and this is the formula… If there’s one sort of takeaway from founders listening at this point, you want to have a target segment that is big enough to matter, small enough to lead and a good fit with your crown jewels. That’s the formula. So big enough to matter means do I have enough room to double or… Often venture capitalists talk about a triple double followed by a double triple. So if you said, “Okay, let’s just, I’m going to make you a million dollars.” Put that visionary, but just to give you a number. Okay, so a double triple would be I went from one to four and from four to 12, and then I did a triple double. So that would be 12 to 24, 24 to 48, 48 to 90. Okay, so how would you get from one to a hundred million dollars?
So you want to have a segment that says that I could get to a hundred million dollars in a five year… That was a five-year window. So you say, “Okay, but what it can’t be is a billion dollar segment.” Because if it’s a billion dollar segment, you might be able to get there, but you would not be a big fish. So that’s a fish to pond ratio thing. So you want to think about, particularly as you’re starting out… This is a B2B model predominantly. If I could take the top 20 customers in this segment, meaning… What do I mean by a segment? It’s in the same geography. People in Japan don’t talk to people in America. People in America don’t talk to people in Germany, they even speak different languages. I don’t know why everybody doesn’t speak English, but apparently they don’t. So they have to be same geography, same industry, because dentists do not talk to software designers, who don’t talk to advertising people and in the same profession.
So salespeople don’t talk to finance people and finance people don’t talk to the guys in the warehouse. So same industry, same geography, same profession. And then the compelling use case, which is the thing… That’s the thing that starts the fire. There’s segments everywhere and by the way, they all have that… They all do… Every segment works the same way. If I have to make a high risk buying decision, I’m going to talk to my peers about it. And I don’t want to be first. I want to be able to do whatever the herd’s doing. But what a compelling reason to buy does is it goes well, but I have to act faster than I want to. And that’s what you need as an entrepreneur. You need the customer to be coming toward you even though you’re new and you’re unproven, and frankly you scare the crap out of them, but they’re even more afraid of the problem that they’re saddled with. So that’s why you can build a relationship with them.
When to Start Crossing the Chasm
Lenny: Amazing. And this phase comes… You kind of imply it comes after, say you’re at a million dollars AR, you don’t do this sort of work of trying to cross the chasm at that point, until you reach something like that?
Geoffrey Moore: I’m not sure AR is going to be the right reference. Here’s what you need. You need a major account who’s gone all in with you on the new technology and who is willing in some way to talk about it. The good news about visionaries is they tend to have fairly big egos and they tend to like to talk, unlike pragmatists who will not want to talk. Pragmatists, they’ll have to go to legal and get permission and blah, blah, blah. But once you’ve got that, whatever your revenue is at that point, you should be starting to think about, “Well, what is my beachhead segment?” And the good news about Crossing the Chasm, it’s not expensive.
Think about it, once you’ve said, I’m going to stay in one geography, in one industry, one profession, think about your marketing budget. You’re not buying Super Bowl ads here. There’s no sock puppets. That’s not what we’re doing. We want to get to maybe 200 people with a message. And then do you have the domain expertise to really understand the problem? And if it’s a really compelling problem, they’ll take the meeting and getting that meeting is… Because if you’re an entrepreneurial founder, you’re probably fairly charismatic. First of all, you’ve convinced your spouse that you’re willing to work for no money with no benefits, and maybe you pitched a venture capitalist and you fooled them, so why can’t you fool these guys? Anyway, that would be the way I would go.
Avoiding Being Led by Large Customers
Lenny: Essentially, the advice here is if you’re a new early stage startup, one of the biggest milestones you want to aim for is a big marquee customer. When I think about this and look at a startup deck, if I see something like Figma is using this product or notion or Salesforce. Clearly, I’ll be like, “Wow, okay, these really sophisticated people decided this was useful to them.” And so I will innately trust that. There’s also often advice of don’t work with big companies because they’ll push you around, they’ll take a long time, they’ll force you to build a thing just for them and it won’t apply to other people. What’s your advice to avoid that downside?
Geoffrey Moore: It has to do with the persona of the executive sponsor. Nine out of 10 executive sponsors are going to be the negative because they’re going to be a company person working with company processes. They’re going to send you to purchasing, nobody’s going to be happy. You’re looking for the 10th one. The 10th one is one who says, “I’m so tired of the status quo. I’m looking for people that are visionary like me. I like talking to you better than I like talking to my peers because you’re different and I want to be different. I want to leapfrog the world, and these people just want to stay on the escalator. So they’re staying on the escalator. God bless them, but I want to jump over the top.” So it’s a persona based choice is the key thing there.
Early Stage Engagement Strategy
Lenny: That is really interesting. And then say that you are an early stage startup again, how soon do you think it makes sense to invest in finding that big marquee customer versus finding some smaller… I imagine you start with some startups to see how people… You don’t go straight there.
Funding and Pricing Logic for the Chasm
Geoffrey Moore: Yes, and so initially, I think… And of course you and I are both playing, let’s be clear, we’re playing a software game. For example, I was trying to apply this framework to Intel, and Intel said to me, “Geoffrey, you do understand that a prototype product in our industry costs about $500 million.” Okay, okay, okay, okay. Maybe that’s not the same model. I think in our world right now with digital transformation, most entrepreneurs are doing some software led play, which means you can work with a small team. So I think what I would advise is I would do projects. Even though I have a product vision, I would start with trying to make as much projects, which would be very customer led. And frankly, initially, even if I have a roadmap, the customer’s probably going to take me off my roadmap a bit.
I’d have to be willing to say, “I’m going to open the aperture enough.” Because I just need to get enough experience with the technology. I need to put in people’s hands. If it’s a freemium play, you can do it for free. But that tends to be more of a consumer play. There are exceptions. There are B2B companies like Atlassian and things that did start as a freemium play, but that’s not as normal. I would think more of the consultative play to do that. But what I would try to do, so I would try to get to cashflow break even on my own money with no venture capital. The only reason you need venture capital is if… Well, two things. Either A, the technology is too expensive and you cannot self-fund it, GPUs a bunch of that, training large language modules, those kinds of things. Or this thing is going to catch fire too soon and I don’t have time to dither around for two or three years. So those are two reasons to go to venture capital, but just because you want to do a startup doesn’t mean you need venture capital.
Obsession with Marquee Customers
Lenny: We had Jason Fried on recently the CO of Basecamp, and he made that point in many different ways. The benefits of not raising and how most VC funded companies do not work out, and even though they do, you often don’t make as much as you could if you tried it to bootstrap it. So I think there’s a lot of resonance there. And you have this quote that essentially kind of what you just said, that with a single round of funding, you should be able to cross the chasm and dominate a single use case in a single market within 18 to 24 months.
Geoffrey Moore: Yeah. This is like an English major doing math, so be careful because I am an English major. But in general, because again, I said it’s not expensive, and by the way, you’re not discounting. In other words, you’re actually using value pricing because the problem you’re solving is severe enough, the customer doesn’t want a discount, the customer wants you to… It is like if you have to have heart surgery, you don’t want a coupon that says, “Heart surgery 9.99 this Saturday only.” You want to go to the Mayo Clinic or you want to go to wherever, so you don’t have to discount.
What you do have to do is you have to make almost like a guaranteed commitment to the problem to solve. We’re going to take this problem off the table and we’re not leaving until you’re satisfied. That’s the key to the game. That’s a little bit weird because if you’ve invented ChatGPT, and now you’re saying, “But I am going to solve the third grade math problem,” which is a real problem. But ChatGPT can do anything. I know, but we’re going to solve the third grade math problem. That’s hard for a lot of entrepreneurs to get their head around.
What Exactly Is the Chasm?
Lenny: It reminds me of the way Figma started, even though it took them a long time to find product market fit and started scaling, they ended up working very closely with Coda. I don’t know if you know the story where they just wanted to make sure the Coda team, and it was called Krypton back then was very happy with Figma. So they went to the office, they set them all up, they started using Figma. And then on the drive home they called him like, “It doesn’t work anymore. Something’s broken.” And they were already home. And Dylan basically, and this team drove all the way back, I think it was an hour or two, and got there and turned out the Wi-Fi was down and there was some internet issue and fixed it and just was obsessed with making sure they were using it. And they’re also just fixing the most ridiculous bugs that were not important because they just wanted to make sure they were really happy with it.
Geoffrey Moore: [inaudible 00:30:11] a larger company would say, “Look, we’ll put you in our queue and you’ll be on our… We’ll get to you.” I think this is… And by the way, this is part of the fun, frankly, of being in a startup because you’re so close to the action, because there’s nothing between you and the action. So why wouldn’t you do that?
Product Completeness Across Different Stages
Lenny: Yeah, and I think one of the takeaways I’ve had for my own research into this is that you need to find one company that just loves you. It’s not like “[inaudible 00:30:37], this is cool.” It’s like, “I love this product. I would never want to give it up.”
The Compelling Reason to Buy
Geoffrey Moore: That’s kind of what I meant by that marquee ref… We sometimes we call it a radiating reference. It’s just somebody really, we talk about you when you’re not even in the room. Yeah, very cool.
The Pressure to Buy Software
Lenny: We’ve talked about this idea of the chasm and Crossing the Chasm, but it might be helpful just to explain what is the idea, what is this chasm? What is it that people fall into and why is this important?
Geoffrey Moore: And this was funny, because I was working at Regis McKenna, which was this marketing agency that was sort of the premier high-tech marketing agency in the eighties. And we had all these really successful launches, and then covers of front page articles on Fortune magazine and Wall Street Journal. And then a couple of years later it’s like, “Well, what happened to these guys?” So that’s where the chasm was like… That’s what caused the investigation. What we learned was visionaries make their own buying decisions, and they do not consult their peers. In fact, if their peers are doing it, they’re probably not going to do it because they want to be different. So basically these companies were having success capturing the imagination of the visionary, and they thought, “Well, I’ll use the visionaries as a reference to get the pragmatist.”
The pragmatist looks at the visionary and goes, “That’s not my guy. First of all, he thinks I’m dumb. He thinks he’s smarter than I am. Second of all, he does stuff that I would never do, and he makes decisions in a way that I would never make them. So that’s not… No. So but I am interested in talking to my peers, but the problem now is, well, which of the peers are going to go first?” And it was kind of like the junior high dance problem. How do you get the party started? So that was the chasm. That was what created the chasm. The pragmatists need references and they will not accept a visionary as a reference, and they don’t have any peers that have tried it yet. So that was what was happening.
Examples of Compelling Reasons to Buy
Lenny: I think that’s such an important point that I think people don’t quite always get that that reference, marques customer needs to be a pragmatist. It can’t be one of these early adopters that are just trying stuff. And these other pragmatists need to feel that this is my person, this is just like me. And they love it.
Geoffrey Moore: By the way, one of the reasons that pragmatists have a certain… It’s not contempt for visionaries, but it’s definitely wariness, it’s because often they have to clean up the messes that these guys leave behind because when you’re a visionary, you leave a lot of messes in your wake. And then the pragmatist has to come in and clean it up. So they’re going, “Oh, that’s another mark against these people.”
The Core Essence of the Bowling Alley
Lenny: I saw a deck of yours where you actually represent each of these stages of the lifecycle and the visionary Steve Jobs is the way you represented it, and the pragmatists are just like business people in suits sitting at a conference table.
Geoffrey Moore: Exactly. And there’s six of them. And the key idea behind that is none of us… By the way, I don’t think any of these people are a guru and they don’t think I’m a guru. We’re using the antelope strategy, it’s a herd strategy. But at some point… And by the way, we do this all the time, every one of… Airbnb, I want to get an Airbnb in Portland. Have you ever stayed [inaudible 00:33:53]? Is this a good hotel? Is this a good restaurant? Is this a good dentist? Is this a good lawyer? That’s how we do it.
Four Go-to-Market Strategy Playbooks
Lenny: I think Uber and Airbnb is the best example of this in action where I would not ride in a random car, especially I think women were most like, “I will never get into a car, into an Uber.” This is insane until all of their friends are doing it. And then, “Okay, let’s give it a shot.”
The Early Market Playbook
Geoffrey Moore: I guess it’s okay, yeah.
The Bowling Alley Playbook
Lenny: Yeah. So essentially most people were pragmatists and I guess that makes sense. And pragmatists make up the biggest chunk for it.
Geoffrey Moore: And by the way, you can be a visionary with some things, a pragmatist with other things, and a conservative with other things. So the way to really think about them is, what is my persona in relation to this decision?
Transitioning from Early Market to Bowling Alley
Lenny: I love this example of the junior high dance problem where nobody wants to go ask the person. It’s like, “I’m going to wait for them to come to me. I want to see how this plays out.” It’s such a good metaphor. In terms of how much of your product needs to be built at each of these stages. What advice do you share? How much do you need for these visionaries versus the next?
Venture Capital and Crossing the Chasm
Geoffrey Moore: So with a visionary, you have to have the magic ingredient working. You don’t have the whole product. And in fact, your product may be buggy, but it does something… Andy Grove used to call it the 10 x effect. You need to do something that is an order of magnitude better than anything because that’s why the visionary is talking to you. They’re going, “Oh my gosh, you have this fusion.” “Fusion, really?” “Yeah, we got fusion energy.” So that’s number one. Then what would still cause you to not cross the chasm yet? If there’s not enough product there, pragmatists cannot put up with a product that doesn’t work. So you may need to do some additional work to say, “Look, we get some more customers. I’m still living hand to mouth. It’s mostly project work, but until the product has got enough stability and can be productized, I really can’t afford to cross the chasm.” So once you have a product that works, then you’ve got to say, “Okay, now I’ve got to find a market where it can be the dominant solution.” That’s the time to cross the chasm.
Positive Cash Flow and Financial Independence
Lenny: And a big part of that is obviously they have bosses, they have checklists, they have compliance people, they have IT people, they have people that need to buy into this or this meeting room with six people. They all have to be like, “All right, this is the best choice.”
Geoffrey Moore: And by the way, normally those people are designed to keep you out, and that decision process will take forever and you’ll be in the welfare lines before they make their choice. So that’s why it’s so important to have what we call the compelling reason to buy. You need to have a group of people in a room where the leader, the guy who’s going to actually sponsor make this decision is saying, “Look, I already gave this problem to everybody in the room, and our answer sucks.” He wouldn’t say it that way, but that’s the truth. And therefore, we’re kind of at the… I mean, I’m getting the message. First of all, my boss’s boss’s boss knows my name. That’s a very bad thing. Secondly, I’m getting the message, you’re either going to fix this problem, Geoffrey, or we’re going to find somebody who can. So that’s what gives them the energy to go against the inertial momentum of the decision-making process in their company.
Differences Between Bowling Alley and Tornado
Lenny: Let me tell you about a product called arcade. Arcade is an interactive demo platform that enables teams to create polished on-brand demos in minutes, telling the story of your product is hard, and customers want you to show them your product, not just talk about it or gate it. That’s why product four teams such as Atlassian, Carta, and Retool use Arcade to tell better stories within their homepages, product change logs, emails, and documentation. But don’t just take my word for it. Quantum Metric, the leading digital analytics platform created an interactive product tour our library to drive more prospects. With Arcade, they achieved a two x higher conversion rate for demos and saw five times more engagement than videos.
On top of that, they built the demo 10 times faster than before. Creating a product demo has never been easier. With browser-based recording Arcade is the no-code solution for building personalized demos at scale. Arcade offers product customization options, designer approved editing tools and rich insights about how your viewers engage every step of the way. Ready to tell more engaging product stories that drive results? Head to arcade.software/lenny and get 50% off your first three months. That’s arcade.software/lenny.
So April Dunford was on this podcast and she has this book that she put out recently called Sales Pitch. And she make this point that buying software, SaaS software is harder than selling it these days because you can get fired for buying the wrong thing. It’s so stressful. There’s all these options. Your boss has to be happy with it. So often people end up just not going with anything. We’re just going to keep what we have. It’s fine, simpler, safer. Salesforce is fine. And it sounds like that’s kind of what you’re describing. It’s so hard-
Geoffrey Moore: So if you’re a pragmatist, the first thing is if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Which makes you totally different than a visionary. A visionary’s like, “Yeah, no, come on, break it. Come on, let’s move on.” It ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If it is broke, who has fixed it? Is there fix in production? Does the fix work? I want that. In other words, basically to April’s point, it is a risk reduction buying strategy. And by the way, you go as slowly as you can normally, but when you’re under duress, you have to go faster. So the compelling reason to buy is putting you under duress.
