在 Stripe 做产品:匠心、指标与客户执念 | Jeff Weinstein(产品负责人)
Building product at Stripe: craft, metrics, and customer obsession | Jeff Weinstein (Product lead)
Podcast Opening Clip
Lenny Rachitsky: Watching you operate on Twitter, you’re just breaking this wall between the PM and the customer.
Jeff Weinstein: The moment the customer felt compelled enough to go out of their way to talk about some problem, that’s a unbelievable gift. I will leave a meeting to just get one message back to them. If you’re text message friendly with five or 10 of those, you are going to have so much direct signal that is infectious.
Introducing the Guest
Lenny Rachitsky: Many people told me I need to ask you about picking metrics.
Jeff Weinstein: Well, what was the value that we’re trying to produce for the customer and can we measure it from their perspective? And okay, how do you know you have product market fit? Charts that showcase things are going up into the right on one hand and then tweets on the other.
Choosing the Hardest Class
Lenny Rachitsky: You started at Stripe something called study groups.
Jeff Weinstein: We show up four to eight people total pretend to be some company with some outcome problem. Rule one is you do not work at Stripe and rule two is we’re not here to solve any problems. This is just about practicing empathy for the customer.
Liberal Arts Meets Tech Careers
Lenny Rachitsky: Today my guest is Jeff Weinstein. Over the course of his six plus years at Stripe, Jeff was the product lead for Stripe’s payment infrastructure teams. We helped scale Stripe payments to hundreds of billions of dollars in volume a year. He also led PMs and Teams on a number of zero to one bets at Stripe, and most recently took on the scaling of Stripe Atlas, which as of the day this podcast launches allows you to incorporate a new company in a single day, including handling 83B elections, incorporation documents, getting your EIN, share purchases, and all the things that used to take weeks or months before a company could begin operating. At this point, one in six new Delaware corporations are started on Stripe Atlas, which blows my mind. This episode ended up being the longest in my podcast history because I wanted to basically do an archeology of an incredibly effective and admired product leader.
We spent the entire conversation digging deep into the many skills that Jeff has built that enable him to consistently build successful and beloved products. We get into his go-go- go plus optimism, long-term compounding philosophy of building products, how to think about and operationalize product craft and quality. He shares a popular program that he started at Stripe called Stripe Study Groups that I think you should steal. We also talk about how to effectively talk to customers, how to know if you have product market fit for your new product, how to pick great metrics for your team, what he’s learned about getting shit done at a big company. Also, advice that he’s gotten from the founders of Stripe and so much more. This episode is for anyone who’s looking to level up their product building chops in every way. If you enjoy this podcast, don’t forget to subscribe and follow it in your favorite podcasting app or YouTube. It’s the best way to avoid missing future episodes and it helps the podcast tremendously. With that, I bring you Jeff Weinstein. Jeff, thank you so much for being here and welcome to the podcast.
Jeff Weinstein: Thank you Lenny of Lenny’s Podcast. I knew what to expect, but it’s fun to see the first name and the podcast all line up. I really appreciate you asking.
”Move Fast” with Long-Term Compounding
Lenny Rachitsky: So I wanted to start with a quote that I found from you that I think gives a little perspective into how you think and how you approach the world. So here’s the quote. “Very frequently I would do poorly on tests in school and then the professor would say very reasonably, ‘Hey, I think you should bump down a level to the previous semester’s pace,’” and you said, “I actually know that, that’s why I’m in this class. I want to be in the class that I’m potentially the worst at.” This isn’t how most people think. This isn’t how most people operate. Usually people want to get good grades, they want to be at the top of their class. Clearly you have a different approach and a different mindset. Where did this come from for you and how did this shape the way you think about product and the work that you do?
Strategic Shift in Global Expansion
Jeff Weinstein: Some of it was just the fact that I wasn’t particularly good at the class and had to rationalize it for myself in some form. So in retrospect that sounds highfalutin, but at the time I just wasn’t particularly good at the classes I was in. But I think it comes from growing up. I went to a pretty hippy-dippy K through 12 school in Baltimore, Maryland where we were really asked to think about why we were in school and to pick any of the courses that were of interest to us outside of AP programs or grades or any particular requirements. You really got to choose your own path. And I recall one particular class in high school, which was somewhat a science class, but it was called the History of Science, and we actually walked through and studied all of the, at the time, best understood ways the world worked in science, but then later were turned out to be wrong, right?
In the 1500s we believed X, Y, and Z. In the 1600s we believed A, B and C. just very confidently. In 1500s we thought something and then the 1600s we thought something very different. And so this class was quite impactful on me where we spent an entire year studying things that are not true. It was fascinating. That particular teacher employed another trick on us during that class, which was it took the tuition fee of our school and divided it by the number of hours and wrote the cost on a ticket and then handed us in the beginning of the year. Tickets for every single one of the classes and he would stand at the door and you would have to give him a ticket at the end of the class that he thought it was worth it. And just like that practice of deep intellectual understanding of how people evaluated something at the time and choosing for yourself to spend the time on it by just the physical act of handing that ticket to the teacher.
That really clicked for me. And so when I got to college and it was a real college university, people are coming from often quite more rigorous backgrounds of things that were true. I was a bit unprepared and I remember actually taking a microeconomics class that was quite advanced and had a close friend and we studied exactly the same information. We sat and looked at the same cheat sheets, we practiced the same quizzes, we read the same books, and he got the top grade in the class and I got the bottom and that’s from where that quote came from where the professor said, I think you should bump, potentially bump down. I was like, “I already know that stuff. I’m interested in this topic. I’m going to try to improve, but look just because I’m significantly worse than the other kids in the class that has little to do with if I should leave.” And he was particularly cool with it.
Stripe Payment Methods’ Accelerated Growth
Lenny Rachitsky:
Then Pendo integrates user feedback so that you can capture and analyze what people actually want. And the new thing in Pendo, session replays, a very cool way to visualize user sessions. I’m not surprised at all that over 10,000 companies use it today. Visit Pendo.io/Lenny to create your free Pendo account today and start building better experiences across every corner of your product. PS: you want to take your product-led know-How a step further, check out Pendo’s lineup of free certification courses led by talk product experts and designed to help you grow and advance in your career. Learn more and experience the power of the Pendo platform today at Pendo.io/Lenny.
It’s really interesting that you went to this liberal artsy hippy dippy school as you described, which a lot of people bash on. Why spend all this college money and time on a liberal artsy education and you ended up being really successful in a very technical, highly analytical data-driven company, and it’s interesting that that experience still helped you succeed in this other path.
Jeff Weinstein: It did take a change though because I started in… English was my selected major in school, but then I kept playing with computers and I kept liking math and I looked at the roles of the backgrounds of the people who were running the types of companies I loved. At the time Facebook was getting super phenomenally successful. Apple was already on their up and up again and everyone who was leading those places had technical backgrounds and I liked computers a lot, so I added computer science as an engineering degree midway through school. So I had to take the real science classes with the pre-med kids and the rest of it, and I did similarly poorly, but I did end up with a computer science degree and a liberal arts degree. So it was a journey, but I had to make a pretty big switch in the middle to get on that path.
Craft and Product Market Fit
Lenny Rachitsky: I asked you if there was one thing that you’d love to get across in this podcast. I asked you what would it be and here’s what you said. Here’s the first item on this list that you sent me, “Go, go, go ASAP plus optimistic comma, long-term compounding approach.” Can you just talk about what you mean by that?
The Art of Listening to Customers
Jeff Weinstein: Yeah, there’s two things going on here. So I see the world as immediately we have just such opportunity to take action in front of us. We can be optimistic and go, go, go as soon as possible. I think that a lot of life is you get as much furniture as you’ve room in the house. We will do the work the night before it’s due, so let’s just make it due tomorrow. Can we turn tomorrow into today? So just optimistically seeing if we can just inject energy to go, go, go has produced surprising results and I think it ignites in other people that same interest and then it feeds off each other. And that’s I think really in my bones from growing up. And then I added over time, had to learn this longer term, compounding, more strategic mindset where some of the things we want to accomplish, be it at my startups in the past or at Stripe, they can’t be solved in an afternoon.
They’re going to require layers of infrastructure and services and applications and UI and partnerships that really look like that iceberg drawing you see where you just see the top, but then there’s the whole thing underneath and I’ve had to learn over time to pair my instinct of like, “Let’s get it done today, let’s move forward, let’s see what we can get done. Let’s make some mistakes, let’s try it out.” With, “Where are we going? What needs to be true over time? Where can we always invest? What will we never regret spending time in?” We’ll never regret spending time making the latency of our payments APIs at Stripe faster. We’ll never regret making it more reliable to send 83B election mails to the IRS. Like we’ll never regret those things. So let’s just always compound those capabilities over time. Then the trick is how do you mix this go, go, go attitude with a long-term compounding? That’s something I still struggle with, but I try to purposely balance it more than I used to.
The Power of Direct Customer Conversations
Lenny Rachitsky: It’s such a good way of summarizing just how to be successful in a lot of things. Go, go, go ASAP, stay optimistic. Focus on long-term compounding growth. Is there an example of that in action? I know we’re going to talk about Atlas a bunch, but I guess is there an example of that working for you or a product you worked on?
Jeff Weinstein: I work at Stripe, which is a infrastructure company. We build things that help businesses do online commerce in various forms, and I’ve had a few roles at Stripe. I’m in our beautiful office here in South San Francisco, one of which was the product person that helped us decide how we were going to go global and how we were going to offer multiple ways for people to pay. It turns out there’s more than just credit cards in the world. There’s small hundreds of ways that people will naturally want to pay for things online and as a business you’re going to, of course, just want to accept whatever it is people want to pay with. And for the first seven or eight years of Stripe, well prior to my being here, the incremental country ads and the incremental new payment methods was relatively flat over time and that was surprising to all of us who worked here because the world wanted it and we had a lot of people working on it and we were working very hard, but it wasn’t producing returns in the way that we wanted.
And so actually the optimistic as soon as possible go-go attitude was not working. No matter how much energy we poured into building Thailand payment methods or UK bank transfers or an in-person payment system in Latin America, we just couldn’t rack up points and get it done. So we had to step back and say, “Well, what is the world going to look like in 10 years? What was going to need to be true and how can we start to go there now?” Which meant going a lot slower, building internal platforms, sending people around the world to start to build these payment methods, uproot their lives, pay for their apartments, get them on airplanes, start using these payment methods actually in the world. And so it really our line flat line for a while and we’re like, “Okay, is this strategy working? Is it not working?” But then over time we start to see it switch to nonlinear again and go from whatever it was, 10 payment methods at the time.
And now Stripe accepts over 100. So we got to 50 really quickly and then skyrocketed to 100. And I remember there being a meeting where we said, “Well, maybe we should just lock everyone in the basement and see if we can get from 10 to 50.” That would be the intensity startup go attitude. But we looked at the individual components of what it meant to get this done and how long we wanted this to be true for and we had to go a lot slower. That was a very formative decision where you had to mix the go, go, go with the long-term compounding.
Techniques for Screening Customers
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome. Okay, so let’s start to delve deeper into some of the specific seals that I hear you’re incredible at and that I’ve seen you be incredible at on Twitter and LinkedIn and things like that. So the first is craft, craft and quality. I’m told by many people that you have a very strong obsession with craft and user experience and quality and even more so I’m told that you teach people at Stripe how to be obsessed with craft and quality and user experience in a very systematic way. I feel like this is something a lot of people are starting to realize is really important and or are trying to get better at, either personally or at their company. So first of all, let me just ask why is this so important to you? Why do you think craft and experience and quality is so important? Why do you put so much emphasis on it yourself?
Speed is Everything
Jeff Weinstein: I think I’m really working backwards from failures in the past and avoiding them. And so maybe just a quick story. I started a company several years ago based on just a personal pet peeve of mine, which was I was a SQL analyst. Many you listening might have written SQL in the past, maybe the robots write the SQL for you now, but you still need to write SQL yourself. And every single time I wrote a SQL query, I wanted to run the same subsequent analysis. I wanted great version control, I wanted all the cool stuff that GitHub had for code but for writing data code. And so my friends and I built a little Python tool which basically let you run our style queries. It lets you draw charts and pivot tables quickly and sharing all this modern SaaS application stuff. But applied to SQL a few years ago and we turned that into a company.
We got some progress, but then there was this moment one day where we had maybe a couple 100 customers and we had an error where we basically by accidentally shut down the service and it was bricked for 10 or 20 minutes. And at the time we were hustling in our little dinky office to get the application back online. And we really were proud of ourselves about how reasonably quickly we did and people went back to using it. It wasn’t a super long outage and we didn’t lose any data. We were just high-fiving each other. And we went about our day and about a year later I realized that that was a…
I missed a huge moment that I should have pounced on, which is that during those 20 minutes, our customers weren’t furious. They weren’t emailing us like crazy, they weren’t texting us, they weren’t trying to find us on Google Maps and knock on our door and say, “Hey, I need this thing back online immediately.” We heard a couple comments from them, it was little murmurs. And I didn’t realize at the time that was the signal that we did not have product market fit. And I ended up wasting many more years on that project. And wasting is a big word. We built amazing software, people liked it, we were able to sell the company.
It helped many of us learn how to really build software. But I’m really trying to avoid that situation again. And I think craft is a dessert that you get after the meal of does your thing solve a real problem in the world and are people clamoring, needing it badly? And that’s really my obsession is in finding problems in which people will pause their entire day to solve. They will leap through the computer to be like, “Oh my God, I have that problem. Do you have a solution?”
And if you focus on that style of product development and we can get into just how do you listen for that and then turn that into product. Later, you might get the opportunity to really provide craft and beauty and touches and moments and delight. But certainly there is no amount of craft, there is no amount of beauty, there’s no amount delight or touches you can add to a thing that will solve the problem we had at our startup, which is that people didn’t really need this. And that’s the biggest error is picking something in which people don’t really need it. And then going through these practices of trying to make it great when maybe it shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Lenny Rachitsky: I think a lot of people see all these tweets and messages about just obsessed with the craft of what you’re building and you can easily lose sight of… Nobody even cares about what you’re building. It could be the most incredible experience ever designed, but if it’s not something anyone ever wants, it doesn’t really matter.
Turning Crises into Friends
Jeff Weinstein: People don’t really get out of bed for their second problem. They get out of bed for their first problem. And you have to carefully listen and not pitch your customer or your prospective customer as you’re trying to figure this out. And I think this advice, not even advice just style applies to small companies, big companies, anyone which is people don’t want to be pitched. I’m sometimes on a UXR call with a very well-meaning person or a founder who has a new product that they want advice on or they want to find customers. And the first thing that they start talking about when we get on the call is, “Hi, I’m the CEO of X, Y, and Z company. We do one, two, and three. I want to show you a demo.” It’s like, “Hold up, I’m a customer. I have…” What a wasted opportunity you’ve just done here.
I have so many problems, you’re guessing ahead of time, what is my top problem and now that you’ve anchored and limited to the pitch you’re going to miss, you very likely going to miss the burning problem that they have on the top of their mind. And it’s not the customer’s job to interrupt you and say, “Hey, could you stop your pitch? I want to tell you about my top problem.” And you can see this down the stream, which then companies who launch things, put craft, have a great launch, raise money are then later gone. And it’s because they built something that wasn’t solving a burning need. And I think you can stem it all the way back to they were just pitching rather than sitting in silence and just waiting for their customer to just open their heart out about what’s the most burning thing.
And sometimes I’ll prompt our customers, I’ll say, “Hey, do you mind just opening up your email? What’s in there?” Or, “If you weren’t talking to me right now, what would you be working on?” Or, “Hey, last week, what grinds your gears? What are you not looking forward to?” Or magic wand, “What do you wish you could just have off your plate immediately? Forget Stripe, forget about thing, work on just in your whole life. What is it that you do not want to be doing?” Or, “A massive opportunity you wish was just one door away?” And it’s a little awkward because they don’t know why you’re asking that kind of question, but then you just sit there in silence. And for the most part, if you have amazing customers who are smart and ambitious and are trying to build their own business, they’re going to want to offload their hardest thing to somebody else.
If you’ve earned trust along the way, and certainly not pitching is a great way of earning trust. You’re just listening. We’ve learned a lot at Stripe from that. And that’s where you can start to find adjacencies, right? “Well, hey, I don’t know if Stripe could really help me with this, but wouldn’t it be cool if we could identify if the person signing up on our site wasn’t fraudulent or is who they say they are or isn’t a bot, or are they really a dog on the internet?” And we’re like, “We keep this as the major complaint from all of our customers, but we’re not an identity company.” It’s like, “Well, I guess now we are because all of our customers who are trying to build their business all have this problem.” And so via silence, you can just create your roadmap pretty quickly and drop a lot of the long UXR, long survey, long build cycle approach.
Filtering Feedback Worth Exploring
Lenny Rachitsky: So I love where we’re going with this. This is where I was going to actually talk about next is just your ability to talk to customers and user research. It feels very unique, watching you operate on Twitter, you’re just sharing your email constantly, getting on calls with people constantly. There’s this, you’re breaking this wall between… That a lot of people imagine there is between the PM and the lead of a team and the customer. You’re not relying easy research. You’re not waiting for someone else to do this work for you. Talk about just why and how you do this. I think there’s so much to learn from just how you operate in finding opportunities, picking problems to solve by talking to customers.
Jeff Weinstein: It’s where the business comes from is customers. It is not a long shot hypothesis about why to talk to them. It’s like if they love your stuff, they will tell their friends and pay fair prices for the product. We’re so fortunate through the internet that people announced themselves as being interested in a topic. Sometimes they’re interested in it by posting on Reddit a long thread or a screenshot of a customer service interaction that bugged them or hopeful that from their dorm room in country X, someone else in the world has solved the same problem. And the internet has given us all this absolutely magical forum that you can just yell out the window and then billions of people could actually listen to what you said out the window. Now, that’s not all the time true for all people in all situations, but dramatically more true now than ever before in human history.
And so the fact that people wouldn’t be listening to their customers and really jumping through the computer to talk to them surprises me. It’s like I always sometimes think, “Do they have some other strategy? Are they so confident in what they’re building that they don’t need to hear directly from the people who will be using it?” And I think some of it is my own fear that I’m going to make the same mistake I’ve made in the past, which is build something that people like they’re using but isn’t solving a burning enough problem such that they’re going to stop their day, they’re going to tell their friends, we’re going to be able to sustain the company economically over a long period of time. And that really just comes from hearing people’s most burning problems and then just jumping through the computer and talking to them takes a little bit of nervous gumption, like walking up to a person at a bar or cocktail party and saying, “Hi, my name is Jeff.”
It can be a little awkward, but then you get it. It’s a rush once it starts to work. And once you get the iterative loop that they’re excited to talk to you, they have problems, they see you as a trusted, not salesy, not pitching, not narrow-minded to just my product and my position, but I’m here to hear about all of your problems and see where we can help. Not promising we can help solve everything, but let’s listen. That is infectious, both between the customers and internally. And so I’m able to bring more people into that practice. At Stripe, I’m able to quickly grab an engineer and hop on a call. I can forward a message over to a Slack group. And they know that because the customer’s speaking directly, it somewhat trumps everything that’s happening during the day. We could go to our meeting where we’re going to guess what the customer wants or we could talk to them directly.
And you have to use a little bit of art to decide which customers you want to listen the closest to. But even at Stripe’s scale, where we’re dealing with many millions of businesses and many hundreds of millions of consumers on the other end of those businesses, you can pattern match relatively quickly. What are the styles of customers that represent where the world is going, the most ambitious, the most technical, the fastest growing, the most detailed. And you don’t need 10,000 of those people to talk to. If you’re text message friendly with five or 10 of those, you are going to have so much direct signal about where to go that you forget how you did it in the past.
Focus Only on Paying Customers
Lenny Rachitsky: I love these. So I’d love to learn more about these tactics that you’ve found helpful. So you’ve shared this idea of silence, talking to someone and just being silent, and I forget the phrase you used, but just like ideas emerge, like your whole road map can emerge from that silence. So let me share a few of the things you shared so far and I’m curious what else. Two is tweeting just like, “Hey, I’m looking to improve Atlas right now. What bugs do you have? Here’s my email address.” You talked about text messaging, just like, “Hey, can I get your number? And I’ll just text you when I have questions.” If there’s anything else to add to these, that’d be awesome. And then what else have you found? Just ways to actually get to a customer and find opportunities that are important.
Jeff Weinstein: Speed is an important one, which is just reducing the time between the moment the customer felt compelled enough to go out of their way to talk about some problem. They’re busy, there are snacks to eat, they have families, they have other things to do. There’s a lot going on in the world, a lot. Your dumb product, it’s amazing that they would spend any of their time discussing it at all. I mean, most of the time if you don’t like something, you just move along. You just apathetically, silently move forward in the world. And so the fact that someone took their finite time to succinctly with curiosity, communicate to the world or you about your product, that’s a unbelievable gift.
That should be P-zero alert level intensity. And so I will leave a meeting, I will change what I’m doing to just get one message back to them. Even if it’s, “Hey, I got this. I’m about to go to dinner. Can I hit you up tomorrow?” They’re like, “Oh yeah, thank you. Awesome. I can’t even believe you responded.” That puts us in the camp of on the right trajectory where they’re going to feel that they have a almost secret portal between this big brand of a company and another human who’s just actually curious…
… brand of a company and another human who’s just actually curious what’s going on, that’s night and day. And it’s also, fun fact, tip, when people are really hot on an issue and it could blow up on social or they’re going to start becoming a detractor, we make mistakes, we have SLA breaches, we have errors, you’re going to want to get on that stuff fast. And in those situations, my bar for how we will respond to those folks is not to just solve the problem, but it is to turn them into a promoter, and most of the time we’re able to, even if there was a pretty relevant issue.
I remember one time at Atlas, we had this bug in which for a handful of our legal docs, they were handing out let’s say, 25 shares rather than 25% of the shares. We dropped the percentage sign, and thankfully a founder noticed this in the docs and tweeted about it. My heart paused and I was like, “Oh no, this could be a really serious issue.” And we were able to fix it and regenerate the documents relatively quickly for everyone that was impacted. And I was thinking to myself, “Wow, we really let this person down. We have one job to do, which is to get their company right and we didn’t.”
And that person was incredibly gracious about the situation and said, “Anytime you want me to just read your docs, I’d be happy to. I have a law degree. I care about this topic. I want to brainstorm with you about ways that Atlas could do more document creations.” I was like, “Wow, I can’t believe I was in this sort of defense position, and now we’ve gained a friend in the world who can be eyes and ears and brainstorm with us.” And the team maintains a really close relationship with that person as they do with many, many founders who use Atlas.
And so, just again, we’re so quick to put the outside world in this other camp where we need to touch it with kid gloves and treat it as a big blob and a cohort and a statistic, when it is a human with a problem who likes snacks, who is busy, and it’s fun to do and it turns out to be an incredibly easy, fast way to figure out what to build.
Practicing the “Silence” Technique
Lenny Rachitsky: There’s a bunch of stuff I want to follow up here. One is, people may be hearing this and like, “Oh my God, I’d be overwhelmed with feedback and people to fix problems for and bugs and texting of people.” They’re just like, “There’s so many people that potentially I’d have to be interacting with.” How do you try to narrow that down? I know Atlas is a very highly adopted product. There’s a ton of people, there’s probably bugs, often people sending you feedback. How do you pick the people to zero in on?
Willing to Pay vs. Actually Paying
Jeff Weinstein: I think there are two parts to this. One, what a problem to have. Of all the problems in the world, “I’m overwhelmed by customer interest,” is on the top list of problems I want to have. I think most entrepreneurs would purchase that problem as a state. And so, if you’re in it, I think, take a deep breath and look at the sunrise or sunset and just enjoy the fact that you’ve built something that is meaningful enough that people would spend their time. Again, there are amazing snacks that they could be spending the time on otherwise, so that’s a huge deal. And then two, you need the art. There’s an art and science to picking where to go deep. I will happily respond to folks with, “I really appreciate that. Do you mind sending me a screenshot or a video?” And some of them don’t. Okay, that’s fine.
You kind of get a sense of quickly looking at how they wrote about it or just pattern matching how detailed they were, or how much they seem that they want to engage and kind of balance it that way. Otherwise, you can tell folks, “This is really awesome. Do you mind sending me an email with three to five bullet points about the details of how you got to this issue?” And that’s not a 30-minute meeting. You don’t need to blow up your whole life to get on the phone with them. It’s not a huge homework assignment to them, but it’s enough structure that it will self-select those who want to go deep, and then from there, you really do owe it to them to follow up if they’re going to be that detailed. And at that point, you really have made a product friend for life and you’ll kind of continuously go back to them. So you have to kind of tune it.
I also will bound some of these efforts, so I’ll just completely make up one day a program. So, “Hi, Stripe’s doing a bug-finder program.” I made that up as I was driving to work one morning, tweeted it, was curious if anyone would send anything. “We’ll be taking videos for the next three days to go super deep.” And people are like, “Oh my goodness, I would love to be part of the Stripe bug-finder program. May I apply?” I’m like, “Oh, it’s very selective. But yes, of course for you.” It’s just giving people permission through a program, even if it is deeply arbitrary, I find helps with bounding it, and then later I can follow up with the world, “Hey, we ran our first program, we got 65 videos,” which we did. “We found dozens of issues,” which we did. It was an incredibly valuable use of our time and it really came from just a single tweet.
The Importance of Metrics
Lenny Rachitsky: Something I saw you mention somewhere is that you only pay attention to feedback from people that are paying customers and ignore everything else. Can you talk about that?
Atlas’s Zero Support Ticket Metric
Jeff Weinstein: People who build things for people tend to be empathetic and interested and curious folks who have friends, and then those friends want to use your stuff because they know you and they like you and they’ll have good feedback. But you need to figure out, is that actually your customer, or is that your friend trying it? Who is actually your target customer exactly? Not a company or a segment, not digital natives that are X big. I’m talking about Sarah in this department, who has these tabs open and just faced this problem and needs to solve it by 4:00 PM. That level of specificity. If that’s your customer, and I’m talking mostly about B2B, which is where I spend a lot of my time as the social network, B2C stuff I have less intuition on, they’re very willing to exchange money for solving their problems, incredibly so. Oftentimes, if you listen with enough silence, they might even say, “I’ll pay you money to solve, blah.” If you sit there long enough in silence.
And so, you could listen to your friendly friend who you got to play with your beta version and they’ll say they liked it and they will click around. But that is extremely different from Sarah, who has the actual problem and is willing to pay. And it is so tempting to go down the first path with the friend group that I sort of needed a rule, which was like, “Okay, rather than…” I was like, “Well, don’t pay attention to that quite as much. Really pay attention to, who is your target customer and are you in a fast iteration cycle for them and are they telling their friends?”
But that wasn’t enough, because people are so drawn, myself included, drawn to the friendliness that I just set a rule, which is, “We discount all of that feedback from our friends to zero.” That is not of interest to us. We don’t even write it down. It’s just not part of what we’re talking about at all. We are only interested in Sarah, our target customer, and can we get her to solve whatever the problem is as quickly as possible, as jangly as possible and go from there?
And then the paying part is a forcing function because again, even with Sarah, because you’re paying attention to her and solving her problem a bit, she’ll say, “Of course, oh, this is great. I want feature X, Y and Z. Can it do one, two, and three?” Naturally, she would say that. But if you said, “And by the way, this thing is 10, 000. For $10,000, it would need to solve X.” And you’re like, “Oh, there it is.” That was actually what the thing that was of value, and we were all kind of dancing around this. It’s useful, we’re on the right track, and because I’ve fallen down that path myself so many times, I just set a rule.
Turning Engineers into Product Managers
Lenny Rachitsky: This is great. I was actually going to ask. This technique of using silence, to help people actually practice it, you just shared this quote of, “For you to pay $10,000 it would’ve to do X.” That’s a really cool line to use. Is there any other advice there of just how to practice this idea of creating silence to help a potential customer share what they actually need?
Layering and Hedging Metrics
Jeff Weinstein: I encourage people to take an improv training class or two, just to get people out of their skin a bit. By the way, this advice applies to big companies also, not just small ones. And we have issues, and I hear other larger companies have issues where a big company will say, “Hey, we’re an enterprise and we’re going to pay you this big contract. All you need to do is build features one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and go through security steps, A, B, C, D, E, F, G.” And this siren song of the big three-year contract of your first enterprise buyer, even when you’re already big, you can go from Fortune 1000 to Fortune 500 to Fortune 10 to Fortune 1. There’s always more. There are so many stories of the rug being pulled in the middle and they never actually use it and the contract never lands.
Same in partnerships. And so, I would say the same thing, which is, “If we’re super serious about this, send us 1 million. We’ll happily wire it back anytime you need it, but let’s actually put some stake in the ground about the value.” And I find that in the cases in which they’re like, “Whoa, wait a second, no, absolutely not. We can’t commit here.” That’s really a good signal because you’re about to spend a huge amount of time building something that might not ever be used, and that’s the majority case I hear. Or you might get the opposite, which is, “Sounds great. Let’s make sure our teams are trained on it faster. How can we get you to our office to explain it? We need it to really work with this system we haven’t talked about yet. And now that we’re paying, we want it even faster.”
And so, I find that it puts a fork in the road towards faster success or avoiding the non-success case. And even at Stripe scale, I’ve heard our founders somewhat push this methodology on us, where one from the outside might think, “Well, it’s a 8,000 person company. Surely they have just regular ways of building things for larger customers, and we too need these style of commitments if we’re going to go off roadmap.”
