Great they share specific metrics and give a sense of how they evaluate companies, although all First Round articles have this tendency to be so overdesigned it takes away from the content. The discussion on Lenny's podcast is easier to digest: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc1Uwhfxacs" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc1Uwhfxacs</a><p>I think the 4 P's is a valuable framework for getting to PMF: Persona, Problem, Promise (Pitch), and Product. Usually startups that don't work have a fundamental problem with a few of these (they try to solve too many problems for too many people in a subpar way - i.e. they don't have a strong answer to: which problem are you solving, for who and why it is better than alternatives?). Startups that are willing to iterate over the 4 Ps have a shot at getting to PMF, those that don't usually will struggle and then die.
Interesting, but I get the feeling that they’ve packed so much into the PMF concept that it’s basically the whole business. In my mind it makes more sense to reserve the term for what’s called Level 1 here: the early stage where you need to make big adjustments and potentially pivot to an entirely different product or market.
My initial impression of this was poor, but I think that has more to do with the formatting of the slides not being conducive to mobile and the sheer volume of text.<p>After reading through and watching the candid videos, I can say there are valuable things that early stage founders can pull out so it is worth powering through.<p>I think more iterations and more depth on the case studies would be helpful for levels 1&2. Meaning, a broader sample of startups in the portfolio, and more tangible examples of changes that made a customer stop chrunning or sign up faster.<p>Using hypothetical or anonymized case studies and too few largely keeps this framework in the level 1-2 quadrant, which is ironic. Almost like this document was built (a technology) rather than helping a specific reader (a problem + solution).
This framework is attempting to make PMF seem so hopelessly complicated that you'll need their magic system (pricing unavailable, apply here).<p>Trust me, you don't need a system. It's so much simpler than this. First, start with the M, not the P. Talk to real human beings in any market to find a painful problem, create a product that addresses (doesn't need to 100% solve) that problem, and (don't forget this part) charge money for the product.<p>That's it. Anything else is galaxy brain. Don't get distracted.
There is also a video on Lenny's podcast (feat First Round Capital) about the exact same topic: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc1Uwhfxacs" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc1Uwhfxacs</a>
They talk about selling a dollar for less than it’s worth as not being a PMF indication. However, this does not match with actual VC funding trends, as the vast majority of private unicorns are loss making. In fact if you can consistently sell a dollar for 90 cents it’s likely you can raise a lot of money on the back of that.<p>It’s funny also that their Ironclad example clearly describes fraud/dishonesty on the part of the founder and this is celebrated as hustle. Seems far too common that this type of behavior is not only tolerated but actually suggested by VCs.
The amount of design that went in to this, and the fact that they override the scrolling logic, makes me curious what their intention actually is. They do a lot of telling what if "feels like".<p>Also... does this site... have motion blur?
The tldr is provided in the article itself:
> To be clear, pieces of this approach may exist here or there in different frameworks — after all, all great ideas are built on what's come before.<p>If you haven’t spent much time seeking PMF in a B2B company there is useful information here, but to me it looks like a refactoring of what’s come before.<p>The article under-delivers on its promise, which is stated up front as:<p>> Most people describe finding product-market fit as an art, not a science. But when it comes to sales-led B2B startups, we’ve reverse engineered a method to increase the odds of unlocking it. We’ve worked with some of the world’s most iconic enterprise founders and distilled what they did in their first six months into a series of tactical sessions for taking a straighter path to PMF.<p>And later on it even admits it doesn’t actually do what it promised:<p>> For example, a startup might be stuck at developing PMF, but later find that pivoting to a new buyer is the move that unlocks the next level. Or another company may have stumbled onto nascent PMF with resonant positioning, but then can’t ship the correct product that delivers on its promise.<p>> These levers, of course, fall more into the camp of how to go about finding PMF, which is not the focus of this essay.<p>Isn’t “tactical” advice supposed to be the answer to the question “how?”
I'm here to tell the tragic truth that there isn't a lot of opportunity for large scale repeatability that happens after the minimum viable product is discovered. Startups are basically cryptocurrency pyramid schemes hidden in the domain of legitimate entrepreneurship.<p>You shouldn't seek anything that is beyond one order of magnitude higher than the minimum viable product. Because Facebook already exists. World of Warcraft already exists. You're not gonna discover the product-market fit for the next Google. <i>Because there is no next Google.</i><p>It's sad how people are being lied to. Startups are literally just another lottery to waste resources, time, and energy on.<p>The bubble will eventually pop and people will be disappointed with reality.