Gorillas and Chimps in the Tornado
Lenny: Are there any examples of these compelling reasons to buy that come to mind that give people a sense of here’s a really good compelling reason to buy? I don’t know if it’s a pitch.
Misapplying the Four Playbooks
Geoffrey Moore: Well, there’s a ton. Well, how about ransomware? I mean, all of a sudden the cybersecurity thing is like holy smoke because it used to be, “Well, they wouldn’t attack my company. Or if they did, I mean, I have no assets.” Yeah, well, actually… Because it used to be what they did is they would only attack companies that had data that they could resell in the dark web. Then God bless cryptocurrency, people are saying, “Is it cross the chasm yet? Well, their first use case is criminals.” It’s not a very good use case, I’m sorry to say. But the point is, now ransomware with cryptocurrency can be a monetization, so that means everybody is vulnerable. So that’s one kind of compelling reason to buy. But if you look around kids who are struggling with school, the parent has a compelling reason. Anything with healthcare, compelling reason to buy. Anything if you’re in a legal problem, you have a compelling risk to buy.
So I mean, there’s always these situations where you say, “Okay, that’s on a personal basis.” On a company-wide basis, it may be things like, “Well, what am I supposed to do my office space? Can I get my company to come back to the office or do I have to dump the space? What am I supposed to do? And by the way, I know I’m going to have some kind of space, but do I want to design it the way we used? I’m getting into some space by the way, I got a great deal if it was a fire sale, right? Cool space, what do I put in it? Is it supposed to have offices? Do they have doors, do they not have doors do?” So in other words, there’s a bunch of stuff where you get people going, “Okay, how can we help? How can we help?” “I need help. And I’ve gone to my standard solutions and no, I don’t believe that, so I need help.”
AI Startups and Strategy Across Market Stages
Lenny: Okay, so it’s interesting that I even misunderstood what you’re saying and I think this is a really important point. The compelling reason to buy is not a compelling reason to sell, which people often think about as the pitch you’re making. The buy is basically the pain point. They need a really big pain.
Geoffrey Moore: Yeah, because that’s what’s going to… So therefore the key to the bowling alley that’s different from the tornado, and it’s also different from the early market. In the early market it’s about you. You tell the story about you and the visionary wants to hear about you. In the tornado it’s also about you, because we now have budget to buy this stuff, and you’re a candidate. In the bowling alley, it’s never about you. And that is so hard for a series of entrepreneurs because they want to give a demo, they want to tell the story, they want to share their vision. The answer is, “We don’t care. We don’t want to hear your story. We hate demos, and I don’t know who you are and I don’t care. I’m in trouble. We need to talk about me. We don’t want to talk about you.”
So we have this saying in the Crossing the Chasm playbook. First of all, “Shut the God damn laptop. Just don’t open it and start with…” And the way you start the conversation is always the same. “We’re here because we’ve been working with some people in your industry and we understand there’s this really serious problem around document management or around Wi-Fi access or whatever it is, and we believe that your company might have it, is that true?” And what’s interesting about it is you’ll get one of two responses either, “Oh, are you kidding me? Okay, we have that.” Or often they’ll say, “Well, not exactly.” And you go, “Oh,” but then before you can say anything else they’ll say, “What our real problem is…” So people will talk about their… They want therapy, they’ll talk about their problems. So if you’re willing to… But as an entrepreneur, you got to realize the gold at this point is problem domain knowledge. That’s the thing you really want to collect.
Seven Sins of the Chasm: Discounting Trap
Lenny: Amazing. So you’ve sort of answered this question, but I want to make it even more complete. You have this amazing LinkedIn post of these four go-to-market playbooks based on the stage you’re in. And you’ve touched on this already, but it might be helpful just to go through it one by one. And even more helpful would be like, what does it look like when you’re in the early market? How do you know if you’re in the early market versus in the bowling alley versus in the tornado?
Geoffrey Moore: Okay, so in the early market, you know you’re there because first of all, the story is the technology, and it’s specifically the disruptive technology. By the way, you could start a business with a non-disruptive thing, but then you don’t need these playbooks, then you’re on Main Street. So the assumption is you’ve got something that nobody’s ever done before or seen before. So in that playbook, the first thing is just you hear the responsibilities. And a venture capitalist would say the same thing to you. “Do you have a technology expert who’s a wizard? Because we’re not going to fund just any two guys and a PowerPoint tech, even though we like your dog.”
So that’s number one. Number two, “Can you demo the technology?” You have to be able to demo thing. And then three, “Can you create a vision which says what forces are going to release?” And the concept that we use in venture, I call it trapped value. And with the idea is where’s the trap value that this innovation would release? Because when you release trapped value, the world will give you a portion of the gain, typically 10%. It’s easy an number to do math with. As I said, I’m an English major. So if you want a billion-dollar company, you better find $10 billion worth of trapped value that your technology could- [inaudible 00:45:30]
Target Customer Mismatch
Lenny: Airbnb is an amazing example of that, right? Where they unlocked people’s homes, basically 10%-
Geoffrey Moore: Yeah. Uber unlocked their backseat of the car. By the way, the free labor force, it was like, “Whoa.” Okay, so really cool idea early market fund. For the bowling alley one then the playbook is, “No, where’s the problem?” And then you got to take it down to in what geography, what industry, what profession, what use case. And that takes… That’s not just… I mean, you want to spend some time in doing that. And then what you want to really do is just maintain intellectual curiosity about the problem as opposed to jumping to the solution. So why is this a hard problem to do? What is going on? Where is the trapped value? By the way, how expensive? What is the cost of not solving this problem?
Often it’s a risk exposure, or it could be just a gating item on your growth or potentially a churn problem. By the way, if you wanted to pick a compelling reason to buy, how about if you help SaaS companies deal with churn? Do you think they would care about that? I think they might. So the point being… And you’re going to say, “Okay, I’m going to learn more about churn and I’m going to really understand… And by the way, I’m going to understand your churn,” which is different maybe from somebody else’s churn. So it’s the problem domain thing. And then you build your go-to market around… The lead gen is, “Hey, do you have any of these seven symptoms of fatal churn?” And the people that respond to that ad are pre-qualified. And then the BDR, if you’re at Salesforce, a BDR would call you and say, “Just confirming you have these problems.” “Oh yeah, RBI.” “And your role at the company is… And are you responsible for doing this?” “Well, actually no, it’s Harry, not Mary.” “Maybe we should talk to Harry.” “Yeah, you probably should talk to Harry.”
Then you call Harry and you get the appointment with Harry because Harry’s got the problem. And then the next thing is you do a diagnostic with them. “So we understand we’re talking to your colleagues, here’s the problem, here’s what we think we’re doing. But before we tell you about how great our solution is, let’s make sure that we understand what your challenges are.” And your goal in that call is to get them to talk as much as possible and for you to take notes. And by the way, this is a place where you probably still want to remember to use a pen because you actually want them to see you writing down their words, because that means, “Okay, he’s listening. He’s listening.”
How to Tell You’re Ready to Cross
Lenny: Oh, interesting. That’s a good tip. Like on Zoom, would your advice there be just make sure the camera shows your hands?
Geoffrey Moore: Oh, yeah, yeah.
Talking to the Right Customers
Lenny: Okay. Lean in. Yeah, yeah.
Compelling Reason to Buy vs Sell
Geoffrey Moore: Or sometimes… I mean, no, you couldn’t do this. I was going to say we record it, but they don’t want to record it because they’re going to say some things during the call that they won’t be necessarily complimentary to all their colleagues and they don’t want you to record it.
The Positioning Methodology
Lenny: Got it. So in this bowling alley phase, how do you know you… I know it’s not like this binary switch, but that you’re ready to move into that versus the early market playbook.
Geoffrey Moore: Well, I think you get to a point where you realize, “I can’t scale my business doing what I’ve been doing. I mean, I just can’t.” And if you’ve taken venture capital, the thing you want to do is, “I don’t want to have to raise another…” Well, so understand how venture capital funding works for a second. This is important. A venture capitalist gives you money, and what they’re buying from you with this money is, “I want you to use this money to change the state of your company such that when we raise the next round, the next investor will value your company two to three times higher than we’re valuing it today.”
So basically the purpose of this money is to change the value state of your company. If you do anything else with that money, you could have done brilliant things, created amazing demos, hired great people, but if at the end of the day you haven’t changed the value state of the company and we have to raise more money, we’re going to raise it at the old valuation and I as an investor lose, or even worse, we have a down round and I lose even more.
So once you start thinking about that, so we’re then Crossing the Chasm. The Crossing the Chasm play is I need to change the state of my company from a cool possibility to what accountants call a going concern. So what is a going concern? A going concern is a company that two years from now you would expect still to be in existence. Why would you do that? Because they have a customer base that’s loyal and they have a ecosystem of partners that bring them into new deals and they have established their CAC and LTV, and they’ve kind of figured out their operating model. And it’s not the biggest company in the world.
It’s somewhere we’re now probably in the 10, $20 million, but it’s a real company. It’s a real company. And that’s who you’re trying to create when you cross the chasm. And you know you’ve crossed the chasm when you say, “I don’t have to raise any more venture capital. Now, I may want to because I have ambitions to be globally dominant.” But you get to raise it on your nickel and on your timeline, not on, “Oh my God, I’m running out of money.” So the sooner you can get off with the, “I’m running out…” And particularly last year was fatal to a huge number of companies because that was not how they were thinking about raising funds. They always thought, “Well, there’ll be another round, another round, another round.” And they were not thinking about changing their valuation state and they’re not here.
Strategy for Product-Led Growth
Lenny: That’s a really interesting insight. This idea that you know you’ve crossed the chasm if you can survive without more venture funding, how do you think about that, the profit element of that? Because it feels like that’s the core to being able to survive without venture funding. Is it about making enough money that you can cut and make a profit, or is there some other reason?
Geoffrey Moore: All you really care about is cashflow positive. I just want to be able to keep doing what I’m doing. So you don’t care about the actual GAAP accounting at all.
PLG Companies Eventually Build Sales Teams
Lenny: I see. So you could cut back and you can get to profitability if you need, but the idea is your cashflow positive?
Geoffrey Moore: And you’d like to grow and you might want to raise money. But the point is, if you do go out to raise money, you get to raise money at a different valuation. So the way in which venture capitalists categorize you is they say, “What risk is my money going to take off the table?” So an angel investor says, “Well, my money is going to take off the table, the risk of whether you can even create anything, I’m going to give you enough money to get into trouble.” That’s basically it. And then the Crossing the Chasm money says, “I’m going to take company existence viability off the table. I don’t know if you’re going to grow, I don’t know if you’re going to become a venture return, but I’m going to take you going out of business off the table.”
And then the bowling alley stuff is, “Okay, now I’m buying probably a journey from 10 million to a hundred million dollars,” something like that. “And I’m expecting a growth rate,” and this is probably where the rule of 40 starts to kick in. If you’re playing the rule of 40, we want to raise more money later on, you’re going to have a different valuation than we had before. And then the tornado thing by that point, now you say, “You’re in Gen AI? You have a large language module? Whoa, okay. You’re worth a lot more than we thought,” because now the category’s in the tornado and that’s a different game.
Public Discussion with Martin Casado
Lenny: Yeah. I was going to say AI is clearly an example of being in tornado. So maybe just talk a little bit about what that is, the tornado phase and then there’s the Main Street playbook.
Boundaries of the Model
Geoffrey Moore: So how do you know the difference between the bowling alley and the tornado? Prior to the tornado, when your sales team calls on the customer, they do not have a budget for you. In the early market, there’s no budget for anything. In the bowling alley there’s budget, but it’s budget for a solution that’s not you. It’s for the old way of trying to bandaid the problem. So we say in the early market, you have to create budget. In the bowling alley, you have to redirect budget, but that takes sales cycles. It takes time. And if it’s a small market… This is why entrepreneurs can win these market segments, because if you’re a big established company, this is just a pain in the ass. It’s too small a market, it’s too much work, it’s too hard. Redirecting the… I want my salespeople to go where the budget’s already established.
Well, when does budget get established? When a category goes horizontal and people go, “Well, yeah, we all want Wi-Fi, we all want mobile apps, we all want cloud computing, we all want whatever it is.” And now what happens is… And by the way the pragmatist heard is they went from, “You’re not doing that, are you?” “No, me neither.” “Okay, good.” To, “You are, you are, you are. Oh, we’re behind. We better do it.” So these budgets come into the market and kind of all at the same time, which is what creates the tornado. Because if you give a department a budget, they will spend it and when they spend it, they’re going to spend it with a vendor and whoever vendor they select they’re probably going to stay with. So now the market share battle is now on, and whoever gets the most customers early on, the ecosystem starts to form around them.
So in the nineties, we saw a lot of tornado, gorilla play. Cisco, Intel, Oracle, obviously Microsoft. I mean these companies, [inaudible 00:55:36], they were all incredibly competitive companies. They were all tornado plays. Between client server and the internet, it just created this massive tornado effect. And that game plan is very competitive sales to grab market share. And then at some point, if you’re not number one, then you have to kind of do a defensive maneuver and retreat into a niche and say, “Okay, if I can’t be a gorilla, I at least need to be a chimp.” And a chimp is like a local gorilla. “I’m not the gorilla, but…” “I’m not Cisco, I’m Juniper.” But for telcos, Juniper was the Cisco of telcos at that time. So anyway, I don’t know if you saw in the paper today, but at the other end of that lifecycle, HPE has bought Juniper.
Lenny: [inaudible 00:56:28] is happening. I like that. That’s good news. So one of the most interesting lessons you teach is also that these playbooks don’t work together well. Basically if you use one in the wrong phase, it’s the opposite. It has the opposite effect. So before we get there, let me just summarize maybe quickly the playbook in each of these four. I have some notes here and then maybe just talk about why is it that they fail if you pick the wrong one. So in the early market, you’re looking for a visionary customer that just wants to use something new and cool and stay ahead of the curve. In the bowling alley phase, you want to engage with a pragmatic business person who has a huge problem and they need a fix and you’re there for them. In the tornado, there’s just this land grab, something is just going crazy, AI and everyone’s just spend, spend, I need AI in my product. And then Main Street is just, it’s kind of the sustaining tech that everyone just needs to make sure continues working and doesn’t deteriorate.
The Founder’s Responsibility
Geoffrey Moore: By the way, the way I would [inaudible 00:57:25] the last two is think of tornado as kind of the land and Main Street as the expand. I mean, that’s not a bad way to think about the two as well. Yeah, you got it. You got it.
Lenny: Okay, great. So why is it that these undercut each other if you’re trying to use either the one in the wrong phase or use both?
On Living a Good Life
Geoffrey Moore: Well, so let’s start with classic sales 101 from the nineties. Qualify the customer on budget before you make a sales call. That absolutely is critical on Main Street. I mean it’s critical on the tornado, it’s dumb on Main Street because obviously they have budget, they’ve got budgets that even has your name on it if you can go get it. But it’s a big mistake in the early market or in the bowling alley because they don’t have budget. So you’re not going to get it. And the way you win in the early market is with a project model and the way you win in the bowling alley is with a solution model.
And the problem is if you bring a project model to the bowling alley, the problem is you won’t scale because it won’t be repeatable. The ecosystem won’t form around you. And if you bring a solution model to the early market, it’s like you’re over investing in one thing. The visionary’s saying, “Well, yeah, but I have so many other things I want to do.” So they’re going to want to take you way off your solution roadmap. So each one of these things, the market dynamics call for a very clear response. It’s not hard to see the response. What people struggle with is, I have been successful with this playbook, the market has moved to the next phase, but I’m really good at the old playbook, so I want to stay with the playbook I’m good at. So that’s when they get in trouble.
Lenny: So I think that’s extra reason to pay close attention to which phase you’re in and that you’re practicing the correct playbook. We’ve talked about AI a little bit, and I don’t want to get too far down this road, but I guess is there any advice you would share for an AI startup in being in this tornado or a company looking to integrate AI? Is there anything that you’ve seen of just make sure you’re doing this right?