The “User’s Worst Day” Metric
Lenny Rachitsky: So a big lesson you’re sharing here is essentially, make sure people are ready to pay for something that they’re asking for. That is the ultimate sign that they-
Giving Metrics Emotional Names
Jeff Weinstein: And by the way, ready to pay is different than paying. Significantly different, significantly different. I’ve also thought of, “Well, as long as they’re ready to pay and they said they would pay and they look at the contract, we should feel good.” That is not the same as paying. Paying is an independent group of people saying, “My problem is burning enough that I’m willing to exchange something I have that has value for the promise of what you’re going to do.” And now it’s a real commitment. That is extremely different than ready to. So I will often be on the phone or video, whatever with a founder and I will have them practice charging me. I’ll just say, “Hey, I’m just a friend. I’m trying to help you out. It’s a little bit self-serving because I work at Stripe and I want to get feedback on our products.”
I’ll say, “Feel free to sign up for any invoicing or payment service. I don’t really care which one. You’re welcome to choose Stripe if it’s easy enough for you, I’d love to hear your two cents, and send me an invoice or a payment link for 1 receipts to random people because I’m just so convinced that the difference between paying and willing, ready, I thought they would pay is night and day different.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, there’s this term, willingness to pay that I feel like it should change, as you’re saying, to just cross that willingness to even just-
Go Metrics and Cultural Rituals
Jeff Weinstein: Paying.
Lenny Rachitsky: Paying, exactly.
Why Products Degrade Over Time
Jeff Weinstein: Yeah. And we can refund the money. There’s no issue at all. Just other tricks on how to get people going is, ask them about their regular life as a human, “What did you do yesterday?” And they’ll be like, “Oh, at work?” I’m like, “Or not. Whatever.” And people, they’ll start to spill, they’ll just start to spill and eventually they’ll get to their biggest problem pretty quickly.
Lenny Rachitsky: Let’s talk about metrics, going in a different direction. Many people told me I need to ask you about picking metrics and the importance of metrics and how you think about metrics. So let me just maybe start with a question of, just why do you think picking the right metric and why are metrics so important in building successful products?
Thresholds for Reviewing Your Product
Jeff Weinstein: I somewhat walk around with the belief that the product manager’s responsibility is to produce product market fit. And okay, how do you know you have product market fit? Charts that showcase things are going up into the right on one hand, and then tweets on the other. So metrics like quantitative and qualitative, and I really see them as deep siblings and equals, you really need both. It’s not oh, OKRs versus something. There are some things you want the texture of the person on video showing how complicated a thing was. And then also, we’re trying to make an economically viable system that we can run at large scale and you can’t keep all that stuff in your head and need to measure it. And so, I think metrics at their best are a numerical representation of the value we’re providing for the customer.
One could measure anything. You can just start counting events and log lines. We’ve made it incredibly cheap to count stuff. And so, now we have this big privilege of choosing what to measure. And I really just try to map it all the way back to, “Well, what was actually the value that we’re trying to produce for the customer and can we measure it from their perspective?” Whereas I think it’s natural, both because when you work inside of a company, you’re just thinking internally, but also the way that the metrics are collected inside your application to be more internal-oriented. How many people logged in? Okay, that’s a fine measure, but how many people accomplished what they were trying to do after they logged in, is not just necessarily sitting there as a single event in your database. You have to think about it a bit. Another reason why I spend a lot of time crafting a small number of these metrics is, they force trade-offs and decisions.
So we could all sit around all day and say, “Hey, I heard all these customer problems, we should build X, Y, and Z.” And another person could absolutely reasonably say, “Well, I heard from these customers, we should build one, two and three.” And they’re all true. We could have a lot of success in both, but the majority case is that we don’t build either and we sit around and argue and bicker and we go slowly. “What are we going to do to naturally, organically every day, orient a larger group of people in the right direction and see if our tactics are generating progress over time for a customer from their perspective?” And metrics on the left and a series of tweets on the right is a pretty great combo.
Here’s an example. A couple years ago I had been working in our payments group at Stripe for a bit, and then I started working on some of our banking and incorporation services. In Atlas, when I started working on it, it had had some success. It had already existed for four or five years prior to me spending time on it. But when I started to look at the support tickets, people were pretty unhappy frequently. They had a DocuSign stuck in their email box. They needed a co-founder’s address, but they didn’t know their co-founder’s address. They couldn’t log into the dashboard to figure out their 83(b) manual filing instructions. And we saw this basically in the first week of spending time on Atlas. I was just like, “Just show me all the support tickets. Are they happy support tickets? People writing in being like, ‘Oh, I love this service, it’s absolutely fantastic. Can you just do A, B, C more for me?’ Or are they sad support tickets?” And they’re like, “Oh my God, they’re all sad support tickets.”
And so, we’re just asking ourselves, “Well, why would someone recommend Atlas to a friend?” I was like, “Well, it would have to accomplish A, B and C activities for them. It would have to get their company, it would have to handle getting their tax ID from the IRS. It’d have to handle all the downstream administrivia.” But surely, if they had a bunch of support tickets at the end, they’re not going to go tell their friends to use this thing. We could measure all of the intermediate parts, we could measure the success rate and the frequency of incorporation services and we do all those things, but if you looked at the support tickets, there’s just no way if you had a support ticket, you would recommend it to a friend. And so, we suggested this metric to ourselves, companies that have no support tickets through the incorporation service.
The whole process, from the moment you start the application open, actually the first page load at the very beginning, all the way through the process waiting for the government, waiting for the IRS, and we give you two more weeks to write into support. We give an extra buffer two weeks. And if you get through that whole thing with no support tickets, that’s a yes. If you have any number of support tickets, that’s a no. And we just looked at the percentage of founders that were going through the service with zero support tickets, which is very different than looking at an average, right? You could have the average as 0.3, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re getting to 0.2 is going to cause them to tell their friends more. And we looked, and only 15% of founders were getting through Atlas with zero support tickets through that metric.
And I just thought, “Okay, well let’s just drive that number way up, and let’s look at the support tickets aside what people are needing and we’ll bake it into the product, and presumably it’ll fix it. People will like that more and then tell their friends.” And over about 18 months, we took that number from 15% to 85. We basically just flipped it. And you can look at the market share plotted on the same timeframe and it’s the same shape. And I think you have to find a measure by which it speaks directly to what the customer wanted, and that if you accidentally leaked your dashboard to them, your customer would be ecstatic to learn that that’s what you were measuring the whole time. If we were to showcase the internal Atlas metrics, which we often just screenshot and publish, I think they’d be pretty happy to hear that we were spending all of our time making sure that none of them had support tickets.
And it was incredibly encouraging and motivating to the engineers on the team because we could just assign them a topic. “Hey, look at all these support tickets. Why don’t you come up with the product spec, the scope, the solution? Oh, want to learn more? Just reply to the support ticket email, figure out what they need.” And so, we kind of turned all of the engineers on the team into PMs to go and one issue at a time, figure out what needed to change and build products for it. And that’s where we pushed forward on 83(b) elections, automating it, sending in the mail for folks. We built our own signing service.
We turned everything into a click. We did just did sort of the obvious things we saw in the tickets, but as the PM, I was able to just sort of, not on autopilot, but really sit back and have content full conversations with engineers who were bringing solutions and ideas for product, rather than one person going through all of the potential ideas, scoping them and assigning them. And because it was based in what people were saying and wanted, it was very motivating for everyone on the team. So somewhat long answer, but figuring out something in which every day we can wake up and look at the same metric and with some confidence know what to do, is so much better than, “Let’s figure out what to do each month, and starting from scratch.”
Lenny Rachitsky: I think this is amazing and important advice, just the power of a single metric that everyone on the team can understand, rally around and use to prioritize the work they’re doing. I’ve seen exactly the same sort of impact. Funny enough, Airbnb, one of the teams actually had a metric sort of like this, basically reducing the people contacting Airbnb with support issues. But what ended up happening is, their team started just making it harder to contact support because they’re like, “Maybe they don’t need to contact support about all these trivial issues, so maybe let’s encourage them to figure it out themselves.” Is there anything you’ve learned about to try to avoid these kind of second order effects that are of perverse incentives of a metric?
Two Rules for Study Groups
Jeff Weinstein: We look at multiple metrics, but we will optimize around one and you have to use your own judgment to look at some of these countermeasures and pick them. We would also, that would sort of be our overarching metric for a year, but then we would pick specific tactical metrics about how we would accomplish it. So just an example that both is how we solved a problem, but also it’s just a style of metric that was useful to us. Of course, some of these support tickets included things like, “I’m waiting to hear back from Atlas about, if they’re going to approve my application because Stripe is required for very good reasons to evaluate certain business types, or sanctions, lists and the worldwide products.” So there is some, should be incredibly quick, but there is a bit of a review process, and of course if you were not hearing back from us, you would be upset because you’re trying to make your company immediately, “This is ridiculous. Let’s get back to us quickly.”
And so, we knew that one of the reasons that people were writing to support was like, “Hey, what’s up with my review? What’s going on?” And we knew that our tactic was just to drive up how quickly we got to a final decision on folks and to reduce the number of overturned rejections, where someone writes back in saying, “Hi, come on, I’m totally just making something reasonable. What’s up? Why did you reject me?” And so, we would pick these overarching single metric, which was the companies with zero support tickets, but then we would have a specific KR that was owned by an engineer, which is the tactic that we’re going to do. And so, we would not allow ourselves the perverse tactics to sort of just casually exist. We would choose which tactics we’re going to do and then set a metric for it.
And the other reason I love this metric is, it’s a cohort metric by which you’re trying to drive something up into the left. Sometimes people will get excited about a chart that goes up into the right, it’s kind of a meme, “Oh, that’s going up to the right.” I’m really excited about charts that go up into the left. So you have to figure out some optimization that you’re trying to maximize. And so, in this particular case of this risk review, we would look at, “Hey, for the cohort of customers that started last month, how quickly did we get them to their final risk review by number of days since they submitted?” And so, you want a chart that looks a lot like, “Here we go, right up to the top.” Because you want 100% of your customers to get their final decision as quickly as possible.
Wouldn’t you know it, when we looked at the chart, it was doing this. And so, each month we would just make it a little better, a little better, a little up and to the left, up and to the left, up and to the left. And now basically 100-ish percent of people get their risk review within an hour, from a long tail taking a long time. And so, we would constrain the tactic through a metric and then watch it through an optimization function. And then when we got to a point where we were happy with the target, we could put down the tactic. That’s another really useful thing about metrics, you can decide when to stop a tactic because you get to some level of success that you’re comfortable with and you can always choose to pick it back up later.
Lenny Rachitsky: So there’s some really cool lessons here of just how to pick a good metric. Just to kind of maybe summarize what I’m hearing is, you kind of worked backwards from essentially NPS, like, “Why aren’t people recommending Atlas?” You found, “Okay, well people that are complaining and having issues with support and running into problems, most likely are going to be detractors, not going to want to recommend Atlas, so let’s have those really ambitious goals. Eventually nobody has a support ticket/let’s just track how many people have zero issues.” And then you identify, “Okay, what’s driving a lot of these support tickets? It looks like this risk timeline till they get to this certain milestone, let’s make that our goal for the next quarter or whatever, and let’s focus there and then make an impact.” And then I imagine move on to other levers within this bucket of zero context.
Study Group Results and Expansion
Jeff Weinstein: You have to pick the right metric for your audience in… I wouldn’t wouldn’t fully export that metric to everyone. That was not a terrible one to export, but in the founders choosing where to get started mindset, again, this isn’t just deeply spending time listening to your customers. They all ask their friends, “Hey, how did you start your company?” They want to talk to an older sibling of sorts about how it went. And so, we decided that our go-to-market strategy would be to delight our current customers such that they would tell their friends. And other businesses, that’s always somewhat useful, but you can also reach people with billboards and Google ads and other types of upsells. That’s very difficult in the moment that someone is starting a company that’s sort of a National Geographic, can you get the picture of the bird at exactly the right time?
How are you even supposed to go find people who are about to start companies? Thankfully, they have this practice of just asking their friends. And so, if their friends loved it, they’re going to just recommend it. And that has the metric and the tactic and the go-to-market all lined up, rather than sometimes in cases you might hear someone say, “Well, let’s make the product quality better.” Well, we all make the product quality better, but why? Why is this actually going to move what our customers want, and the business board? And when you can line them all up, it can be quite beautiful, especially when you can see it month-over-month for a long period of time. One other metric I think that I would export to anybody, is if you are unsure what to measure, we have this, I don’t know if we stole it from somebody else or if we came up with internally, whatever, is just users having a bad day, where we will just emit a log line anytime we think that a user bumped into a problem.
So maybe they hit a 404, or maybe their payout was one day after the ETA, or they had more than 10 payment declines, you can kind of brainstorm again or just listen to customers, what would cause you to personally have a bad day, and then just emit an event when that occurs. And then you could just make a stacked bar chart of all the bad day reasons and the frequency by which they’re happening, and it’s eye-opening to see those frequencies. And it’s kind of a metric I hadn’t thought about until Stripe’s scale, in which you just don’t know what’s happening until you emit the log line and count it. The frequencies could be…
… emit the log line and count it. The frequencies could be kind of mind-blowing. And I think for almost any scale business, if you are bored one day and you’re not sure what to measure, just make a user having a bad day chart, emit a log line and count it as a bar chart and then anybody else can add their own bar chart on top of it. And so, it’s become a way for teams to scale their understanding of users through metrics by just saying, “Hey, look, anytime anybody has an idea about why a customer is having a bad day, just emit a log line, put it on this chart, and then we can choose over time which bad day reasons we want to burn down and hopefully just eradicate them, not just minimize them.
But it gave us kind of a background noise counting system for where there are problems and anytime there’s an incident or some customer issue, the first thing I think is, “Ooh, I wonder if we have a bad day reason for this.” And if we do, I actually feel okay. I’m like, “Oh yeah, it is a bad day for this customer.” I wish I didn’t have it, but at least we’re aware and we can evaluate it against other bad days that we want to burn down. What does sometimes a little bit grind my gears or gives us an opportunity is like when we didn’t know about that bad day. And it’s a surprise to us too, that is for me is immediate action. It’s like, okay, cool. We have to figure out a way to count this bad day. We got to get it on the chart. That way we can make an informed decision about when to invest improving it.
Why Study Groups Actually Work
Lenny Rachitsky: And I love this idea. I haven’t heard this before. So the idea is just make a list of what happens to a potential customer that would cause them to have a bad day. What are some examples for Striper Atlas that you guys have?
Jeff Weinstein: Are you a Stripe customer, Lenny?
Fighting Product Entropy with Unnatural Methods
Lenny Rachitsky: I am with my newsletters. The payments go through Stripe. I check my dashboard every day.
The Experience is the Product
Jeff Weinstein: Cool. So what would be a bad day for you?
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, I see some silence happening here. It not loading. The numbers taking a long time to show up. Something being completely off in there, not being able to log in. The silence is good. I just want to keep going.
Study Group Outcomes and Processes
Jeff Weinstein: The question is how much to the audience is how much of the silence will we edit out before it goes live? But this is what I’m talking about, right, is I could guess them, right? And as you were saying those, I know the URL of those charts. I know the login one because I feel that too. So I play with Stripe all the time and then you get a two FA too frequently and come on, I had the same cookie. I was just here yesterday. So we count all that stuff and try to make it better over time. But I’m so excited when someone brings me a new bad day I hadn’t thought about yet because that’s like product cabinet.
Atlas: One-Click Company Incorporation
Lenny Rachitsky: I love it. And your advice here is this doesn’t necessarily have to be your goal or metric. It’s just watching this thing that could lead to a lot of interesting ways of operating.
Atlas’s Significance and Long-Term Automation Value
Jeff Weinstein: A couple other just like quick metrics things because it’s a bit of a… I don’t know, some people like cycling or something. I guess, I like metrics. People get a really nice bike. I want a really great metric. Picking metric titles that make you feel something. So we could have called that measure of companies, number of companies that do not send a support ticket over X period and Y period with min… You sometimes see these charts where the metric itself named itself. This is just companies with zero support, that’s it. And the brevity and the focus and the customer mindset built into the chart name can become currency inside the company. It’s like, oh, I’m working on making this chart go up and it feels good to just say the name out loud rather than some complicated underscores and mins and maxes and the database field name is still in the chart title.
These are aesthetic choices, but I think make dramatic differences in the cultural willingness for people to buy in and get excited about it and reduce the need of a product person to just remind everyone every day why they’re doing it. It’s like the metric is motivating us because it’s a motivating thing to talk about. And then lastly on metrics is there’s just good hygiene that people should bring to their measures. Percentages shouldn’t have 41 significant digits if only two of the digits are relevant. You should keep all the measures of your dashboard on the same X-axis. These are just stylistic things that increase the frequency that people want to just wake up every day and open the dashboard and look at it. And that is so powerful if your whole team is looking at the same set of information that has the heartbeat of the customer every single day.
In fact, we can measure at Stripe the usage of our dashboards by team, and so we can see which teams are themselves looking at their own metrics and that is an incredibly useful predictor of how on the same page they are and how customer obsessed they are. So I just think it’s not an area that’s sort of behind the scenes, bean counting reliability is the machine hot. You can make metrics that mean something to the customer and you would be proud if they were to be screenshot and put on the internet and be like, “Wow, I feel like that company is taking their promise to me seriously. And I can see myself on those metrics as a customer.” That’s where we’re really shooting for.
Lenny Rachitsky: So [inaudible 01:08:19] back what you just said there, which I think is a subtle point potentially, is just making the dashboard look nice, like the hygiene of the naming conventions and the decimal points and the chart. In your experience, you find that really powerful and important.
The Surprising Growth of Startup Queues
Jeff Weinstein: A couple of years ago, Stripe did internal work to make an internal metrics kind of dashboard system. And we have a special place called Go Metrics. Many people use a go/service where you can just quickly go to a URL. And again, I have to sometimes do a rule rather than a policy. My rule is if it’s not on Go Metrics, I’m not going to look at it. So if people can send me one-off queries or charts or screenshots or presentations or emails of charts and data, but that is in the wind, we can’t interrogate the query metrics are almost always wrong. For many weeks, we didn’t quite get the definition correctly. You have to live in the metric for quite a while before you really believe in it. And so, if you’re always looking at some one-off version, it’s just very difficult for it to rise up to the level of importance that is a thing we should trust to help us decide what to do. That’s an incredibly high bar. And so, I just find you have to look at it frequently enough.
And if you’re going to look at it frequently enough, it means it needs to be in a discoverable place. You almost go through a couple stages of grief about it because we’ll kind of put a metric up in a place and everyone initially is like, “Wow, this is great. I was so excited to finally see this.” And then a couple of days later, “I don’t quite understand it. What does it actually mean? I saw this other metric from this other angle that kind of makes it feel counterintuitive that it’s like this.” And then you kind of look into it, “Wait a second, we’ve been counting it wrong the whole time. Oh, no.” And then you look at it the third week and it’s a completely different version and then you hope that we forget about it and maybe we’ll go onto something else and nope, we’re not going to forget about it. Week four comes around, you’re like, “Wait a second. Okay, this is…” Then the team meeting starts, “Hey, just a reminder, let’s just bring up the metric again, not a screenshot of it. Go to the URL.”
And just that level of frequency and specificity and ritual around it is what brings it into the decision-making culture. And again, we treat it the exact same as we do tweets. It’s the quantitative and qualitative right next to each other. And because you’re putting that amount of attention to it, you can’t have a 1,000 metrics. We just don’t physically have time the day to bring that level of care and understanding to so many things. So then it forces you to know so many things you could care about down to a small number of things that you really must care about. And again, that practice goes back to do you really understand what your customer wants? And so, for all these tactics, it’s about finding out what your customer wants and then different versions of how do we sort of know it’s true over time and our tactics improving?
Lenny Rachitsky:
For your users, paperwork often starts with an AI powered web form styled and embedded in your application. From there, you can route data to your backend systems and to the correct fields in your PDFs via API. Complete the process with a white labeled e-signature. The best part about Anvil is the level of customization their SDK provides. Non-technical folks love Anvil’s Dragon Drop Builder and developers love their flexible APIs and easy to understand documentation. Build documents software fast with Anvil, that’s useanvil.com/lenny to learn more or start a free trial. That’s useanvil.com/lenny. Kind along these same lines, there’s something that I’ve learned you started at Stripe to help people obsess with user experience and get quality to where it needs to be and move a lot of these metrics, something called Study Groups. Talk about what that is. I’m very curious.
The Atlas Team’s Automation Philosophy
Jeff Weinstein: Okay, let’s imagine we understand our customer, we’ve understand their burning problem. We’ve built a solution that’s in their hands, they’re using, it’s hopefully better than their alternatives and they’re starting to use it and we have some real traction. You could still measure the success, you could still look at the tweets and then, of course, you go to pick it up yourself and you’re like, “Wait a second, this thing is horrible. How did it get so bad?” Anyone who’s built a product that has gone over the horizon of it’s actually in production and being used for a year or more as you go to iterate on it, especially when you’re in a larger company and there’s multiple teams and multiple products going on, there’s just some entropy in the world that causes these things to go bad. I actually have a hard time naturally explaining it.
You kind of think to yourself, well, it’s code. It just must be running the same every day. But somehow you do enough things in a row. And what was once a smooth end-to-end flow for accomplishing a test or a customer is all of a sudden some Byzantine complicated broken mall where all the doors are busted and you have to know exactly the way to get through the dashboard to solve your problem. “Wait a second, I thought this was great just a second ago.” And many of us have experienced that. Now, okay, what are we going to do about it? Well, one is it is really difficult to take time during the day to allow yourself to even know that this is true. Because if you’re working on one particular team, you’re going to have some next thing you’re shipping, you’re going to have your customers, you’re going to be doing great product work.
Meanwhile, your current thing kind of starts to rot in the world and decrease all the trust you’ve earned to build what you’re building now. It is actually difficult to decide, well, what hours during the week am I going to block off from my future progress to see it from the customer’s perspective today? And there are various techniques to try to incentivize or to structure a group of people to do that. Stripe has a thing called friction logs as well, which is a single individual will pretend to be a customer and go through a product experience end-to-end and write it down. And that has been quite successful at Stripe for very motivated people who can block off the time and have the wide enough context to do a complicated thing end-to-end and have the time to write it up and the position the company to send it out as a critique potentially to not just your own team but in a whole organization.
So that’s actually a pretty high bar to crossover. So I was kind of brainstorming what could we do to make this more fun and have the frequency which we’re looking at our own products dramatically increase? And we kind of iterated few through ideas. And I landed on this thing called Study Group, which is basically a random group of people inside the company. They might not work on any particular team. They might not all be PMs, just like literally anyone who wants to sign up, a support person, a sales person, someone who’s on our events team, an engineer and our infrastructure stack. Anybody can sign up for a Study Group. We show up maybe four to eight people total. We pretend to be some company with some outcome problem. Maybe we want to accept money in person at an upcoming farmer’s market, or we want to run a multi-country global business where we have software that another business would use to run their business. If it was something quite complicated.
We could pick any motivating goal. And there are two rules to Study Group rule one is you do no longer work at Stripe. You do not work at Stripe, not pretend, don’t work at Stripe, not try to forget you do not work at Stripe, you’ve never worked at Stripe. You work at… And we make up a name of the company, Dolphin Aquarium Industries, and we will pick a CEO of the company from the group amongst us. And okay, Jenny is the CEO. “Hey, Jenny, what do you want to do today?” “Well, I want to sell in-person tickets to the Dolphin Aquarium.” It’s like, “Cool, where would just start?” So we actually embody the customer. We will not break character, it’s a little bit of the improv thing and as the kind of maestro of Study Group, I will firmly but kindly, if I hear you use any internal Stripe knowledge, which is natural to do, because, well, you worked on a team and you know where that button really is.
And the docs link goes a little bit to the wrong place, but if you click the other link, you’ll get to it. If I can see you use any internal Stripe knowledge, I’ll just pause and say, “Hey, let’s redo the sentence or redo what we did with no Stripe knowledge. As a reminder, you don’t work at Stripe.” And it takes us a couple of times, but people really get into it and all of a sudden we’ll start making up characters and the CEO will be like, “Oh, Tim, you’re our designer. Where are we going to get the color palette?” All of a sudden there’s a person who’s not a designer in real life is now all of a sudden having to practice the empathy to be in a customer’s position. And because we’re going to be doing it for an hour, hour and a half at a time, you actually start to believe that you don’t work at Stripe and you work at Dolphin Aquarium Industries and you start to really feel it.
So that’s rule one. You don’t work at Stripe. And rule two is we’re not here to solve any problems. We’re not here to critique, we’re not here to solution or suggest, we’re not here to file bugs. All of those things is recorded. We can do that later, whatever. This is just about practicing empathy for the customer and going through the product. And we have done more than 25 of these at Stripe thus far in just this year, last few months of 2024, more than 250 people have participated in the Study Group. And it is deeply eyeopening for those involved. The responses are sort of business emotional, not super emotional, but just, “Wow, I can’t believe how hard it was to accomplish X, Y and Z. I thought we were amazing at blah.” It’s like, “Well, we actually are still pretty good, but we need to get back towards amazing” or Wow, “I didn’t even know that internally people wouldn’t know that our products did 1, 2, and 3.”
And this has become so internally popular that teams have adopted for themselves. And so, we’ve kind of franchised Study Group internally already where different teams will run it. But I think we’re going to continue it because I think a little bit is coming out of the pandemic. People just want more group activities. I think some of it is the slowness by which we do it. We’re not rushing through it. Which another reason I appreciate your podcast as well is let’s really get into the details and not be rushed for time. You forget that you have a meeting at the end kind of amount of time. No one is to blame or defensive because it’s not your product at all. It’s a random group of people. We don’t even introduce ourselves about what team we worked on. We’re just all here as participants to embody the customer. And then I think lastly, a reason why it’s worked, and these are many of these just been actually super surprising to me.
I wouldn’t have been able to prick ahead of time, is it’s just fun. People want to make up the name of the company. They’re excited about what Dolphin Industries would sell. A person who’s not a CTO in real life gets to pretend to be a CTO and there’s little theatrics to it, but it has been different enough from our other approaches for a company like Stripe, which is already pretty focused on this topic, that we think that there’s enough legs here that we’re going to keep it and kind invest in groups pretending to be the customer and going through it painstakingly slowly rather than only demos or only writing, which has other benefits, but misses the participation of a larger group and more fresh eyes. So it’s been fun and we named it Study Group. I guess, I named it Study Group because I wasn’t sure it would be initially. So I just came up with something that sounded cutesy, but gave me enough leeway that we could kind of adjust it over time. And this is where we’ve landed.
Lenny Rachitsky: It’s fascinating that there’s so much theatrics and ceremony necessary for a product team and a company to find out these things about their product. You would think people are like, “Oh, we know how onboarding looks. We know all these things,” but basically what you’re saying is you don’t, and you need to do these sorts of things in order to really know what your product is like these days.
Outsourcing Forces Stricter Engineering Quality
Jeff Weinstein: The customer does not live in our walls. They aren’t. They’re not here. They don’t know our lingo. And it is just so natural for our internal mindset and lingo to flow into the application over time. And you need some counterbalance to get there. And I think it has to be an unnatural counterbalance. It used to frustrate me actually more like, “Wow, why aren’t we doing this?” Well, we’re actually doing great work to move something forward and we have our local optimizations. It’d be difficult to get to this level of specialization that multi-product companies are trying to do without that level of focus on a per team basis, but then you need something unnatural to help us bring it back.
And so, I’m constantly looking for non-punitive fun ways objectively to get more perspectives from the outside in. If it’s breaking the fourth wall to get on the phone on Twitter, if it’s looking at a metric of users having a bad day, which is just like counting what’s happening, you can’t argue with that. Or a random group of people just kind of scratching their head trying to find a button, those are truths in the world that we’re trying to make sure are inputs to all of our teams. And if you don’t have those inputs, I can totally naturally see where the entropy of the world leads you to have Frankenstein bad products, even when all the individual parts are well oiled and run by great people. So you need something unnatural.
Fax Machines and Bot Customer Service
Lenny Rachitsky: There’s an interesting trend and thread through our talk so far broadly, there’s just an obsession with making something great and awesome. And then a layer below is just an obsession with the user experience being as great as possible. And for a lot of PMs, there’s not a direct line between make the experience as amazing as possible to growth and revenue and success and things like that. And it feels like for you and for Stripe broadly, there’s this innate implication. If we’re making the experience better and better and better, we will grow. You’re nodding your head a little sideways a little bit, so I’d love to hear just your thoughts on just this obsession with experience and user issues. But we also have to go to the business. What are the metrics are moving?
Jeff Weinstein: If someone else has a strategy for moving revenue that isn’t getting it from customers, I want to know about it because it’s so hard to get it from customers. If there’s some faster path, please tweet me and tell me about it because this is very hard, a lot of work to do. So if there’s something else, I want it on the table, but I often find it’s part of the product experience. So maybe it’s internal sales tools. We can do a Study Group about our internal sales tools process and our deal desk and our margin structure. We can do a friction log on our third party vendor process or a migration service or the way an ecosystem partner helps deploy our services into a big enterprise. Nothing is sort of off limits from product. In fact, I was chatting with a friend who runs the company and they were small company on the verge of product market fit starting to feel, customers starting to pull and they’re like, “Oh, but our self-service funnel, it’s so leaky and we have all this support coming through self-service.”