Geoffrey Moore: Well, it’s interesting about… And particularly right now, I mean the thing that’s caught everybody’s imagination is generative AI. So we should be thinking about things like open AI with Microsoft and Co-pilot and those kinds of things. Well, maybe not. It depends on what… So from a customer’s point of view, there’s AI in the early market, there’s AI in the bowling alley, there’s AI in the chasm, there’s AI in the tornado, and there’s AI on Main Street. So I mean, I would argue if you go to Microsoft Copilot, you’re on Main Street, you’re not taking any risk, you’re experimenting with a new thing. It’s kind of cool, makes you more productive. God bless. It’s kind of like just an add-on to Teams or to your whole Office 365 suite. Stuff that’s in the tornado right now, I don’t know. I’m trying to think about what is the use case for Gen AI? I’m not sure there is one in the tornado, but the closest I would say is Salesforce is probably close enough.
They have a sales co-pilot. They have a services copilot, right? I’m sure there marketing co-pilot. So you’re going, but we’re going to change our sales motion and we’re going to use generative AI in line, in our performance on a very widespread, across our entire base. So all our salespeople are going to use this new tool. That would be okay. And that makes sense because the new tool… First of all, Salesforce has their own large language module. So it’s not like you’re going out to the open AI world and having all those issues. So you can do it and there’s a very high productivity return at a modest risk, I think, and modest disruption. For the bowling alley you’d say, I don’t know if this is bowling alley or early market, I’ll say it’s bowling alley.
So if you’re Sal Khan and you have the Khan Academy and you’re saying, “Look, we want to provide educational resources for the world for young people.” The problem with education right now is that particularly after the pandemic, you’re a teacher you used to have… When you were a teacher in say K through 12, K through eight, you have a class of 30 kids and probably 10 to 15 of them are middle of the road and some number are actually significantly ahead and some number are behind. And your job as a teacher is to kind of work with that. Well, after the pandemic, you might have five different grade levels in the same classroom, not three or six even. That’s an impossible problem. But if you said, “Look, we can use Gen AI tutoring and we can tune it to each one of those sixth grade levels.”
Now that’s a teacher co-pilot, but that’s a really specialized idea. So you go, “Well, that’s amazing.” And then if you wanted to go to the other side, “You say all these ad agencies say they do this really cool advertising, but I think I can do it myself with Gen AI and I’m going to sell it to other people.” I mean, you can imagine a whole businesses that say we write legal opinions and we always start with Gen AI. We don’t ship Gen AI, there’s a human in the loop. We’re going to do amazing or more images, maybe. We’re going to design visual images with all the really cool stuff you could do. We’re going to invent a new agency or a new kind of agency we’re going to charge to…” I don’t know what it would be, but the point is Gen AI I think can be absorbed by the marketplace at multiple places.
Lenny: As you were talking about that lawyer example, I was thinking part of the pitch would be… And it’s also a lot cheaper, but that reminds me of this other post that you wrote, The Seven Deadly Sins of Crossing the Chasm. And I wanted to chat about some of these, and one of them is discounting before you cross the chasm. Can you talk about why that’s something you want to avoid?
Geoffrey Moore: Back to that issue about, “Heart surgery 9.99, this Saturday only bring a coupon.” I mean, the discounting model makes sense when something’s commoditized or the let’s even do the freemium model. The freemium model makes sense if there is no risk in adopting the offer. But chasms are based on risk bearing decisions. Basically that’s the problem that creates the chasm. I have to make a risk bearing buying decision. So discounting does not reduce risk. In fact, it might even increase risk because this vendor might say, “Well, yeah, I’ll give you a better price, but now I’m not going to give you the extra support or we’ll have a change of scope.” We’ll say, “Yes, but now, that wasn’t in the contract. So you have to add more.” And all of that is fair game on Main Street, but it’s not for crossing the chasm.
Lenny: I’m going to pick on a couple of these other sims that you mentioned. One is you call the target customer mix up. Can you talk about that?
Geoffrey Moore: The key to this whole Crossing the Chasm playbook is start with the world. Don’t start with… Well, the question we’re trying to answer is where is a small pool of trapped value that we can become our pool? So that’s why we have geography, profession, use case. We’re just trying to get big enough to matter, but small enough to lead is one. And then once you find that pool, the question you have to say is, “Who controls access to that? Who’s going to sponsor my deal in order for me to solve that, to release that trapped value for that company?” That’s your target customer. And you may not know them. Typically, my experience is you probably have worked with at least one company in the industry at some point along the line. It’s kind of odd if you just had never heard of the industry and you picked that one.
Usually that’s why I said, “Well, maybe I should have added that to how do you know you’re ready to cross the chasm?” You should at least have a hunch. You should at least, “We’ve done this work, and I think this is the one.” Now, you still have to go validate it and make it happen. But basically the way you would validate it is rather than try to go to a research or do something, that won’t work. You say, “Well, we’re going to run a marketing campaign, a modest one. I’m going to see if I can’t get two more of the same use case. I’m willing to bet the next three months of my company by saying in this three months, all we’re going to do is try to get two more deals that have this pattern.” And that would be kind of the way you might go after it.
Lenny: So I think this is worth spending a little more time on this idea of how you know you’re ready to cross the chasm. So one is you find one very excited marquee customer, then you’re sharing, maybe find a couple more and see if it’s actually starting to roll and tip.
Geoffrey Moore: No. Well, I said it wrong. So the marquee customer is probably not in your beachhead market. The marquee customer is a famous company that you have the visionary sponsor. That’s the thing, because that’s the company that the business press wanted to write about, or the tech press wanted to write about. People went, “Oh, you were the guys who…” You’re like Hans Solo. You did whatever that run was in 15 parsecs. I can’t even remember what it was. But that’s your claim to fame. It’s your claim to fame. But the Crossing the Chasm one is, “Oh…” And by the way the press is not interested in the crossing chasm, but the local, if there was a local press, they’d be all over it.
Lenny: The Kessel Run.
Geoffrey Moore: The Kessel Run. Thank you. The Kessel Run in 15 parsecs. Thank you.
Lenny: That’s right.
Geoffrey Moore: Exactly. That was his visionary thing.
Lenny: So I think the important takeaway there is there’s always this advice of talk to customers, make sure they’re happy, build what… Not necessarily build what they want, but make sure you’re understanding what they need. But I think when your most important insights here is make sure you’re talking to the right people. Which are essentially people in the next stage, essentially of the adoption life cycle. The more pragmatists.
Geoffrey Moore: Yes. And they have to be the… I think you need to talk to the economic buyer as opposed to the end user, because the end user will be saying, “Oh, yeah, you’re right. Oh, it’s just terrible and we’re oppressed.” But if their boss doesn’t want to sponsor it, it doesn’t work.
Lenny: Which is hard, hard often when you’re building B2B software, you just don’t make it great. And then it’s like, “Oh, these people don’t actually care what they’re buying it. They just have all these check boxes.” And then another deadly sin, which you’ve touched on, but I think it might be worth sharing again, is just this idea, you call it the compelling reason, confusion, where instead of thinking about your compelling reason to sell, you think about what is the pain point you’re solving, compelling reason to buy.
Geoffrey Moore: Obviously as an entrepreneur, you have a compelling reason to sell. But what they tend to do is in trying to cross the chasm, if they’re not using this approach, they think, “Well, I haven’t made my product attractive enough.” So then they’d say, “Well, I’m going to make a sexier demo, or I’m going to change my deck. I’m going to write a new…” And the sales guy comes back, says, “I had a great presentation. This is the deck that we ought to be using.” And that’s all about compelling ways to sell, not compelling reasons to buy. And the pragmatist, by the way… And by the way, the practice will take the meeting. One of the problems with the chasm is they don’t say no. They just never say yes. And they actually encourage you… “You should come back again with this too. This is really interesting.” Yeah, it is really interesting.
Lenny: Kind of along those lines, positioning, how important is that, and any advice on figuring out your positioning when you’re doing this? I know you talk a lot about making sure you focus on their pain point, but at some point you’re like, “Here’s what we’re doing for you.”
Geoffrey Moore: One of the nice things about Crossing the Chasm is the positioning formula is absolutely the same every time. It’s really cool. So basically when you’re thinking about positioning, you’re saying, “Look, I’m going with this use case in this particular segment.” So they have an incumbent vendor. The advantage of the incumbent vendor is they understand the business, but they don’t have the new technology. Conversely, you have technology competitors who have as good technology, maybe a better technology than you have, but they’re not committed to this domain expertise of this thing.
So your positioning is, “We are the technology leaders who have specialized and committed to solve this problem. And by the way, we have huge respect for your incumbent vendor. We’re not asking you to kick them out. They just can’t solve this problem. We also have respect for our peers, but frankly, they wouldn’t know your problem if they wouldn’t recognize it in a lineup. We are here, and by the way, if anybody comes into our quadrant, we’re going to kick their ass. We are going to be beyond compare. Nobody is going to handle this problem with this kind of technology the way we will, and that’s our claim of fame. That’s what we’re going to do, and that’s our positioning.”
Lenny: I love that. Say you’re building a product led growth company, a bottom up oriented B2B SaaS company. Is there anything that changes in your advice?
Geoffrey Moore: Yeah, if you’re going to use a volume ups approach like Atlassian or anything grows up from the bottom up, you’re playing a different game. First of all, you’re playing… Because you attract the end user before you attract the economic buyer. So you have some version of a freemium strategy, that’s what you’re going to do. And Yammer did this, right? And eventually got bought by Microsoft. So the way you play that game is, first of all, you probably do need some funding, not necessarily, maybe you can do this all on AWS and a credit card. But the game that is going to be, how do I create that moment of criticality? What you would do is you’d say… First of all, you need telemetry. So you need to figure out what are the people really doing with our product? And then you need to find a way to communicate with them to see if you can ferret out, is there a compelling reason to buy thing in their environment? So it’d be a different way of doing early market.
You would not have a marquee client, but to cross the chasm… You cannot cross the chasm of product-led growth, you can’t because it is like saying, “Well, yeah, I’m going to cure Covid by just putting vaccines out in public places.” It’s like, “No, people need to learn more. No.” So you’d have to do that. Where product-led growth plays really interestingly, is in the land and expand phases of the market. If you can land with a hot product, but more importantly, product-led growth, which is really good at is expand because it prompts the user to get more involved. And that’s classically a Main Street play. But there’s got to be no risk. That product-led growth works when basically the extended the next purchase has very low risk, and therefore you’re not really dealing with chasms.
Lenny: That is incredibly interesting. Interestingly, every product led growth company ends up building a sales team, 100% of them, including Atlassian, which had product led growth for a long time. And I don’t know if anyone’s heard this perspective on it, that if you really want to cross the gap… I imagine it happens in some form of-
Geoffrey Moore: Well, and here’s the thing. The reason they build a sales team eventually is they need to get enterprise deals. And obviously you need a sales team to get enterprise deals. And one of the mistakes you could make is hiring an enterprise salesperson when you’re trying to cross the chasm. Enterprise salespeople are not good chasm crossers because they’re used to doing horizontal coverage model. This is like no, domain expert narrow model. You want somebody that looks more like a sales engineer than a salesperson. You want somebody very diagnostic, very committed to the integrity of the problem solution framework. So it’s just different.
Lenny: Okay. Just a couple more questions. You had this very public exchange with Martin Casado, he’s a partner at Andreessen Horowitz. And just to summarize briefly, essentially he was arguing that I think some people believe once you’ve crossed the chasm, life’s good. It’s all downhill. People are going to start pulling your product out of you. It’s going to be so easy. And his argument is he doesn’t see that, it’s endless pain and suffering and hardships. And I know you went back and forth trying to correct this, but what’s a way to think about what happens?
Geoffrey Moore: So actually, Martin and I had a couple of this… By the way, his biggest point… I’ll come back to your point in a second, but his biggest point is, “Jeff…” The venture community at least, and certainly Andreessen Horowitz doesn’t deal with the level of granularity of Crossing the Chasm anymore. There’s too much money that wants to be put to work. By the way, there’s so much software already out there that the notion that your software is going to be that disruptive is increasingly improbable because you’re not standing on the shoulders of giants, you’re standing on the shoulders of people standing on the shoulders of people standing on the shoulders of people standing on the shoulders of giants. So he was making a bunch of those points, which I thought were pretty interesting. But his other point about, does life ever become easy? No, life never becomes easy. The problems change.
The challenge with software is… Well, there’s a lot of challenges with it, but software that people use, the application software, we all have different minds. We all have different contexts. To make a product that would work, that would solve what I want and solve what you want and solve what the listener wants. I mean, the margin, no. We’re going to have different expectations. So there’s always… And then of course there’s competition, and then there’s funding, and then there’s technological shifts, and just about the time it really works well, they say, “No, we got to put it… No, no, no. You put it in the data center. We got to put it in the cloud.” “Oh, no, no, you got in the cloud, you got to put it in Kubernetes.” “Oh, no, no, no. You don’t understand. It’s edge AI, it’s not cloud.” It just goes on and on and on. So I think if you’re going to play this game, you got to be up for… Yeah, there’s going to be a new headache every week.
Lenny: That’s exactly how I see it. I always tell founders, you shouldn’t start a company unless you can’t not start a company.
Geoffrey Moore: Yes. By the way, why did I leave? [inaudible 01:16:28] County was a great place to be, but I had to do my own thing.
Lenny: And that’s a real pull. Kind of along the lines of something you just shared, maybe a final question. Is there something you’ve changed your mind about or something you’ve evolved your thinking on recently? Either from the beginning of the book or just even more recent?
Geoffrey Moore: I think what I realized over time increasingly was this is a model that’s really optimized for B2B markets, because it implies federated decision making around high risk buying decisions. I would say for the 20th century, that was 95% of tech. But what was so interesting about the change in the century… Because remember right at the change of the century, B2B tech went in the tank, the tech bubble just… Because everybody was afraid of the Y2K problem. So they did a whole bunch of buying up of software, and then there was a year where they think, “Well, we ate more than we could at Thanksgiving dinner. We’re not interested in eating another burger here. “So the market went in the tank. By the way at that point, venture started saying, “Well, maybe we should be investing in biotech, or maybe we should doing clean tech.” Venture stepped back from the table too.
But out of this, consumer computing came out of nowhere. And for my generation, it was unimaginable. The first time I heard about Google and they said, “We’re going to save every search argument.” I thought, “That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. They’re not going to be able to afford it.” But their model was, “We are rethinking this thing from the ground up. Geoffrey, you have no idea what we’re doing.” And boy were they right. So the point was when that came in, then consumer computing and then the iPhone hits, and then we have mobile apps. You have a world now where the B2C play can actually be the core of innovation. It used to be B2C was an afterthought. Now it’s like, “No, no, no, no, B2B might be the afterthought.” So it’s completely different… And the whole digital transformation of the universe, and we’re still living through the digital transformation 20 years in, and I don’t think Crossing the Chasm is designed for that problem. So that’s a different problem.
Lenny: So basically, if you’re building a consumer app, don’t spend time studying Crossing the Chasm.
Geoffrey Moore: Yeah, if you’re doing B2B, this is the most reliable playbook. It’s still on… People are still into this playbook 30 years in. So it’s obviously… The playbook kind of works.
Lenny: I said this earlier, I feel like people are just reinventing many of the things you uncovered 30 years ago. Everyone’s like, “Oh yeah, target audience, really important, or finding a marque customer.” So I’m really happy that we spent this time digging into many of your theories.
Geoffrey Moore: Well, Lenny, thank you for being… You’ve been a really great prompter and questioner, so thank you very, very much.
Lenny: I really, really appreciate that. Is there anything you want to leave listeners with as a final thought or piece of advice or just anything?
Geoffrey Moore: Look, I don’t know if anybody’s reading the paper recently, but the world’s not exactly nailing it right now. There’s a lot of stuff going on that we could do a lot better, and software enabled technology is almost certainly at the core of any solution that scales to any world problem that matters. I think it’s more important to be an entrepreneur now than maybe ever. I wouldn’t make becoming a billionaire my goal. Frankly, I don’t even know what a billionaire would even do with their money. I don’t even how to even imagine their money. That’s a thousand million dollars. It doesn’t make any sense, but what does make sense? But what does make sense is to… I’m happy to get two… Do I know what to do with 10 million? Yeah. Could I do 20? Probably. Could I use a hundred? Probably not. But at some point, I want people to make yourself a great living, make yourself… But after that, have an impact. If you’re gifted enough to be able to start a software company and do something original, you’re a scarce resource, so don’t waste it.
Lenny: Amazing. I’m going to sneak it one more question along these same lines actually. Your last book is very unlike all your other books. It’s called The Infinite Staircase, which is essentially a guide to living a good life and a meaningful life. Is there maybe one piece of advice you could share with folks of just how to live a better life, a more meaningful life, happier life?
Geoffrey Moore: The purpose of that book was twofold. One was… So I was looking around… And this is an American sort of experience between social media and the politicians or whatever. Our ability to defend traditional values is becoming increasingly challenging. And historically, you say, “Well, religion was sort of the place where the foundation for solidifying traditional values.” But in my lifetime, the counter explanation of how we got here, other than being created by a creator, this whole the Big Bang and the Darwinian model, it’s becoming increasingly credible and I’m fascinated by it. So the question I had in the back of my mind is how could you take that model and still support traditional ethics?
So the first part was, well, what’s the model? It turns out to explain getting from the Big Bang to Lenny and Geoffrey talking on this podcast, there’s a lot of steps you’ve got to go through. But there’s a whole thing about complexity and how complexity emerges in layers and the staircase is a series of layers, and the first two thirds of the book takes 11 stairs. That gets you from physics to theory. And it’s like, really? Yeah, yeah. From a cloud of atoms to us talking about Crossing the Chasm, 11 steps, we can get you there. It’s kind of fun. It’s assembling the last 25 years of my reading. It’s fascinating stuff. All these different topics, and I was just trying to knit it together. No original research. I was just literally just trying to get the story together.
But then the last third was, okay, that’s a very reasonable narrative. It’s maybe even more reasonable than religious narratives, but now how do you validate ethical action and where does it come from? So the last part was about, okay, how do you do that? How does it derive from that creation story? The secular creation stories were. So that was what was important. At the end of the day, I think the message of that book is just, you really do need to do good, but it’s not because you’re obeying… In this framework, it’s not because you’re a bang a divine creator. It’s because we’re mammals and mammals nurture their young, and we were gifted with unconditional love when we were born because otherwise, you and I could not be here. I mean, a 1-year-old cannot… If somebody doesn’t love the hell out of a 1-year-old, they’re not going to be two. So we know where we started. So come on, those values were built into us. They don’t have to come from above. They can come from below, and therefore, how can you integrate them into your life? And that was where the book… Anyway.
Lenny: That is a beautiful message to end on. I promised I’d get you out of here in one minute. Just to let people know, you do speaking, you do consulting, where can people find you online if they want to reach out and- [inaudible 01:24:05]
Geoffrey Moore: LinkedIn. Yeah, I’m on LinkedIn and I have a blog on LinkedIn. And if these topics are interesting to you, you’d probably be interested in the blog.
Lenny: And then message you on LinkedIn would be the idea?
Geoffrey Moore: Exactly. Absolutely.
Lenny: Easy. Geoffrey, thank you so much for being here.
Geoffrey Moore: Well, thank you, Lenny. It was a pleasure.
Lenny: It was 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 |
|---|---|
| Sales Pitch | Sales Pitch |
| The Seven Deadly Sins of Crossing the Chasm | 《跨越鸿沟的七宗罪》(The Seven Deadly Sins of Crossing the Chasm) |
| 10x effect | 10倍效应(10x effect) |
| adjacency | 相邻性 |
| Andreessen Horowitz | Andreessen Horowitz |
| Andy Grove | Andy Grove |
| antelope strategy | 羚羊策略(antelope strategy) |
| April Dunford | April Dunford |
| Atlassian | Atlassian |
| B2C | B2C(Business to Consumer,面向消费者的商业模式) |
| Basecamp | Basecamp |
| BDR | BDR(Business Development Representative,业务发展代表) |
| beachhead | 桥头堡 |
| Big Bang | 大爆炸(Big Bang) |
| bootstrap | 自力更生(bootstrap) |
| bowling alley | 保龄球道 |
| bowling pin strategy | 保龄球策略 |
| CAC | CAC(Customer Acquisition Cost,客户获取成本) |
| chimp | 黑猩猩(chimp) |
| compelling reason confusion | 迫切理由混淆(compelling reason confusion) |
| compelling reason to buy | 迫切购买理由 |
| compelling reason to sell | 迫切销售理由(compelling reason to sell) |
| conservative | 保守派(conservative) |
| Crossing the Chasm | 《跨越鸿沟》 |
| crown jewels | 核心优势 |
| Darwinian model | 达尔文模型 |
| disruptive innovation | 颠覆性创新 |
| Documentum | Documentum |
| domain expert narrow model | 领域专家式狭窄聚焦模式(domain expert narrow model) |
| down round | 降价轮(down round) |
| early market | 早期市场 |
| economic buyer | 经济买家(economic buyer) |
| enterprise deal | 企业级订单(enterprise deal) |
| executive sponsor | 高管发起人 |
| fish to pond ratio | 鱼塘比 |
| freemium | 免费增值(freemium) |
| generative AI / Gen AI | 生成式AI(generative AI) |
| go-to-market | 上市策略 / go-to-market |
| going concern | 持续经营实体(going concern) |
| gorilla | 大猩猩(gorilla) |
| horizontal coverage model | 横向覆盖模式(horizontal coverage model) |
| ICP | ICP(Ideal Customer Profile,理想客户画像) |
| inflection points | 转折点 |
| Inside the Tornado | 《龙卷风内》 |
| Jason Fried | Jason Fried |
| junior high dance problem | 初中舞会问题 |
| Khan Academy | Khan Academy |
| Kubernetes | Kubernetes |
| land and expand | 登陆与扩张(land and expand) |
| lighthouse customer | 灯塔客户 |
| LTV | LTV(Lifetime Value,客户终身价值) |
| Main Street | 主街 |
| marquee customer | 招牌客户 |
| Martin Casado | Martin Casado |
| moment of criticality | 临界时刻(moment of criticality) |
| persona | 用户画像 |
| pragmatist | 实用主义者(pragmatist) |
| problem domain knowledge | 问题领域知识 |
| product-market fit | 产品市场契合度(product-market fit) |
| project model | 项目模式 |
| radiating reference | 辐射式推荐(radiating reference) |
| ransomware | 勒索软件 |
| rule of 40 | 40法则(rule of 40) |
| Sal Khan | Sal Khan |
| sales engineer | 销售工程师(sales engineer) |
| sock puppet | 布偶 sock puppet |
| solution model | 解决方案模式 |
| Steve Jobs | Steve Jobs |
| technology adoption lifecycle | 技术采用生命周期 |
| telemetry | 遥测数据(telemetry) |
| The Infinite Staircase | The Infinite Staircase |
| tornado | 龙卷风 |
| trapped value | 被困价值(trapped value) |
| value pricing | 价值定价法 |
| visionary | 远见者(visionary) |
| Yammer | Yammer |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
Geoffrey Moore 谈如何找到滩头阵地、跨越鸿沟并主导市场
跨越鸿沟的智慧
Geoffrey Moore: 当你处于鸿谷之中时,倾向就是”我只需要更多客户,能找到的都该拿下”,因为我们需要收入。这就像拿一根火柴在原木下面来回划——原木是点不着的。那怎么生火?你要先放一点引火柴,揉皱一些纸,把火柴固定在一个地方,等火焰燃起来。这就是为什么相邻性(adjacency)如此重要。如果你点燃了火,引火柴在这里,但原木在另一个房间——那是没用的。
Lenny: 今天我的嘉宾是 Geoffrey Moore。Geoffrey 是有史以来关于 go-to-market 策略最具影响力的著作《跨越鸿沟》(Crossing the Chasm)的作者。尽管这本书已经售出超过一百万册,人们似乎仍在不断重新”发明”Geoffrey 在这部开创性著作中揭示和分享的许多经验教训。在我们的对话中,我们讨论了为什么将初始受众收窄到极致如此重要,保龄球策略(bowling pin strategy)如何帮你超越早期采用者,技术采用生命周期每个阶段具体的 go-to-market 打法是什么,为什么在错误的阶段使用错误的打法会拖慢你的速度。还有,试图错误地跨越鸿沟的七宗罪,如何针对不同用户画像(persona)销售产品,为什么向早期采用者销售时你不需要聚焦于问题和痛点,以及一些我完全没预料到的、非常好的生活建议。Geoffrey 对 B2B 公司的构建有太多智慧可以分享,我非常高兴能为你带来这一集。接下来,有请 Geoffrey Moore。
初次见面与开场
Lenny: Geoffrey Moore,非常感谢你能来,欢迎来到播客。
Geoffrey Moore: 很高兴来到这里,Lenny,谢谢你的邀请。
Lenny: 能请到你真是太棒了。自从我推出这个播客以来,你一直是我最想邀请的嘉宾名单上的第一名,所以能和你聊天感觉很不真实。感觉这个播客可能也跨越了鸿沟——你都来了。
Geoffrey Moore: 如果你早点联系我,我可能早就来了。不过,我们现在终于在一起了。
人们仍然误解的核心概念
Lenny: 我想从一个问题开始——关于你教授的内容,尤其是《跨越鸿沟》,人们仍然不理解的最让你沮丧的是什么?那本书到今天大概已经 33 年了。你围绕这个主题又写了很多后续著作。你觉得人们仍然没有真正理解、或者经常弄错的是什么?
Geoffrey Moore: 我写的所有书都是关于框架的。它们是概念模型,回答的问题是:当某件事演进时,你应该寻找什么模式?因为在颠覆性创新(disruptive innovation)中,没有历史可以参照。你总是在投射一种可能的历史,然后看能否让它变为现实。这意味着你有很大的自由按照自己选择的方式运用框架。但人们有时运用它的方式……实际上最终对什么是可能的产生了很大的误导。我记得早期有个人说,“对,我们正在跨越鸿沟。我们的桥头堡市场是财富 500 强”,你听了就想,“嗯,我觉得你可能对这个概念并没有自己以为的那么清楚。”
公平地说,任何第三方顾问的职能就是说出:“停一下。你可能正从由内而外的视角看这件事,也许你应该从由外而内的视角来看。” 这大概是第一点。除此之外,我对他们感同身受——毕竟他们的世界比我的世界更重要,所以我尽量去理解他们的世界。
为什么要收窄初始目标市场
Lenny: 这正是我接下来想聊的方向——关于初始目标受众要非常聚焦的想法。我觉得人们在概念上知道这一点,他们会说”对,我们的初始目标市场应该非常聚焦,应该保持很小的范围,再逐步扩展这个桥头堡”。但我觉得他们实际上并没有真正做到,因为总会想”为什么不扩大范围呢?“你能否谈谈为什么这一点如此重要,以及如何正确地思考这件事?
Geoffrey Moore: 如果你处于一个品类正在兴起的行业,那么最重要的事情就是为你的公司积累足够的力量(power),让你能够依靠自身实力掌控未来的方向。在早期采用技术的世界里,力量从何而来?首先,你能否拿下灯塔客户(lighthouse customer)?所以在你尝试跨越鸿谷之前,我们想做的一件事就是——你能否获得一个或多个能让你声名远扬的客户?他们会说,“哇,你知道吗,CIA 在用 AWS?""天哪。“好的,这很了不起。它虽然不能造就一家公司,但它能创造一个故事,让人们知道,“哦,这就是做了 CIA 项目的那些人,“诸如此类。
Geoffrey Moore: 《跨越鸿沟》模型要解决的核心问题是:“你能否打造一个可行的、可复制的业务?“要做到这一点,你需要一个合作伙伴生态系统与你协同,以巩固你的市场地位。那么,为什么一个生态系统会愿意与一家名不见经传的创业公司合作?答案是:你已经在一个细分市场中做到了第一,完成了市场整合。关于公司力量,我们学到的一件事是——公司的力量本质上等于公司自身实力加上生态系统的合力。生态系统围绕市场领导者而形成,不会围绕我们其他人。如果你是一个品类领导者——比如 Oracle 在数据库领域——40年过去了,你仍然是领导者,因为生态系统围绕你组织了起来。
但当你还很小时,唯一能让生态系统围绕你组织起来的办法,就是瞄准一个你能成为大鱼的细分市场。我们经常讨论鱼塘比(fish to pond ratio)的概念。你的第一个鱼塘,也就是你的目标细分市场,应该满足这样的条件:在未来两年内,如果达到你的高增长目标,你能占据该细分市场 30%、40%、50% 的市场份额。这会让合作伙伴意识到:“哇,要服务这个细分市场,我们必须跟这些家伙合作。“这就是关键所在。那么问题来了:“为什么不同时做两三个、四个细分市场呢?“这跟”为什么不同时在三四个州的初选中竞选,如果你想要总统提名的话”是同一个道理——虽然我完全不理解为什么有人想要那个提名。
但如果你真想赢得提名,你会意识到:如果你在新罕布什尔州竞选,佛蒙特州的选票是不算数的。《跨越鸿沟》也是如此。你需要在一个细分市场中拿下三四个、五六个有口碑的公司,让这个细分市场的其他人说:“好吧,谁是标准已经很明确了。“最后补充一点——这一切逻辑背后的机制是:实用主义者(pragmatists)会购买他们看到同伴正在购买的东西。如果同伴 A 买了产品 A,B 买了 B,C 买了 C,D 买了 D——没有市场领导者,整个品类就会停滞不前。但如果 A、B、C 三个人中三个都在用 iPhone,那就是:“哦,看来我应该买 iPhone。“诸如此类。
Lenny: 太棒了。我很高兴你聊到这一点,因为这本质上就是《跨越鸿沟》理念的根基——鸿沟之后的实用主义者会等待口碑和社交证明,等待有人告诉他们”这个东西值得用”;而鸿沟之前的愿景型客户则完全不同,他们想的是”我就是想用属于未来的东西,我需要在所有人之前就到达那里”。
Geoffrey Moore: 你说得对。我们用一句话来概括这种差异:鸿沟之前,你的客户是那些说”我们相信你所相信的”的人——换句话说,他们和你站在同一边。鸿沟之后,他们会说”我不确定你说的那些,但我们确实需要你手里的东西”。所以,从”我们相信你所相信的”——这是向愿景型客户(visionaries)销售的方式——转变为”我们需要你手里的东西”——这是向实用主义者销售的方式。这就是那个转变。
每个客户群的需求差异
Lenny: 让我们再多花点时间聊聊每个细分群体到底需要什么,以及如何说服他们使用你的产品,因为这真的非常有用。在实用主义者这个群体中,你说的推销话术是:你有一个痛点,我来解决这个痛点,而且这是一个重要的痛点。我觉得人们总是以为这就是推销话术。但有意思的是,你的观点是——在之前的两个群体中,也许你可以讲讲这两个群体分别是什么——他们使用你的产品是出于不同的原因。
Geoffrey Moore: 事实上,在我们组织这一切所围绕的技术采用生命周期(technology adoption lifecycle)模型中,总共有四个我称之为转折点(inflection points)的阶段。第一个我们称之为早期市场(early market),就是我们刚才谈到的那个——愿景型客户和技术爱好者(technology enthusiasts)。他们跟你一样兴奋。他们想看演示,他们想看到愿景。他们很令人兴奋。而这个市场的关键在于,要有一位有足够影响力的高管发起人(executive sponsor),来为这件事提供资金支持,因为根本没有人给你编列预算。所以他们必须自己创造资金来源,然后推动组织一路推进到底。
愿景型客户并不多,但总有一两个。这就是为什么当时与一个招牌客户(marquee customer)合作如此重要——你看,没人听说过你,如果他们也没听说过你的客户,不管你拿下的成果多么惊人,也没人会知道。所以你一定要是跟 Apple 做的,或者跟 Verizon 做的,或者跟 Mercedes 做的——总之是一个人们听说过的公司。这是第一点。而这个阶段本质上是项目模式(project model)。即使你卖的是产品,那些早期客户……每一个都像雪花一样独一无二。需要大量的定制服务。没有合作伙伴生态系统来支持你,所以你得投入大量额外人力。你竭尽全力,因为必须让他们成功。你不惜一切代价。
跨越鸿沟阶段:从问题切入的解决方案模式
好,很棒。拿下了招牌客户,但这不是一个可规模化的业务——这很明显。第二个转折点是《跨越鸿沟》的策略。这个阶段围绕问题来组织。好消息是,这些客户愿意听取新来者的意见,因为他们已经找遍了所有现有的供应商,问题依然……不是没人解决,而是解决得很糟糕,而且还在持续恶化。所以情况实际上在变得更差,他们有行动的压力。这是你从项目模式转向解决方案模式(solution model)的阶段——作为供应商,你要对客户的问题做出超常承诺。
从一开始,你就要跟他们对话。他们不想谈论你,他们想谈论的是他们自己,而你需要向他们提出深入的探询性问题。就像去看医生一样——你不想医生走进来说:“嘿,想看看我刚做的手术视频吗?我想给你做个演示,介意吗?“你会想:“不,我想跟你谈谈我侧腹的这个疼痛。“然后当医生就此提出好的问题时,你会觉得:“啊,这是位好医生,我信任他。“这就是整个要义。同样,解决方案模式比项目业务可扩展得多,但它只能在目标细分市场的边界内扩展。
保龄球道:通过相邻性扩展
所以我们有一个保龄球道(bowling alley)模型来扩展业务。你可以进入第二个细分市场、第三个细分市场——前提是它们具有相邻性。相邻性意味着要么是同一个客户的不同用例,要么是同一用例在不同客户群中的应用。因为在前一种情况下,你可以利用客户推荐;在后一种情况下,你可以借助合作伙伴——那些已经围绕某个用例建立了能力的合作伙伴会说:“嗯,我们还服务另一个细分市场,让我们把你也带进去。“在保龄球道中,这可以将一家公司从几千万美元做到几亿美元。而在一些专业行业,比如计算机辅助设计(computer-aided design)之类的领域,甚至可以做到十亿美元甚至更高。
但在大多数其他品类中,到了某个时刻,你会迎来第三个转折点——就是人们开始说:“等等,WiFi 不只是给金融分析师用的,不只是给……WiFi 是给所有人用的。“所以他们不再说”我们认同你的理念”——我们已经过了那个阶段。这些人甚至也不是在说”我们需要你的产品”。他们说的是”我们想要他们有的那个东西。这东西太酷了,我想要他们有的那个。“这就形成了我们所说的”龙卷风”(tornado)。这就是人们……这时你确实需要销售覆盖,确实需要广泛铺开,确实需要一个标准化产品。基本上,你要尽可能多地抢占市场份额。围绕这一点有一整套打法,写在一本叫《龙卷风内》(Inside the Tornado)的书里。
主街:从产品到服务
最后一个阶段,在这个世纪变得越来越重要,叫做主街(Main Street)。在主街阶段,产品已经商品化了,服务成为新的创新阵地。我们已经有了一百年的出租车,但 Uber 是一个极具价值的东西。你把产品转化为服务,然后如何革新服务?这时候人们说的是:“我不想拥有这个产品,我不想拥有它。“年轻人会说:“我不想拥有一辆车,我只想叫个 Uber,很方便。“总之,这就是四个模式,而《跨越鸿沟》讲的是第二个。
Lenny: 太精彩了。你提到了很多我想深入聊的话题。我肯定要深入讨论保龄球道的比喻和策略。但先回到最初的目标受众这个话题收个尾。首先,你有一个很棒的篝火比喻,我觉得值得分享。另外,你能不能举一两个例子,讲讲谁在选择初始目标上做得特别好?