First of all, congratulations, unbelievable that they’re going through your product, even attempting self-service and contacting you. The majority case would be no one tries or they try and fail and don’t contact you. So again, what a problem to have. And two, they wanted to minimize the support. In that particular case, it’s like, “Well, what’s actually in those support tickets? What’s in those sales? Those are really sales contacts.” They’re like, “Oh, they want to learn more about how they get started.” They want to know the expertise about… This is a particular company, it’s a healthcare related company. They wanted to know the healthcare choices available. They wanted to know how to migrate from some old system they had to it.
I was like, “That’s the product. The thing you’re talking about is the product.” Turn those moments during your self-serve process into not self-serve and make the product experience be let’s get you on the phone. And now when they get on the phone, they know the first name of the person they’re talking to because they have it from the onboarding forum and all of a sudden it feels like you are still in the product, but it’s not software. Now it’s a person, but it’s a person backed by internal software, which knows as much as they can about the customer and what they want. And I was really inspired by Fidelity, which is a big financial institution where many people listening might have switched jobs and had to move their 401(k) or something like this from job A to job B. Maybe in some universe it’ll be three clicks, but not today or certainly not when I tried a couple of years ago. You got a call and go on a phone tree and all the shenanigans, and then I got on the line with someone from Fidelity. They’re like, “Hi, Jeff. They knew about the old company. They confirmed my address.” They said, “By the way, this is not a digital process yet. We’re going to FedEx you an envelope and inside it is going to be the thing for you to sign. Here’s going to be exactly where to sign. Here’s a picture we’re going to sign. We’ve put another envelope inside that envelope ready to go. And so, you just take the papers from envelope one, sign them where it says and put them in envelope two and put it back to the [inaudible 01:29:16].”
It’s like, “Wow, that is product.” That is a product experience where I think some people would say, “Oh look, the product experience has to only be in software.” So I feel when people think, oh, product quality and craft has some limit towards business value, there’s some asymptote that you have to be like, well, kind of product plate time quality is over. We need to talk about business. It’s like, let’s figure out exactly what is causing the business to happen and make a product, even if it doesn’t look naturally the same as our SaaS, software, browser, mobile, whatever versions. I think we can see the entire experience as it. And from there, I include the sales process, I include the support process, I include tools that help with compliance and everything else. And again, if people have a way to make all those things bad and lead to great increasing revenue over time in sustainable ways, I want to know about that because that sounds so much easier than the version that we’re trying.
Atlas’s Growth Data
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that and clearly it’s worked for Stripe. Just one last question. I want to talk about Atlas and dive into just like what is Atlas and how is it doing and things like that. I know there’s some new stuff coming that you’re going to share, but one last question about Study Groups. How do you decide what product you’re going to pick to do a Study Group on? And then what is the expectation with the result? I imagine there’s a PM sitting around like, “Oh my God, I just got this 10 page report on all the problems.”
Cross-Border Founding Teams
Jeff Weinstein: So initially, I just made up a list of stuff that I thought would be fun to Study Group to kind of kick it off. And now, because it has a bit of an internal brand and it’s exciting, and people who have gone to a Study Group say nice things about Study Group there, they actually proactively say, “Hey, we should Study Group blah,” or “We’re launching something next week. We should Study Group it before it goes out the door.” Or now I actually just have a huge backlog of things to Study Group based on what people want. And now we’re again franchising it. So we’re going to have Study Group captains and people run their own Study Groups, and so we can really scale this behavior. But we did our first Study Group of an internal tool recently. And so, that I think is going to catch on just anything at all can be Study Group. It just takes about an hour and a couple of people and you open up the Zoom and that’s it.
And then for expectation wise, look, it is so tempting to put more regulation on something. Okay, well, everything coming out of this program needs to be scored and rubricked and have SLAs. That is extremely reasonable. As some of these next steps, we do notice things that are of serious issues and we have some formal processes inside of Stripe for elevating bugs to certain priority levels that get tagged and have SLAs for teams to acknowledge and review. And so we kind of funnel the outputs of a Study Group into our already existing formal processes rather than having some new special thing that’s going to bother a particular team. I will say though that it is difficult to watch one of these Study Groups and if you are the team involved in some piece of it and not want to act on it, because seeing your fellow teammates struggle to use your thing in some way is more motivating than the customer because you can kind of always say to the customer, ” Well, they didn’t really know,” or “They have some special setup.”
Well, they didn’t really know or they have some special setup. You probably shouldn’t say those things, but you can kind of rationalize it, whereas a group of people incentivized to have actually accomplished it, who got together to do so painstakingly slowly not being able to do so if that’s not what excites you as a product person to want to solve, this thing’s not for you. But then again, you have your own organization system, you have your own things you need to ship and study group doesn’t have a mandate that comes from it. We have our own. It’s more of a cultural piece of information that is very high signal and then people tend to use that high signal for good prioritization. I will say though, that we have added the SLAs to certain bug levels that begin to match a bit of our incident process.
So in an incident strike, like in many companies, pencils down, fix the problem, severity levels, non-negotiable Slack rooms happen, war rooms, all that stuff. You don’t want to do that with every single bug, but we have a rubric of craft related tags for our bug system. And if it is a sort of a P0 bug, which is not an incident, right, it doesn’t mean to put down your pencils. You do need to acknowledge it at Stripe within seven days. And even if it doesn’t mean to fix it, it’s like a person looks at it and says, “Hey, we’re going to do it or not do it.” That’s a still pretty strong bar for a non-incident related craft issue.
Lenny Rachitsky: It feels just at Stripe, there’s this cultural focus on we want to make the product great, we want to make the experience as great as possible. A lot of companies, it’s just teams. We have this goal. We’re not going to do anything that isn’t driving this metric and goal that we have. And I think for teams like that, it’s hard to hear just like, oh, someone’s going to send you all of these problems that you experience. There’s the negative version where the founders goes through the product like a CO of a larger company, just, oh my God, look at all these problems. You need to fix these immediately. And a lot of times it’s completely distracting from the things they need to do, the goals they’re trying to drive, things that really, really matter that the CO may not be thinking about. And it feels like you’re trying to find this balance of here’s problems that exist. You don’t need to fix them. You probably should. Here’s the most important stuff. But also there’s often you find a correlation between make the experience better, you’re going to do better.
The Vision for Atlas
Jeff Weinstein: There’s a huge amount of trust here involved in your colleagues, which is we want to provide teams great information and the best teams welcome that information. It doesn’t mean that it comes with a auteur opinion from the outside world that says you must do X. We have a rubric on some of the craft related bugs, but again, we let the teams relabel them. And so maybe it’s actually not a P0 from their eyes and that’s the trust we put in the teams. I think that the failure mode is when you don’t look. And so we need unnatural, safe, fun lore that gets us out of our chair and into the customer’s mindset. Best is if it’s you and you’re your own customer, okay. Second best would be sitting right next to the customer in the outside world and then like, okay, fine, I’ll take a third best, which is pantomime the customer and enforcing you don’t use any internal knowledge. If you have practices in those three categories, I’m comfortable with the failure modes.
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that. This is definitely going to be the longest episode I’ve ever done, which is exactly what I expected and I’m happy that we’re doing this.
Advice for Startup Founders
Jeff Weinstein: Everyone go 1.75X or something.
Lenny Rachitsky: I like when people are like, oh, this episode is really good. I had to slow down to 1.75 or something. How are you even listening at that speed? No, it’s 1.0 speed. That’s what this episode needs to be. There’s two more areas I want to spend some time on. One is Atlas. We’ve talked a lot about on the surface of Atlas. I want to help people understand what the hell it is and the stuff that’s happening there. And two, I want to talk about getting stuff done at a big company, something that you’ve done at Stripe and I hear you have a lot of good advice on. So first of all, what is Atlas? We’ve talked a bit about it. What’s the best way to understand what Atlas is and who it’s for?
Capital Structure and Startup Fragility
Jeff Weinstein: In 2016, a bunch of Stripes were traveling the world, Stripes is what we call teammates here, and they’re just hearing stories from entrepreneurs around the world. And you would hear this unbelievable story from incredible entrepreneurs who have a laptop, which is that they’d have to fly to the United States on an airplane to make a US company in order to get access to use financial system, to raise money from US or global investors, often to take USD or to charge US customers. And you could have sat around and said, huh, is that illegal? They don’t live in the US. Can they have a US company? Absolutely. The US loves this. It is incredibly encouraged for people from around the world to make a US company and many people do.
Now, why did it require an airplane, right? And so you start to hear that kind of thing at a coffee shop amongst someone with a laptop who has access to the whole internet. And that is a burning problem. Right. That is not a tier three issue. I am not able to run my business without getting on an airplane should be sending alerts off in your whole psyche that you have discovered something important. And so I wasn’t at Stripe at the time, but I’m very thankful that, I was running my own startup at the time. I was very thankful that the people at Stripe decided to try to tackle that problem. And so Atlas is a way to start a company in a few clicks, and we think that’s an incredibly big deal because while there are smart humans across the whole planet, the opportunity that they have is not uniform. But it’s a little strange because it’s all the same MacBooks and it’s a little strange because it’s all the same IP addresses and we all have plenty of bandwidth and smarts.
And so what can we do to dramatically lower the barrier to great people solving problems? And we’ve found over and over again that increasing the ease and simplicity and decreasing the cost and complexity tends to lead to just more of that thing. And we have a fundamental belief that there should be more startups and they’re not finite. And that belief comes from both just a core hope because there are so many problems in the world that don’t seem to be being solved fast enough by our current institutions and larger companies that we think will actually, we need entrepreneurial energy to tackle them. And then it’s also comes from experience of seeing it happened. Instacart signed up for Stripe with a Gmail address and then Covid happened and they delivered critical food to everyone when people were reasonably not allowed to go to the grocery store easily.
So you just don’t know what the next Gmail address is going to do. And so in Atlas, we radically try to simplify the process of getting a company started and that mission has taken us to just solve more of the problem over time. And so over the last few years, for those who have either used Atlas or have started a company or maybe follow along on Twitter a bit, you might’ve seen just a progression of complexity that used to exist being automated. And so a big one that we did about a year ago was this 83(b) election, which is this absolutely Byzantine silliness system by which you have 30 calendar days to send a one-page document to the IRS that could radically change the economics of how you are incentivized as a founder. And this is not one of these greedy loophole. The IRS in the 1980s made this IRS rule in order to spur more entrepreneurship.
They want this. And the only issue is they made it extremely difficult to accomplish. You have to send a snail mail in to an IRS address in a particular format, in a particular way with no verification that it happened at all. And if you do it 31 calendar days, there’s no redo. Okay. Now again, if you’re a product person, you hear the founders terrified all day long about this same issue, just alarm bells in your head whole time. And so I had experienced it for myself as a founder several times, and I also just heard story after story and I just put on my to-do list for the team, we are going to solve this 83(b) election thing. And there are very good reasons not to do it because it comes with potential huge liability. Don’t want to screw it up, it’s snail mail.
You’re really going to monetize this. It’s a competitive advantage to do it. You can kind of argue yourself not to do it in a million ways. But again, back to the mission of just taking all of this complexity and turning into a single click. It was obvious to us and we got started on it. Infrastructurally, we’ve been automating these steps and when this podcast airs, I guess today, it will be true that when you go to start a company on Atlas, it will just be a single click.
You go to type in your friend’s names, what the name of the company will be, it’ll tell you if it’s available automatically or not. You can split the company up 50, 50 or whatever you want to do, fill out a few things and you click go and then like a burrito coming to you, like a pizza tracker, we will just handle all of the downstream activities that used to be, hey, remember to come back in and purchase your shares. Why am I purchasing my shares? I’m just getting started. Why am I writing a check for $10 and putting into a bank account that I can’t even open yet? And then I have to wait for that to be done to get the 83(b) [inaudible 01:44:09]. All of those steps are now just handled in the background so that we can get you ready for business in a day or two.
And so this is our vision. So you can quit your job on a Sunday night, get the Sunday scaries, I’m done with this thing, and on Monday morning fill out this form and the next day be able to run a billion-dollar business because we will have automatically handled getting you access to banking systems, to payment systems, to handling all the equity paperwork, filing your 83(b) election where you can just shift from having worrying about the company starting process to just building and shipping.
And you’ll just get kind updates in the background. Cool, the IRS is giving you a tax ID. Cool, your 83(b) election is filed. Cool, all the founders have their equity and you’re ready to go on the cap table. And we’ve done this by deeply integrating with the governments and deeply integrating with banking partners where we can get you access to the financial system before the IRS and the other governments come back with their sort of official yeses because we take care of the problem in the background by which we’re faxing, phone calling, filling out forms on your behalf. And so we just want to take all that complexity and just erase it so that you get the same thing the YC group gets when they start, that checklist that they go through. We just have the robot do exactly the same thing.
And so in some ways it is a really big deal in a big ship because it completely automates the company starting process. But in other ways it’s an incredibly incremental step that it’s taken us three years to get to where we had to systematically automate the internal steps, each one and now we’ve done the work to wrap it all up into one button. And you can just watch how your company’s doing in the dashboard.
Making Things Happen Inside Big Companies
Lenny Rachitsky: Well, first of all, congrats Jeff and the Atlas team on shipping this. I know this is a big milestone and it’s been a long time coming.
The Importance of Economic Sustainability
Jeff Weinstein: Yeah, Atlas was actually a little reasonable before we decided to do all this work. It’s like why do this next step of completely automating it when it was actually fairly straightforward before. Atlas has above 80 NPS, which is quite high. Apple is in the low 60s, AirPods is 75. I love my AirPods. So Atlas in the 80s with almost 50% response rate is quite high. And so we still chose to do another year of work to automate all of this work behind the scenes because we see that companies are charging their customers sooner when they go through this automated process versus waiting. And it’s a little strange. You just started your company. Well, what does it really matter to wait an extra seven days or 20 days before you can really get going on business? Those are really fragile days which you’re building. And to some of our conversation earlier, that amazing feeling of getting your first customer and being in it with them and money actually exchanging hands and getting that relationship.
If we can slide that forward in the world by a couple of days or weeks, which we’re seeing, like half the time it takes to get to your first customer, just shave a whole week off of your company and you can kind of see GDP being born sooner. And went my whole life knowing that okay, GDP is not finite and it can grow, but I’ve never really seen it and now I’ve actually seen it grow faster, sooner. And I think anything we could do to just move that forward is going to inspire and lower the bar for more people to be an entrepreneur because they’ll see how satisfying that can be.
And another stat, which really was interesting to me recently is that we have seen since doing much of this automation work, that more solo founders are using Atlas than ever before. And I think it’s because you can just do a lot more on the internet as a founder with no-code tools and everything else and get going. Very cool to see that bringing the best of the internet and making it available worldwide can be correlated with more people becoming entrepreneurs. And I think we should just keep doing that.
Lenny Rachitsky: It’s incredibly inspiring and I think this is going to be a huge deal. It’s hard to think about how many, what sorts of changes in tech could transform how many companies are started and how many companies not just started but actually happen because to your point, you may start and they’re like, nah, nevermind a few days later if it’s still stuck in some queue.
Competing and Coexisting with AngelList
Jeff Weinstein: Totally. And then you don’t know where these things are going to go. We have the sort of cohort of 2024 startups in Atlas got to $50 million in revenue twice as quickly as the cohort in 2023. And so we kind of also think sometimes, oh, it was the pandemic that pushed everything online. Those are our best years. It’s like we’re seeing the earliest cohort charts of new startups just cracking up into the right. And that’s very exciting because you also hear sometimes, well the funding market is down and valuations and this and that and the other. That is much more of a point in time capital analysis and much less business, like just how businesses are working day to day. It’s really in the revenue that is representative of their futures and that looks amazingly bright.
And then of course these companies go off to do pretty wild things. Companies that have started through Atlas, there’s been 55,000 of them to date are doing $5 billion a year in revenue. I think it actually resets their expectations of what other tools will be in the future. It’s like, well, if it was so easy for me to get my company started, well why is it so hard to do banking? Well, thankfully there are some great services for it, but I think if we can push people towards expectations higher, then they will want to make their companies better and we’ll just all benefit from that.
Building from Scratch in Big Companies
Lenny Rachitsky: How much of this is based on you guys sending faxes and sending mail yourself, like I don’t know how much you can talk about the behind the scenes, but is there a lot of, through this ops element to automating some of this?
Staying in Touch
Jeff Weinstein: Atlas is in total 10 people, which is I think a relatively small group for the role that it plays in the wider startup ecosystem. And we just don’t pick up work we can’t automate because we know that we need the leverage. And so we’re not going to put ourselves in situations in which we have to compete to be the best. We’re going to put ourselves in situations where we can automate it and be the only, and that’s a different mindset. So in terms of why we picked up 83(b) election as a topic, when we made that decision, we made a commitment that we’re going to do this forever. We’re going to do this forever. This is a piece of infrastructure for the rest of the internet. That is a very high bar to set as the thing you’re going to do.
And so we’re happy to take our time. This is part, versus like go-go-go versus the long-term compounding. Go-go-go was when we assigned one engineer, hey, it’s your job today to send one piece of paper to the office with this third party mail service. Why? Doesn’t matter. Today, just send a single piece of paper to the office and an incredible engineer, and she went on to lead all of 83(b) election work. She sent it. And the proof of just receiving the piece of paper at the office that we had just sent yesterday is incredible proof. Right. We’re like, well look. I mean, the 83(b) election is just sending this piece of paper to the IRS, like we just did it. Right.
That go-go-go as soon as possible was extremely useful because it’s just like, look, this exists. We can do it. Come on. On the long-term compounding part, we were extremely serious about how we picked our third party vendors, and backup vendors, and what promises, and SLAs, and reporting systems, and alerts, and playbooks, and backup processes, like it’s in a very intense amount of internal structure we use. But again, we have to look at where the value is. The value is in making sure it happens. Does it need to be us sending the mail? Does it need to be us talking to government? Not necessarily. And we have chosen to work with third parties and many backup third parties as well because one, there’s expertise in the world of physically printing and sending mail that the 10 of us are not going to today become experts in. And two, I think it also causes us to build better software in that we now need to evaluate if something’s actually working because it’s happening externally.
Whereas when you build it yourself, again, you have this natural feeling, well, we built it. It must be working. Oh, later we’ll add alerts. Later when there problems, we’ll figure out playbooks. Well look, when it’s a third party building it, you’re like, wait a second. What happens if they screw up? Like cool, we better figure that out. We better OCR all the results. We better do all these check sums, we better… And it would be awesome if we could always treat our internal work that way, but because it was external, it forced us to be more rigid where we needed to be rigid and create interfaces and kind of commitments. And again, we work with a bunch of great third parties and back up third parties to execute this. And each year we write a document called Should We Do This Ourselves? And we look at the other nine of us around the room and go, of course we shouldn’t. Let’s go on to something else. So again, we’re just really stitching it together, but ensuring that it happens.
Lenny Rachitsky: Awesome. Okay. I was imagining fax machines just,-
Recommended Reading List
Jeff Weinstein: There are fax machines occurring. There are fax machines occurring,-
My Favorite Type of Power
Lenny Rachitsky: Not in the Stripe [inaudible 01:54:38].
Jeff Weinstein: And there are phone calls being made and there are robots waiting on phones on hold as well.
Lightning Round: Movie Recommendations
Lenny Rachitsky: Oh, amazing.
Jeff Weinstein: There’s quite a lot going on.
Lightning Round: Favorite Products
Lenny Rachitsky: AI is here. I saw a stat that one in six new Delaware corporations are now started on Stripe Atlas. That’s absurd.
Lightning Round: Life Motto
Jeff Weinstein: Yep. I’m very excited to tell you when it’s one in five, but it is not today.
Lessons from Patrick and John Collison
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, sounds like we’re close.
Jeff Weinstein: We’re on our way.
Lenny Rachitsky: Sounds like we’re close. The other stat I have here is that the fastest growing cities for startups. Here’s what I have, I don’t know if you know this, but Boulder, Shenzhen, and Las Vegas.
Jeff Weinstein: They’re everywhere. One of the, it’s like stat we kind of came up with a little bit last year that I’m just personally deeply obsessed with is founding teams in which the co-founders are in multiple countries. So we kind of nickname this. Again, it’s like giving things a good title, headlines. Cross-Border Founders. Wow. More than 20% of multi-founder teams have at least one founder from another country. That is astounding to me, that the internet could bring people together like that. And I think that’s going to provide more perspectives, more solutions will be local and global. Just all perspectives are great. And again, I think the Atlas team itself represents this. We were very intentional of how we built the Atlas team. It’s majority women and we have more diversity to hire, but we’re just very intentional to make it a team that had diverse perspectives. You’ve been on teams that don’t have diverse perspectives of any type. They are so much worse. There’s no real science necessary here. We just enforce that. We had the opportunity to build this team that way.
And it was really important to me that it represented a world we wanted things to look like and to represent. And it just had to be very intentional about it because I’ve made mistakes in my career previously where my startup was all men when we sold to box one of them. And on each hire it was harder and harder and harder to hire someone of a different background. Just naturally folks didn’t want to join that type of team. And that was the last time I’ve ever going to make that mistake, which is that early the candidate poll must match where you want the team to go. It’s not a down funnel problem, it is an up funnel problem. And where you have to just make sure that for each role you’re comfortable with the distribution of people and backgrounds in your candidate pool and go from there. And I think that is one of the reasons why that 10 person group is so effective, is it has just a lot of diversity and perspective.
Lenny Rachitsky: Another skill Jeff Weinstein is incredible at that I wasn’t even aware of. We’re going to add them to the list and I actually saw a photo of the team and I noticed that. And so great work. Is there anything else on Atlas that you wanted to share before I get into how you actually made Atlas happen at a company like Stripe that has a billion things to do?
Jeff Weinstein: We just want to hear about what’s hard for you. If you look back in your emails and if you started a company recently, you’re starting a company right now, the whole world is counting on you to pick a customer, solve their problem 10 times better than their alternative, get it to them, charge for it, become economically viable and build a great business that provides great services. We are not counting on you to become experts at this silliness of administratively running your company. Imagine life without Google Docs where you’d have to hire an IT person to run your IT back end on employee three. You’d have an IT person or imagine the world without AWS for EC2 or S3 or any of these cloud services and you’re racking computers yourself.
You’re just absolutely not going to try as many things. We just see the company structure, the structure, bringing people together to be like that, and we want to automate more and more and more of it and turn it into software. So we’re looking for the next things to work on. We have a couple ideas, but we expect to turn more of groups of people working together, that administration into software. And I think it’s just going to unlock huge amount more people choosing to do it.
Lenny Rachitsky: Interesting. I’m so curious what that ends up being. If you really think about what you’re doing here, if you believe that entrepreneurship and innovation and technology make the world better, you’re creating such an unlock to allow more of that. And like I said, I think it’s hard to imagine and think of other examples that could be as transformative and impactful as just making this process.
Jeff Weinstein: It’s funny because I go back to again, I also hear from founders, entrepreneurs like, oh, I can’t think of an idea. Like, ah, I need a startup idea. And yet everything in the world is broken. And I also recall my first startup early 2010, 2012 ish, I joined a friend’s company. That was started at the same time that the Stripe founders started Stripe. And that is, I think about that a lot because with the same information, knowing how hard it was to accept online payments, I chose to work on something else where they didn’t. They worked on making it easy in seven lines of code to accept payments online, which turned out to be really useful.
So I really encourage people to be very sensitive to the problems that they see and just not let any little hiccup go unnoticed. And I think Atlas is really a manifestation of that, which is, let’s actually look at every single thing. You went from hobby to economically successful operation and which of any moment along the way you shouldn’t have had to do. And we think those things are a fair game to play with in any topic. I think that there are many more gigantic businesses, important things to be solved sitting in plain sight. I can’t see them always, but when you hear, if you sit in enough silence and you hear the same people complain about problems, you too might find something as big as online payments are hard, which was sitting right in front of all of us.
Lenny Rachitsky: And I think it’s important to note, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a venture-backed, venture scale company. Right. There are many, most businesses in the world are non venture-backed, venture scale billion-dollar companies. You can build a profitable company.
Jeff Weinstein: It’s kind of funny. We’ve all put this badge of honor of giving away a lot of your company. People really love owning a lot of their company and being successful. So you just got to pick the right capital structure for your business.
Lenny Rachitsky: And again, the amount of money that has been generated of the companies that started through Atlas, you said $5 billion, basically that’s the GDP of Atlas. That Atlas is,-
Jeff Weinstein: And that’s like revenue per year and that’s growing,-
Lenny Rachitsky: Per year.
Jeff Weinstein: Yeah.
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah. And obviously a lot of it would’ve happened anyway, but still it accelerated. It’s probably growing faster. A lot of it probably never would’ve happened otherwise. Yeah.
Jeff Weinstein: We ran a survey a little bit ago, we need to rerun this, where we just asked people would they have started their business without Atlas. And about 20% of people said they wouldn’t have or wouldn’t had then. And again, these things are fragile. Right. And it’s not all Google employees leaving their job to the build something. It’s people from every possible background, every possible role, every possible job, every possible age group who see problems and can solve it. So it’s dramatically more fragile than people think.
Lenny Rachitsky: Well, great work, Jeff, and team Atlas and Stripe in general.
Jeff Weinstein: Fun.
Lenny Rachitsky: Let’s talk about one last thing. There’s so many more things I still want to talk about. Maybe we’ll have a,-
Jeff Weinstein: We can go quick. Yeah, we can [inaudible 02:03:08].
Lenny Rachitsky: Make it 2X speed. So Atlas is basically a zero to one product. I know you didn’t start initially, it was there, but you took it from, I don’t know, maybe you took it from 0.5 or something to one in 100 now, and a lot of people struggle with starting things like this within larger companies. Like Stripe’s a large company, right? It’s like a very innovative, well run company, but it’s also a large company. And clearly you made shit happen, you and your team. What kind of things have you learned? Actually, let me read a quote. Here’s a quote that kind of describes you being good at this from one of your former colleagues who will go unnamed. “Jeff is really good at cutting through the BS. You hear so much about frameworks and all this complicated stuff that people talk about, NPM circles, one of the most straightforward, obvious things probably right. I get so annoyed after calls with Jeff sometimes because I know he’s right about something. I banged my head against the wall for months.” And so talk about just what you’ve done, what you’ve learned about getting stuff done.
Talk about what you’ve done, what you’ve learned about getting stuff done at a large company. What do you need to do?
Jeff Weinstein: Not having things be your idea I think is really powerful. I just talked to 50 customers who all yelled the same thing. Here they are in varieties of quotes and forms and the rest of it, and you put some three bullet points of strategy around why it’s important, it’s going to help you win more market share, and the rest of it and how you can do it well. Cool. What else could we want to do? Maybe somebody has something where 51 people have the same burning thing, but the majority failure mode is we do nothing. That’s the majority failure mode. So one, aligning people with deep customer stories story boarding some solution visually with a Sharpie and not a pencil, not Figma initially, not high or low fidelity. I can never remember which one is the detailed one, but Sharpie. What is the unconstrained perfect solution to this burning problem?
That’s Pixar-style storyboard. You don’t need to be a designer. You can just draw stick figures on a piece of paper or whimsical or whatever you want to do. And with those things, if you’re not asking for the sun and the moon on headcount and team size to make some forward progress, who could stop you? Let’s get some first version working. It was very motivating to get that single piece of paper in the mail, which was blank, to kick us off on the 83(b) election. Again, by the time this podcast airs, we’ll have crossed 10,000 83(b) elections filed, and we will have done them all 100.00% on time. With the burning use case, why customers are going to need it, why we can do it cheaply, effectively, safely over a long period of time, and here’s the way to get tangible, forward progress quickly against the stick figure vision, but with something in the browser or one version of it. Let’s just get one thing working one time.
I find proof of existence to be an incredibly powerful proof, rather than proof by theory or proof by debate. It’s like, “Look, we did it one time. Hey, I’m holding the piece of paper.” Pretty motivating. If we just printed out the right information, we’d be done. You’re like, “Okay, actually there’s a lot to do other than just that,” but it really pushed us forward. Cutting through a little bit of the red tape is about momentum and making each step not such a big deal and asking for less permission. Then of course, once you have a little bit of that under your belt, you’re going to naturally be trusted with taking more of those kinds of bets.
Paired with some of the things we talked about earlier of everyone’s looking at the same place about the metrics, everyone can watch the success. We don’t need to do big, internal updates with long-winded PowerPoint presentations and scrambles the night before. You can just go to the metrics page and see how we’re doing. That brings so much trust to the group that people start going from, “Why do we have this Atlas thing that doesn’t really produce so much money. It’s charging companies when they don’t have money. We’re a big payments business. How do you even compare these things?” To “Wow, look at the progress that they’re making against the mission, and look at its impact on the curves.” And you start to root for it more.
I think that’s how we got it there. I will say one other thing, which is that making something economically viable is extremely important. I am probably the fourth person to run Atlas, and it’s quite a pantheon of people prior to me, including the founder of Mozi, which is a compliance startup, Watershed, which is this amazing climate reporting tool, also led Atlas, Patrick McKenzie, patio11, for many folks who [inaudible 02:08:46]
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow, what an alumni group, this collection.
Jeff Weinstein: We owe ourselves a dinner. We owe ourselves a dinner. Quite a group. And now we have a new person. I technically no longer lead Atlas, so we’ve hired up a whole team, which is really exciting. And Hayley Halvarsson, who’s joined us about a year or two ago, she leads Atlas now and you can find her on Twitter. She’s fantastic. We swap jobs over a course of a year, just one month at a time, the roles. And so she worked for me, then I worked for her, and she’s gone off to hire some amazing people to run Atlas. So it’s really quite a privilege to have these people lead it over time.