Geoffrey Moore: 当然。篝火比喻说的是,在鸿沟期人们会有一种倾向——“我只是需要更多客户,我应该抓住任何能找到的客户。“因为我们需要收入。但我的比喻是,这就像拿一根火柴,在一根圆木下来回划——它不会把圆木点燃。那怎么生火呢?你先用一点引火物,一点揉皱的纸,然后把火柴固定在一个地方,直到火着起来。然后你要继续添……保龄球道的比喻有一部分是关于,首先你如何赢得第一个细分市场,然后逐步向前扩展。这就是为什么相邻性如此重要。如果你想让火烧起来,但引火物在这里,而圆木在另一个房间,那不行。所以我认为这些是核心思路。
Documentum 的成功案例
很多人都用《跨越鸿沟》的策略取得了成功。我们最早写到的一家公司叫 Documentum,这是一个很好的例子。它当年是一个文档管理数据库——当时没人觉得”我为什么需要这个?“它从制药行业起步,因为制药公司说:“新药审批文件是五十万页的文档,真的非常非常难管理,而我们一直在搞砸。每搞砸一天,我们就损失一天的药品专利期,而一天专利期价值大约一两百万美元。这个局面很糟糕,我们得做点什么。”
好,“制药行业,你拿下了。“很好。接下来发生的是,石油化工行业的人说:“我们在化工行业,不是制药行业,但我们也有这些标准操作手册,我们也面临各种监管要求——虽然不像 FDA 那么严格,但这东西看起来对我们也挺有用的。“化工行业拿下之后,石油化工行业也跟进了。当然,他们是油气行业,他们说:“除此之外,我们还有所有这些租约,这些石油租赁权——这太棒了。这些产权对我们的未来规划至关重要,所以我们需要一个文档数据库来管理租约。”
然后华尔街那些给这些公司做融资的人就说:“等等,天哪,我们这里满墙满地都是纸,我们为什么不用……”所以你会看到这种扩张过程,但每一次都是进入一个新的细分市场,只是用例足够相近。
Lenny: 那么如果一个创业公司的创始人在听,正在判断自己的初始目标受众——他们的 ICP(Ideal Customer Profile)是不是太宽了——你有没有什么建议,怎么判断是不是还是太宽了、应该再继续收窄?我知道你提到过单一用例,除此之外人们还应该考虑什么?
Geoffrey Moore: 首先,在你尝试跨越鸿沟之前,你有没有赢得一个招牌客户(marquee customer)?一个能让你在行业地图上占有一席之地的招牌客户?因为如果你没有……你需要先让自己被看到,然后才能做跨越鸿沟这一步。假设你已经做到了。那么当我们最初想”我为什么不直接用那个行业?“结果发现,与你合作的那个有远见的人……首先,他们做了一些非常奇怪的事情,因为他们是远见者;其次,他们并不想帮助他们的行业。他们做这件事的全部意义在于领先竞争对手,他们不想帮忙。所以通常你不能把远见者项目作为你的桥头堡。从复用工作的角度你当然很想这样做,但就是不行。那么问题就变成了:“好,那我该去哪?“
选择目标细分市场的公式
所以关键公式是这样的——如果创始人们听到这里只带走一个要点,就是这个:你要找到一个目标细分市场,它足够大以至于有意义的,足够小以至于你能主导的,并且与你的核心优势(crown jewels)高度契合。这就是公式。“足够大以至于有意义”意味着——我是否有足够的空间实现翻倍……风险投资人经常说的是”三倍翻倍再加翻倍三倍”(triple double followed by a double triple)。打个比方,“我先让你做到一百万美元”,就是那个有远见的客户带来的收入,随便给个数。好,翻倍三倍就是从一变成四,四变成十二;然后三倍翻倍就是十二到二十四、二十四到四十八、四十八到九十多。好,那你怎么从一百万做到一亿美元?
所以你需要一个细分市场,让你能在五年内——刚才那是五年时间窗口——做到一亿美元。你说,“好,但它不能是一个十亿美元规模的细分市场。“因为如果是十亿美元的细分市场,你可能能做到那个数字,但你不会是一条大鱼。这就是鱼塘比的概念。所以你要考虑的是,特别是在起步阶段——这主要是一个 B2B 模式——如果我拿下这个细分市场的前二十个客户,什么叫做细分市场?同一地理区域。日本人不跟美国人交流,美国人不跟德国人交流,他们甚至说不同的语言。我不知道为什么大家不都说英语,但显然不是这样。所以他们必须在同一地理区域、同一行业——因为牙医不跟软件设计师交流,软件设计师不跟广告人交流——以及同一职业。
桥头堡细分市场的特征
Geoffrey Moore: 所以销售不跟财务的人交流,财务也不跟仓库里的人交流。所以要同一行业、同一地理区域、同一职业。然后是 compelling use case(迫切用例),那个东西……那是点燃火种的引线。细分市场无处不在,而且说一句,它们都有那个……它们都有……每个细分市场的运作方式都一样。如果我需要做一个高风险的购买决策,我会去跟同行讨论。我不想做第一个吃螃蟹的人。我只想跟随大部队。但 compelling reason to buy(迫切购买理由)的作用就是——好吧,我不得不比我想的更快行动。而这就是你作为创业者所需要的。你需要客户主动走向你,哪怕你是新面孔、未经验证,坦率地说你把他们吓得不轻,但他们对自己背负的那个问题更加恐惧。正因如此,你才能与他们建立关系。
何时开始跨越鸿沟
Lenny: 精彩。那这个阶段是……你似乎在暗示它发生在某个时间点之后,比如说你做到一百万美元 ARR 的时候,你是不是在做到那种规模之前不会去做跨越鸿沟这类工作?
Geoffrey Moore: 我不确定 ARR 是不是正确的参照基准。你需要的是这样的:你需要一个核心大客户,它在新技术上跟你全力投入,并且愿意以某种方式公开谈论这件事。有远见的人有一个好处——他们通常自我意识比较强,而且喜欢分享,不像实用主义者,后者不愿对外发声。实用主义者,他们得先去找法务审批、各种权限, blah blah blah。但一旦你有了这样一个客户,不管那时候你的收入是多少,你就应该开始思考,“好,我的桥头堡细分市场是什么?“而《跨越鸿沟》的好消息是,它并不昂贵。
想一想,一旦你说了”我要专注在一个地理区域、一个行业、一个职业”,想想你的营销预算。你不是在买超级碗广告。没有那种布偶 sock puppet 花活。我们不是在干那个。我们要把信息传递到也许两百个人那里。然后你是否有足够的领域专业知识来真正理解那个问题?如果那是一个真正迫切的问题,他们会愿意见你,而拿到那个会面就是……因为如果你是一个创业型创始人,你大概颇有几分个人魅力。首先,你说服了你的配偶,让他们接受你无薪无福利地工作;也许你还给风险投资人做了路演,把他们也给忽悠了,那你为什么不能把这些家伙也忽悠了呢?总之,这就是我会建议的方式。
如何避免被大客户牵着鼻子走
Lenny: 本质上,这里的建议是——如果你是一家早期初创公司,你想要瞄准的最大里程碑之一就是拿到一个招牌客户(marquee customer)。当我想到这一点、看一个初创公司的融资材料时,如果我看到 Figma 在用这个产品,或者 Notion、Salesforce 在用,很明显我会说,“哇,这些非常老练的人认定这东西对他们有用。“于是我天然地会信任它。但同时也有一种常见的建议:不要跟大公司合作,因为它们会欺负你,拖很长时间,逼你只为它们做一个东西,而且那个东西对别人不适用。你对避免这种负面后果有什么建议?
Geoffrey Moore: 这跟高管发起人(executive sponsor)的用户画像有关。十个高管发起人里有九个会是负面的,因为他们是公司人,按公司流程办事。他们会把你推给采购部门,谁都不会开心。你在找的是第十个人。第十个人会说,“我受够了现状。我在寻找跟我一样有远见的人。我喜欢跟你交谈胜过跟我的同行交谈,因为你不一样,而我想与众不同。我想弯道超车,而那些人只想留在自动扶梯上。他们留在自动扶梯上,祝福他们,但我想跳过去。“所以关键在于,这是一个基于用户画像的选择。
早期阶段的项目策略
Lenny: 这真的很有趣。那假设你又是一家的早期初创公司,你觉得什么时候开始投入精力去找那个招牌客户是合理的?而不是先找一些小的……我猜你会先从一些小公司开始,看看人们怎么用……你不会一上来就去找大客户。
Geoffrey Moore: 对,所以一开始,我觉得……当然,你我都在玩——说清楚——我们都在玩软件的游戏。比如,我曾尝试把这个框架套用到英特尔身上,英特尔对我说,“Geoffrey,你确实了解在我们这个行业,一个原型产品的成本大约是五亿美元吧。“好吧好吧好吧好吧,也许那不是同一个模型。我觉得在我们当下的数字化转型世界中,大多数创业者都在做某种以软件为核心的生意,这意味着你可以用一个小团队来运作。所以我的建议是做项目。即使我有一个产品愿景,我也会从尽量多做项目开始,这些项目会非常以客户为导向。坦率地说,初期即使我有路线图,客户大概率也会把我带偏一些。
我得愿意说,“我要把光圈开得足够大。“因为我只是需要积累足够多的技术经验。我需要把产品放到人们手中。如果是 freemium(免费增值)模式,你可以免费做这件事。但那更多是消费者导向的玩法。也有例外。有一些 B2B 公司比如 Atlassian 确实是从 freemium 起步的,但这不是常态。我更倾向于用咨询式的方式来做。但我要做的努力是——用自己的钱做到现金流打平,不拿风险投资。你需要风险投资的原因只有两个。要么 A,技术太贵,你无法自筹资金——GPU 那一大堆、训练大语言模型之类的。要么 B,这个东西会太快引爆,我没有时间慢慢磨两三年。这就是去找风险投资的两个理由,但仅仅因为你想创业并不意味着你需要风险投资。
Lenny: 我们最近请了 Jason Fried,Basecamp 的 CEO,他从很多不同角度阐述了这个观点。不融资的好处,大多数 VC 投资的公司结果并不好,即便好了,你赚的钱往往也不如自己 bootstrap 来得多。我觉得跟你说的有很多共鸣。你还有一句话,基本上就是你刚才说的——用一轮融资,你应该能在十八到二十四个月内跨越鸿沟、在一个单一市场中主导一个单一用例。
跨越鸿沟的资金与定价逻辑
Geoffrey Moore: 是的。这就像一个英语专业的人在做数学,所以要小心,因为我确实是英语专业出身。但总体来说,因为我刚才说了它不昂贵,而且说一句,你不需要打折。换句话说,你实际上用的是价值定价法,因为你解决的问题足够严重,客户不想要折扣,客户想要你……这就好比如果你必须做心脏手术,你不会想要一张优惠券说”本周六心脏手术只要 9.99 美元”。你要去梅奥诊所,或者去你信得过的地方,所以你不需要打折。
你真正需要做的是,几乎要对解决问题做出一种保证式的承诺——“我们要把这个问题彻底解决,你不满意我们不会走。“这是这个游戏的关键。这一点有点奇怪,因为如果你发明了 ChatGPT,然后你说,“但我要去解决三年级数学的问题,“这确实是一个真实的问题。但 ChatGPT 可以做任何事情啊。我知道,但我们就是要去解决三年级数学的问题。这对很多创业者来说很难转过弯来。
招牌客户的执着
Lenny: 这让我想起 Figma 起步时的方式,虽然他们花了很长时间才找到产品市场契合度(product-market fit)并开始规模化,但他们最终与 Coda 进行了非常紧密的合作。不知道你是否知道这个故事——他们就是想确保 Coda 团队,当时叫 Krypton,对 Figma 非常满意。所以他们去了办公室,帮所有人安装好,让大家开始用 Figma。然后在开车回家的路上,对方打来电话说:“用不了了,出问题了。“而他们已经到家了。Dylan 基本上带着团队又开了整整一两个小时的车赶回去,到了之后发现是 Wi-Fi 断了,是网络问题,修好之后就走了——他们就是痴迷于确保对方在使用产品。而且他们还在修那些最荒谬的 bug,那些根本不重要的 bug,因为他们就是想让对方真正满意。
Geoffrey Moore: 一家大公司会说:“你看,我们会把你放进队列里,排在我们的……我们会处理你的。“而我觉得这就是……顺便说一下,这也是创业的一部分乐趣,坦白说,因为你离前线那么近,因为在你和前线之间什么都没有。那你为什么不这么做呢?
Lenny: 是的,而且我在自己的研究中得到的一个收获是,你需要找到一家就是爱你的公司。不是说”[……],这个挺酷的”,而是”我爱这个产品,我绝对不想放弃它”。
Geoffrey Moore: 这就是我说的招牌客户的意思……我们有时候也叫它辐射式推荐(radiating reference)。就是有那么一个人真的……我们说的是你不在场的时候他们也在谈论你。是的,非常棒。
鸿沟是什么
Lenny: 我们已经谈到了鸿沟这个概念和《跨越鸿沟》,但也许直接解释一下这个想法会有帮助——这个鸿沟到底是什么?人们掉进去的是什么?为什么这很重要?
Geoffrey Moore: 说来有趣,因为当时我在 Regis McKenna 工作,那是一家营销机构,可以说是八十年代首屈一指的高科技营销公司。我们做过很多非常成功的产品发布,然后上了《财富》杂志和《华尔街日报》的封面头版。但几年之后就像,“那些公司后来怎么样了?“所以鸿沟就是……这就是引发调查的原因。我们了解到的是,远见者(visionary)自己做购买决策,而且不会咨询同行。事实上,如果同行已经在做了,他们反而可能不做,因为他们想要与众不同。所以基本上这些公司在激发远见者想象力方面很成功,他们就想,“那我就用远见者作为推荐,来获取实用主义者(pragmatist)。”
但实用主义者看着远见者会说,“那不是我的同类人。首先,他觉得我笨。他觉得他比我聪明。其次,他做的事情我绝不会做,他做决策的方式我也绝不会用。所以那不行。“但我确实有兴趣和我的同行聊聊,可问题是——哪个同行会先迈出第一步?这就有点像初中舞会问题。你怎么让这场派对开始起来?这就是鸿沟。这就是鸿沟产生的原因。实用主义者需要推荐,但他们不会接受远见者作为推荐,而又没有同行已经尝试过。所以就是这种情况。
Lenny: 我觉得这一点非常重要,人们不总是能意识到——那个推荐、招牌客户必须是实用主义者。不能是那些什么都想试试的早期采用者。其他实用主义者需要感觉到”这是和我一样的人”,而且他们喜欢这个产品。
Geoffrey Moore: 顺便说一下,实用主义者对远见者有一定程度……不能说是蔑视,但绝对是戒备,原因之一是他们经常得去收拾远见者留下的烂摊子。因为当你是一个远见者的时候,你身后会留下很多烂摊子。然后实用主义者就得进来收拾。所以他们就会想,“哦,这又是这些人的一笔减分项。”
Lenny: 我看过你的一套幻灯片,你用不同的形象来代表技术采用生命周期(technology adoption lifecycle)中的每个阶段——远见者是用 Steve Jobs 来代表的,而实用主义者就是一群穿着西装坐在会议桌旁的商务人士。
Geoffrey Moore: 没错。一共有六种人。背后的核心思想是,我们每个人……顺便说一下,我不认为这些人中有什么大师,他们也不认为我是大师。我们用的是羚羊策略(antelope strategy),一种群体策略。但在某个时刻……而且说真的,我们一直都在这么做——Airbnb,我想在波特兰订一个 Airbnb。你住过吗?这家酒店好不好?这家餐厅好不好?这个牙医好不好?这个律师好不好?我们就是这么做的。
Lenny: 我觉得 Uber 和 Airbnb 是这种行为最典型的例子。我才不会坐上一辆陌生的车,尤其是女性,她们最常说”我绝对不会上一辆 Uber”。这太疯狂了——直到她们所有朋友都在用。然后,“好吧,试试看。”
Geoffrey Moore: 应该没问题吧,是的。
Lenny: 是的。所以本质上大多数人都是实用主义者,这也说得通。实用主义者占了最大的比例。
Geoffrey Moore: 顺便说一下,你可以在某些事情上是远见者,在另一些事情上是实用主义者,在其他事情上又是保守派(conservative)。所以真正理解他们的方式是——在面对这个决策时,我的用户画像(persona)是什么?
各阶段产品需要做到什么程度
Lenny: 我特别喜欢初中舞会问题这个比喻——没人想主动去邀请对方,“我要等他们来找我,我想看看事情怎么发展。“这个比喻太好了。那么在每一个阶段,你的产品需要做到什么程度?你会给出什么建议?为远见者准备的产品和为下一阶段准备的产品之间,需要做到什么程度?
Geoffrey Moore: 对于远见者,你必须让那个魔法成分运转起来。你不需要有完整的产品。实际上你的产品可能有 bug,但它能做到某件事……Andy Grove 过去称之为 10 倍效应(10x effect)。你需要做到比任何东西都好一个数量级,因为这就是远见者和你对话的原因。他们会说,“天哪,你有核聚变。""核聚变,真的?""是的,我们搞出了核聚变能源。“这是第一点。那么什么情况下你还不能跨越鸿沟呢?如果产品还不够成熟,实用主义者无法忍受一个不好用的产品。所以你可能需要做一些额外的工作,告诉自己,“看,我再多获取一些客户。我还在勉强维持,主要做的是项目模式(project model)的工作,但在产品有足够的稳定性、能够被产品化之前,我真的承担不起跨越鸿沟的代价。“所以一旦你有了一个能用的产品,你就得说,“好,现在我需要找到一个市场,让产品在那里成为主导性的解决方案。“那就是跨越鸿沟的时机。
Lenny: 其中很大一部分原因显然是他们有老板、有清单、有合规人员、有 IT 人员,有各种需要认可这件事的人,或者那个会议室里坐着的六个人,他们所有人都得点头说:“好吧,这是最好的选择。“
迫切购买理由
Geoffrey Moore: 顺便说一句,通常那些人的职责就是把你挡在门外,决策流程会拖到天荒地老,等他们做出选择的时候你早就排着队领救济金了。所以这就是为什么我们所说的迫切购买理由(compelling reason to buy)如此重要。你需要会议室里有一群人,在场的领导——那个真正要发起并拍板这个决策的人——在说:“听着,我已经把这个问题交给在座各位了,我们的方案糟透了。“他不会这么直白地说,但事实就是这样。所以我们基本上已经到了……我是说,我已经收到信号了。首先,我老板的老板的老板知道我的名字,这可不是什么好事。其次,我收到的信号是,要么你把这个问题解决了,Geoffrey,要么我们换一个能解决的人。正是这种压力,驱使他们去对抗公司决策流程中固有的惯性。
购买软件的压力
Lenny: April Dunford 曾上过这个播客,她最近出了一本书叫 Sales Pitch。她提出了一个观点:购买软件、购买 SaaS 软件现在比卖软件还难,因为买错了东西是可能被解雇的。压力太大了。选项又那么多,你的老板得满意。所以人们往往最终什么也不选——我们就继续用现在的好了,挺好的,更简单,更安全。Salesforce 就挺好的。听起来你说的基本上就是这个意思,太难了——
Geoffrey Moore: 如果你是实用主义者,第一原则就是:没坏就别修。这让你和远见者完全不同。远见者会说:“来吧,弄坏它,我们继续前进。“没坏就别修。如果确实坏了,谁修好了?解决方案投产了吗?管用吗?我要那个。换句话说,正如 April 所说的,这是一种风险规避型的采购策略。而且顺便说一句,通常你会尽量慢,但当你身处困境时,你就不得不加快速度。所以迫切购买理由就是让你身处困境的那个东西。
迫切购买理由的例子
Lenny: 有没有什么迫切购买理由的例子,能让人有个具体的感受——什么才算一个好的迫切购买理由?我不知道这算不算一种 pitch。
Geoffrey Moore: 例子太多了。勒索软件怎么样?网络安全突然就变成了天大的事,因为以前人们会说,“他们不会攻击我们公司吧。就算真的攻击了,我也没什么资产。“嗯,实际上……因为以前黑客只会攻击那些有数据可以在暗网上转售的公司。后来多亏了加密货币,人们开始问,“加密货币跨越鸿沟了吗?嗯,它的第一个用例是犯罪。“很抱歉,这并不是一个好的用例。但关键是,现在有了加密货币,勒索软件可以变现了,这意味着每个人都成了目标。这是一种迫切购买理由。但如果你放眼四周,孩子在学校挣扎的家长,有一个迫切购买理由。任何涉及医疗健康的,都有迫切购买理由。任何涉及法律纠纷的,你也有迫切购买理由。
所以总是有这样的情境,你会说:“好吧,这是个人层面的。“在公司层面,可能是这样的问题:“我的办公空间怎么办?我能让公司的人回办公室吗,还是得把空间处理掉?我该怎么办?顺便说一句,我知道我总归需要某种空间,但我要按照以前的方式设计吗?我现在拿到了一个空间,顺便说一下,是跳楼价拿到的,很划算。很酷的空间,里面放什么?应该有办公室吗?有没有门?没有门?“换句话说,有大量这样的情境,人们会说:“好吧,谁能帮我?谁能帮帮我?""我需要帮助。我已经试过我常用的方案了,不行,我不信那一套,所以我需要帮助。“
保龄球道阶段的核心要义
Lenny: 好的,很有意思,我甚至误解了你的意思,我觉得这一点非常重要。迫切购买理由不是迫切销售理由——人们经常把它当作你做 pitch 的角度来想。这里的”购买”本质上是痛点。他们需要一个真正巨大的痛点。
Geoffrey Moore: 没错,因为那才是驱动决策的东西。因此保龄球道阶段的关键,与龙卷风阶段不同,也和早期市场不同。在早期市场,话题围绕的是你。你来讲述关于你的故事,远见者想听的是你。在龙卷风阶段,话题也是围绕你,因为我们现在有预算来采购这些东西了,而你是候选之一。但在保龄球道阶段,话题永远不是你。这对很多创业者来说太难了,因为他们想演示产品、想讲故事、想分享他们的愿景。答案是:“我们不关心。我们不想听你的故事。我们讨厌 demo,我不知道你是谁,也不在乎。我有麻烦了。我们需要谈的是我,不是你。”
所以我们在《跨越鸿沟》的打法手册里有这样一句话。首先,“把该死的笔记本电脑合上。别打开它,别一开始就——“你开启对话的方式永远是一样的:“我们今天来,是因为我们一直在跟你们行业的一些人合作,我们了解到在文档管理或 Wi-Fi 接入等方面存在一个非常严重的问题,我们相信贵公司可能也面临这个问题,是这样吗?“有趣的是,你会得到两种回应中的一种:要么是,“天哪,你开玩笑吗?好吧,我们确实有这个问题。“或者他们经常说,“嗯,不完全是。“你说”哦”,但还没等你再说别的,他们就会说:“我们真正的问题是……”所以人们会谈论他们的——他们需要心理疏导,他们会谈论自己的问题。如果你愿意倾听的话——但作为创业者,你必须意识到,这个阶段真正的金子是对问题领域的理解。那才是你真正想要收集的东西。
四套上市策略打法手册
Lenny: 太精彩了。你其实已经部分回答了这个问题,但我想让它更完整一些。你在 LinkedIn 上发过一篇很棒的帖子,讲的是根据你所处的阶段有四套不同的上市策略打法手册。你已经涉及了一些内容,但如果能逐一过一遍会很有帮助。更有帮助的是,在早期市场是什么样子?你怎么判断自己是在早期市场、保龄球道还是龙卷风阶段?
早期市场打法手册
Geoffrey Moore: 好的,在早期市场,你知道自己处于这个阶段,因为首先,故事的核心就是技术本身,具体来说是颠覆性技术。顺便说一下,你也可以用一个非颠覆性的东西创业,但那样你就不需要这些打法手册了,你就在主街上了。所以前提是你拥有某种前所未见、前所未做的东西。在那套打法手册里,第一件事就是你展示技术实力。风险投资家也会对你说同样的话:“你有没有一个技术天才?因为我们不会投随便两个拿 PowerPoint 的人,虽然我们挺喜欢你的狗。”
这是第一点。第二,“你能演示这项技术吗?“你必须能够进行演示。第三,“你能否描绘一幅愿景,说明什么力量将会释放价值?“在风投领域我们用的概念,我称之为被困价值(trapped value)。核心思想是,这项创新能释放哪些被困住的价值?因为当你释放被困价值时,世界会把你获得收益的一部分分给你,通常是 10%。这个数字算起来很方便。正如我说的,我是英语专业的。所以如果你想建一个十亿美元的公司,你最好找到价值一百亿美元的被困价值,让你的技术能够——
Lenny: Airbnb 就是一个绝佳的例子,对吧?他们释放了人们的住宅,基本上就是 10%——
Geoffrey Moore: 没错。Uber 释放了汽车的后座。还有免费劳动力,简直是”哇哦”。好的,这就是早期市场阶段非常酷的想法。然后到了保龄球道阶段,打法手册变成了:“不,问题在哪里?“然后你要把它拆解到具体的地理区域、行业、职业、使用场景。这不是随便想想就行的,你需要花时间去做这件事。你真正要做的是对问题保持智识上的好奇心,而不是急于跳到解决方案。为什么这是一个难题?到底发生了什么?被困价值在哪里?这个问题不解决的成本有多高?
保龄球道打法手册
通常这个成本是一种风险敞口,或者是阻碍你增长的瓶颈,也可能是流失问题(churn)。如果你想找一个迫切购买理由,帮助 SaaS 公司解决客户流失问题怎么样?你觉得他们会在意吗?我觉得他们可能很在意。所以关键是——你会说:“好,我要更深入地了解流失问题,我要真正理解它。而且,我要理解你的流失问题,这可能与别人的流失问题不一样。“这就是问题领域知识。然后你围绕这个构建你的上市策略。获客的方式是:“嘿,你是否有这七种致命流失的症状之一?“回应这个广告的人就已经是预先筛选过的潜在客户了。然后如果你在 Salesforce,BDR(业务发展代表)会打电话给你说:“确认一下你有这些问题。""哦,是的,RBI。""你在公司的角色是……你负责处理这件事吗?""其实不是我,是 Harry,不是 Mary。""也许我们应该跟 Harry 谈谈。""是的,你们应该跟 Harry 谈谈。”
然后你给 Harry 打电话,约到与 Harry 的会面,因为 Harry 才有这个问题。接下来你对他们做诊断。“我们通过与你同事的交流了解到,问题是这样的,我们认为我们在做的事情是这样的。但在告诉你我们的解决方案有多棒之前,先确保我们理解了你面临的挑战。“你在那通电话中的目标是让他们尽可能多地说,而你自己做笔记。顺便说一下,这时候你可能还想记住用笔来记,因为你其实想让他们看到你在写下他们说的话,因为那意味着:“好,他在听。他真的在听。”
Lenny: 哦,有意思。这是个好建议。比如在 Zoom 上,你的建议是确保摄像头能看到你的手吗?
Geoffrey Moore: 哦,是的,是的。
Lenny: 好的。身体前倾。嗯嗯。
Geoffrey Moore: 或者有时候……不,你不能这样做。我本来想说录下来,但他们不想被录,因为他们在通话中会说一些可能不太恭维同事的话,他们不想让你录下来。
从早期市场到保龄球道的过渡
Lenny: 明白了。那么在这个保龄球道阶段,你怎么知道……我知道这不是一个非此即彼的开关,但你怎么判断自己准备好从早期市场打法过渡到保龄球道了?
Geoffrey Moore: 嗯,我觉得你会到达这样一个节点,你意识到:“用我一直在做的方式,我没办法规模化我的业务。就是做不到。“如果你拿了风险投资,你要想的是:“我不想再融一轮……”那么,先理解一下风险投资的资金运作机制,这很重要。风险投资家给你钱,他们用这笔钱从你这里买到的是:“我希望你用这笔钱改变你公司的状态,这样当我们融下一轮时,下一个投资者对你公司的估值会比我们今天的估值高出两到三倍。“
风险投资与跨越鸿沟
基本上,这笔钱的目的就是改变你公司的价值状态。如果你用这笔钱做了其他任何事情——你可能做了很出色的事情,做了令人惊叹的演示,招了很棒的人——但如果到头来你没有改变公司的价值状态,而我们需要融更多的钱,我们只能按旧的估值来融,作为投资者我就亏了。更糟的是,如果出现降价轮(down round),我亏得更多。
所以一旦你开始这样思考,我们就进入了《跨越鸿沟》。《跨越鸿沟》的核心打法是,我需要把我的公司从一个很酷的可能性,转变为会计师所说的持续经营实体(going concern)。什么是持续经营实体?是一家两年后你预期它仍然存在的公司。为什么?因为他们有一个忠诚的客户群,有一个将他们带入新交易的合作伙伴生态系统,他们已经建立了自己的 CAC 和 LTV,并且基本理清了自己的运营模式。它不是世界上最大的公司。
大概在 1000 万到 2000 万美元的规模,但它是一家真正的公司。这就是你在跨越鸿沟时试图创造的东西。当你能说”我不需要再融风险投资了”的时候,你就知道你已经跨越了鸿沟。当然,我可能还想融,因为我有称霸全球的雄心。但你可以按照自己的意愿和时间表来融资,而不是”天哪,我的钱快花完了”。所以你能越早摆脱”我的钱快花完了”这种状态越好。尤其是去年,这对大量公司来说是致命的,因为他们不是这样思考融资的。他们总是想:“嗯,总会有下一轮、下一轮、下一轮。“他们没有思考如何改变自己的估值状态,然后这些公司就不在了。
现金流为正与融资独立
Lenny: 这个洞察很有意思。如果你不需要更多风险投资就能活下去,就说明你已经跨越了鸿沟——这个观点你是怎么看的,尤其是其中盈利的层面?因为感觉这是不需要风投就能存活的根本。是说要赚到足够的钱然后削减开支实现盈利,还是有其他原因?