But it was really important for us to communicate why we were going to run this in an economically viable way, and I think that applies to all products and all businesses. It’s like, “Look, if you’re a customer acquisition-style product, showcase why this is the best customer acquisition for the dollar for the company. If you are a margin-generating, moat-creating, ecosystem-growing portion of the business, then your metrics have to show it.” So you can’t just have half the story of just the product quality and the tweets. You have to have the economics. Who else is going to put this much energy into this style of product and that gives us confidence that we should invest it in the long term? Because alternatives can come and go, and I super encourage there to be more Atlas alternatives. That’d be great for founders, but I think over the long term, it’ll be difficult to do so because of the business model.
Lenny Rachitsky: There actually was an alternative at one point, AngelList, and then they’re like, “No, Stripe is killing it. Let’s just send everyone to Atlas.”
Jeff Weinstein: I had worked on Stripe payments for a while, and I had just started on Atlas, and I think that same month AngelList announced that they were doing incorporation and banking and cap table all together, which was exactly what I wanted to do. I was like, “Oh shoot, did I sign up for the wrong thing? AngelList is such a smart group of people, so customer-oriented, great brand, I love many of the people that work there, they work with some of the best legal minds, and they have the RUV setup. There’s so much awesomeness here.” I was like, ” Should we really compete? What should we do here?” And we thought about it more and more like, “Look, in the very long term, this company-starting process is going to become a efficiency cost problem, and there’s so much long tail complexity with dealing with multiple financial institutions, multiple government processes, all of this legal complexity, and it’s difficult to charge a lot of money for it because it’s hard to charge people money when they haven’t even started the business yet.”
We looked at it and said, “Look, we’re going to keep this long-term, compounding approach because we think that this is where it’s going to go.” And it was a zero interest rate environment at the time. AngelList built a phenomenal product. I looked at it with nothing but admiration and happiness, but it also smarted and hurt. We kept building, kept building, kept building, and I got a phone call one night, on my wife’s birthday before we sat down for dinner, and it was Dan at AngelList, I hope he’d be comfortable telling the story, who I love. Incredible product mind and he led product over AngelList for startups. He said, “We’re going to get out of incorporation. This is not going to be our focus going forward. Do you want the business?”
That was like a year and a half after they had really gone out, or maybe two years after they’d gone out, or something like this. I was like, “Wow.” We had kept such an open relationship with them. We had paired with them on legal constructs. We had discussed 83(b) election openly. A lot of people were like, “I can’t believe you’re talking to the competitor.” Look, we all share the same mission here. Yes, we’re competing, but are we really all better off from treating each other at arm’s distance? We had a shared Slack channel. We discussed when the Delaware was slow on incorporation. One time is because they were playing softball and they had an afternoon off. That’s a real story, and we’ve discussed it. AngelList was incredible in how they evaluated it. We’re evaluating different partners, but because of our working relationship and the quality of your product, and they saw we were going with 83(b) election and the intensity of that, they just put up a webpage that said to get started with AngelList, if you need a company, go right over to Atlas.
That was a really amazing moment because I respected them so much and I looked up to them so much that they would mutually beneficially choose to do that. And everybody was excited and happy, and customers are happy, and it’s been an incredible relationship since, in which you can start on AngelList, go through Atlas, and then all of your information is automatically populated into AngelList automatically. We’ve since rolled that out with several other partners, Mercury, Carta, others, but AngelList really led the way there, and we maintain a great relationship with the team. It took a while, but it really reproved to me that they’re not competitors. It’s alternatives, and if you care about your customer, you care about their alternatives, and if you care about the mission, you need to all work together. Look, there’s some friendly competition, of course. We all want to win, but in the long term, I think all parties are significantly better off.
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow, that is an awesome story. I don’t know if you’ve shared that anywhere else. There’s so many lessons there that I could spin off on and… Not worrying about competition, staying heads down, just solving customer problems, staying close to your competition, not being afraid to talk to them, sharing advice with each other, just building the best possible product. I don’t know, there’s a ton there that’s super interesting.
Jeff Weinstein: I couldn’t really draw it up any better, and I think the world is better off with more specialization, and it’s a pain in the butt to do these incorporations. I think you want more specialization and more partnership, and I think a lot of companies are starting to do that now.
Lenny Rachitsky: Let me go back to the lessons you shared on how to build something new at a big company, then we can wrap up. I took a bunch of notes here, and these are awesome and they actually resonate a lot with Mihika, who came on the podcast, who’s at Figma, been the person building a lot of zero-to-one stuff. So it’s nice that there’s these trends that are coming up again and again.
One tip is storyboard the ideal. With a Sharpie, draw out, “Here’s this exciting vision of what this could be if we were to pull it off without constraints.” Unconstrained, powerful vision. Two is solve a burning use case. Make it clear this is a huge problem for a lot of people. There’s probably stories you share there. Show tangible forward progress like, “Look at this, we made this progress, we made this progress. Sent ourselves a piece of blank paper. Look at this, it’s a huge milestone.” And have momentum, and Mihika talked about this. Keep the fire alive. Keep the fire alive, show momentum. We’re making progress. This metrics moving up into the right. Then there’s a milestone… Felt like you had an early milestone of like, “Look, we made progress,” and then also, have the business case, basically. “Look how much we could make and look what this could be if we were to succeed.” Anything you’d add there? Anything you’d correct?
Jeff Weinstein: Bringing the earliest customers into the room with your team as soon as humanly possible. We would just invite a founder to the team meeting. We would pipe all their feedback into a Slack channel automatically. We have all the NPS scores going to a channel, and anytime it’s not a 10 for 10, we follow up directly. Constant engagement with a customer creates the momentum where it doesn’t need to be the product person or some other leader saying, “We need to do this. Follow me.” It’s, “Oh my gosh, the world needs this. Let’s figure out how to do it even faster.”
And a tip that the team has tried, and this is well since I’ve been involved day-to-day, is literally inviting customers in to design the product, which I’d actually never heard of. “Hey, we’re thinking about what happens after incorporation now and what can we do to help founders after they’ve set up their company? What would be magical there?” We just invite founders in, into a Whimsical, a piece of software I love. It’s a really easy learning curve to create visual diagrams. And rather than doing a UXR about it, we just say, “What would you hope this dashboard would have?” And they’d grab a thing, and they start typing, and they start drawing what they want their dashboard to be. Why were we guessing beforehand? I now scratch my head. I’m several years into a decade-plus building things and I was like, “I doing this by myself. Why didn’t I just assign it to the people who are going to use it in the first place?”
Now look, that doesn’t always work because not all of your customers are going to be product designers at heart, but more of them than you think, and I think it’s giving your customers write access, and not just read access, to your company is incredibly powerful. I think I had not quite seen it so directly where you just actually designed what they want, but I saw a diagram of something we’re working on right now. I was like, “Wow, we haven’t even had design look at it.” They’re like, “No, actually the customer drew it.” Great. Why were we guessing?
Lenny Rachitsky: I think you have an unfair advantage where your customers are founders and oftentimes have product skills and design skills, but I love that [inaudible 02:18:43].
Jeff Weinstein: It’s true, but I will really push, because you don’t need a hundred of them and you’ll find somebody somewhere who knows. You just got to sit in a little more silence. They’ll raise their hand.
Lenny Rachitsky: There’s a quote you shared somewhere that relates to what you just said that your dad once said, “You can screw up a sentence if it begins with ‘The customer.’”
Jeff Weinstein: That’s true. Yeah, my dad runs an IT business in Baltimore to help other businesses with their computer systems. Growing up, I would literally, physically clean the keyboards of his employees and dust the mice. But yeah, he’s very, very customer-oriented, where I get a lot of it from, and my mom’s a painter, so I think there’s some combination of talents or interests there. He would take it one step further, and he sometimes physically bring a chair over in a meeting and say, “The customer is sitting here,” and you’d have to pretend. Then he would fake talk to the invisible customer. “Based on what you’ve seen today at the meeting…” I saw him do this one time. “Based on what you’ve seen today at the meeting, are you more likely to pay your bill or less likely to pay your bill based on what you witnessed?”
That’s a little intense on the pantomime, but I think the point gets across that… Again, because it’s so natural to think internal, if you begin the sentence physically with “The customer” then start your sentence, you just have a much better shot at it.
Lenny Rachitsky: That’s an amazing story. Very a study group-ish, like an early prototype. Jeff, we’ve covered so much ground. I have two hours more worth of questions, but we need to-
Jeff Weinstein: Let’s lock.
Lenny Rachitsky: We need to cut it off, I think. Is there anything else you wanted to share or leave listeners with before we get to a very exciting lightning round?
Jeff Weinstein: Really excited about whatever you’re building out there, thinking of building. My email address is incredibly easy to find. My Twitter handle is incredibly easy to find. Do not hesitate to send me cold emails. My love language is Loom videos of bugs, but feel free to send anything you have off the top of your head. I respond to good cold emails. Don’t hesitate.
Lenny Rachitsky: What’s the email, real quick, for people?
Jeff Weinstein: If finding my email address is your issue? It can’t possibly be, but it is my first initial and last name at basically everything in the world, though my handle on Twitter is jeff_weinstein, but gosh, if you can’t find my email address then you got a bigger problem.
Lenny Rachitsky: Okay, we’ll link to it in the show notes, as well. With that, we’ve reached our very exciting lightning round. Are you ready? Here we go. What are two or three books you’ve recommended most to other people?
Jeff Weinstein: I know a lot of people on this podcast recommend high-output management, but it should be swap the Bible out for it at all the hotels in the world, in the little drawer. Put it everywhere. You can’t go wrong, though. It is an incredible clarity of how to spend your time as a leader, a manager of other people, a very high bar for how evaluating your work as the sum everyone around you. That was very clarifying to me that it’s not an individual effort, it is the sum of everything I’m involved in is how to measure it. So that’s definitely up there. A nice pair to that book, as a amuse-bouche afterwards, is Orbiting the Giant Hairball: A Corporate Fool’s Guide to Surviving with Grace, I think, is the full exact title by Gordon MacKenzie, which is the story of a illustrator at Hallmark, the greeting card company, and it turns out to be a, again, bureaucratic, slow-moving organization that, over time, added rules and policies and rules and policies and quelled creativity and innovation, which is surprising at a greeting card company, but it existed. So this is his incredibly well-drawn book, as you’d imagine, with beautiful illustrations about how he orbited the hairball of the organization to inspire others, keep himself engaged, and to bring creativity and excitement and trying to pull people off the hairball as he orbited it. So I think it’s a fun afternoon read with beautiful illustrations about how to stay sane at big companies and where to be a little goofy and take the advantage and gravity of the hairball, but not be succumbed by it and to be able to orbit it.
Those two are really fun. I will say one other one I like… Because we haven’t talked about strategy here, there’s been more getting stuff done and some other tactical things, but 7 Powers, and I know you had the author recently on, which was awesome. I won’t explain the book, you just watch the podcast of it, but it walks through many of the business powers and moats a company can have. I ran into the author…
Lenny Rachitsky: Hamilton Helmer.
Jeff Weinstein: Hamilton Helmer, yes, thank you.
Lenny Rachitsky: What a cool name.
Jeff Weinstein: Very cool name. Alliterative. At the Box lunchroom one time, where I worked at Box, they acquired one of our companies, and I was like, “Any luck finding the eighth power?” He was like, “I’m looking, I’m looking,” as he ran off with his sandwich. One other funny, somewhat embarrassing moment about that book is when I was applying to work at Stripe, I was in some email conversation with our CEO, Patrick Collison, who is quite well-read and enjoys books, and I was trying to showcase, ” I like books a little bit,” though not at any level of him. And I had mentioned I just finished reading 7 Powers, and I recommended it to him, but it joke’s on me because he’s quoted in the foreword that I had skipped. So he was very kind to let me know that he had read it and he is quoted in it, so I was like, “Oh shoot, maybe I won’t get the job.” But I got through that part, at least. So those books have spoken to me. Do you have a favorite power, by the way, Lenny? Do you have a favorite power?
Lenny Rachitsky: His favorite power is counter-positioning. I also like that power a lot because I think it’s the one you can that really changes everything about how you build your company, so that’s the one that always stands out to me. How about you?
Jeff Weinstein: I like counter-positioning also, and Atlas with going cheap and that audience is counter-positioning, but I really enjoy process, the process power, because it is very difficult to, as an organization, get good at anything, and if you could do that over a long period of time in a sustainable way, you have a power.
Lenny Rachitsky: This is the nerdiest chat I’ve ever had. Which is your favorite 7th Power? I love it. But on that power, I asked him about it. He makes a really strong point there, that rarely is it actually a power for people. They think the way we execute is going to be our advantage and rarely is it actually a power. Usually people can copy it, but when you nail it…
Jeff Weinstein: That’s even better, because then if your competition thinks they have it-
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, exactly.
Jeff Weinstein: They won’t invest than the other one. So I like it even more, for that reason.
Lenny Rachitsky: I love it. But I was going to say with Patrick Collison being quoted in the book, not only was he wrote part of the forward or was quoted, he basically credited 7 Powers of helping build Stripe. No big deal.
Jeff Weinstein: Totally.
Lenny Rachitsky: This lightning around is going great. This is a very microcosm of our whole chat so far. Second question, do you have a favorite recent movie or TV show?
Jeff Weinstein: How To with John Wilson. It’s on HBO. For those who haven’t seen it, not really giving away anything because it’s just wild when you watch it. You can’t give it away. This videographer has found footage where he’s just walking through Manhattan, and other parts of the country, but mostly New York, with a camera for 10 years, just filming intensely weird things. And if you’ve spent any time in New York, there’s plenty to film. Then has put together this narrative afterwards about certain topics like how to make risotto or how to take out the trash or how to…
It’s a way of seeing life through the eyes of these vignettes, diving down and really understanding people, and he does it through this incredibly dry humor of stitching together this video footage to tell a different narrative. And I think some of it is that we used to live in New York, and I love living in California, but I miss that frequency of strangeness, and you can see that through that TV show. Fantastic.
Movie? I recently watched The Quiet Girl, which is a film about a young Irish girl who is from a dysfunctional home and has this opportunity to live with a family friend who have more opportunity for her, more empathetic to her, and it showcases, again, how fragile things are. It’s a very intense film, but there’s something beautiful in how much opportunity was in front of this young girl. It is a tearjerker, but a great one.
Lenny Rachitsky: Do you have a favorite product you have recently discovered that you love?
Jeff Weinstein: I love my computer. I’m fast at my computer. Being fast at my computer helps me just go from intention to just out in the world. I’ve fallen back in love with Raycast, which is an automation tool for those who have watched the journey of Spotlight and Quicksilver and Alfred and all these automator services. Raycast seems to have cracked the nut on automation, nerd complexity, but also UI ease and some nice touches and loads quickly, does the basics. It’s fully programmable, extensible, just a huge fan of Raycast. And then I think for product people, if you don’t have CleanShot installed for screenshots, you’re behind the curve. Being able to take a screenshot and blur particular things or point at stuff or have arrows and lines and have that be second nature, fast, instantaneous is so useful to be able to communicate what you’re seeing. When I get a new laptop, it’s Raycast first and CleanShot second.
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow, I am going to download CleanShot immediately.
Jeff Weinstein: Yes, it’s extremely-
Lenny Rachitsky: I’ve not heard of it. I’ve been using Skitch as my blurrings.
Jeff Weinstein: As much as I appreciate the Skitch folks, CleanShot is an incredible piece of software.
Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing. I’m going to do that. All right, two more questions. Do you have a favorite life motto that you often come back to, share with friends or family, find useful in work or in life?
Jeff Weinstein: I don’t even realize I say “Go Go Go” a lot, but I do. I actually say it and write it so people I hear that they’ll later say, “Go Go Go” back to me. I’m like, “Huh? Don’t I say that sometimes?” “Yes, you say it a lot.” So apparently, “Go Go Go” is one of them. I also-
Lenny Rachitsky: I love that.
Jeff Weinstein: Say, “Let’s make some mistakes,” when we’re brainstorming something or sitting at a sushi restaurant and talk sushi guy or gal, to showcase, “Let’s be creative. Do whatever you want. No pretense. I’m not evaluating anything. Let’s make some mistakes.” It’s just a weird thing.
Lenny Rachitsky: They’re so good. I’m going to use that for my podcast guests. “Let’s just make some mistakes. Don’t worry about it.”
Jeff Weinstein: At that point, everyone’s like, “What? Okay, fine. Sure. Cool.”
Lenny Rachitsky: I like the combo of those two, “Go go go, let’s just make some mistakes while we’re going.”
Jeff Weinstein: You have to use it in certain circumstances and not for the five nines of reliability on our API, but it does have its place.
Lenny Rachitsky: Final question. You worked with Patrick Collison and John Collison for many years. I’m curious what the most useful feedback or advice you have heard from them or learned from them?
Jeff Weinstein: On my first month working here, which I guess is six, seven years ago now, they had put me in charge of our payments infrastructure services. That’s all the backend systems that communicate with the financial system and all the internal APIs where we build the external APIs and products on top of, so quite a lot of stuff. I knew nothing about finance. I knew nothing about the scale that we’re talking about. They entrusted me, somewhat insanely, with that responsibility. On the first month we had our quarterly business review where… The normal quarterly process, and I was like, “Okay, cool. I’ll do the next one. I’ll write the next one.” I’ve been here one month. They’re like, “No, you write it. It’ll be even better that you write it.” It’s like, oh my God. It’s forcing me to have to, in the fourth week, have that catalyst to understand the whole business and with the permission, because I was going to have to write this doc about how we’re doing. The company had been in existence for seven years before I got here. It was already at some reasonable scale.
It was an intense operation, and I remember writing the first draft and sending it to him because it was… I didn’t want to send… He had pushed me to do it a bit, and I figured I’d give him an early draft and he wrote back, “This doesn’t sound like you yet.” The willingness to entrust a new person to provide their own perspective and bring it into a very formalized document like that was an impressive… That really spoke to me, and I rewrote it completely, and I made it sound like me, and I’ve tried to make things sound like me since.
John’s is more of a gut punch, I’ll say. I reported to John, the co-founder. Maybe nine months into reporting to him, I would run around with a clipboard. I was a little bit manic of getting a lot done. A lot going on at Stripe at the time. We’d have a one-hour one-on-one, I’d be listing all of the things that we had accomplished and the problems we have and where we need escalation help and where we’re stuck and all this that and the other. Lots of stuff. I had checklists and physical paper, flipping it over a little bit frantically. And he said, “You are one of the best people I’ve ever worked with at solving problems three through 100, but I need you stuck on problems one and two.”
Oh man, that hurt. I was like, “Oh, shoot.” I am productive on the non-hardest problems and I was trying to mask, not on purpose mask, but who wants to be stuck on something so hard when there’s so much else to do? From then on, I would show up to him with problems one and two and not talk about problems three through 100. Even if we were working on them, we would just not talk about them and we would get stuck on problems one and two. That was phenomenal advice, which I was like, “Oh, shoot, I’m going to be fired.” But it was really a deeply impactful sentence.
Lenny Rachitsky: Wow, what a powerful, great, helpful… That’s great advice [inaudible 02:34:10] right there.
Jeff Weinstein: He really looked my soul and-
Lenny Rachitsky: Yeah, I love this.
Jeff Weinstein: Like a street fighter style or something.
Lenny Rachitsky: But to your point, very impactful and helpful.
Jeff Weinstein: Yeah.
Lenny Rachitsky: Jeff, we did it. The archeology is complete.
Jeff Weinstein: I appreciate the time, Lenny. It was fun. I don’t do too many of these, so I’m curious to people’s feedback and really appreciate the questions.
Lenny Rachitsky: Amazing. Jeff, thank you so much for being here.
Jeff Weinstein: Appreciate it, Lenny.
Lenny Rachitsky: 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 |
|---|---|
| 2FA | 2FA(两步验证,双因素认证) |
| 401(k) | 401(k)(美国退休储蓄计划,保留原文) |
| 7 Powers | 《7 Powers》(Hamilton Helmer 所著战略经典,保留原文) |
| 83(b) election | 83(b) 选举 |
| AngelList | AngelList(知名创业投资平台,保留原文) |
| AP | AP(Advanced Placement,美国大学先修课程) |
| AWS | AWS(Amazon Web Services,亚马逊云服务,保留原文) |
| bean counting | bean counting(原指繁琐的数字统计,此处保留原文比喻) |
| Box | Box(知名云内容管理和文件共享服务公司,保留原文) |
| cap table | 股权表(capitalization table,记录公司股权结构的表格) |
| Carta | Carta(股权管理平台,保留原文) |
| cohort | 队列 |
| craft | 匠心 |
| Cross-Border Founders | 跨境创始人 |
| customer obsession | 客户执念 |
| Dan | Dan(AngelList 员工,保留原文) |
| deal desk | deal desk(企业内部审批交易的流程/团队,保留原文) |
| Delaware | 特拉华州(美国州名,以其公司法的便利性成为创业公司注册首选地) |
| EC2 | EC2(Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud,亚马逊弹性计算云服务,保留原文) |
| EIN | EIN(雇主识别号) |
| Fidelity | Fidelity(美国大型金融服务公司,保留原文) |
| Figma | Figma(设计工具,保留原文) |
| fourth wall | 第四面墙(戏剧术语,比喻打破与外界的隔阂) |
| friction log | friction log(Stripe 内部一种端到端扮演客户并记录体验的做法) |
| Go Metrics | Go Metrics(Stripe 内部指标仪表盘系统) |
| go-to-market | go-to-market(市场进入策略,保留原文) |
| go/service | go/service(Stripe 内部服务快速访问机制) |
| Gordon MacKenzie | Gordon MacKenzie(Hallmark 插画师、作家,保留原文) |
| Hallmark | Hallmark(知名贺卡公司,保留原文) |
| Hamilton Helmer | Hamilton Helmer(战略顾问、《7 Powers》作者,保留原文) |
| Hayley Halvarsson | Hayley Halvarsson(Atlas 现任负责人,保留原文) |
| High Output Management | 《High Output Management》(Andy Grove 所著管理学经典,保留原文) |
| IRS | IRS(美国国税局,Internal Revenue Service,保留原文) |
| K-12 | K-12(美国基础教育阶段,幼儿园至高中) |
| Loom | Loom(异步视频录制工具,保留原文) |
| Mercury | Mercury(面向创业公司的数字银行服务,保留原文) |
| metrics | 指标 |
| Mihika | Mihika(Figma 员工,保留原文) |
| Mozi | Mozi(合规创业公司,保留原文) |
| NPM | NPM(Node.js 包管理器及社区,保留原文) |
| NPS | NPS(Net Promoter Score,净推荐值) |
| OCR | OCR(光学字符识别,Optical Character Recognition,保留原文) |
| Orbiting the Giant Hairball | 《Orbiting the Giant Hairball》(Gordon MacKenzie 所著,保留原文) |
| patio11 | patio11(Patrick McKenzie 的网名,保留原文) |
| Patrick Collison | Patrick Collison(Stripe 联合创始人兼 CEO,保留原文) |
| Patrick McKenzie | Patrick McKenzie(Stripe 员工/博主,保留原文) |
| Pixar | Pixar(知名动画工作室,保留原文) |
| PowerPoint | PowerPoint(微软演示文稿工具,保留原文) |
| product market fit | 产品市场契合度(已在术语表中) |
| proof of existence | 存在性证明 |
| RUV | RUV(Roll-Up Vehicle,AngelList 的一种投资架构,保留原文) |
| S3 | S3(Amazon Simple Storage Service,亚马逊简单存储服务,保留原文) |
| SaaS | SaaS(软件即服务,保留原文) |
| self-service funnel | 自助服务漏斗 |
| Sharpie | Sharpie(马克笔品牌,保留原文) |
| SLA | SLA(服务等级协议,Service Level Agreement,保留原文) |
| SQL | SQL(结构化查询语言,保留原文) |
| stacked bar chart | 堆叠柱状图 |
| Stripe | Stripe(知名支付科技公司,保留原文) |
| Stripe Study Groups | Stripe 学习小组 |
| UXR | UXR(用户体验研究,保留原文) |
| Watershed | Watershed(气候报告工具公司,保留原文) |
| whimsical | whimsical(在线绘图工具,保留原文) |
| YC | YC(Y Combinator,知名创业孵化器,保留原文) |
| zero-to-one | zero-to-one(从零到一,指从零开始构建新产品,保留原文) |
Reformatted by reformat_english.py
在 Stripe 做产品:匠心、指标与客户执念 | Jeff Weinstein(产品负责人)
开场片段
Lenny Rachitsky: 看你在 Twitter 上的行事风格,你完全打破了产品经理和客户之间的那堵墙。
Jeff Weinstein: 当客户感到足够强烈,愿意特意去谈论某个问题时,那就是一份难以置信的礼物。我会中途离开会议,就为了给他们回一条消息。如果你和其中五到十个客户建立了可以发短信的关系,你会获得如此多的直接信号,那种信号是会传染的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 很多人告诉我一定要问你关于挑选指标的事。
Jeff Weinstein: 我们试图为客户创造的价值是什么,能不能从他们的角度来衡量?那么,你怎么知道自己达到了产品市场契合度(product market fit)?一方面是显示数据向右上方攀升的图表,另一方面是 Twitter 上的讨论。
Lenny Rachitsky: 你在 Stripe 发起了一个叫学习小组(study groups)的项目。
Jeff Weinstein: 我们四到八个人一起出现,假装是某家公司,面临某个成果问题。规则一:你不是 Stripe 的员工。规则二:我们不是来解决问题的。这只是为了练习对客户的同理心。
嘉宾介绍
Lenny Rachitsky: 今天的嘉宾是 Jeff Weinstein。在 Stripe 的六年多时间里,Jeff 一直担任支付基础设施团队的产品负责人,帮助 Stripe 将支付规模扩展到每年数千亿美元的交易量。他还在 Stripe 带领产品经理和团队进行了多项从零到一的探索,最近又接手了 Stripe Atlas 的规模化工作——在本期播客上线之际,Stripe Atlas 已经可以让你在一天之内完成新公司注册,包括处理 83(b) 选举、公司注册文件、获取 EIN、股权认购,以及过去公司开始运营前需要数周甚至数月才能搞定的一切。目前,特拉华州每六家新注册的公司中就有一家是通过 Stripe Atlas 创建的,这让我非常震惊。这一期最终成了我播客历史上最长的一集,因为我基本上想对一位极其高效且备受推崇的产品领导者做一次”考古”式的深入挖掘。
我们花了整段对话深入挖掘 Jeff 积累的诸多技能,正是这些技能让他能够持续打造成功且深受喜爱的产品。我们聊到了他那种”冲冲冲加乐观主义”的风格、长期复利式的产品构建哲学,以及如何思考和实践产品的匠心与品质。他分享了一个他在 Stripe 发起的很受欢迎的项目——Stripe 学习小组(Stripe Study Groups),我觉得你应该把它偷走用。我们还聊了如何有效地与客户对话、如何判断新产品是否达到了产品市场契合度、如何为团队挑选好的指标、他在大公司里”把事搞定”的经验,以及他从 Stripe 创始人那里得到的建议等等。这期节目适合每一个想要全面提升自己产品构建功力的人。
选择最难的课堂
Lenny Rachitsky: 我想先从一个我找到的你说过的话开始,我觉得这段话能让人一窥你的思维方式和你看待世界的方式。这段话是:“在学校里,我经常考试考得很差,然后教授会非常合理地说,‘嘿,我觉得你应该降到上一学期进度的班。‘“而你说,“其实那些我都知道,所以我才在这门课里。我想待在 potentially 我是最差的那个班里。“大多数人不是这样想的,大多数人也不是这样做的。通常人们想要好成绩,想在班级里名列前茅。显然你有不同的方式和心态。这对你来说是从哪里来的?这又是如何塑造你对产品的思考和你所做的工作的?
Jeff Weinstein: 部分原因其实只是我不太擅长那些课程,然后需要以某种方式给自己一个合理化解释。所以回过头看,那听起来挺高尚的,但当时我就是确实不太擅长那些课。不过我觉得这跟我的成长经历有关。我在马里兰州巴尔的摩上了一所相当自由开放的 K-12 学校,在那里我们被真正要求思考自己为什么在学校,可以选任何自己感兴趣的课程,不受 AP 课程、成绩或任何特定要求的限制,你可以真正选择自己的路径。
我记得高中有一门课印象特别深,有点像科学课,但叫”科学史”(History of Science)。我们系统地学习了当时被最广为接受的对世界运行方式的理解——但后来都被证明是错的。十六世纪我们相信 X、Y、Z,十七世纪我们相信 A、B、C,都非常笃定。十六世纪我们信一套,十七世纪信的是完全不同的一套。所以这门课对我影响很大——我们花了一整年学习那些不正确的东西,非常引人入胜。那位老师在那门课上还用了另一个手法——他把学校的学费除以上课小时数,算出每节课的成本,写在票上,然后在学年初给每人发了一叠票,每节课他站在门口,下课时你要交给他一张票,表示你觉得这节课值这个价。这种对人们如何评判某样东西的深度理解,再通过亲手把那张票交给老师这个物理行为来为自己选择把时间花在哪里——这种实践对我触动很深。
所以当我上了大学——一所真正的综合性大学,同学们往往来自更严格的学术背景,学的东西都是”正确”的——我就有些准备不足。我记得当时选了一门相当高级的微观经济学课,有一个好朋友,我们学的是完全一样的信息,看着同一份速记表,做同样的练习题,读同样的书,结果他拿了全班最高分,我拿了最低分。那段引言就是这么来的——教授说我建议你考虑降到下一级的班。我说,“那些东西我已经会了。我对这个主题感兴趣。我会继续努力提高,但仅仅因为我比其他同学差很多,并不意味着我应该离开。“他还挺开明的。
文理学院与科技职业的交汇
Lenny Rachitsky: 你上了你所描述的那种文科范儿、嬉皮风格的学校,这很有意思。很多人会质疑这种选择——为什么要花那么多大学的时间和金钱去接受文科教育?但你最终却在一家非常技术化、高度依赖数据分析的公司里取得了很大的成功。而这段经历竟然在另一条道路上也帮助了你,这很有意思。
Jeff Weinstein: 不过确实经历了一个转变,因为我一开始选的专业是英语文学。但我一直在摆弄电脑,也一直喜欢数学,然后我就去观察那些我喜欢的那类公司里,掌舵的人是什么背景。当时 Facebook 正在取得惊人的成功,Apple 也在持续上升,而所有这些地方的领导者都有技术背景。我本身就很喜欢电脑,所以在大学中途加了一个计算机科学的工程学位。这意味着我得和医学预科生一起上真正的科学课,表现依然不算好,但最终我拿到了计算机科学学位和一个人文学科学位。所以这是一段旅程,中间我必须做出一个相当大的转向,才能走上这条路。
“冲、冲、冲,越快越好”加长期复利思维
Lenny Rachitsky: 我问你,如果在这个播客中有一件事是你特别想传达的,那会是什么。你给了我一个清单,第一条是这样的:“冲、冲、冲,越快越好,加上乐观的、长期复利式的方法。“能不能谈谈你这是什么意思?