Geoffrey Moore: 你真正关心的只是现金流为正。我只想能够继续做我正在做的事情。所以你完全不需要关心实际的 GAAP 会计核算。
Lenny: 我明白了。所以如果需要的话,你可以削减开支、实现盈利,但核心意思是保持现金流为正?
Geoffrey Moore: 你当然希望增长,也可能想融资。但关键是,如果你真的出去融资,你可以在一个不同的估值水平上融到钱。风投对你进行分类的方式是,他们会问:“我的钱要消除什么风险?“天使投资人说:“好吧,我的钱要消除的风险是——你到底能不能做出任何东西。我会给你足够的钱让你开始折腾。“基本上就是这样。然后《跨越鸿沟》阶段的钱会说:“我要消除公司存续可行性的风险。我不知道你会不会增长,不知道你会不会成为风投级别的回报,但我要消除你倒闭的风险。“
保龄球道与龙卷风的区别
然后保龄球道阶段的资金是说:“好的,现在我买的大概是一段从 1000 万到 1 亿美元的旅程。“大概是这个量级。“我期望一个增长率,“这时候 40法则(rule of 40)可能开始发挥作用了。如果你在按 40法则运作,我们以后想融更多钱,你的估值会和之前不同。然后到了龙卷风阶段,这时候你可以说:“你在做生成式AI?你有一个大语言模型?哇哦,那你比我们想象的值钱多了。“因为现在这个品类进入了龙卷风,这是完全不同的游戏。
Lenny: 对。我正想说,AI 显然是处于龙卷风中的一个例子。也许可以稍微讲讲龙卷风阶段到底是什么,以及之后主街的打法。
Geoffrey Moore: 那你怎么区分保龄球道和龙卷风呢?在龙卷风之前,当你的销售团队去拜访客户时,他们没有为你的产品准备预算。在早期市场,什么预算都没有。在保龄球道阶段有预算,但那不是给你的预算,而是给旧方案的——用老办法给问题打补丁。所以我们说,在早期市场,你必须创造预算。在保龄球道阶段,你必须重新分配预算,但这需要销售周期,需要时间。而且如果是小市场……这就是为什么创业者能赢下这些细分市场,因为如果你是一家成熟的大公司,这简直是件苦差事。市场太小,工作量太大,太难了。重新分配预算……我希望我的销售团队去预算已经确立的地方。
那预算什么时候确立?当一个品类变成横向的,人们会说:“嗯,对,我们都想要 Wi-Fi,都想要移动应用,都想要云计算,都想要某某东西。“接下来发生的是……顺便说一下,实用主义者(pragmatist)的反应是这样的——他们从”你不会真的在做那个吧?""没有,我也没有。""好的,那就好。“变成了”你在做,你也在做,你也在做。哦,我们落后了,我们最好赶紧做。“于是这些预算涌入市场,而且几乎是同时涌入的,这就是龙卷风形成的原因。因为如果你给一个部门一笔预算,他们会花掉它,而他们花钱的时候会选一个供应商,而且选了谁大概率就会一直用谁。所以市场份额争夺战就此打响,谁最早获得最多客户,生态系统就会围绕谁来形成。
龙卷风中的大猩猩与黑猩猩
在九十年代,我们看到了很多龙卷风、大猩猩(gorilla)式打法。Cisco、Intel、Oracle,显然还有 Microsoft。我是说这些公司,都是极具竞争力的公司。它们都是龙卷风式打法。客户端-服务器和互联网之间,就产生了这种巨大的龙卷风效应。那个打法的核心是非常有进攻性的销售,抢夺市场份额。然后在某个时刻,如果你不是第一名,你就不得不采取防守策略,退守到一个利基市场,说:“好吧,如果当不了大猩猩,我至少要当一只黑猩猩(chimp)。“黑猩猩就像是一个地方性的大猩猩。“我不是大猩猩,但是……""我不是 Cisco,我是 Juniper。“但对于电信运营商来说,当时的 Juniper 就是电信领域的 Cisco。总之,我不知道你今天看报纸了没有,但在那个生命周期的另一端,HPE 收购了 Juniper。
Lenny: 这确实正在发生。我喜欢这个。这是个好消息。
四大打法的错误运用
所以你教的最有意思的一课也是,这些打法之间并不能很好地配合使用。基本上,如果在错误的阶段使用了错误的打法,效果会适得其反。那么在我们进入那个话题之前,让我快速总结一下这四个阶段各自的打法。我这里有些笔记,然后也许可以谈谈为什么选错了打法会失败。在早期市场,你寻找的是远见者(visionary)客户,他们就是想用新的、酷的东西,想走在前沿。在保龄球道阶段,你要接触的是一个务实的商业人士,他有一个巨大的问题需要解决,而你就是来帮他的人。在龙卷风阶段,就是抢地盘,某个东西正在疯狂增长,比如 AI,所有人都在疯狂花钱——我需要把 AI 放进我的产品里。然后主街就是维持性的技术,大家只需要确保它继续运转、不会退化就行。
Geoffrey Moore: 顺便说一下,我会把最后两个阶段换个理解方式——把龙卷风看作”占地”,把主街看作”扩张”。这也不是一个不好的理解方式。对,你理解到位了。
Lenny: 好的。那为什么这些打法会互相破坏,不管是用错了阶段还是同时使用?
Geoffrey Moore: 那我们先从九十年代经典的销售入门课说起:在销售拜访之前,先确认客户有没有预算。这个……我是说在龙卷风阶段这是关键的,但在主街上是多此一举,因为显然他们有预算,预算上甚至可能已经写着你的名字,你只要去拿就行。但在早期市场或保龄球道阶段,这就是一个大错误,因为他们根本没有预算。你在早期市场获胜的方式是项目模式(project model),你在保龄球道获胜的方式是解决方案模式(solution model)。
问题是,如果你把项目模式带到保龄球道,问题是你无法规模化,因为它不可重复。生态系统不会围绕你形成。而如果你把解决方案模式带到早期市场,就像你在一个东西上过度投资了。远见者会说:“嗯,对,但我还有很多其他的事情想做。“所以他们会想把你远远带离你的解决方案路线图。所以这些打法中的每一个,市场动态都要求一个非常明确的应对方式。这个应对方式本身并不难看到。人们挣扎的是——我一直用这个打法很成功,市场已经进入了下一个阶段,但我真的很擅长旧打法,所以我想继续用我擅长的打法。这就是他们陷入困境的时候。
AI创业公司与不同市场阶段的策略
Lenny: 所以我觉得这更是要密切关注你处于哪个阶段、并确保你在执行正确打法的一个额外理由。我们之前聊了一些AI的话题,我不想在这个方向上走太远,但我想问,对于处于龙卷风阶段的AI创业公司,或者想要整合AI的公司,你有什么建议吗?你有没有看到什么”一定要这样做对”的要点?
Geoffrey Moore: 嗯,挺有意思的……特别是现在,抓住所有人想象力的是生成式AI(generative AI)。所以我们应该想到的是 OpenAI 与微软的合作、Copilot 之类的东西。嗯,也许不一定,取决于……从客户的角度来看,AI 可以处于早期市场,可以处于保龄球道,可以处于鸿沟之中,可以处于龙卷风,也可以处于主街。我的意思是,如果你去看 Microsoft Copilot,你是在主街上,你没有承担任何风险,你只是在尝试一个新东西。挺酷的,让你更有生产力。祝福你。它就像是 Teams 或者整个 Office 365 套件的一个附加功能。目前处于龙卷风中的东西,我不太确定。我在想生成式AI的用例到底是什么?我不确定龙卷风阶段是否有一个,但最接近的可能是 Salesforce,它应该差不多了。
他们有销售 copilot,有服务 copilot,对吧?我相信也有营销 copilot。所以你的做法是——我们要改变销售流程,在整个客户基础上广泛地、在业务执行中在线使用生成式AI。所有销售人员都要使用这个新工具。这是可以的,也合理——因为这个新工具……首先,Salesforce 有自己的大语言模型,所以你不是跑到 OpenAI 的世界里面对那些问题。你可以做这件事,而且我认为生产力回报很高,风险和干扰都比较适中。至于保龄球道,我不确定这算保龄球道还是早期市场,我就说是保龄球道吧。
如果你是 Sal Khan,你运营着 Khan Academy,你说:“看,我们想为全世界的年轻人提供教育资源。“现在教育的问题是,特别是疫情之后——如果你是一名老师,过去在 K-12 或 K-8 阶段,你有一个30个孩子的班级,大概10到15个是中等水平,有一些显著超前,有一些落后。你作为老师的工作就是应对这个局面。但在疫情之后,同一个教室里可能有五个不同的年级水平,不是三个,甚至可能是六个。这是一个不可能解决的问题。但如果你说:“看,我们可以用生成式AI辅导,并且针对那五个不同的六年级水平逐一调整。”
这就是一个教师 copilot,但这是一个非常专门化的想法。所以你会说:“哇,太厉害了。“然后如果你想走到另一边——“所有这些广告公司都说他们能做很酷的广告,但我觉得我自己用生成式AI就能做,而且我还可以卖给其他人。“你可以想象一整类生意——我们撰写法律意见书,总是从生成式AI开始。我们不直接输出 AI 的结果,有人工在环。我们会做得非常出色——或者更多是图像方面。我们用所有这些很酷的功能来设计视觉图像。我们要发明一种新的代理公司,或者一种新型的代理公司,我们来收费……”我不知道会是什么样子,但重点是,我认为生成式AI可以在市场的多个位置被吸纳。
跨越鸿沟的七宗罪:折扣陷阱
Lenny: 当你谈到那个律师的例子时,我在想,推销的一部分会是……而且它还便宜很多。但这让我想到你写的另一篇文章,《跨越鸿沟的七宗罪》(The Seven Deadly Sins of Crossing the Chasm)。我想聊聊其中的一些,其中之一就是在跨越鸿沟之前打折。你能谈谈为什么这是应该避免的吗?
Geoffrey Moore: 回到那个问题——“心脏手术9块9,本周六特惠,带优惠券来。“我的意思是,当东西已经商品化了的时候,折扣模式是有道理的;或者免费增值(freemium)模式也是——如果采用这个服务没有风险的话。但鸿沟的形成基础恰恰是风险承担决策。基本上就是制造鸿沟的那个问题——我必须做出一个承担风险的购买决策。所以打折并不能降低风险。事实上,它甚至可能增加风险,因为这个供应商可能会说:“好吧,我给你一个更好的价格,但现在我不会给你额外的支持了”,或者”我们会变更范围”——“是的,但那不在合同里,所以你需要额外加钱。“所有这些在主街上都是合理操作,但在跨越鸿沟时不行。
目标客户错配
Lenny: 我想再挑几个你提到的其他”罪”来聊聊。其中一个你叫做目标客户搞混了(target customer mix-up)。能谈谈这个吗?
Geoffrey Moore: 整个《跨越鸿沟》打法的关键是——从整个世界出发。不要从……我们要回答的问题是:哪里有一小池被困价值(trapped value),能够变成我们自己的池子?这就是为什么我们有地理、职业、用例这些维度。我们只是想找到一个”大到重要、小到能主导”的领域,这是第一点。一旦你找到了那个池子,你要问的是:“谁控制着那个池子的入口?谁会赞助我的交易,让我能够释放那家公司被困的价值?“那就是你的目标客户。你可能还不认识他们。通常以我的经验,你之前大概至少跟那个行业中的一家公司打过交道。如果你从来没听过那个行业却选了它,那就有点奇怪了。
通常这就是为什么我说:“嗯,也许我应该把这一点加到’你怎么知道你准备好跨越鸿沟了’里面。“你至少应该有一个直觉。你至少应该觉得:“我们做了这些工作,我觉得就是这个了。“当然,你仍然需要去验证它、让它实现。但基本上你验证它的方式,与其去做调研或者做别的什么——那不会奏效——你会说:“好吧,我们要做一次营销活动,规模适中的那种。看看能不能再拿到两个同样用例的客户。我愿意拿公司未来三个月来赌——在这三个月里,我们唯一要做的就是试着再拿两个有这个模式的订单。“这可能就是你推进的方式。
如何判断你准备好跨越鸿沟了
Lenny: 我觉得值得在这个”你怎么知道你准备好跨越鸿沟了”的想法上多花一点时间。一是你找到一个特别兴奋的招牌客户(marquee customer),然后你开始分享,也许再找几个,看看它是不是真的开始滚动起来、开始倾斜了。
Geoffrey Moore: 不对,嗯,我之前说错了。招牌客户可能并不在你的桥头堡市场里。招牌客户是一家有名的公司,你在那里有一位远见者(visionary)作为发起人。关键在这里——因为那家公司的故事是商业媒体想写的、或者科技媒体想写的。人们会说:“哦,你就是那帮……”你就像 Han Solo 一样。你做了那个什么飞行,15秒差距。我甚至记不清是什么了。但那就是你的成名之作,是你的名望所在。但跨越鸿沟的那个是——“哦……”而且顺便说一句,媒体对跨越鸿沟不感兴趣,但本地媒体——如果有的话——会对此趋之若鹜。
Lenny: Kessel Run。
Geoffrey Moore: Kessel Run。谢谢。15秒差距完成 Kessel Run。谢谢。
Lenny: 没错。
Geoffrey Moore: 对,那就是他的远见之举。
对话正确的客户
Lenny: 所以我觉得这里一个重要的启示是——大家总是建议说要跟客户交流,确保他们满意,做出……不一定要完全按他们说的来,但要确保你理解他们的需求。但我认为你这里最重要的洞见是:要确保你在跟正确的人对话。本质上就是处于技术采用生命周期下一阶段的人,也就是更多的实用主义者(pragmatist)。
Geoffrey Moore: 是的。而且他们必须是……我认为你需要对话的是经济买家(economic buyer),而不是终端用户,因为终端用户会说:“哦,对,你说得对。这里太糟糕了,我们被压迫着。“但如果他们的老板不想发起这个项目,那就行不通。
Lenny: 这在开发 B2B 软件时往往很困难——你就是没法做到那么出色。然后你会发现:“哦,这些人其实根本不在意他们买的是什么,他们只关心有没有勾选所有的复选框。“然后还有一个致命之罪,你之前提到过,但我觉得值得再分享一次——就是你所说的”迫切理由混淆”(compelling reason confusion),即与其想着你的迫切销售理由(compelling reason to sell),不如去思考你在解决什么痛点,也就是客户的迫切购买理由(compelling reason to buy)。
迫切购买理由 vs 迫切销售理由
Geoffrey Moore: 显然,作为创业者,你有一个迫切销售理由。但他们在尝试跨越鸿沟时往往会做什么呢——如果他们不用这套方法论——他们会想:“嗯,一定是我的产品还不够有吸引力。“然后他们会说:“那我就做一个更炫的演示,或者换一版 PPT,我要重新写一份……”然后销售人员回来汇报说:“我做了一场精彩的演示,这套 PPT 才是我们该用的。“这些全都是关于迫切销售理由的,不是迫切购买理由。而实用主义者(pragmatist),顺便说一句……还有,实用主义者会愿意跟你开会。鸿沟问题的一个麻烦在于他们不会说不。他们只是永远不说好。他们甚至会鼓励你——“你应该再回来一趟,带上这个也一起讲讲。这真的很有意思。“是的,确实很有意思。
定位方法论
Lenny: 顺着这个方向,定位(positioning)有多重要?在做这件事的时候,对于确定自己的定位有没有什么建议?我知道你讲了很多要聚焦他们的痛点,但到了某个阶段你需要说:“这是我们为你做的事情。”
Geoffrey Moore: 《跨越鸿沟》(Crossing the Chasm)的一个好处是,定位公式每次都完全一样,非常棒。基本上,当你在思考定位时,你会说:“看,我针对的是这个特定细分市场的这个使用场景。“他们有一个现有供应商。现有供应商的优势是了解业务,但他们没有新技术。反过来,你有技术竞争对手,他们的技术跟你一样好,甚至可能更好,但他们没有投入去钻研这个领域的专业知识。
所以你的定位就是:“我们是专注于解决这个问题的技术领导者。顺便说一句,我们对你的现有供应商非常尊重,我们不是要你把他们踢出去。他们只是解决不了这个问题。我们也尊重同行,但坦率地说,让他们从一堆人里认出你的问题都做不到。我们就在这里,而且顺便说一句,如果有人进入我们的领地,我们会把他们打趴下。我们将无可比拟。没有人会用这种技术以我们的方式来处理这个问题——这就是我们的看家本事。这就是我们要做的,这就是我们的定位。“
产品驱动增长模式下的策略
Lenny: 说得太好了。假设你在做一家产品驱动增长(product-led growth)的公司,一家自下而上的 B2B SaaS 公司。你的建议会有什么变化吗?