Jeff Weinstein: 这里面其实有两件事。我的看法是,眼前的世界有如此多的行动机会等着我们去把握,我们可以保持乐观,尽快地冲、冲、冲。我觉得生活中很多事情就像是——你的房子有多大,就能放多少家具。我们总会在截止日期前一晚才动手干活,那就让它明天到期吧。我们能不能把”明天”变成”今天”?带着乐观的心态,看看能不能注入能量去冲、冲、冲,这种方式带来了令人惊讶的成果。而且我觉得它会点燃他人同样的兴趣,然后彼此互相激发。这是我从成长经历中深入骨髓的东西。
后来我又逐步学会了一种更长期的、复利式的、更具战略性的思维方式。我们想要实现的一些事情——不管是在我之前的创业公司还是在 Stripe——都不可能在一个下午内解决。它们需要层层叠叠的基础设施、服务、应用、用户界面和合作伙伴关系,真正就像你看到的那幅冰山图——你只看到顶部,但底下是整个庞大的结构。我不得不逐步学会将我的本能——“今天就把事情干完,往前推进,看看能做到什么,犯些错误,试试看”——与”我们到底要走向哪里?随着时间推移,什么条件需要先具备?哪些地方值得持续投入?我们在什么事情上花时间永远不会后悔?“搭配起来。我们永远不会后悔花时间去让 Stripe 支付 API 的延迟更低。我们永远不会后悔让发送 83(b) 选举邮件给 IRS 的流程更可靠。这些事情永远不会后悔。所以我们就持续地、随着时间推移去积累这些能力。
难点在于如何把”冲、冲、冲”的态度与长期复利结合起来。这仍然是我一直在摸索的事情,但我比以前更刻意地去平衡两者了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这个总结非常好,概括了如何在很多事情上取得成功。冲、冲、冲,越快越好,保持乐观,专注于长期复利式增长。有没有一个实际的例子来展示这一点?我知道我们接下来会聊到 Atlas,但有没有一个例子能说明这种方式对你或你做的某个产品奏效了?
Stripe 全球化扩张的战略转变
Jeff Weinstein: 我在 Stripe 工作,这是一家基础设施公司,我们构建各种帮助企业在不同形式下进行在线商务的产品。我在 Stripe 担任过几个角色。我现在在我们南旧金山漂亮的办公室里,其中一个角色是作为产品负责人,帮助我们决定如何走向全球、如何提供多种支付方式。事实上,世界上不只有信用卡这一种支付方式,还有小几百种人们在线上自然而然想要使用的支付方式。作为一家企业,你当然希望接受人们想要用来支付的任何方式。在 Stripe 的前七八年里——远在我加入之前——新增的国家和新增的支付方式随时间推移相对平稳,增幅并不大。这对我们所有在这里工作的人来说都很令人意外,因为世界需要它,我们有很多人在做这件事,大家也非常努力,但它没有产生我们期望的那种回报。
实际上,乐观的、“越快越好”的冲刺态度在这里不起作用了。无论我们投入多少精力去建设泰国的支付方式、英国的银行转账,还是拉丁美洲的线下支付系统,我们就是没法一个一个地把分数攒起来把它搞定。所以我们不得不退后一步来想:“十年后世界会是什么样子?那时需要具备什么条件?我们现在可以怎样开始朝那个方向走?“这意味着要慢下来很多——建设内部平台,派人到世界各地去开始构建这些支付方式,让他们搬离原来的生活、为他们支付房租、让他们坐上飞机、开始在世界各地实际使用这些支付方式。所以那条线确实平了一段时期,我们也在想:“好吧,这个策略到底行不行得通?“但随着时间推移,我们开始看到它转变为非线性的增长,从当时的十种支付方式左右开始往上走。
Stripe 支付方式的加速增长
现在 Stripe 支持的支付方式已经超过一百种。我们从十种到五十种非常快,然后就飙升到了一百种。我记得有一次开会,我们说:“要不把所有人都锁在地下室里,看看能不能从十种冲到五十种。“那就是典型的初创公司冲刺式态度。但当我们逐一审视完成这件事的具体环节,以及我们希望这个成果持续多久,我们不得不放慢很多。这是一个非常具有塑造性的决策——你必须把”冲冲冲”和长期复利结合起来。
匠心与产品市场契合度
Lenny Rachitsky: 好。接下来让我们更深入地聊聊你身上那些我听说你特别擅长、我也在 Twitter 和 LinkedIn 上亲眼见证过的具体技能。第一个就是匠心——匠心与品质。很多人告诉我,你对匠心、用户体验和品质有着非常强烈的执念,更有人说,你在 Stripe 用一种非常系统化的方式教人们如何对匠心、品质和用户体验产生执念。我觉得这是很多人开始意识到非常重要的事情,无论是个人层面还是在公司层面,大家都在试图在这方面变得更好。所以首先我想问,为什么这件事对你如此重要?为什么你认为匠心、体验和品质这么重要?为什么你个人对此如此重视?
Jeff Weinstein: 我觉得自己其实是在从过去的失败中倒推,试图避免重蹈覆辙。也许可以讲一个小故事。几年前我创办了一家公司,起因是我个人的一个痛点——我当时是一个 SQL 分析师。你们中很多人可能写过 SQL,也许现在机器人帮你写 SQL 了,但你仍然需要自己写 SQL。而每一次我写 SQL 查询的时候,我都想做同样的一系列后续分析。我想要好的版本控制,我想要 GitHub 为代码提供的那些很酷的功能,但用在写数据代码上。于是我和朋友们做了一个小型的 Python 工具,基本上可以让你运行 SQL 风格的查询,快速画图表和数据透视表,以及分享——所有这些现代 SaaS 应用的功能,但应用在 SQL 上。那是几年前的事了,后来我们把它做成了一家公司。
我们取得了一些进展,但有一天出现了这样一个时刻——当时我们大概有两百来个客户,然后出了一个故障,我们不小心把服务关掉了,瘫痪了十到二十分钟。那时候我们在自己那个简陋的小办公室里手忙脚乱地恢复应用。我们对恢复速度还算快感到挺自豪的,用户回去继续使用了,宕机时间不算太长,也没丢数据,我们互相击掌庆贺,然后就继续各自忙碌了。大约一年以后我才意识到那是一个……
我错过了一个本该抓住的重大信号——在那二十分钟里,我们的客户并没有愤怒。他们没有疯狂给我们发邮件,没有给我们发短信,没有试图在 Google Maps 上找到我们然后敲门说:“嘿,我需要你们立刻把这个恢复。“我们只听到他们零星几句话,是一些小声的嘀咕。当时我没有意识到,那就是我们没有达到产品市场契合度的信号。而我又在那个项目上浪费了好几年。“浪费”这个词说得重了。我们做了很棒的软件,用户喜欢它,我们成功把公司卖掉了。
它帮助我们很多人真正学会了如何构建软件。但我确实在努力避免再次陷入那种境地。我觉得匠心是甜点,而主菜是你的产品是否真正解决了世界上的一个真实问题,人们是否迫切需要它。我真正执念的是找到那些人们会放下手中所有事情去解决的问题——他们会恨不得穿过屏幕说:“天哪,我也有这个问题,你有解决方案吗?”
如果你专注于这种风格的产品开发——我们可以后面再聊如何倾听这种信号然后把它转化为产品——你可能会获得真正提供匠心、美感、细节、时刻和愉悦感的机会。但毫无疑问,再多的匠心、再多的美感、再多的愉悦感或细节,都无法解决我们在创业时遇到的那个问题——人们并不是真的需要这个东西。而最大的错误就是选择了一个人们并不真正需要的东西,然后去做那些试图让它变得优秀的实践,而它也许从一开始就不应该存在。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我觉得很多人看到各种推文和消息都在说要对正在构建的东西的匠心充满执念,但很容易忽略一点……根本没人在乎你在做什么。它可以是有史以来设计得最出色的体验,但如果不是任何人想要的东西,那真的毫无意义。
倾听客户的艺术
Jeff Weinstein: 人们不会为了他们的第二号问题起床,他们只为第一号问题起床。而你必须仔细倾听,而不是在你试图弄清楚这些问题的时候向你的客户或潜在客户推销。我认为这个建议——甚至算不上建议,更像一种风格——适用于小公司、大公司、任何人——就是人们不想被推销。有时候我会参加一个 UXR(用户体验研究)电话,对面是一个出于好意的人,或者一个有新产品需要建议或想找客户的创始人。我们一接通电话,他们开口第一句话就是:“你好,我是某某公司的 CEO,我们做什么做什么,我想给你看一个 demo。“这就像——“等一下,我是一个客户,我有……”你刚刚浪费了一个多么好的机会。
我有那么多问题,你提前猜我的首要问题是什么,而一旦你锚定在那个推销话术上,你就非常可能错过他们心中最紧迫的那个问题。而且客户没有义务打断你说:“嘿,你能停一下你的推销吗?我想告诉你我最重要的问题。“你可以往下游看——那些发布了产品、注入了匠心、做了精彩发布、融了资的公司,后来消失了。原因就是他们构建的东西并没有解决一个迫切的需求。而我觉得这一切可以一直追溯到——他们只是在推销,而不是安静地坐着,等待客户向你敞开心扉,告诉你最让他们头疼的是什么。
有时候我会引导我们的客户,我会说:“嘿,你介意打开你的电子邮件吗?里面有什么?“或者,“如果你现在不是在跟我说话,你会在做什么?“或者,“上周,什么事让你最烦?你最不想面对的是什么?“或者魔法棒问题——“你希望什么能立刻从你的待办清单上消失?忘掉 Stripe,忘掉所有东西,就你整个人生而言,什么是你不想做的?“又或者,“一个巨大的机会,你希望就在一扇门之外?“这有点尴尬,因为他们不明白你为什么问这种问题,但你就安静地坐在那里。大多数情况下,如果你面对的是那些聪明、有雄心、正在努力建设自己事业的优秀客户,他们会想要把自己最难的事情交给别人。
Jeff Weinstein: 如果你在过程中赢得了信任——当然,不推销是赢得信任的绝佳方式——你只是在倾听。Stripe 从中学到了很多。这就是你可以开始发现相邻领域的地方,对吧?“嗯,嘿,我不知道 Stripe 是否真的能帮我解决这个问题,但如果我们能识别出网站上注册的人不是欺诈、是他们本人、不是机器人,或者确认他们不是互联网上的一只狗,那不是很酷吗?“然后我们就想,“这是我们所有客户最大的抱怨,但我们不是一家身份识别公司。“结果就是,“好吧,我想现在我们是了,因为我们所有正在努力建设自己事业的客户都有这个问题。“所以通过沉默,你可以很快地制定出你的路线图,省掉漫长的 UXR、漫长的问卷调查、漫长的开发周期那一套。
直接对话客户的力量
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢我们聊到的这些方向。这其实也是我接下来想聊的——就是你与客户对话和做用户研究的能力。看你在 Twitter 上的运营方式,感觉非常独特:你不断分享自己的邮箱,不断跟人通电话。你打破了很多人想象中存在于产品经理、团队负责人和客户之间的那堵墙。你不是依赖简单的研究,也不是等别人替你做这些工作。聊聊你为什么这么做、怎么做的。仅从你通过与客户对话来发现机会、选择要解决的问题这种方式中,就有太多值得学习的地方。
Jeff Weinstein: 生意来自于客户。去跟他们交谈不是什么需要大胆假设的事情。道理很简单:如果他们喜欢你的产品,他们会告诉朋友,并且愿意为产品支付公道的价格。我们非常幸运,互联网让人们主动表明自己对某个话题的兴趣。有时候他们通过在 Reddit 上发一篇长长的帖子来表达兴趣,或者贴一张让他们不爽的客服交互截图,或者希望从 X 国的宿舍里,世界上某个地方的另一个人已经解决了同样的问题。互联网给了我们这个绝对神奇的论坛,你可以对着窗外喊一声,然后几十亿人真的能听到你说了什么。当然,这并非对所有人在所有情况下都成立,但在人类历史上,这比以往任何时候都要普遍得多。
所以,人们不去倾听客户的声音、不钻进屏幕去跟他们对话,这让我很惊讶。我有时候会想,“他们是不是有什么别的策略?他们是不是对自己正在构建的东西如此自信,以至于不需要直接听取使用者的意见?“我觉得一部分原因是我自己的恐惧——害怕犯过去犯过的错误,就是构建出人们虽然在用、但解决的问题不够迫切的东西,以至于他们不会为此停下手中的事、不会告诉朋友、我们无法在经济上长期维持公司的运转。而这真的只是来自于倾听人们最迫切的问题,然后钻进屏幕去跟他们对话——这需要一点紧张的勇气,就像在酒吧或鸡尾酒会上走到一个人面前说:“嗨,我叫 Jeff。”
可能有点尴尬,但一旦上手就停不下来了。一旦你进入那个迭代循环——他们很兴奋跟你交谈,他们有问题,他们视你为可信赖的人,不做推销、不窄化到只谈我的产品和我的立场,而是我在这里倾听你所有的问题,看看我们能帮上什么忙。不是承诺能解决一切,而是让我们先听听。这种方式是有感染力的,在客户之间如此,在公司内部也是如此。所以我能够把更多人带入这种实践。在 Stripe,我可以很快拉上一个工程师就跳上一通电话,可以把一条消息转发到 Slack 群组。他们知道,因为是客户直接在说话,这在某种程度上优先于当天正在发生的所有事情。我们可以去开会猜测客户想要什么,也可以直接跟他们谈。
筛选客户的技巧
你需要运用一点艺术来判断你最应该仔细倾听哪些客户。但即使在 Stripe 的规模上——我们面对数以百万计的企业和这些企业背后数以亿计的消费者——你也可以相对快速地进行模式匹配。哪些风格的客户代表了世界的发展方向:最有雄心的、最技术的、增长最快的、最关注细节的。你不需要跟一万个这样的人交谈。如果你跟其中五到十个可以互发短信的关系,你就会获得如此多的直接信号,告诉你该往哪里走,以至于你会忘记过去是怎么做的。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这些太好了。我很想多了解一些你觉得有效的具体战术。你已经分享了沉默这个想法——跟人交谈时保持沉默,我忘了你用的确切措辞,但大意就是想法会自然浮现,你的整个路线图都可以从沉默中浮现出来。让我复述一下你到目前为止分享的几个方法,然后看看还有什么补充。第二是在 Twitter 上发推说:“嘿,我现在正在改进 Atlas,你有什么问题?这是我的邮箱地址。“你提到了短信——就是”嘿,能给我你的号码吗?我有问题时会直接给你发短信。“如果对这些有什么要补充的,那就太好了。还有你发现的其他方法吗?就是那些实际触达客户、发现重要机会的方式。
速度就是一切
Jeff Weinstein: 速度很重要的一点,就是缩短客户感到有足够的动力去主动谈论某个问题和你回应之间的时间。他们很忙,有零食要吃,有家人要照顾,有别的事情要做。这个世界上发生着很多事情,非常多。你那个不起眼的产品——他们居然愿意花时间讨论它,这已经很了不起了。因为大多数时候,你不喜欢某样东西,你就直接走开了。你无动于衷地、沉默地继续你的生活。所以,有人拿出他们有限的时间,带着好奇心,简洁地向世界或你表达关于你产品的看法,这是一份难以置信的礼物。
这应该是 P0 级别的警报强度的回应。所以我会离开会议,改变我正在做的事情,只为了给他们回一条消息。哪怕是”嘿,我收到了。我马上要去吃饭,明天能联系你吗?“他们会说,“哦,太好了。谢谢。我都不敢相信你回复了。“这就把我们推到了正确的轨道上——他们会感觉自己拥有一个几乎像秘密通道一样的连接,连接着这个大品牌公司和另一个真正好奇发生了什么的人类……
……品牌公司和另一个真正好奇发生了什么的人类之间,这是天壤之别。另外还有一个有趣的小技巧:当人们对某个问题情绪激烈时——它可能在社交媒体上引爆,或者他们即将变成批评者——我们会犯错,我们会有 SLA 违约,我们会有故障——你要想快速处理这些情况。在这些情况下,我对我们如何回应这些人的标准不仅仅是解决问题,而是把他们转变为推广者,而大多数时候我们都能做到,即使确实存在相当严重的问题。
化危机为朋友
Jeff Weinstein: 我记得有一次在 Atlas,我们有一个 bug——在少数几份法律文件中,发放的是 25 股股份而不是 25% 的股份。我们漏掉了百分号。幸好有位创始人在文件中发现了这一点并发了推文。我当时心里一紧,心想:“糟糕,这可能是个非常严重的问题。“我们很快就修复了它,并为所有受影响的用户重新生成了文件。我当时心想:“哇,我们真的辜负了这个人。我们唯一要做的就是帮他们把公司设立正确,结果我们没做到。”
那位创始人对这件事非常宽容,说:“任何时候你想让我审读你的文件,我很乐意。我有法学学位,我关心这个话题。我想和你们一起头脑风暴,看看 Atlas 能不能做更多的文件创建工作。“我当时想:“哇,真不敢相信我刚才还处于那种防御姿态,现在我们却在世界上多了一个朋友,可以充当我们的眼睛和耳朵,还能和我们一起头脑风暴。“团队至今与那个人保持着非常密切的关系——就像和许多许多使用 Atlas 的创始人一样。
说到底,我们总是太快地把外部世界归入另一个阵营,觉得需要小心翼翼地对待,把它当作一个模糊的群体、一个群组、一个统计数据,但其实那是一个人,一个有问题要解决的人,一个喜欢吃零食的人,一个很忙的人。这样做不仅有趣,而且事实证明这是一种极其简单、快速的方法,能帮你弄清楚该建什么。
如何筛选值得深入的反馈
Lenny Rachitsky: 这里面有很多我想追问的地方。其中之一是,人们听到这些可能会想:“天哪,我会被反馈淹没的——要给人解决问题、修 bug、给人发消息。“他们会觉得:“可能有太多人需要我互动了。“你怎么缩小范围?我知道 Atlas 的采用率非常高,用户量很大,可能经常有 bug,也不断有人给你发反馈。你怎么挑选要重点关注的对象?
Jeff Weinstein: 我觉得这个问题可以分两部分回答。第一,这算什么问题——在世界上所有问题中,“我被客户的关注淹没了”绝对排在我想要拥有的问题的前列。我想大多数创业者都愿意花钱买到这个状态。所以,如果你正处于这种境地,深呼吸,看看日出或日落,享受一下你做出了足够有意义的东西、以至于人们愿意为你花时间这个事实。再说一遍,他们本可以把时间花在那些美味的零食上,所以这是件了不起的事。
第二,你需要技巧。选择在哪里深入,是一门艺术和科学。我很乐意回复别人:“非常感谢。方便的话能发一张截图或录一段视频吗?“有些人不会发,没关系。
你可以很快从他们的描述方式中、从他们细节的详细程度中、从他们想要参与的程度中看出端倪,据此来权衡取舍。或者你可以告诉对方:“这真的很棒。方便的话,能给我发一封邮件,用三到五个要点描述你是怎么遇到这个问题的吗?“这不是一个 30 分钟的会议,你不需要为此打乱你整个生活去和他们通话。这对他们来说也不是什么繁重的作业,但这个结构足够筛选出那些真正想深入交流的人。而一旦他们提供了那么详细的反馈,你就真的有义务去跟进。到那个阶段,你确实已经交到了一个终身的产品朋友,你会不断地回去找他们。所以你必须自己调校这个尺度。
我还会给这些努力设定边界。比如我会凭空创造一个项目。有一天我开车上班的路上,就即兴编了一个:“嗨,Stripe 正在启动一个 bug 猎手项目。“我随口编的,发了推文,好奇有没有人会提交什么。“接下来三天我们会接收视频,进行深入排查。“人们的反应是:“天哪,我很想加入 Stripe 的 bug 猎手项目。我可以申请吗?“我回复:“嗯,筛选很严格的。不过对你,当然可以。“这就是通过一个项目来给人们一个参与许可——即使这个项目完全是随意发起的——我发现这有助于设定边界。之后我可以向外界跟进:“嘿,我们运行了第一期项目,收到了 65 个视频”——我们确实收到了。“发现了数十个问题”——我们确实发现了。这对我们来说是一段极其有价值的时间投入,而这一切源于一条推文。
只关注付费客户的反馈
Lenny Rachitsky: 我记得你在某个地方提到过,你只关注付费客户的反馈,忽略其他所有反馈。能谈谈这个吗?
Jeff Weinstein: 为他人打造产品的人往往很有共情能力,充满兴趣和好奇心,他们有朋友,而这些朋友也想用你的东西——因为他们认识你、喜欢你,也会有不错的反馈。但你需要搞清楚:那个人到底是你的客户,还是你的朋友在试玩?你真正的目标客户到底是谁?不是一个公司或一个细分市场,不是”规模为 X 的数字原生企业”这种笼统的描述。我说的是 Sarah——这个部门的 Sarah,她的浏览器开着这些标签页,刚刚遇到了这个问题,需要在下午四点之前解决。这种具体程度。如果你的客户是这样的——我主要谈论的是 B2B 领域,这也是我花大量时间的地方,B2C 方面我的直觉就没那么强了——他们非常愿意用金钱来交换对他们问题的解决,极其愿意。很多时候,如果你足够安静地倾听,他们甚至可能会主动说:“我愿意付钱让你帮我解决某某问题。“如果你在沉默中坐得足够久的话。
所以,你可以去听你那些朋友试玩你 beta 版后的反馈,他们会说挺喜欢的,会随便点一点看看。但这和那位真正面临问题、愿意付费的 Sarah 有着天壤之别。而走第一条路——朋友群体的那条路——实在是太有诱惑力了,以至于我需要给自己定一条规则:“好吧,与其……不如别那么关注那些反馈。真正要关注的是:谁是你的目标客户?你是否在与他们进行快速迭代?他们是否在向朋友推荐你的产品?”
但光这样还不够,因为人们太容易被友善所吸引——包括我自己在内——所以我干脆定了一条规则:“我们把朋友的所有反馈全部折扣为零。“我们不感兴趣。我们甚至不记录下来。它完全不在我们讨论的范围内。我们只关注 Sarah,我们的目标客户——能不能让她以尽可能快、尽可能有冲击力的方式解决她的问题,然后从这里出发。
而”付费”这个环节则是一个倒逼机制。因为即便面对 Sarah,因为你在关注她、在帮她解决问题,她会说:“当然,哦,这很好。我想要功能 X、Y 和 Z。它能做一、二、三吗?“她自然会这么说。但如果你说:“顺便说一下,这个东西一万美元。你不喜欢的话我们随时百分之百退款。“她可能会说:“等等等等。是,我喜欢这个东西,但不值一万美元。要一万美元的话,它得能解决 X 才行。“你就会想:“哦,原来如此。“那才是真正有价值的东西,而之前我们一直在绕着它打转。方向是对的,路子是对的,但因为我自己在那条歧路上栽过太多次跟头,所以我就定了一条规则。
练习”沉默”技巧
Lenny Rachitsky: 这些太好了,我本来就想问这个。关于运用沉默的技巧,帮助人们真正去实践它——你刚才分享了那句”要让我付一万美元,它得能做到 X”。这句话用起来真的很妙。关于如何练习创造沉默、让潜在客户说出他们真正需要的东西,还有其他建议吗?
Jeff Weinstein: 我建议人们去上一两堂即兴表演训练课,就是帮人稍微跳出自己的舒适区。顺便说一下,这条建议同样适用于大公司,不限于小公司。我们自己也遇到过这样的问题,我也听说其他大公司也有类似的情况——大公司会说:“嘿,我们是企业客户,准备跟你签一份大合同。你只需要把功能一、二、三、四、五、六、七、八、九做出来,再走完安全审查步骤 A、B、C、D、E、F、G 就行。“这种来自第一个企业客户、动辄三年期大合同的诱惑——哪怕你已经是规模不小的公司了——你还可以从财富 1000 强做到财富 500 强,再到财富 50 强、财富 10 强,永远有更大的目标。而有太多故事是:中途被人抽走了地毯,他们实际上根本没用起来,合同最终也没有真正落地。
合作方面也是一样。所以我会说同样的话:“如果我们对此真的很认真,那就先给我们转一百万美元。给我们电汇一百万美元,你随时需要我们都可以愉快地退回去。但让我们真正把价值的承诺落到地。“我发现,在那些对方回应”哇,等等,不行,绝对不行,我们不能在这里做出承诺”的案例中,这其实是一个很好的信号——因为你即将投入大量时间去构建的东西可能永远不会被使用,而这恰恰是我听到的大多数情况。或者你可能会得到相反的反应:“听起来很好。我们得让团队尽快上手。怎么安排你们来我们办公室做说明?我们需要它跟我们还没提到过的那个系统真正对接起来。既然我们要付钱了,我们希望速度更快。”
所以我觉得这种方式能在岔路口上指明方向——要么加速成功,要么帮你避开不会成功的路径。即便在 Stripe 的规模下,我听过我们的创始人在某种程度上也在推动这套方法论。外面的人可能会想:“嗯,这可是一家八千人的公司。他们肯定有自己常规的方式为大客户构建东西。“但我们也同样需要这类承诺,才愿意偏离既定的产品路线图。
Lenny Rachitsky: 所以你在这里分享的一个重要经验基本上就是——确保人们愿意为他们所要求的东西付费。这才是最终的信号,说明他们——
“愿意付费”不等于”已经付费”
Jeff Weinstein: 顺便说一下,“愿意付费”和”已经付费”是不同的。显著不同,显著不同。我以前也想过:“只要他们愿意付费,说了会付,看了合同也没问题,我们就应该放心了。“这跟真正付费不是一回事。付费是一个独立的群体在说:“我的问题已经紧迫到我愿意用自己手中有价值的东西来交换你承诺要做的事。“这时它才成为真正的承诺。这跟”愿意”有着天壤之别。所以我经常在电话或视频上跟创始人在一起,让他们练习向我收费。我会说:“嘿,我只是个朋友,想帮你一把。这也有点自私的成分,因为我在 Stripe 工作,想收集对我们产品的反馈。”
我会说:“随便你用什么发票或支付服务都行,我不在乎哪个。如果 Stripe 对你来说够方便,你欢迎使用,我也很想听听你的意见。现在就给我发一张一美元的发票或支付链接,就现在。这样一来,等你真正需要向第一个客户收费的时候,就不会是第一次了。不会觉得别扭。你已经做过了,你的账户里已经有了一美元,你的发票右上角已经有了你的 logo。感觉会很棒。“我大概可以翻一下我的邮箱收件箱,找到一堆给各种陌生人的一美元收据——因为我就是如此确信,“付费”和”愿意、准备好、我以为他们会付”之间的差距是昼夜之别。
Lenny Rachitsky: 对,有”付费意愿”(willingness to pay)这个术语,我觉得就像你说的,它应该改成——直接跨越那个意愿,就——
Jeff Weinstein: 付费。
Lenny Rachitsky: 付费,没错。
Jeff Weinstein: 对。钱可以退,完全没问题。关于如何推动人们行动,还有其他一些小技巧——比如问问他们作为普通人的日常生活:“你昨天做了什么?“他们会说:“哦,工作上的事吗?“我会说:“或者不是,都行。“然后人们就开始倾诉,自然而然地倒出来,很快就会聊到他们最大的问题。
指标的重要性
Lenny Rachitsky: 我们来聊聊指标吧,换个方向。很多人跟我说一定要问你关于选择指标的事、指标的重要性、以及你如何看待指标。那我就先从一个问题开始:你觉得为什么选对指标如此重要?为什么指标在打造成功产品中如此关键?
Jeff Weinstein: 我心里基本上一直有一个信念:产品经理的职责就是产出产品市场契合度(product market fit)。那你怎么知道自己达到了产品市场契合度?一方面是图表上展示出数据向右上方走的趋势,另一方面是推特上的口碑。所以指标——量化的和质化的——我真的把它们视为深层的兄弟、平等的伙伴,你真的两者都需要。不是说 OKR 对立于别的什么。有些东西你需要的是视频里那个人展现出来的、操作某个东西有多复杂的真实质感。但同时,我们也在试图构建一个能在大规模下运转的、经济上可行的系统,你不可能把所有这些都装在脑子里,你需要去衡量。所以我认为指标最好的状态,就是我们为客户提供的价值的数字化表征。
人什么都能衡量。你大可以开始数事件、翻日志。现在计数的成本已经变得极低了。于是我们就有了选择衡量什么的巨大特权。我真的尽量一路追溯回去——“我们到底试图为客户创造什么价值?我们能不能从客户的视角来衡量它?“而我认为,很自然地——一方面是因为在公司内部工作时,你的思维就是内视的,另一方面也是因为应用内指标的采集方式本身就偏内部导向——比如多少人登录了?好吧,这是一个合理的度量,但多少人登录后完成了他们想做的事?这不一定就作为一个单一事件安静地躺在你的数据库里。你需要稍微动脑筋想一想。我花大量时间精心打磨少数几个指标,还有一个原因是:它们能倒逼取舍和决策。
我们可以整天围坐在一起说:“嘿,我听到了客户有这些问题,我们应该做 X、Y、Z。“另一个人也完全可以合理地说:“我从那些客户那里听到的是,我们应该做一、二、三。“他们说的都是事实。两条路都能有不少成果,但大多数情况是两条都没做,我们就围坐着争论、吵闹,进展缓慢。“我们要用什么方式,自然而然地、每天把一大群人引导到正确的方向上,并且看到我们的策略是否在随着时间推移为客户——从他们的角度——创造进展?“左边放指标,右边放一系列推特——这个组合相当棒。
Atlas 的零工单指标
Jeff Weinstein: 举个例子。几年前我在 Stripe 的支付组工作了一段时间,然后开始接手一些银行和公司注册相关的服务。我接手 Atlas 的时候,它已经有了一定的成绩。在我花时间在上面之前,它已经存在了四五年了。但当我开始看客服工单时,发现人们经常很不满意。他们的 DocuSign 文件卡在邮箱里打不开。他们需要联合创始人的地址,但不知道联合创始人的地址。他们登录不了控制台去查看 83(b) 选举的手动申报说明。我们刚开始花时间在 Atlas 上的第一周就看到了这些情况。我当时就说:“把所有客服工单给我看看。它们是开心的工单吗?人们写信过来说’哦,我太喜欢这个服务了,简直棒极了,能不能再帮我做 A、B、C?‘还是悲伤的工单?“他们回答说:“天哪,全是悲伤的工单。”
于是我们就问自己:“那一个人凭什么会把 Atlas 推荐给朋友?“我说:“那它得帮他们完成 A、B、C 这些事项。它得帮他们注册公司,帮他们从国税局拿到税务 ID,得把所有下游的行政杂务都处理好。“但毫无疑问,如果他们最后还提交了一堆客服工单,他们不会去告诉朋友用这个东西。我们可以衡量所有中间环节,可以衡量注册服务的成功率和频率,这些我们都在做。但如果你去看客服工单——一旦你有工单,你就不可能把它推荐给朋友。于是,我们给自己设了这样一个指标:通过注册服务且零工单的公司数。
整个流程——从你开始打开申请页面的那一刻起,实际上是最开始第一次页面加载,一直到整个等待政府、等待国税局的流程,我们还额外给你两周时间可以写信给客服。多给两周缓冲期。如果你走完这整个过程没有任何客服工单,那就是”是”。只要有任何数量的工单,就是”否”。我们就看有多少比例的创始人以零工单走完了整个服务,这和看平均值非常不同,对吧?平均值可能是 0.3,但从 0.3 降到 0.2 不代表他们就更愿意告诉朋友。我们一看,只有 15% 的创始人能以零工单走完 Atlas。
我就想:“好吧,那就把这个数字大幅推高。我们看看那些工单里人们到底需要什么,把它做进产品里,应该就能解决问题。人们会更满意,然后告诉朋友。“大约用了 18 个月,我们把这个数字从 15% 拉到了 85%。基本彻底翻过来了。如果你把市场份额按同样的时间轴画上去,形状是一模一样的。我认为你必须找到一个能直接反映客户想要什么的衡量方式,而且如果你不小心把仪表板泄露给了客户,他们会非常高兴地发现你们一直在衡量的是这个东西。如果我们展示 Atlas 内部指标——我们其实经常直接截图发布——我想他们听到我们把所有时间花在确保他们没有任何工单上,会很高兴的。
把工程师变成产品经理
这对团队里的工程师来说也非常鼓舞人心、非常有动力,因为我们可以直接给他们分配一个主题。“嘿,看看这些工单。你为什么不来拟定产品规格、范围和解决方案?想了解更多?直接回复工单邮件,搞清楚他们需要什么。“于是,我们基本上把团队里所有的工程师都变成了产品经理,让他们一个接一个地搞清楚需要改什么,然后为之构建产品。83(b) 选举的自动化、帮用户寄邮件,就是我们在这个方向上推进的。我们还开发了自己的签署服务。
我们把所有操作都变成了一次点击。我们就是做了工单里看到的那些显而易见的事情。但作为产品经理,我能够——不是说自动驾驶——而是真正坐下来,和带着解决方案和产品想法的工程师进行有实质内容的对话,而不是一个人筛选所有潜在的想法、确定范围然后分配下去。而且因为这些工作根植于人们说的话和他们的需求,团队里的每个人都很受驱动。所以这个回答有点长,但核心就是:找到一个每天早上醒来都能看到同一个指标、并且有信心知道该做什么的方式,远远好过”每个月重新决定要做什么,从零开始”。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我觉得这是一条非常精彩且重要的建议——一个单一指标的力量,让团队里每个人都能理解、围绕它凝聚、用它来排定工作优先级。我见过完全相同的效果。有趣的是,Airbnb 有一个团队实际上也有一个类似的指标,基本上就是减少联系 Airbnb 客服的人数。但结果呢,他们的团队开始让联系客服变得更困难了——他们想:“也许他们不需要为这些琐碎问题联系客服,所以也许我们该鼓励他们自己解决。“你有没有学到什么方法来尽量避免这种指标带来的次生效应、那种扭曲的激励?
指标的分层与对冲
Jeff Weinstein: 我们会看多个指标,但围绕一个来优化,你需要用自己的判断力去看一些对冲措施并做出选择。那个 overarching 指标通常是我们一年的总体指标,但然后我们会选定具体的战术指标来规定怎么实现它。举个例子,这个例子既说明我们是怎么解决问题的,也说明了一种对我们有用的指标风格。
当然,有些工单的内容是:“我在等 Atlas 的回复,看他们会不会批准我的申请,因为 Stripe 出于非常正当的理由需要对某些业务类型、制裁名单和全球产品进行评估。“所以确实存在一个——应该非常快——但毕竟有一段审核流程。当然,如果你迟迟收不到我们的回复,你会很沮丧,因为你急着立刻创建公司,“这也太荒唐了,快给我回复。”
所以我们知道人们写信给客服的原因之一就是:“嘿,我的审核进展如何?怎么回事?“我们的战术就是加快做出最终决定的速度,减少被推翻的拒绝——也就是有人回信说:“嗨,拜托,我做的就是完全合理的东西,怎么回事?为什么拒绝我?“所以我们会选定一个总体单一指标——零工单公司数——但然后会有一个由工程师负责的具体关键结果,也就是我们的战术。这样我们就不会允许那些扭曲的战术随随便便地存在。我们会主动选择要执行哪些战术,然后为每个战术设一个指标。
Jeff Weinstein: 我喜欢这个指标的另一个原因是,它是一个队列指标,你要驱动的是一条向左上方走的曲线。有时候人们会为一条向右上方走的图表而兴奋,这几乎成了一个梗——“哦,在向右上方走。“但我真正兴奋的是向左上方走的图表。所以你需要找到一个你要最大化的优化目标。具体到这个风险评估的场景中,我们会看,“嘿,对于上个月开始的客户队列,从他们提交申请算起,我们花了多少天才完成最终风险评估?“你希望图表看起来像这样——“好了,直接到顶。“因为你希望 100% 的客户都尽快获得最终决定。
果然,当我们看那张图表时,走势还是这样的。于是我们每个月都让它好一点、好一点、再好一点,向左上方挪一点、再挪一点。现在基本上 100% 的人都能在一小时内完成风险评估,而不是以前那种拖很长的尾巴。所以我们会用指标来约束战术,然后通过优化函数来观察。当我们达到满意的目标水平时,就可以放下这个战术了。这也是指标非常有用的一个方面——你可以决定什么时候停止某个战术,因为达到了你觉得可以接受的成功水平,而且你随时可以选择以后再捡起来。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这里有一些关于如何挑选好指标的非常精彩的教训。让我试着总结一下我听到的——你本质上是从 NPS 倒推的,比如”为什么人们不推荐 Atlas?“你发现,“好吧,那些在抱怨、遇到客服问题、碰到各种麻烦的人,最有可能成为贬损者,不会愿意推荐 Atlas,所以让我们设定那些很有雄心的目标。最终目标是没有人提交客服工单——我们干脆追踪有多少人零问题。“然后你识别出,“好,是什么驱动了大量这些工单?看起来是这个风险评估到某个里程碑的时间线,让我们把它作为下个季度或类似周期的目标,集中精力做出影响。“然后我猜你会继续推进到这个”零问题”桶中的其他杠杆。
Jeff Weinstein: 你必须为你的受众选择合适的指标……我不会把那个指标全面推广给所有人。它倒也不是一个特别糟糕的推广选择,但站在创始人选择从哪里切入的心态来看,再说一次,这不仅仅是花大量时间倾听客户那么简单。他们都会问朋友,“嘿,你怎么创办公司的?“他们想找个类似过来人的角色聊聊经历。所以我们决定,我们的 go-to-market 策略就是让现有客户足够满意,以至于他们会推荐给朋友。对其他业务来说,这种做法总归有些用处,但你也可以通过广告牌、Google 广告和其他类型的追加销售来触达用户。但在某人正在创办公司的那个时刻,这非常困难——有点像《国家地理》拍鸟,你能在精确的时间点拍到那只鸟吗?
你甚至怎么找到那些即将创办公司的人?好在他们有一个习惯,就是去问朋友。如果他们的朋友体验很好,就会直接推荐。这样一来,指标、战术和 go-to-market 策略就全部对齐了,而不像有时候你会听到有人说,“嗯,让我们提高产品质量吧。“我们都在提高产品质量,但为什么?为什么这真的能推动客户想要的东西和业务发展?当你能把它们全部对齐的时候,效果可以非常漂亮,尤其是当你能连续很多个月看到逐月改善的时候。
还有一个我认为可以推荐给任何人的指标是,如果你不确定该衡量什么——我们有这样一个做法,我不确定是从别人那里学来的还是内部自己想出来的——就是”用户糟糕的一天”,我们会在认为用户碰到问题时发出一条日志。
“用户糟糕的一天”指标
比如他们遇到了 404,或者他们的打款比预计时间晚了一天,或者他们有超过 10 笔支付被拒绝——你可以自己脑力激荡,或者就是倾听客户,想想什么会让你自己度过糟糕的一天,然后在这类事情发生时发出一个事件。然后你就可以做一个堆叠柱状图,列出所有糟糕一天的原因及其发生频率,看到这些频率时会让人大开眼界。这是一种我在来 Stripe 之前没想过的指标——你就是不知道发生了什么,直到你发出日志并计数。频率可能会相当惊人。我认为对于几乎所有达到一定规模的企业,如果某天你不确定该衡量什么,就做一个”用户糟糕的一天”图表,发出日志并以柱状图计数,然后其他人也可以在上面添加自己的柱状图。于是它就成了团队通过指标扩展对用户理解的工具——你只需要说,“嘿,任何人只要想到一个客户度过糟糕一天的原因,就发一条日志,放到这个图表上,然后我们可以随时间选择要消灭哪些糟糕一天的原因,而不仅仅是尽量减少它们。”
但它给了我们一种背景噪声计数系统,用于发现哪里存在问题。每次发生事故或客户问题时,我第一反应就是,“哦,不知道我们有没有关于这个的糟糕一天原因?“如果有,我反而觉得还好。我会说,“嗯,是的,这个客户确实经历了糟糕的一天。“我希望它不存在,但至少我们知道这件事,而且可以拿它跟其他我们要消灭的糟糕一天做比较。真正让我有点抓狂的,或者说给了我们机会的,是当我们不知道那个糟糕一天的时候——对我们来说也是意外,那对我来说就是立即行动。就是,好的,我们得想办法把这个糟糕一天纳入计数,把它放到图表上,这样我们就能做出明智的决定,什么时候投入资源去改善它。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢这个想法,我之前没听过。这个想法就是,把潜在客户遇到的情况中会导致他们度过糟糕一天的事情列出来。对于 Stripe Atlas 来说,你们有哪些具体的例子?
Jeff Weinstein: 你是 Stripe 的客户吗,Lenny?
Lenny Rachitsky: 我的 newsletter 是。付款走的是 Stripe。我每天都查看我的仪表板。
Jeff Weinstein: 好的。那对你来说什么算是糟糕的一天?
Lenny Rachitsky: 哦,我看到这里出现了一段沉默。页面加载不出来。数字要很长时间才显示。里面有些东西完全不对劲,无法登录。沉默挺好的。我就继续说吧。
Jeff Weinstein: 问题是,在最终上线之前,我们会被剪辑掉多少沉默?但这正是我在说的,对吧?我可以猜到那些原因。你说这些的时候,我知道那些图表的 URL。我知道登录那个,因为我也有同样的感受。我自己也经常用 Stripe,然后两步验证弹得太频繁了——拜托,我用的是同一台设备,昨天才刚登录过。所有这些东西我们都会计数,并随着时间推移不断改进。但当有人带给我一个我还没想到的新的糟糕一天时,我特别兴奋,因为那就像产品百宝箱。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢这一点。你这里的建议是,这不一定非要成为你的目标或指标。它只是持续观察这个东西,可能会带来很多有趣的运营方式。
给指标起一个有感觉的名字
Jeff Weinstein: 关于指标还有几个小建议。因为……怎么说呢,有些人喜欢骑行之类的,我想我喜欢指标。别人会买一辆很漂亮的自行车,我想要一个很棒的指标。给指标起一个能让你有感觉的名字。比如我们本来可以把那个公司指标叫做”在 X 期间和 Y 期间内没有提交支持工单的公司数量,最小值……”你有时候会看到那些图表,指标名称本身就是一堆技术术语。而我们的就叫”零支持工单的公司”,就这样。简洁、聚焦、融入客户视角的图表名称,可以在公司内部成为流通的货币。就像,哦,我在努力让这个图表往上涨,而且大声说出这个名字的感觉很好,而不是什么复杂的下划线、最小值、最大值,数据库字段名还留在图表标题里。
这些是美学上的选择,但我认为它们在让人们愿意接受并为之心动的文化氛围上产生了显著差异,也减少了产品经理每天去提醒大家为什么做这件事的需要。指标本身就在激励我们,因为它说出来就是一个令人振奋的东西。
关于指标的最后一点是,大家应该对自己的度量保持良好的习惯。百分比不应该有41位有效数字,如果只有两位有意义的话。你仪表盘上所有指标的 X 轴应该保持一致。这些只是风格上的小事,但能增加人们每天早上醒来打开仪表盘查看它的频率。如果你的整个团队每天都在看同一套信息,感受着客户的心跳,这是非常强大的。
事实上,在 Stripe 我们可以按团队测量仪表盘的使用情况,所以我们可以看到哪些团队在看自己的指标,这是预测团队是否步调一致、是否具有客户执念的极其有用的指标。所以我认为这不是一个幕后 bean counting 的领域——指标是这台机器是否运转良好的温度计。你可以让指标对客户有意义,如果这些指标被截图发到网上,你会感到自豪——“哇,我觉得这家公司在认真对待对我的承诺。作为客户,我能在那些指标中看到自己。“这才是我们真正追求的目标。
Lenny Rachitsky: 所以我想确认一下你刚才说的,我觉得这可能是一个微妙的观点——仅仅让仪表盘看起来好看,比如命名规范、小数位数和图表的整洁度——在你的经验中,你觉得这真的很强大、很重要。
Go Metrics 与指标的文化仪式感
Jeff Weinstein: 几年前,Stripe 做了一些内部工作,开发了一个内部指标仪表盘系统。我们有一个专门的地方叫 Go Metrics。很多人使用 go/service,你可以快速访问一个 URL。再说一次,我有时不得不制定规则而不是政策。我的规则是:如果不在 Go Metrics 上,我就不看。人们可以给我发一次性查询、图表、截图、演示文稿或包含图表和数据的邮件,但那些东西飘在风中,我们无法深入追问。指标几乎总是有问题的。很多周以来我们都没有把定义搞对。你必须在一个指标上生活相当长一段时间,才能真正信任它。所以如果你总是看某个一次性版本,它很难上升到”我们应该信任它来帮助决策”的重要性水平。那是一个极高的门槛。所以我发现你必须足够频繁地去看它。
而如果你要足够频繁地看它,它就需要在一个可被发现的地方。你几乎要经历几个类似悲伤阶段的周期——我们把一个指标放在某个地方,大家一开始会说,“太好了,终于能看到这个了,太兴奋了。“然后几天后,“我有点不太理解它。它到底是什么意思?我从另一个角度看到了另一个指标,让这个指标感觉有点反直觉。“然后你开始深入研究,“等等,我们一直算错了。糟糕。“然后第三周你看它,它已经完全变了版本,然后你希望我们忘了它,也许会转向别的事情——不,我们不会忘的。第四周来了,你心想,“好吧,这个……”然后团队会议开始了,“嘿,提醒一下,我们再把指标调出来看看,不要用截图,去打开那个 URL。”
正是这种频率、精确度和仪式感,才把指标带入了决策文化。而且再说一次,我们对待指标和对待推文完全一样——定性和定量并肩而立。因为你投入了这么多的关注,你不可能有1000个指标。我们物理上就没有那么多时间每天把那种程度的用心和理解投入到那么多事情上。所以它迫使你从许多你可能关心的事情中,筛选出极少数你真正必须关心的事情。而这个实践归根结底还是要回到——你是否真的理解你的客户想要什么?所以所有这些策略,都是为了发现客户想要什么,然后用不同版本来验证它是否随时间成立,以及我们的策略是否在改进。
Lenny Rachitsky: 听你这么描述感觉好简单。沿着同样的思路,我了解到你在 Stripe 发起了一项帮助人们执迷于用户体验、把质量提升到应有水平、推动许多指标改善的举措,叫做 Stripe 学习小组(Study Groups)。聊聊这是什么吧,我非常好奇。
产品为什么会变差
Jeff Weinstein: 好了,假设我们理解了客户,理解了他们最迫切的问题。我们构建了一个解决方案,已经交到他们手上,他们正在使用,希望它比其他替代方案更好,他们开始用了,我们也获得了一些真正的牵引力。你依然可以衡量成功,依然可以看推文,然后,当然,当你自己上手使用的时候,你会说,“等等,这东西怎么这么糟糕。怎么变成这样了?“任何一个构建过产品、经历过产品真正上线生产环境并被使用一年以上的人,当你继续迭代的时候,尤其是当你身处一家较大的公司,有多个团队和多个产品在并行推进的时候,世界上就是存在某种熵,导致这些东西会变差。我其实很难很自然地解释清楚这件事。
你会想,嗯,这是代码,它每天应该都一样地运行。但不知怎的,你连续做了足够多的事情之后,曾经为测试或客户服务的顺畅端到端流程,突然变成了某种拜占庭式的复杂破败商场,所有的门都坏了,你必须确切知道穿越控制台的正确路径才能解决你的问题。“等等,我刚才不还觉得这挺好的吗?“我们很多人都经历过这种情况。
那好,我们该怎么办呢?首先,在白天腾出时间让自己意识到这个问题的存在本身就很难。因为如果你在一个特定的团队工作,你总会有下一个要发布的东西,你会有你的客户,你会做着出色的产品工作。与此同时,你现在的产品却开始在真实世界中腐烂,逐渐消耗掉你为了构建它而赢得的所有信任。实际上很难决定,一周里我要划出哪些时间,从我未来的进度中拿出来,去从客户的角度审视今天的产品?
审视自身产品的门槛
人们尝试了各种方法来激励或组织一群人去做这件事。Stripe 还有一种做法叫 friction log,就是一个人假装自己是客户,端到端地走一遍产品体验,然后写下来。这在 Stripe 内部对那些非常有动力的人来说相当成功——他们能够腾出时间,拥有足够广泛的上下文去完成一个复杂的端到端流程,有时间把它写成报告,并且在公司中有足够的位置发出这样的批评——不仅针对自己的团队,而是面向整个组织。所以这实际上是一个相当高的门槛。
于是我开始头脑风暴,我们能不能做点什么让这件事更有趣,同时大幅提高我们审视自身产品的频率?我们迭代了几个想法,最终确定了这个叫做学习小组的做法——基本上就是公司内部随机组成的一群人。他们可能不在任何特定团队,也不全是产品经理,任何想要报名的人都可以参加——客服人员、销售人员、活动团队的同事、基础设施层的工程师,任何人都可以报名参加学习小组。我们大概四到八个人聚在一起,假装自己是一家公司,面临某个需要解决的问题。也许我们想在即将到来的农夫市集上线下收款,或者我们想运营一个跨国全球业务,我们的软件会被另一家企业用来运营他们的业务——如果是那种相当复杂的场景。我们可以选择任何有驱动力的目标。
学习小组的两条规则
学习小组有两条规则。规则一:你不再在 Stripe 工作。你不在 Stripe 工作,不是假装的,不是努力忘记自己在 Stripe 工作——你从来没有在 Stripe 工作过。你在……然后我们编一个公司名字,比如 Dolphin Aquarium Industries,我们会从小组中选一位 CEO。好了,Jenny 是 CEO。“嘿 Jenny,你今天想做什么?""嗯,我想卖海豚水族馆的现场门票。”——“酷,从哪里开始?“所以我们真正地在扮演客户。我们不会出戏,有点即兴表演的感觉。作为学习小组的指挥者,如果听到你使用了任何 Stripe 内部知识——这很自然,因为你在某个团队工作过,你知道那个按钮到底在哪里,文档链接稍微指错了地方,但如果你点另一个链接就能到——如果我发现你使用了任何 Stripe 内部知识,我就会暂停说:“嘿,我们重新来一遍这句话,或者重新做一遍刚才的操作,不带任何 Stripe 知识。提醒一下,你不在 Stripe 工作。“通常需要几次提醒,但人们真的会投入进去,然后突然间我们开始编造角色,CEO 会说,“哦 Tim,你是我们的设计师,我们去哪里找配色方案?“一下子,一个在现实中不是设计师的人,突然必须练习同理心,站在客户的位置上去思考。因为我们每次会持续一个小时、一个半小时,你真的会开始相信自己不在 Stripe 工作,而是在 Dolphin Aquarium Industries 工作,你开始真正感受到它。
这是规则一。你不在 Stripe 工作。规则二是,我们不是来解决问题的。不是来批评,不是来提供方案或建议,不是来提交 bug 的。所有这些都会被记录下来,我们之后可以做,无所谓。这里的重点仅仅是练习对客户的同理心,走一遍产品。
学习小组的成效与推广
截至目前,仅在2024年最后几个月里,我们在 Stripe 已经做了超过25场学习小组,超过250人参与其中。对参与者来说,这确实是令人大开眼界的体验。反馈多少带点商务情感——不是那种特别情绪化,就是,“哇,我简直不敢相信完成X、Y、Z居然这么难。我原以为我们在某某方面很厉害。”——“嗯,我们其实还挺不错的,但我们需要重新回到厉害的水平。“或者,“哇,我甚至不知道公司内部的人都不了解我们的产品能做1、2、3。”
这在内部变得如此受欢迎,以至于各个团队也开始自己组织了。所以,我们已经算是把学习小组在内部做了特许推广,不同的团队都会自己运行。但我认为我们会继续做下去,因为我觉得部分原因是走出疫情之后,人们就是想要更多群体活动。部分原因也在于我们做这件事的节奏很慢。我们不赶时间。这也是我欣赏你这档播客的另一个原因——真正深入细节,不赶时间。那种让你忘记自己后面还有会议的时间量。没有人会被指责或需要防备,因为这根本不是你的产品。这只是一群随机组合的人。我们甚至不会介绍自己在哪个团队工作。我们只是作为参与者来扮演客户。最后我认为它之所以有效的另一个原因——这其中很多其实连我自己都非常惊讶。
学习小组为何有效
我事先没能预料到的一点是,这其实很有趣。人们想给公司起名字,他们对”Dolphin Industries”会卖什么感到兴奋。现实中不是 CTO 的人可以假装自己是 CTO,这里面有一点小小的戏剧性。但对于像 Stripe 这样已经在这个话题上相当专注的公司来说,这跟我们其他方法已经足够不同了,所以我们认为它有足够的发展空间,我们会继续保留它,并持续投入——让人们假装成客户、一步一步慢慢地走完整个流程,而不是仅仅做演示或仅仅写文档。后两者也有其优势,但缺少了更大群体的参与和更多新鲜的视角。所以这件事很有趣,我们把它命名为学习小组。嗯,是我给它起名叫学习小组的,因为我一开始也不确定它会变成什么样子。所以我随便想了个听起来有点可爱的名字,但给我留了足够的回旋余地,可以随着时间慢慢调整。这就是我们最终走到的地方。
Lenny Rachitsky: 令人着迷的是,一个产品团队和一家公司要想真正了解自己产品的这些情况,竟然需要这么多的戏剧性和仪式感。你会以为大家都觉得,“哦,我们了解引导流程是什么样的。我们了解所有这些东西。“但基本上你的意思是,其实并不了解,你需要做这类事情才能真正知道你的产品现在到底是什么样子。
Jeff Weinstein: 客户不在我们的围墙之内。他们不在这里。他们不懂我们的行话。而我们的内部思维模式和行话随着时间推移自然而然地渗透到产品中,这是再正常不过的事。你需要某种反制力量来纠正这一点。而且我认为这必须是一种非自然的反制力量。这件事以前其实更让我沮丧——“哇,为什么我们没做到?“嗯,我们其实在做很棒的工作来推进事情,我们有局部的优化。在多产品公司试图达到的那种专业化程度上,如果每个团队没有那种聚焦,是很难做到的。但然后你就需要某种非自然的东西来帮我们把视角拉回来。
用非自然的方式对抗产品熵增
所以我一直在寻找非惩罚性的、有趣的、客观的方式,从外部获取更多视角。不管是打破第四面墙去打电话、上 Twitter,不管是去看某个指标发现用户正在经历糟糕的一天——这就是在计数实际发生的事情,你无法争辩。或者一群随机的人在那挠着头找一个按钮——这些都是世界上真实存在的真相,我们要确保它们成为所有团队的输入。如果没有这些输入,我完全可以理解世界的熵会如何把你引向弗兰肯斯坦式的糟糕产品,即使所有单独的部件都运行良好、由优秀的人掌管。所以你需要某种非自然的东西。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我们对话到目前为止贯穿了一个有趣的趋势和线索——对做出伟大产品的执念。而更深层则是对用户体验尽可能极致的执念。对于很多产品经理来说,“让体验尽可能出色”和”增长、收入、成功”之间并没有一条直接的连线。但感觉对于你和 Stripe 整体来说,这其中有一种内在的蕴含——如果我们把体验做得越来越好、越来越好,我们就会增长。你刚才微微侧着头点了点头,所以我很想听听你对这种体验执念的想法。但我们也要谈谈商业层面——哪些指标在变动?