Geoffrey Moore: 有的。如果你要采用一种规模扩张的模式,比如 Atlassian 或者任何自下而上发展的公司,你玩的是不同的游戏。首先,你玩的是……因为你先吸引的是终端用户,然后才是经济买家。所以你需要某种形式的免费增值(freemium)策略,这就是你要做的。Yammer 就是这样做的对吧?最终被微软收购了。所以你玩这个游戏的方式是——首先,你可能确实需要一些资金,不一定需要,也许你可以在 AWS 上用一张信用卡搞定。但这个游戏的核心是:我如何创造那个临界时刻(moment of criticality)?你要做的是……首先你需要遥测数据(telemetry),你需要搞清楚用户到底在用你的产品做什么?然后你需要找到跟他们沟通的方式,看看能不能挖掘出——他们的环境中是否存在迫切购买理由(compelling reason to buy)?这是一种做早期市场(early market)的不同方式。
你不会有招牌客户(marquee customer),但要跨越鸿沟……产品驱动增长模式是没法跨越鸿沟的,你做不到,因为这就好比说:“嗯,我要把疫苗放在公共场所来治愈新冠。“就像——“不行,人们需要了解更多。不行。“所以你必须另想办法。产品驱动增长真正发挥作用的阶段,是在市场的登陆与扩张(land and expand)阶段。如果你能用一款热门产品登陆——但更重要的是,产品驱动增长真正擅长的是扩张(expand),因为它能推动用户更深地参与。这经典的是一个主街(Main Street)策略。但前提是风险必须很低。产品驱动增长之所以有效,是因为后续的追加购买风险极低,因此你其实不需要处理鸿沟的问题。
产品驱动增长公司最终都会建立销售团队
Lenny: 这太有意思了。有趣的是,每一家产品驱动增长的公司最终都会建立销售团队——100% 都是,包括 Atlassian,它在很长一段时间内都是产品驱动增长的。我不知道有没有人听过这个角度——如果你真的想跨越那个鸿沟……我想它应该会以某种形式发生在——
Geoffrey Moore: 嗯,事情是这样的。他们最终建立销售团队的原因是他们需要拿企业级订单(enterprise deal)。显然你需要一支销售团队来拿企业级订单。而你可能犯的一个错误就是——在跨越鸿沟的时候去招聘一个企业级销售人员。企业级销售人员不擅长跨越鸿沟,因为他们习惯做的是横向覆盖模式(horizontal coverage model)。而你这里需要的是领域专家式的狭窄聚焦模式(domain expert narrow model)。你需要的是一个更像销售工程师(sales engineer)而不是销售员的人。你需要一个非常有诊断能力、对问题-解决方案框架(problem solution framework)的完整性非常投入的人。这完全是不同的类型。
与 Martin Casado 的公开讨论
Lenny: 好,再问几个问题。你之前跟 Martin Casado 有一场非常公开的讨论,他是 Andreessen Horowitz 的合伙人。简单概括一下——他的观点基本上是,我觉得有些人认为一旦跨越了鸿沟,一切就美好了,一路下坡,客户会主动把你的产品抢过去,会变得非常轻松。而他的论点是,他看不到这种情况,而是无尽的痛苦、磨难和艰辛。我知道你们来回辩论了几轮试图澄清这个问题,但我们应该怎么理解跨越之后到底会发生什么?
Geoffrey Moore: 实际上,Martin 和我有过几次这样的讨论……顺便说一句,他最大的论点是——“Jeff,风投界至少,Andreessen Horowitz 肯定是不再处理《跨越鸿沟》那种粒度层面的问题了。有太多资金等着投入。而且现在已经存在那么多软件,你的软件还能产生那种颠覆性创新的可能性越来越低——因为你不是站在巨人的肩膀上,你是站在站在站在站在巨人肩膀上的人的肩膀上的人的肩膀上的人的肩膀上。“他提出的这些观点,我觉得相当有意思。不过他关于”生活是否会变得轻松”的另一个论点呢?不会,生活永远不会变得轻松。只是问题会变。
软件的挑战在于……嗯,挑战有很多,但被人使用的软件——应用软件——我们每个人都有不同的思维方式,不同的使用场景。想要做一个产品,同时解决我想要的、你想要的、听众想要的——不可能,我们会有不同的期望。所以永远都有……当然还有竞争,还有融资,还有技术转型。正好你做得得心应手的时候,他们说:“不,我们得把它放到……不不不,你把它放数据中心了,我们得放到云上。""哦不不不,你上了云了,得放到 Kubernetes 里。""哦不不不,你不懂,是边缘 AI,不是云。“就这么一直持续下去。所以我觉得,如果你要玩这个游戏,你得做好准备——没错,每周都会有新的头疼事。
Lenny: 这正是我的看法。我总是跟创始人说,除非你不得不创业,否则不要创业。
Geoffrey Moore: 对。顺便说一句,我当年为什么离开?[听不清] 那个地方挺好的,但我必须做自己的事。
Lenny: 那是一种真正的牵引力。顺着刚才聊到的方向,也许最后一个问题——有没有什么你改变了想法的事情,或者最近在思考上有所演变的地方?可以是从写书之初到现在的变化,也可以是更近期的。
模型的适用边界
Geoffrey Moore: 我随着时间推移越来越意识到的一点是,这个模型实际上是针对 B2B 市场优化的,因为它隐含的是围绕高风险采购决策的联邦式决策机制。我会说在 20 世纪,这覆盖了 95% 的技术领域。但世纪之交发生的变化非常有趣……因为要知道,正好在世纪之交,B2B 技术跌入了低谷,科技泡沫直接破灭了。因为大家之前都害怕千年虫问题,所以提前大量采购了软件,然后接下来一年他们想:“好吧,我们就像感恩节晚餐吃得太多了,不想再多吃一个汉堡了。“于是市场跌入了谷底。那时候风投也开始说:“也许我们应该投资生物科技,也许应该做清洁能源。“风投也从牌桌上退了一步。
但与此同时,消费计算异军突起。对我这一代人来说,这是无法想象的。我第一次听说 Google 的时候,他们说”我们要保存每一次搜索参数”,我心里想”这是我听过的最蠢的事。他们根本负担不起。“但他们的模式是”我们正在从根本上重新思考这件事。Geoffrey,你完全不知道我们在做什么。“而他们确实是对的。所以关键在于,当这些东西出现之后,消费计算兴起,然后 iPhone 问世,然后我们有了移动应用。现在的世界是,B2C 的玩法实际上可以成为创新的核心。过去 B2C 是附属品,现在反过来了——“不不不不,B2B 可能才是附属品。“所以情况完全不同了……整个世界的数字化转型,我们已经身处其中 20 年了,还在继续,而我认为《跨越鸿沟》并不是为这个问题设计的。那是一个不同的问题。
Lenny: 所以基本上,如果你在做消费类应用,就不需要花时间研究《跨越鸿沟》。
Geoffrey Moore: 对,如果你做 B2B,这是最可靠的攻略手册。30 年过去了,人们还在用这套方法论。所以显然……这套手册是管用的。
Lenny: 我之前也说过,我感觉人们只是在重新发明你 30 年前揭示的很多东西。大家都说”哦对,目标受众,非常重要”,或者”找到一个招牌客户(marquee customer)“。所以我非常高兴我们花了这些时间深入探讨你的很多理论。
Geoffrey Moore: Lenny,谢谢你——你是一个非常出色的引导者和提问者,非常感谢你。
Lenny: 我真的非常感激。你有没有什么想留给听众的最终想法、建议,或者任何想说的话?
创业者的责任
Geoffrey Moore: 大家,我不知道你们最近有没有看新闻,这个世界现在表现得不怎么样。有太多事情我们可以做得更好,而软件驱动的技术几乎是任何能够规模化解决全球重大问题的方案的核心。我认为现在成为一名企业家可能比以往任何时候都更重要。我不会把成为亿万富翁作为目标。坦白说,我甚至不知道一个亿万富翁拿那些钱做什么。我连想象那些钱都想象不了。那是十亿美元——一千个一百万。这毫无意义。但是什么是有意义的?我很乐意有两千万……我知道拿一千万做什么吗?知道。两千万能做到吗?大概可以。一个亿呢?大概用不了。但在某个节点之后,我希望大家为自己创造美好的生活,让自己……但在那之后,去创造影响力。如果你有天赋能够创办一家软件公司并做出原创性的东西,你是一种稀缺资源,所以不要浪费它。
Lenny: 太棒了。沿着这个方向,我想再偷偷问一个问题。你的最后一本书跟你其他所有书都非常不一样,叫做 The Infinite Staircase,本质上是一部关于如何过好生活、过有意义生活的指南。你能不能跟大家分享一条建议,关于如何过更好的生活、更有意义的生活、更幸福的生活?
关于美好生活
Geoffrey Moore: 那本书的目的有两个。一个是……我当时在观察周围——这是一种美国式的体验——在社交媒体和政客等各方的影响下,我们捍卫传统价值观的能力正变得越来越困难。从历史上看,你会说”宗教是巩固传统价值观根基的地方。“但在我的有生之年,关于我们是如何来到这里的另一种解释——不是由造物主创造的那种,而是整个大爆炸和达尔文模型——变得越来越可信,我对此非常着迷。所以我脑海中一直有的问题是:如何能在采用那个模型的同时,仍然支持传统伦理?
所以第一部分就是,模型是什么?结果发现,要从大爆炸(Big Bang)讲到 Lenny 和 Geoffrey 在这档播客上聊天,中间需要经过非常多的步骤。但这其中有一整套关于复杂性的论述——复杂性如何一层一层地涌现,而楼梯就是这一系列层级。书的前三分之二走了11级台阶,从物理学讲到理论。你会说,真的吗?是的,真的。从一团原子云到我们在这儿讨论《跨越鸿沟》,11个步骤,我们就能带你走完。挺有意思的。这本书其实是在把我过去25年的阅读成果拼接起来。这些内容太迷人了,涉及各种各样的话题,而我所做的就是把它们编织到一起。没有任何原创研究,我真的是在努力把故事串起来。
但最后三分之一的问题是:好吧,这是一个很合理的叙事,甚至可能比宗教叙事更合理,但现在你如何论证伦理行为的正当性?它从何而来?所以最后一部分就是关于:你怎么做这件事?它如何从那个创世故事——世俗的创世故事——中推导出来?这才是关键所在。归根结底,我觉得那本书的核心信息就是:你确实需要行善,但不是因为你服从……在这个框架下,不是因为你信奉一位神圣造物主。而是因为我们是哺乳动物,哺乳动物会哺育自己的后代,我们在出生时被赋予了无条件的爱,否则你我都不可能出现在这里。我的意思是,一个一岁的孩子——如果没有人倾尽全力去爱他,他连两岁都活不到。所以我们知道自己从哪里起步。这些价值早已根植于我们体内。它们不必来自上方,它们可以来自下方。那么,你如何将它们融入自己的生活?这便是那本书……总之就是这些。
Lenny: 这是一个美好的、用来收尾的信息。我答应过一分钟内放你走。只是想让大家知道,你做演讲,也做咨询,如果有人想联系你,在网上哪里可以找到你——
Geoffrey Moore: LinkedIn。对,我在 LinkedIn 上,而且在 LinkedIn 上有一个博客。如果你觉得这些话题有趣,你大概会对那个博客也感兴趣。
Lenny: 那就是在 LinkedIn 上给你发消息?
Geoffrey Moore: 没错,完全可以。
Lenny: 简单。Geoffrey,非常感谢你来参加节目。
Geoffrey Moore: 谢谢你,Lenny。很荣幸。
Lenny: 这是我的荣幸。大家再见。
感谢各位收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你最喜欢的播客应用上订阅。也请考虑给我们评分或留言,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这档节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| Sales Pitch | Sales Pitch |
| The Seven Deadly Sins of Crossing the Chasm | 《跨越鸿沟的七宗罪》(The Seven Deadly Sins of Crossing the Chasm) |
| 10x effect | 10倍效应(10x effect) |
| adjacency | 相邻性 |
| Andreessen Horowitz | Andreessen Horowitz |
| Andy Grove | Andy Grove |
| antelope strategy | 羚羊策略(antelope strategy) |
| April Dunford | April Dunford |
| Atlassian | Atlassian |
| B2C | B2C(Business to Consumer,面向消费者的商业模式) |
| Basecamp | Basecamp |
| BDR | BDR(Business Development Representative,业务发展代表) |
| beachhead | 桥头堡 |
| Big Bang | 大爆炸(Big Bang) |
| bootstrap | 自力更生(bootstrap) |
| bowling alley | 保龄球道 |
| bowling pin strategy | 保龄球策略 |
| CAC | CAC(Customer Acquisition Cost,客户获取成本) |
| chimp | 黑猩猩(chimp) |
| compelling reason confusion | 迫切理由混淆(compelling reason confusion) |
| compelling reason to buy | 迫切购买理由 |
| compelling reason to sell | 迫切销售理由(compelling reason to sell) |
| conservative | 保守派(conservative) |
| Crossing the Chasm | 《跨越鸿沟》 |
| crown jewels | 核心优势 |
| Darwinian model | 达尔文模型 |
| disruptive innovation | 颠覆性创新 |
| Documentum | Documentum |
| domain expert narrow model | 领域专家式狭窄聚焦模式(domain expert narrow model) |
| down round | 降价轮(down round) |
| early market | 早期市场 |
| economic buyer | 经济买家(economic buyer) |
| enterprise deal | 企业级订单(enterprise deal) |
| executive sponsor | 高管发起人 |
| fish to pond ratio | 鱼塘比 |
| freemium | 免费增值(freemium) |
| generative AI / Gen AI | 生成式AI(generative AI) |
| go-to-market | 上市策略 / go-to-market |
| going concern | 持续经营实体(going concern) |
| gorilla | 大猩猩(gorilla) |
| horizontal coverage model | 横向覆盖模式(horizontal coverage model) |
| ICP | ICP(Ideal Customer Profile,理想客户画像) |
| inflection points | 转折点 |
| Inside the Tornado | 《龙卷风内》 |
| Jason Fried | Jason Fried |
| junior high dance problem | 初中舞会问题 |
| Khan Academy | Khan Academy |
| Kubernetes | Kubernetes |
| land and expand | 登陆与扩张(land and expand) |
| lighthouse customer | 灯塔客户 |
| LTV | LTV(Lifetime Value,客户终身价值) |
| Main Street | 主街 |
| marquee customer | 招牌客户 |
| Martin Casado | Martin Casado |
| moment of criticality | 临界时刻(moment of criticality) |
| persona | 用户画像 |
| pragmatist | 实用主义者(pragmatist) |
| problem domain knowledge | 问题领域知识 |
| product-market fit | 产品市场契合度(product-market fit) |
| project model | 项目模式 |
| radiating reference | 辐射式推荐(radiating reference) |
| ransomware | 勒索软件 |
| rule of 40 | 40法则(rule of 40) |
| Sal Khan | Sal Khan |
| sales engineer | 销售工程师(sales engineer) |
| sock puppet | 布偶 sock puppet |
| solution model | 解决方案模式 |
| Steve Jobs | Steve Jobs |
| technology adoption lifecycle | 技术采用生命周期 |
| telemetry | 遥测数据(telemetry) |
| The Infinite Staircase | The Infinite Staircase |
| tornado | 龙卷风 |
| trapped value | 被困价值(trapped value) |
| value pricing | 价值定价法 |
| visionary | 远见者(visionary) |
| Yammer | Yammer |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)