体验即产品
Jeff Weinstein: 如果谁有不是从客户那里获取收入的策略,我很想知道。因为从客户那里获取收入太难了。如果有什么更快的路径,请在 Twitter 上告诉我,因为这非常难,有大量工作要做。所以如果还有别的办法,我希望摆到桌面上来。但我通常发现,它就是产品体验的一部分。也许是内部销售工具——我们可以针对内部销售工具流程、我们的交易审批流程和利润结构做一场学习小组。我们可以对第三方供应商流程做一个 friction log,或者对迁移服务,或者对生态合作伙伴如何将我们的服务部署到大型企业中去——没有什么是不属于产品范畴的。实际上,我之前跟一位经营公司的朋友聊天,他们是一家小公司,正处于产品市场契合度的边缘,开始感觉到客户在拉动。他们说,“哦,但我们的自助服务漏斗漏得厉害,我们所有这些支持请求都从自助服务渠道涌进来。”
首先,恭喜——他们竟然在用你的产品,甚至尝试自助服务并且联系了你,这简直难以置信。大多数情况是根本没人尝试,或者尝试了失败了也不联系你。所以,这算什么问题。第二,他们想减少支持量。在那个具体案例中,我的建议是,“好吧,那些支持工单里到底写了什么?那些销售联系里到底有什么?“他们说,“哦,他们想了解更多关于如何起步的信息。“他们想知道关于……这家公司是一家医疗健康相关的公司。他们想知道可用的医疗方案。他们想了解如何从旧系统迁移到这个系统。
我说,“那就是产品。你们在说的那个东西就是产品。“把自助服务流程中的那些时刻变成非自助的,让产品体验变成——我们给你接通电话。而当他们接通电话时,他们已经知道对方的的名,因为引导表单里已经收集了。突然之间,你感觉自己仍然在产品之中,但这不再是软件了。现在是一个人,但这个人的背后是内部软件,它尽可能地了解客户和他们的需求。Fidelity 的做法让我深受启发——Fidelity 是一家大型金融机构,很多听众可能换过工作,需要把 401(k) 从公司 A转到公司 B。也许在某个平行宇宙里三下点击就能搞定,但今天不行,至少几年前我试的时候不行。你得打电话,经历电话语音菜单和各种折腾,然后我终于接通了 Fidelity 的一位客服。他们说,“嗨,Jeff。“他们知道我的旧公司,确认了我的地址。他们说,“顺便说一下,这目前还不是一个数字化的流程。我们会通过 FedEx 给你寄一个信封,里面有需要你签署的文件。这里是具体签署位置,这里有一张图告诉你在哪里签。我们在那个信封里还放了另一个已经准备好的回寄信封。所以,你只需要把第一个信封里的文件取出来,在指定位置签上名,放进第二个信封里,寄回去就行。”
Jeff Weinstein: 那感觉就像,“哇,这就是产品。“那是一个产品体验——我想有些人会说,“哦,产品体验只能是软件。“所以我觉得,当人们认为产品质量和匠心对商业价值有某种上限,存在某个渐近线,到了那个点产品质量就不重要了,我们需要谈业务了——我觉得恰恰相反,让我们搞清楚到底是什么在驱动业务的发生,然后把它做成产品,即使它看起来跟我们通常的 SaaS、软件、浏览器、移动端版本不太一样。我认为我们可以把整个体验都视为产品。从这个角度出发,我把销售流程包括在内,把支持流程包括在内,把帮助合规的工具以及所有其他一切都包括在内。再说一遍,如果谁有办法把所有这些东西都做得很差,却还能以可持续的方式持续增长收入,我想了解那种方法,因为那听起来比我们现在尝试的版本轻松太多了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢这个观点,而且显然这对 Stripe 来说是奏效的。最后一个问题——我想聊聊 Atlas,深入了解一下 Atlas 是什么、目前进展如何之类的。我知道有一些新东西你即将分享,但关于学习小组还有一个问题:你是如何决定选择哪个产品来做学习小组的?然后对结果有什么预期?我能想象一个产品经理坐在那里想,“天哪,我刚收到了一份十页的报告,全是问题。”
Jeff Weinstein: 一开始,我就随便列了一个清单,把我认为做学习小组会有意思的东西放上去,算是启动这个项目。现在,因为学习小组已经在内部有了一定的品牌效应,大家觉得很兴奋,参加过的人会说好话,他们实际上会主动提出来说,“嘿,我们应该对某某做一次学习小组,“或者”我们下周要发布一个东西,应该在上线之前做一次学习小组。“或者现在我实际上已经有了一个巨大的待办清单,都是基于大家想做学习小组的意愿。现在我们又在做”特许经营”模式,所以我们会有学习小组队长,让人们自己运营自己的学习小组,这样就能真正把这个行为规模化。不过我们最近确实第一次对内部工具做了学习小组。所以,我觉得这会流行起来——任何东西都可以做学习小组。只需要大约一个小时、几个人,打开 Zoom,就行了。
学习小组的成果与流程
至于预期方面,你看,给某个东西加更多规章制度是非常诱人的。好吧,这个项目产出的所有东西都需要打分、需要评分标准、需要有 SLA。这非常合理。作为下一步措施中的一部分,我们确实注意到一些严重的问题,我们在 Stripe 内部有一些正式流程,可以将 bug 提升到特定的优先级,打上标签,并附带要求团队确认和审查的 SLA。所以我们把学习小组的产出导入到现有的正式流程中,而不是搞一个什么新的特殊机制去打扰某个特定团队。不过我想说,看一场学习小组的过程,如果你是涉及其中某个环节的团队成员,却不想采取行动,那很难——因为亲眼看到自己的队友费力地使用你做的东西,这比客户反馈更有驱动力,因为你对客户总能找到说辞,“嗯,他们其实不太懂,“或者”他们有特殊的配置。”
Jeff Weinstein: “嗯,他们其实不太懂”或者”他们有特殊的配置。“你大概不应该说这些话,但你可以自我合理化。而一群有明确激励去实际完成任务的人,煞费苦心地聚在一起,却慢吞吞地做不成——如果这不能激发你作为产品人去解决问题的热情,那这个东西不适合你。但话说回来,你有自己的组织体系,你有自己需要交付的东西,学习小组不会从中产生什么强制性的要求。我们有自己的交付体系。学习小组更像是一个文化层面的信息,信号非常强,然后大家倾向于利用这些高信号来做好的优先级排序。不过我想说,我们确实给某些 bug 级别加了 SLA,开始与我们的故障流程相匹配。
所以在 Stripe 的故障流程中——跟很多公司一样——停下手中的事,修复问题,严重级别,不可协商的 Slack 频道,作战室,所有这些。你不想对每一个 bug 都这么做,但我们的 bug 系统有一套匠心相关的标签评分体系。如果是一个 P0 级别的 bug——这不是故障,对吧,不意味着要放下手中的事——在 Stripe 你确实需要在七天内确认它。即使不意味着必须修复,至少要有一个人看过后说,“嘿,我们打算做还是不做。“对于一个非故障相关的匠心问题来说,这仍然是一个相当高的标准。
Lenny Rachitsky: 感觉在 Stripe 有一种文化上的聚焦——我们要把产品做好,我们要让体验尽可能出色。而很多公司里,各个团队就是这样——我们有这个目标,任何不推动这个指标和目标的事情我们都不会做。我觉得对于那样的团队来说,听到”哦,有人会把你体验到的所有问题都发给你”,会很难接受。还有那种负面的版本——创始人或大公司的 COE 像那样过一遍产品,“天哪,看这些问题,你必须马上修。“很多时候这完全分散了他们本该做的事的注意力——他们要推动的目标,那些真正重要的事——而 COE 可能根本没在想这些。感觉你们在尝试找到一种平衡:这些问题确实存在,你不需要修,但你可能应该修。这里是最重要的东西。但同时也经常能发现,改善体验和做得更好之间是有关联的。
Jeff Weinstein: 这里涉及对同事极大的信任——我们希望为团队提供优质的信息,而最好的团队欢迎这些信息。这不意味着会附带一个来自外界的、导演式的意见说”你必须做 X”。我们对一些匠心相关的 bug 有评分标准,但同样,我们让团队自己重新定级。所以在他们看来也许实际上不是 P0,而这就是我们对团队的信任。我认为失败的模式是你不去看。所以我们需要一些反常规的、安全的、有趣的、能让我们从椅子上站起来、进入客户心态的做法。最好的情况是你自己就是自己的客户,这没问题。次好的是坐在外部世界客户的旁边。那好,我可以接受第三好的——模仿客户,并且严格执行不使用任何内部知识。如果你在这三个类别中都有实践,我对这些失败模式就比较放心了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢这个。这肯定会是我做过的最长的一期,而这正是我所预期的,我很高兴我们这么做了。
Jeff Weinstein: 大家可以调到 1.75 倍速之类的。
Atlas:一键开公司
Lenny Rachitsky: 我很喜欢当人们说”这期太好了,我不得不把速度降到 1.75 倍”之类的。你到底是怎么做到用那种速度听的?不,这期就该用 1.0 倍速,这就是这期节目需要的节奏。还有两个领域我想花点时间聊聊。一个是 Atlas,我们之前一直在 Atlas 的表面层次上谈,我想帮大家搞清楚它到底是什么、里面都在发生些什么。二是大公司里如何把事情做成——这是你在 Stripe 做到的事,而且我听说你有很多好的建议。那么首先,什么是 Atlas?我们已经谈了一些。理解 Atlas 最好的方式是什么?它是给谁用的?
Jeff Weinstein: 2016 年,一群 Stripe 的同事在全球旅行——我们把这里的队友叫做 Stripes——他们不断听到世界各地创业者的故事。你会听到这些令人难以置信的故事:那些了不起的创业者手里有笔记本电脑,但他们不得不飞到美国去创立一家美国公司,才能接入金融系统、从美国或全球投资者那里融资,通常也是为了收取美元或向美国客户收费。你本可以坐在那里想,嗯,这合法吗?他们又不住在美国。他们能有美国公司吗?当然可以。美国非常欢迎来自世界各地的人创立美国公司,很多人都是这么做的。
那为什么非得坐飞机呢?于是你在一个咖啡馆里,听着一个拥有整整个互联网的人讲述这样的事情,你就会意识到这是一个迫切的问题。这不是一个三等优先级的小事。“我没法经营我的业务,除非我坐上飞机”——这应该在你整个意识中拉响警报,告诉你你发现了某种重要的东西。我当时不在 Stripe,但我在经营自己的创业公司,我非常感谢 Stripe 的同事们决定去解决这个问题。所以 Atlas 是一种通过几次点击就能创立公司的方式,我们认为这意义重大,因为虽然全球各地都有聪明人,但他们拥有的机会并不均等。但说来有点奇怪——大家用的都是一样的 MacBook,连的是一样的 IP 地址,带宽充裕、智慧也充足。
那么我们能做些什么,来大幅降低优秀人才解决问题的门槛呢?我们一次又一次地发现,提高便捷性、降低成本和复杂度,往往会让更多这样的事情发生。我们有一个根本信念:应该有更多的创业公司,而且它们不是有限的。这个信念一方面来自一种核心的希望——因为世界上有太多问题,现有的机构和大公司似乎解决得不够快,我们需要创业的能量来攻克它们;另一方面也来自亲身的经验见证。Instacart 用一个 Gmail 地址注册了 Stripe,后来新冠发生了,当人们被合理地限制不方便去超市的时候,他们把关键的食物送到了每个人手中。
你永远不知道下一个 Gmail 地址会做出什么。所以在 Atlas 中,我们从根本上试图简化创办公司的流程,而这个使命驱使我们随着时间推移不断解决更多的问题。在过去几年里,那些用过 Atlas 或者自己创办过公司、或者在 Twitter 上略有关注的人,可能看到了一个渐进的过程:过去存在的各种复杂性正在被自动化。其中一个大约一年前完成的重要功能就是 83(b) 选举,这是一个极其繁琐、近乎荒谬的制度——你只有 30 个日历日的时间向 IRS 寄送一份一页纸的文件,而它可能从根本上改变你作为创始人的经济激励方式。这并不是什么贪婪的税收漏洞。IRS 在 1980 年代制定这条规则,正是为了激励更多的创业活动。
他们希望你这么做。唯一的问题是他们把执行过程搞得极其困难。你必须以特定格式、特定方式向一个 IRS 地址寄送纸质信件,而且完全没有任何确认机制证明你已经完成了。如果你在第 31 个日历日才去做,没有重来的机会。好吧,如果你是一个做产品的人,整天听到创始人对这个事情提心吊胆,你脑子里应该警铃大作。所以我自己作为创始人经历过好几次,也不断听到一个又一个故事,然后我就把这件事放到了团队的待办清单上:我们要解决这个 83(b) 选举的问题。当然有很好的理由不去做这件事——因为它伴随着潜在的巨大责任风险,不能搞砸,而且是纸质信件。
你真的要为此收费吗?做了还能成为竞争优势。你可以用一百万种理由说服自己不要去做。但回到我们的使命——把所有这些复杂性转化为一键操作——这对我们来说是不言而喻的,于是我们就开始动手了。在基础设施层面,我们一直在自动化这些步骤。当这期播客播出的时候——应该说就是今天——你在 Atlas 上创办公司时,它真的就是一键操作。
你输入合伙人的名字、公司的名称,它会自动告诉你这个名称是否可用。你可以按 50/50 分配股权或者任何你想要的比例,填写几项内容,点击开始,然后就像追踪你的墨西哥卷饼或披萨外卖一样,我们会在后台处理所有下游的事务——过去这些事务是:记得回来购买你的股份。为什么我要购买股份?我才刚开始。为什么我要写一张 10 美元的支票存到一个我甚至还不能开的银行账户里?然后我还得等这件事完成才能处理 83(b) 选举。所有这些步骤现在都在后台自动完成了,这样我们就能在一两天内让你准备好开始营业。
这就是我们的愿景。你可以在周日晚上辞职,带着那种周日晚上的焦虑——我受够了这事儿——然后在周一早上填好这个表,第二天就能运营一家十亿美元级别的企业,因为我们会自动帮你搞定银行系统的接入、支付系统的接入、所有股权文件的处理、83(b) 选举的申报,让你从操心公司注册流程直接切换到建设和交付产品。
你只会在后台收到一些友好的更新通知:太好了,IRS 给你发了税号。太好了,你的 83(b) 选举已经提交了。太好了,所有创始人的股权都到位了,你的股权表(cap table)准备就绪。我们能做到这一点,是因为我们与政府部门进行了深度整合,与银行合作伙伴进行了深度整合,让我们能在 IRS 和其他政府部门回来给你正式的”是”之前就让你接入金融系统,因为我们会在后台替你处理所有问题——传真、电话、代填表格。我们只想把所有这些复杂性统统抹掉,让你获得和 YC 批次创业者一样的体验——他们走的那份清单,我们让机器人完全一样地帮你做完。
Atlas 的意义与自动化的长期价值
Jeff Weinstein: 所以在某些方面,这对一艘大船来说确实是一件大事,因为它完全自动化了公司创建流程。但在另一些方面,它又是一个极其渐进的步骤——我们花了三年时间,逐步自动化每一个内部环节,现在终于把所有东西整合到一个按钮里。你可以在仪表盘里直接看到你公司的进展。
Lenny Rachitsky: 首先,恭喜 Jeff 和 Atlas 团队发布了这个功能。我知道这是一个重要的里程碑,而且筹备了很长时间。
Jeff Weinstein: 是的,在我们决定做所有这些工作之前,Atlas 其实已经还算不错了。人们会问,为什么还要走下一步去完全自动化它呢?之前它实际上已经相当简单了。Atlas 的 NPS 超过 80,这是相当高的。Apple 在 60 出头,AirPods 是 75。我很爱我的 AirPods。所以 Atlas 在接近 50% 回收率的情况下还能达到 80 多分,是相当高的。然而我们仍然选择再花一年时间去自动化所有这些幕后的工作,因为我们发现,走自动化流程的公司能更快地向客户收费,而不需要等待。这听起来有点奇怪——你刚刚创办公司,多等七天或二十天才能真正开始做生意,真的有那么重要吗?但你正在构建的那些日子,其实是非常脆弱的。回到我们之前聊到的,获得第一个客户的感觉有多棒——和他们站在一起,真金白银在交换,建立起那段关系。
如果我们能把那个时刻在世界范围内提前几天或几周——而我们确实看到了这一点,比如到达首个客户的时间缩短了一半——直接从你公司的生命周期里砍掉整整一周,你几乎可以看到 GDP 更早地诞生。我这辈子一直知道 GDP 不是有限的,它可以增长,但我从未真正亲眼见过,而现在我真的看到它增长得更快、更早。我认为我们能做的任何推动这一进程的事情,都会激励更多人成为创业者,降低创业门槛,因为他们会看到那种满足感有多强烈。
还有一个最近让我很感兴趣的统计数据:自从我们做了大量自动化工作以来,我们发现使用 Atlas 的独立创始人比以往任何时候都多。我认为这是因为作为一个创始人,你现在可以借助无代码工具和其他各种东西在互联网上做更多事情,快速起步。看到互联网的精华在全球范围内可用,与更多人成为创业者之间存在关联,这非常令人兴奋。我认为我们应该继续这样做。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这非常令人振奋,而且我认为这将是一件大事。很难想象科技领域有多少变化、什么样的变化能改变有多少公司被创建,以及有多少公司不仅仅是被创建,而是真正活了下来——因为正如你所说,你可能开始了,然后过了几天如果还卡在某个队列里,他们就会说,算了,不干了。
创业队列的惊人增长
Jeff Weinstein: 完全正确。而且你不知道这些事情会走向何方。我们在 Atlas 上看到 2024 年队列的初创公司达到 5000 万美元收入的速度是 2023 年队列的两倍。所以我们有时候也会想,哦,是疫情把一切推到了线上,那些是我们最好的年份。但实际上我们正在看到最新一批初创公司的队列图表直冲右上角。这非常令人兴奋,因为你也常常听到一些说法——融资市场下行了,估值如何如何,这个那个的。那更多是某个时间点上的资本分析,跟日常的商业运作关系不大。真正代表这些公司未来的是收入,而那看起来异常光明。
当然,这些公司后来也做出了相当惊人的事情。通过 Atlas 创立的公司至今已有 5 万 5 千家,年收入总计达 50 亿美元。我认为这实际上重塑了人们对未来其他工具的期望。他们会想,如果开公司对我来说这么容易,那为什么银行业务这么难?好在现在已经有一些很好的服务了,但我认为如果我们能推动人们把期望拉得更高,他们就会想要把自己的公司做得更好,而我们所有人都会从中受益。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这其中有多少是基于你们自己去发传真、寄邮件?我不知道你能透露多少幕后的事情,但自动化这些流程是否涉及大量的运营层面的工作?
Atlas 团队的自动化哲学
Jeff Weinstein: Atlas 总共只有 10 个人,考虑到它在更广泛的创业生态系统中扮演的角色,我认为这是一个相对小的团队。我们不会去承接我们无法自动化的工作,因为我们知道自己需要杠杆。所以我们不会把自己放到必须去竞争成为最好的境地——我们会把自己放到可以自动化、并且成为唯一选择的位置。这是一种不同的思维方式。比如为什么我们选择了 83(b) 选举作为切入点,当我们做出那个决定时,我们做出了一个承诺:我们要永远做这件事。我们要永远做这件事。这是互联网余下时间里的一块基础设施。作为你要做的事情,这是一个非常高的标准。
所以我们乐于花时间。这其实也是”快速推进”与”长期复利”之间的区别。快速推进——就是当我们指派一位工程师,说,嘿,你今天的任务是通过第三方邮件服务向办公室寄一份纸质文件。为什么?不重要。今天,就寄一份纸质文件到办公室。那位出色的工程师——后来她领导了所有 83(b) 选举的工作——把文件寄出去了。而仅仅是在办公室收到我们昨天刚寄出的那份纸质文件,就是极其有力的证明。我们当时说,看,83(b) 选举其实就是把这份纸质文件寄给 IRS,我们刚刚做到了。
那种尽可能快速推进的做法极其有用,因为就是这样——看,这件事是存在的。我们能做到。来吧。而在长期复利方面,我们极其认真地选择了第三方供应商、备选供应商,以及各种承诺、SLA、报告系统、告警机制、操作手册、备用流程——我们内部建立了非常大量的结构体系。但同样,我们必须审视价值在哪里。价值在于确保事情真的发生。必须是我们寄邮件吗?必须是我们和政府对话吗?不一定。我们选择与第三方合作,以及许多备选第三方,原因有二:一是,在物理打印和寄送邮件这个领域,世界上存在专业知识,我们这 10 个人今天不会去成为这方面的专家。二是,我认为这也促使我们构建更好的软件——因为现在事情在外部发生,我们需要去评估它是否真正在运作。
外包迫使更严格的工程质量
Jeff Weinstein: 而当你自己来构建时,你又会有那种天然的感觉:这是我们建的,肯定没问题。哦,以后再加告警吧。等出了问题再说,到时候再写操作手册。但你看,当是第三方在做的时候,你就会想:等等,他们搞砸了怎么办?好吧,我们最好把这个搞清楚。我们最好对所有结果做 OCR。我们最好做所有这些校验和,我们最好……如果我们能始终以这种方式对待内部工作,那就太好了,但正因为它是外部的,它迫使我们该严格的地方更加严格,创建接口和各种承诺。再说一次,我们与很多优秀的第三方以及备选第三方合作来执行这些工作。每年我们都会写一份文档,叫《我们应该自己做吗?》。我们看着房间里其余九个人说,当然不应该。去做别的事吧。所以,我们只是在把这些东西拼接在一起,但确保它真正发生。
传真机和机器人客服
Lenny Rachitsky: 太棒了。好吧。我刚才满脑子都是传真机的画面——
Jeff Weinstein: 确实有传真机。传真机确实在用——
Lenny Rachitsky: Stripe 里居然没有……[听不清]
Jeff Weinstein: 还有电话在打,还有机器人在电话排队等待。
Lenny Rachitsky: 哦,太厉害了。
Jeff Weinstein: 幕后有大量的事情在发生。
Atlas 的增长数据
Lenny Rachitsky: AI 时代已经来了。我看到一个数据,特拉华州新成立的公司中,有六分之一是现在通过 Stripe Atlas 创办的。这太疯狂了。
Jeff Weinstein: 没错。我很期待能告诉你什么时候变成五分之一,但今天还没到那一步。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好吧,听起来快了。
Jeff Weinstein: 我们在路上了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 听起来快了。我这里还有另一个数据,是关于初创企业增长最快的城市。我手上的数据是——不知道你知不知道——博尔德、深圳和拉斯维加斯。
跨国创始团队
Jeff Weinstein: 到处都有。去年我们大致上得出了一个数据,我个人非常着迷于这个指标:联合创始人分布在不同国家的创始团队。我们给它起了个绰号。再说一次,给事物起个好标题很重要——“跨境创始人”。哇。超过 20% 的多人创始团队中,至少有一位创始人来自另一个国家。这让我非常震惊,互联网居然能这样把人们连接在一起。我认为这将带来更多元的视角,更多的解决方案将兼具本地和全球属性。所有多元的视角都是好事。而且,Atlas 团队本身就体现了这一点。我们在组建 Atlas 团队时非常有意识。团队中女性占多数,我们还有更多多元化的人要招,但我们非常有意识地打造一个拥有多元视角的团队。你在没有多元视角的团队待过——不管哪种类型的多元——那种团队要差得多。这里不需要什么科学论证,我们就是坚持这样做。我们有机会以这种方式来组建这个团队。
对我来说非常重要的是,这个团队要代表我们希望世界呈现的样子,要代表我们希望代表的模样。而且必须有意识地去做这件事,因为我职业生涯早期犯过错误——我的创业公司被卖给 Box 的时候,团队全是男性。每招一个人,招到一个不同背景的人就越来越难。很自然地,大家不太愿意加入那种类型的团队。那是我最后一次犯那个错误——早期候选人池必须与团队未来的方向匹配。这不是漏斗下游的问题,而是漏斗上游的问题。你必须确保每个岗位的候选人池中,人员和背景的分布是你能接受的,然后从那里出发。我认为这也是那个十人团队如此高效的原因之一——就是拥有大量多元的视角。
Lenny Rachitsky: Jeff Weinstein 还有一项令人难以置信的技能是我之前甚至都不知道的。我们要把它加到清单里。而且我确实看过团队的照片,我注意到了这一点。做得非常好。在聊你究竟是如何在 Stripe 这样一家有无数事情要做的公司里把 Atlas 做成之前,关于 Atlas 还有什么想分享的吗?
Atlas 的愿景
Jeff Weinstein: 我们只想听到你觉得什么是困难的。如果你翻回自己的邮件,如果你最近创办过公司,或者现在正在创办公司,全世界都在指望你去选择一个客户,把他们的一个问题解决得比任何替代方案好十倍,交付给他们,收费,实现经济上的可持续,然后建立一个提供出色服务的伟大企业。全世界并没有指望你成为这种行政管理公司的无聊事务的专家。想象一下没有 Google Docs 的世界——你不得不在员工还只有三个人的时候就雇一个 IT 人员来运维你的 IT 后台。你就得有一个 IT 人员。或者想象一下没有 AWS 的世界,没有 EC2、S3 或任何这些云服务,你得自己去机房上架服务器。
你绝对不可能去尝试那么多东西。我们就是把公司结构——把人组织在一起的结构——看作类似这样的东西,我们想把越来越多越来越多的部分自动化,把它变成软件。所以我们正在寻找下一个可以着手的方向。我们有一些想法,但我们期望把更多”一群人协作”的行政管理工作转化为软件。我认为这将极大地释放更多人选择创业的可能性。
Lenny Rachitsky: 有意思。我非常好奇那最终会是什么。如果你认真想想他们在做的事——如果你相信创业精神、创新和技术能让世界变得更好,那你正在创造一个巨大的解锁,让更多这样的事情成为可能。就像我说的,我觉得很难想象和想到其他能像简化这个流程这样具有变革性和影响力的事情了。
对创业者的建议
Jeff Weinstein: 说来有趣,我又想到一件事——我也经常听到创始人、创业者说,哦,我想不到点子。唉,我需要一个创业点子。然而世界上的一切都是破损的。我也回想起我的第一次创业,大概 2010 年到 2012 年左右,我加入了一个朋友的公司。那家公司和 Stripe 创始人创办 Stripe 的时间差不多。这件事我经常反思,因为在同样的信息条件下——知道在线支付有多难——我选择了去做别的事,而他们没有。他们致力于让在线支付只需七行代码就能实现,结果证明这真的非常有用。
所以我非常鼓励人们对看到的问题保持敏锐,不要放过任何一个小小的障碍。我认为 Atlas 真正体现了这一点——让我们逐一审视每一个环节,从你的爱好变成一个经济上成功的运营体的过程中,哪些时刻是你本不应该不得不去做的。我们认为这些事情在任何领域都值得去攻克。我认为有非常多巨大的商业机会、重要的待解决问题就摆在眼前。我不一定能全部看到,但当你坐在那里,在足够的安静中听到同样的人在抱怨同样的问题,你也可能发现像”在线支付很困难”这样大的机会——它就摆在我们所有人面前。
Lenny Rachitsky: 而且我认为重要的是,这不一定非得是风投支持的、风投规模的创业公司。没错。世界上大多数企业都不是风投支持的、十亿美元规模的创业公司。你可以建立一个盈利的公司。
资本结构与创业的脆弱性
Jeff Weinstein: 说来有趣。我们都把出让大量公司股份当作一种荣誉勋章。人们真的很喜欢拥有公司的大部分股权并取得成功。所以你只需要为自己的企业选择合适的资本结构。
Lenny Rachitsky: 而且再说一下,通过 Atlas 创立的公司所创造的金额,你说的是 50 亿美元,基本上这就是 Atlas 的 GDP。Atlas 的——
Jeff Weinstein: 那是年收入,而且还在增长——
Lenny Rachitsky: 每年。
Jeff Weinstein: 对。
Lenny Rachitsky: 是的。显然其中很大一部分本来也会发生,但它加速了。可能增长得更快。其中很多如果没有它可能永远不会发生。是的。
Jeff Weinstein: 我们前不久做了一项调查,我们需要重新跑一下,我们就是问人们如果没有 Atlas 是否还会创业。大约 20% 的人说他们不会,或者当时不会。而且再说一次,这些事情是脆弱的。这不是谷歌员工辞掉工作去创业那么简单。而是来自各种背景、各种角色、各种工作、各种年龄段的人,他们看到了问题并且能够解决它。所以它比人们想象的要脆弱得多。
Lenny Rachitsky: 做得好,Jeff,Atlas 团队以及整个 Stripe。
Jeff Weinstein: 很有趣。
在大公司内部推动事情发生
Lenny Rachitsky: 让我们聊聊最后一件事。还有太多我想聊的没聊完。也许我们可以——
Jeff Weinstein: 我们可以快点。对,我们可以……
Lenny Rachitsky: 开两倍速吧。Atlas 基本上是一个从零到一的产品。我知道你最初并不是从零开始的,它已经存在了,但你把它从,我不知道,也许是从 0.5 左右带到了现在的一百,而很多人在大公司内部很难启动这样的项目。Stripe 是一家大公司,对吧?它是一家非常创新、运营良好的公司,但它也是一家大公司。而你显然把事情做成了,你和你的团队。你学到了什么?实际上,让我读一段话。这是一段描述你在这方面的能力的话,来自你的一位前同事,就不具名了。“Jeff 真的很擅长穿透那些废话。你听到那么多关于框架和人们谈论的各种复杂东西,NPM 圈子里,其中一个最直接、最显而易见的事情大概是对的。我有时候跟 Jeff 通完话会很恼火,因为我知道他对某件事是对的。我为此撞了好几个月的墙。“聊聊你做了什么,你学到的关于把事情做成的经验。
Lenny Rachitsky: 聊聊你做了什么,你学到的关于在大公司里把事情做成的经验。你需要做什么?
Jeff Weinstein: 不把事情当作自己的主意,我认为这是非常有力的。我只是和 50 个客户聊过,他们都在大声喊同一件事。这里是他们各种各样的原话和表单,剩下的你在周围放上三个要点式的战略说明,为什么它重要,它会帮你赢得更多市场份额,以及你怎么能做好它。很好。我们还能做什么?也许有人拿出了 51 个人都有同样迫切需求的案例,但最常见的失败模式是我们什么也不做。那才是最常见的失败模式。
所以,第一,用深入的客户故事来对齐大家的认知;用马克笔而不是铅笔来视觉化地画出解决方案的草图,一开始不要用 Figma,不要管高保真还是低保真——我永远记不清哪个是精细的那个——用马克笔。对于这个迫切的问题,不受约束的完美解决方案是什么?那是 Pixar 风格的故事板。你不需要是设计师。你可以在纸上画火柴人,或者用 whimsical 或任何你想用的工具。有了这些东西,如果你不是在要太阳要月亮地索要人力和团队规模来取得一些进展,谁能阻止你?让我们先做一个能跑通的版本。当时收到邮寄来的那张空白纸,极大地推动了我们启动 83(b) 选举。顺便说一下,等到这期播客播出时,我们将已经跨越 10,000 份 83(b) 选举的提交,而且我们将百分之百按时完成每一份。带着这个迫切的使用场景——为什么客户需要它,为什么我们能在长期内低成本、高效、安全地做到,以及这里是如何用切实可行的方式快速推进火柴人愿景的方法,但在浏览器里做出一个版本。让我们先把一件事情跑通一次。
我发现”存在性证明”是一种极其有力的证明方式,而不是通过理论或辩论来证明。就是,“看,我们做了一次。嘿,我手里拿着那张纸。” 这非常令人振奋。如果我们只是打印出正确的信息,我们就完成了。你会觉得,“好吧,除了那张纸之外其实还有很多要做,” 但它确实把我们推了出去。突破一些繁文缛节的关键在于保持势能,让每一步都不那么重大,少要一些许可。当然,一旦你有了一点成绩在手,别人自然会信任你去下更多那样的赌注。
再加上我们之前聊到的一些东西——大家都在看同一个指标仪表盘,每个人都能看到成功。我们不需要做大型内部汇报,用冗长的 PowerPoint 演示文稿加上前一晚的匆忙准备。你只需要去指标页面看看我们做得怎么样。这给团队带来了极大的信任,人们开始从”为什么我们有这个 Atlas,它又不怎么赚钱。它收的钱都是公司还没钱的时候收的。我们是一家大型支付公司。你怎么把这些东西放在一起比较?“变成”哇,看看他们朝着使命取得的进展,看看它对曲线的影响。“然后你开始更多地支持它。
我想这就是我们走到今天的方式。我还想说另一件事,就是让一个东西在经济上可持续是极其重要的。我大概是第四个负责 Atlas 的人,在我之前是一个非常厉害的群体,包括 Mozi 的创始人,那是一家合规创业公司;还有 Watershed,这个非常棒的气候报告工具,之前也负责过 Atlas;Patrick McKenzie,patio11,对很多人来说……
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇,什么一个校友阵容。
Jeff Weinstein: 我们欠自己一顿聚餐。我们欠自己一顿聚餐。相当厉害的阵容。现在我们有了一位新人。严格来说我不再负责 Atlas 了,所以我们已经组建了一支完整的团队,这非常令人兴奋。Hayley Halvarsson 大约一两年前加入了我们,她现在负责 Atlas,你可以在 Twitter 上找到她。她非常出色。我们在一年内轮换了工作,每个月轮换一次角色。所以她先为我工作,然后我为她工作,然后她已经去招聘了一些非常优秀的人来运营 Atlas。能有这些人先后领导它,真的是一种荣幸。
待翻译内容翻译
经济可持续性的重要性
Jeff Weinstein: 但对我们来说,非常重要的一点是向外界传达为什么我们要以一种经济上可持续的方式来运营这个项目,我认为这适用于所有产品和所有业务。就是说,“如果你是一个客户获取类的产品,那就展示为什么这是公司每一美元投入中最好的客户获取方式。如果你是业务中创造利润、构建护城河、壮大生态的那一部分,那么你的指标就必须证明这一点。“所以你不能只讲产品质量和推文这半个故事,你必须拿出经济账。还有谁会愿意为这种类型的产品投入这么大的精力呢?这让我们有信心在长期持续投资。因为替代品可能来来去去,我非常鼓励出现更多 Atlas 的替代品,这对创始人来说是好事。但我认为从长期来看,由于商业模式的原因,这件事会很难做到。
Lenny Rachitsky: 其实曾经确实有过一个替代品,AngelList,后来他们说,“不行了,Stripe 做得太好了。我们把所有人都送到 Atlas 去吧。“
AngelList 的竞争与共生
Jeff Weinstein: 我之前做了很长时间的 Stripe 支付业务,刚转到 Atlas 不久,就在那个月 AngelList 宣布他们要做公司注册、银行账户加股权表全套打包,那恰恰就是我想做的事情。我当时就想,“糟了,我是不是选错了赛道?AngelList 是一个非常聪明的团队,非常以客户为中心,品牌很好,我喜欢他们那里的很多人,他们和一些顶尖的法律专家合作,还有他们的 RUV 架构。有太多厉害的东西了。“我当时想,“我们真的要竞争吗?我们该怎么办?“我们反复思考这个问题,最终得出:“从很长远来看,创办公司这件事会变成一个效率和成本问题,而且要跟多个金融机构打交道、处理多个政府流程、应对所有这些法律复杂性,有大量的长尾难题。同时很难对此收取很高的费用,因为当人们还没有开始创业的时候,你很难向他们收很多钱。”
我们分析后说,“我们要坚持这种长期的、复利式的路径,因为我们认为这才是最终的方向。“当时还是零利率环境。AngelList 打造了一个出色的产品。我完全是带着钦佩和欣喜去看它的,但同时心里也很不好受,很疼。我们持续构建、持续构建、持续构建。然后有一天晚上,在我妻子生日那天,我们正要坐下来吃晚饭之前,我接到了一个电话,是 AngelList 的 Dan 打来的——我希望他不会介意我讲这个故事——我非常喜欢他。他是一个非常厉害的产品人,当时领导 AngelList 面向初创公司的产品。他说,“我们要退出公司注册业务了。这不会是我们未来的重点。你想要这个业务吗?”
那大概是在他们真正推出产品一年半之后,也可能是两年之后,差不多是那样一个时间点。我当时就想,“哇。“我们和他们的关系一直非常开放。我们在法律架构上合作过。我们公开讨论过 83(b) 选举。很多人说,“真不敢相信你居然在跟竞争对手说话。“你看,我们共享同一个使命。是的,我们在竞争,但互相保持距离真的对我们都更好吗?我们有一个共同的 Slack 频道。我们讨论特拉华州注册速度慢的问题。有一次是因为他们在打垒球,下午放假了。这是真事,我们还讨论过这个。AngelList 在评估这件事上做得非常漂亮。他们在评估不同的合作伙伴,但因为我们的合作关系和你们产品的质量,以及他们看到我们在推进 83(b) 选举及其投入的力度,他们直接做了一个网页,上面写着如果你想在 AngelList 上开始、需要一个公司的话,直接去 Atlas 就好。
那真的是一个非常了不起的时刻,因为我如此尊重他们、如此仰望他们,而他们愿意做出这种互利共赢的选择。所有人都很兴奋很开心,客户也很开心,从那以后我们的关系一直非常好——你可以在 AngelList 上开始,经过 Atlas,然后你的所有信息会自动填充到 AngelList 中。我们后来把这个模式推广到了其他几个合作伙伴,Mercury、Carta 等等,但 AngelList 真正是率先走出了这一步,我们和他们的团队保持着非常好的关系。这花了一些时间,但它再次向我证明了,他们不是竞争对手,而是替代方案。如果你在乎客户,你就会在乎他们的替代方案;如果你在乎使命,你们就需要共同协作。当然,会有一些友好的竞争。我们都想赢,但从长期来看,我认为所有各方都会好得多。
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇,这个故事太精彩了。我不知道你是否在其他地方分享过。这里面有太多值得展开的经验教训了……不担心竞争、埋头做事、解决客户问题、与竞争对手保持亲近、不怕跟他们交流、互相分享建议,就是打造最好的产品。我觉得这里面有太多非常有价值的东西。
Jeff Weinstein: 我再也设想不出比这更好的结局了。我认为世界会因为更多的专业化分工而变得更好。做这些公司注册的事情确实很麻烦。我认为你需要更多的专业化,更多的合作,我觉得现在很多公司已经开始这样做了。
在大公司从零构建新项目的经验总结
Lenny Rachitsky: 让我们回到你分享的关于如何在大公司内部从零构建新东西的经验,然后我们就可以收尾了。我这里记了很多笔记,这些建议非常棒,而且和 Mihika 的经历非常契合,她来过播客,在 Figma 工作,一直在那里做很多从零到一的事情。所以很欣慰看到这些模式一再出现。
一个建议是,用分镜勾勒理想蓝图。拿一支 Sharpie 马克笔画出来,“如果我们不受约束地把它做成,这会是怎样一个激动人心的愿景。“不受约束的、有力量的愿景。第二是解决一个迫切的使用场景。要清楚地表明这对很多人来说是一个巨大的问题。你可能有一些相关的故事分享。展示切实的前进进展,“看这个,我们取得了这样的进展,我们取得了那样的进展。给自己寄了一张白纸。你看,这是一个巨大的里程碑。“保持势头,Mihika 也谈到过这一点。让火一直烧着。让火一直烧着,展示势头。我们在不断进步。指标在持续上升。然后还有一个里程碑……感觉你很早就有了那种”看,我们取得了进展”的里程碑,另外还有商业论证,基本上就是,“看看我们能赚多少,看看如果我们成功了这会变成什么。“你有什么要补充的吗?有什么要纠正的吗?
Jeff Weinstein: 尽可能早地把最早的客户带到你的团队面前。我们会直接邀请一位创始人参加团队会议。我们会把他们所有的反馈自动同步到一个 Slack 频道里。我们把所有的 NPS 分数都发送到一个频道,只要不是满分 10,我们就直接跟进。与客户的持续互动会创造出一种势头,这种势头不需要某个产品负责人或其他领导站出来说”我们需要做这件事,跟我来”。而是所有人都觉得,“天哪,这个世界需要这个东西。让我们想办法更快地做到。”
Jeff Weinstein: 团队还尝试过一个做法,这是在我参与日常运营之后就有的——直接邀请客户来设计产品。这个我以前真的没见过。我们会说:“嘿,我们在思考公司注册完成之后还能做什么,能怎样帮助创始人成立公司之后的生活?那里有什么是令人感到神奇的?“我们就直接把创始人请进来,打开 Whimsical——一个我很喜欢的软件,学习曲线非常平缓,可以轻松创建可视化图表。与其为此去做一次 UXR,我们直接说:“你希望这个仪表盘上有什么?“然后他们会抓起一个元素,开始打字,开始画出他们想要的仪表盘。为什么我们之前一直在猜?我现在想起来都觉得好笑。我已经在这个行业干了十几年了,居然还在自己一个人琢磨。“我为什么不直接把这个任务交给那些要使用它的人?”
当然,这并不总是奏效,因为不是所有客户天生都是产品设计师,但这样的人比你想象的多。我认为给客户对你公司的”写入权限”,而不仅仅是”读取权限”,是非常强大的。我以前从没这么直接地见过——让客户亲手画出他们想要的东西。但我看到一张图,是我们正在做的某个功能的原型。我说:“哇,我们设计团队还没看过这个呢。“他们回答:“对,这是客户自己画的。“太好了。我们之前在猜什么呢?
Lenny Rachitsky: 我觉得你有一种不公平的优势,因为你的客户是创始人,往往具备产品和设计方面的技能。但我很喜欢这个做法。
Jeff Weinstein: 确实如此,但我要强调一下,你不需要一百个这样的人,你总能在某个地方找到一个懂行的人。你只需要在沉默中多坐一会儿,他们就会主动举手。
Lenny Rachitsky: 你之前分享过一句话,和你刚才说的相关,是你父亲说过的:“只要你一句话以’客户’开头,你就不会错得太离谱。”
Jeff Weinstein: 没错。我父亲在巴尔的摩经营一家 IT 企业,帮助其他公司解决计算机系统的问题。小时候,我会去帮他员工的键盘做物理清洁、给鼠标除尘。他非常、非常以客户为中心,我身上很大一部分就遗传自他。我母亲是画家,所以我想这两种才能或兴趣在我这里有了某种结合。他会更进一步,有时候在开会时会真的拉一把椅子过来,说:“客户就坐在这里。“然后你必须要假装。他会对着那个看不见的客户假装对话。“根据你今天在会上看到的情况……”我亲眼见过他这么做。“根据你今天在会上看到的情况,你是更愿意付账单,还是更不愿意付账单?”
这种默剧表演有点夸张,但我觉得他想表达的重点很清楚……因为人们自然而然会向内思考,如果你在句子开头先说出”客户”这两个字,再开始你的论述,你做出正确判断的概率就会大得多。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这个故事太棒了。很有学习小组的味道,像是一个早期原型。Jeff,我们聊了很多内容。我还有两个小时的提问量,但我们需要——
Jeff Weinstein: 我们约下次。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我们得收尾了。在进入非常令人期待的闪电问答之前,你还有什么想分享的或想对听众说的吗?
保持联系
Jeff Weinstein: 我对你们正在构建的、或者正在考虑构建的东西感到非常兴奋。我的邮箱地址非常容易找到,我的 Twitter 账号也非常容易找到。不要犹豫,给我发陌生邮件。我最喜欢的沟通方式是 Loom 视频报告 bug,但任何你脑子里想到的东西都可以发过来。我会回复写得好的陌生邮件。不要犹豫。
Lenny Rachitsky: 快说一下你的邮箱是什么,方便大家?
Jeff Weinstein: 如果找到我的邮箱地址对你来说是个问题的话?这不应该是个问题,但基本上在所有平台上都是我名字首字母加姓氏,不过我在 Twitter 上的账号是 jeff_weinstein。天哪,如果你找不到我的邮箱地址,那你面临的问题可就更大了。
Lenny Rachitsky: 好,我们也会在节目备注里附上链接。那么,我们进入非常令人期待的闪电问答。准备好了吗?开始。你向别人推荐最多的两三本书是什么?
推荐书单
Jeff Weinstein: 我知道这个播客上很多人都推荐过《High Output Management》,但它应该被放进全世界所有酒店抽屉里,取代圣经的位置。把它到处放。你不会选错的。这本书极其清晰地阐述了作为领导者、作为管理他人的人,应该如何分配自己的时间,以及衡量你工作成果的标准应该是你周围所有人的总和。这一点对我非常有启发——这不是个人努力,衡量标准是我参与的一切的总和。所以这本书绝对排得上。与这本书很搭的一本,作为餐后甜点式的读物,是《Orbiting the Giant Hairball: A Corporate Fool’s Guide to Surviving with Grace》,我想大概是这个完整书名,作者是 Gordon MacKenzie。这是 Hallmark 贺卡公司一位插画师的故事,而 Hallmark 随着时间推移,结果也变成了一个充满规则和政策、官僚化、运转缓慢的组织,这些规则和政策压制了创造力和创新——这在一家贺卡公司挺令人意外的,但它确实存在。所以这是他写的这本书,画得极其精美,正如你所期待的,配有漂亮的插图,讲述了他如何围绕这个组织的”毛球”做轨道运行,去激励他人、保持自己的投入感、带来创造力和激情,并试图把人们从毛球上拉出来,一起围绕它运转。我觉得这是一个愉快的下午读物,有精美的插图,讲的是如何在大公司里保持清醒,在哪里可以稍微放飞一下自我,承认毛球的引力和存在感,但不要被它吞噬,而是能够在它的轨道上运行。
这两本很有意思。我再推荐一本……因为我们在这里没有谈过战略,更多是讲怎么把事情做成以及一些战术层面的东西——还有《7 Powers》,我知道你最近请了作者上过节目,非常精彩。我就不解释这本书了,直接去看那期播客就好,它梳理了企业可以拥有的多种商业力量和护城河。我有一次碰到了作者……
Lenny Rachitsky: Hamilton Helmer。
Jeff Weinstein: Hamilton Helmer,对,谢谢。
Lenny Rachitsky: 名字真酷。
Jeff Weinstein: 名字确实酷。还是押头韵的。有一次在我工作的 Box 的午餐区,Box 收购了我们的一家公司,我就走过去跟他说:“找到第八种力量了吗?“他一边拿着三明治跑开一边说:“在找,在找。“关于那本书还有一个有点好笑、略带尴尬的时刻。我申请去 Stripe 工作的时候,和我们 CEO Patrick Collison 有过一些邮件往来,他阅读量很大,也喜欢书。我想展示一下”我也挺喜欢读书的”——虽然完全不在他的层级。我提到我刚读完《7 Powers》,然后向他推荐了这本书。但笑话到我自己头上了,因为他在我跳过的前言里就被引用了。他很友善地让我知道他已经读过了,而且被引用在里面。我当时就想,“完了,可能拿不到这份工作了。“但至少我过了那一关。所以这几本书对我影响很深。对了 Lenny,你有最喜欢的力量吗?你有最喜欢的一种力量吗?
最喜欢的”力量”
Lenny Rachitsky: 他最喜欢的力量是反向定位(counter-positioning)。我也很喜欢这个力量,因为我觉得它是那种能真正改变你构建公司一切方式的力量,所以它总是让我印象深刻。你呢?
Jeff Weinstein: 我也喜欢反向定位,Atlas 面向那个受众群体走低价路线,本身就是一个反向定位。但我真正喜欢的是流程(process)这种力量,因为作为一个组织,要真正擅长任何一件事都非常困难,如果你能在很长一段时间内以可持续的方式做到这一点,你就拥有了一种力量。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这是我经历过最书呆子的对话了。“你最喜欢哪种力量?“我太喜欢了。不过关于这种力量,我问过他。他提出了一个很有力的观点:对大多数人来说,它其实很少成为一种真正的力量。人们以为”我们的执行方式会成为我们的优势”,但很少真正构成力量。通常别人是可以复制它的,但如果你真正做到了……
Jeff Weinstein: 那就更好了,因为如果你的竞争对手自以为已经掌握了它——
Lenny Rachitsky: 对,没错。
Jeff Weinstein: 他们就不会再去投入其他的力量了。所以我因为这个原因更喜欢它。
Lenny Rachitsky: 我太喜欢了。不过我想说的是,Patrick Collison 不仅在那本书里被引用——他不只是写了前言的一部分或被引用,他基本上把《7 Powers》归功于帮助构建了 Stripe。不是什么大事。
Jeff Weinstein: 完全同意。
闪电问答:影视推荐
Lenny Rachitsky: 这个闪电问答环节进展得很顺利,简直是我们整场对话的一个缩影。第二个问题:你最近有最喜欢的电影或电视剧吗?
Jeff Weinstein: 《How To with John Wilson》,在 HBO 上。对于没看过的人,我其实也没法剧透什么,因为你看了就知道它有多野。你根本没法剧透。这位摄像师积累了大量素材,他拿着摄像机在曼哈顿走了十年,也有全国其他地方,但主要是纽约,专门拍那些极其奇怪的东西。如果你在纽约待过,就知道值得拍的东西太多了。然后他把这些素材按照特定主题串联起来——比如怎么做意大利炖饭,或者怎么倒垃圾,或者怎么……
这是一种通过这些小片段来观察生活的方式,深入下去真正理解人,而且他用的是一种极其冷幽默的手法,把这些视频素材拼接在一起讲出一个完全不同的叙事。我觉得部分原因是我们在纽约住过,我现在很喜欢住在加州,但我怀念那种高频的奇怪感,而你可以通过这部电视剧感受到那种感觉。非常棒。
电影的话,我最近看了《The Quiet Girl》,讲的是一个爱尔兰小女孩,来自一个功能失调的家庭,有机会去跟一个家族朋友住在一起,那家人能给她更多机会,对她也更有同理心。这部电影再次展示了事物是多么脆弱。这是一部很沉重的电影,但这个小女孩面前展现的那种机会之美令人动容。它会让人落泪,但落得值得。
闪电问答:最爱产品
Lenny Rachitsky: 你最近有没有发现特别喜欢的产品?
Jeff Weinstein: 我爱我的电脑。我在电脑上操作很快,而操作快意味着我能从想法到输出之间的距离极短。我重新迷上了 Raycast,这是一个自动化工具——经历过 Spotlight、Quicksilver、Alfred 以及所有这些自动化工具演进历程的人都懂。Raycast 似乎终于破解了那个难题:既有自动化和极客级别的复杂度,又有简洁的界面和贴心的细节,加载快,基础功能扎实。它完全可编程、可扩展,我简直是 Raycast 的超级粉丝。另外我觉得对于做产品的人来说,如果你还没装 CleanShot 来截图,你就落后了。能够截图之后模糊特定内容、添加标注、画箭头和线条,而且这一切成为第二本能、快速、即时,对沟通你所看到的东西非常有用。每次换新电脑,我先装 Raycast,第二个就装 CleanShot。
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇,我马上就要去下载 CleanShot。
Jeff Weinstein: 对,它极其——
Lenny Rachitsky: 我都没听说过。我一直用 Skitch 来做模糊处理。
Jeff Weinstein: 虽然我很尊重 Skitch 的团队,但 CleanShot 是一款非常出色的软件。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太好了,我要去试试。好了,还有两个问题。你有没有一个经常想起、会和朋友家人分享、在工作或生活中觉得有用的人生格言?
闪电问答:人生格言
Jeff Weinstein: 我甚至没意识到自己经常说”Go Go Go”,但我确实经常说。我口头说也写下来,所以后来听到别人回我”Go Go Go”,我会想,“嗯?我说过那个吗?“他们会说,“对,你说得很多。“所以看来”Go Go Go”算是一个。我还会说——
Lenny Rachitsky: 我喜欢这个。
Jeff Weinstein: 我会说”Let’s make some mistakes”(让我们犯点错吧),当我们头脑风暴,或者坐在寿司店里跟寿司师傅聊天时——不管男师傅女师傅——我想表达的是,“让我们发挥创意。想做什么做什么。不用装。我不会评判任何东西。让我们犯点错。“就是这么一个奇怪的说法。
Lenny Rachitsky: 这也太好了。我要在我的播客嘉宾身上用这个。“让我们犯点错吧,别担心。”
Jeff Weinstein: 到那个时候,所有人都会愣住,“什么?好吧,行,没问题。”
Lenny Rachitsky: 我喜欢这两个组合在一起,“Go go go,一边冲一边犯点错。”
Jeff Weinstein: 你得在特定场合用,不能用在 API 五个九的可靠性上,但它确实有它的用武之地。
从 Patrick 和 John Collison 身上学到的
Lenny Rachitsky: 最后一个问题。你和 Patrick Collison、John Collison 共事了很多年。我很好奇,你从他们那里听到或学到的最有用的反馈或建议是什么?
Jeff Weinstein: 我刚工作的第一个月,大概已经是六七年前了,他们让我负责我们的支付基础设施服务。就是所有与金融系统通信的后端系统,以及我们用来构建外部 API 和产品的所有内部 API,涉及面非常广。我对金融一窍不通,对我们所谈论的规模也毫无概念。他们就把这个责任交给了我,多少有点疯狂。第一个月我们有季度业务评审……就是正常的季度流程,我当时的反应是,“好的,那我下次来写,下次我来写。“我才来一个月。他们说,“不,你来写。你来写反而更好。“我当时就想,天哪。这等于逼着我在第四周就要有一个催化剂,去理解整个业务,而且是被授权的,因为我必须写这份文档来汇报我们的进展。在我来之前公司已经存在七年了,已经有一定规模了。
当时整个运营非常紧张,我记得写了第一稿发给他,因为……我不想发……其实是他推着我去写的,我想给他一个早期草稿。他回信说,“这听起来还不像你。“愿意信任一个新人去提供自己的视角,并将其融入那样一份非常正式的文档中,这种意愿令人印象深刻……这真的打动了我,然后我彻底重写了一遍,让它听起来像我,从那以后我就一直努力让所有东西听起来像我。
Jeff Weinstein: John 的更像是一记重拳。我向 John 汇报,他是联合创始人。大概向他汇报了九个月的时候,我总是拿着一个写字板到处跑。我那时候有点亢奋,恨不得把所有事情都做完。当时 Stripe 有太多事情在同时进行。我们会有一小时的一对一会议,我会列出我们完成的所有事情、遇到的问题、需要他帮忙升级的事项、卡住的地方等等,一大堆。我有清单,实体的纸质清单,翻页的时候都带点慌张。然后他说:“你是我共事过的人里面,最擅长解决第三到第一百个问题的,但我需要你死磕在第一个和第二个问题上。”
哎,那一下真的疼。我当时就想,“糟了。“我在那些不是最难的问题上很高效,而且在某种程度上回避最难的——不是故意的,但谁愿意卡在那么难的事情上,明明还有那么多别的事可以做?从那以后,我找他的时候只带着第一个和第二个问题,不再谈第三到第一百个。哪怕我们也在处理后面那些,就是不谈,就一起死磕第一个和第二个。那条建议太棒了,虽然当时我心里想的是,“完了,我要被开除了。“但那确实是一句影响深远的话。
Lenny Rachitsky: 哇,太有力量了,太好了,太有帮助了……这真是极好的建议。
Jeff Weinstein: 他真的是直视我的灵魂——
Lenny Rachitsky: 对,我喜欢这个。
Jeff Weinstein: 像街头格斗一样的那种。
Lenny Rachitsky: 但正如你所说,非常有冲击力,也非常有帮助。
Jeff Weinstein: 是的。
Lenny Rachitsky: Jeff,我们做到了。这次挖掘完成了。
Jeff Weinstein: 谢谢你的时间,Lenny。很愉快。我不太经常做这类节目,所以我很期待大家的反馈,也非常感谢你的提问。
Lenny Rachitsky: 太棒了。Jeff,非常感谢你来。
Jeff Weinstein: 多谢,Lenny。
Lenny Rachitsky: 大家再见。
感谢大家的收听。如果你觉得这期节目有价值,可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你喜欢的播客应用上订阅。也请考虑给我们评分或写评论,这真的能帮助更多听众找到这个播客。你可以在 LennysPodcast.com 找到所有往期节目或了解更多关于节目的信息。下期再见。
术语表
| 原文 | 中文 |
|---|---|
| 2FA | 2FA(两步验证,双因素认证) |
| 401(k) | 401(k)(美国退休储蓄计划,保留原文) |
| 7 Powers | 《7 Powers》(Hamilton Helmer 所著战略经典,保留原文) |
| 83(b) election | 83(b) 选举 |
| AngelList | AngelList(知名创业投资平台,保留原文) |
| AP | AP(Advanced Placement,美国大学先修课程) |
| AWS | AWS(Amazon Web Services,亚马逊云服务,保留原文) |
| bean counting | bean counting(原指繁琐的数字统计,此处保留原文比喻) |
| Box | Box(知名云内容管理和文件共享服务公司,保留原文) |
| cap table | 股权表(capitalization table,记录公司股权结构的表格) |
| Carta | Carta(股权管理平台,保留原文) |
| cohort | 队列 |
| craft | 匠心 |
| Cross-Border Founders | 跨境创始人 |
| customer obsession | 客户执念 |
| Dan | Dan(AngelList 员工,保留原文) |
| deal desk | deal desk(企业内部审批交易的流程/团队,保留原文) |
| Delaware | 特拉华州(美国州名,以其公司法的便利性成为创业公司注册首选地) |
| EC2 | EC2(Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud,亚马逊弹性计算云服务,保留原文) |
| EIN | EIN(雇主识别号) |
| Fidelity | Fidelity(美国大型金融服务公司,保留原文) |
| Figma | Figma(设计工具,保留原文) |
| fourth wall | 第四面墙(戏剧术语,比喻打破与外界的隔阂) |
| friction log | friction log(Stripe 内部一种端到端扮演客户并记录体验的做法) |
| Go Metrics | Go Metrics(Stripe 内部指标仪表盘系统) |
| go-to-market | go-to-market(市场进入策略,保留原文) |
| go/service | go/service(Stripe 内部服务快速访问机制) |
| Gordon MacKenzie | Gordon MacKenzie(Hallmark 插画师、作家,保留原文) |
| Hallmark | Hallmark(知名贺卡公司,保留原文) |
| Hamilton Helmer | Hamilton Helmer(战略顾问、《7 Powers》作者,保留原文) |
| Hayley Halvarsson | Hayley Halvarsson(Atlas 现任负责人,保留原文) |
| High Output Management | 《High Output Management》(Andy Grove 所著管理学经典,保留原文) |
| IRS | IRS(美国国税局,Internal Revenue Service,保留原文) |
| K-12 | K-12(美国基础教育阶段,幼儿园至高中) |
| Loom | Loom(异步视频录制工具,保留原文) |
| Mercury | Mercury(面向创业公司的数字银行服务,保留原文) |
| metrics | 指标 |
| Mihika | Mihika(Figma 员工,保留原文) |
| Mozi | Mozi(合规创业公司,保留原文) |
| NPM | NPM(Node.js 包管理器及社区,保留原文) |
| NPS | NPS(Net Promoter Score,净推荐值) |
| OCR | OCR(光学字符识别,Optical Character Recognition,保留原文) |
| Orbiting the Giant Hairball | 《Orbiting the Giant Hairball》(Gordon MacKenzie 所著,保留原文) |
| patio11 | patio11(Patrick McKenzie 的网名,保留原文) |
| Patrick Collison | Patrick Collison(Stripe 联合创始人兼 CEO,保留原文) |
| Patrick McKenzie | Patrick McKenzie(Stripe 员工/博主,保留原文) |
| Pixar | Pixar(知名动画工作室,保留原文) |
| PowerPoint | PowerPoint(微软演示文稿工具,保留原文) |
| product market fit | 产品市场契合度(已在术语表中) |
| proof of existence | 存在性证明 |
| RUV | RUV(Roll-Up Vehicle,AngelList 的一种投资架构,保留原文) |
| S3 | S3(Amazon Simple Storage Service,亚马逊简单存储服务,保留原文) |
| SaaS | SaaS(软件即服务,保留原文) |
| self-service funnel | 自助服务漏斗 |
| Sharpie | Sharpie(马克笔品牌,保留原文) |
| SLA | SLA(服务等级协议,Service Level Agreement,保留原文) |
| SQL | SQL(结构化查询语言,保留原文) |
| stacked bar chart | 堆叠柱状图 |
| Stripe | Stripe(知名支付科技公司,保留原文) |
| Stripe Study Groups | Stripe 学习小组 |
| UXR | UXR(用户体验研究,保留原文) |
| Watershed | Watershed(气候报告工具公司,保留原文) |
| whimsical | whimsical(在线绘图工具,保留原文) |
| YC | YC(Y Combinator,知名创业孵化器,保留原文) |
| zero-to-one | zero-to-one(从零到一,指从零开始构建新产品,保留原文) |
此文档由 AI 分片翻译(translate_long_document)