Lore

Three Failure Modes for New Products Despite Good Process

Even with a disciplined learning feedback loop, Casey Winters identifies three distinct ways a new-product bet still fails:

  1. PMF exists but requires far more work than expected — e.g., Pinterest's Q&A product: the demand was real but the effort to reach real traction was underestimated.
  2. The destination is illusory — no real underlying demand exists, however the early signals looked; e.g., Tinder Social.
  3. Team drift — the team finds some traction, but gradually drifts away from the original targeted business problem (an unnamed travel company example), so any traction found doesn't actually fix the weak link the second product was meant to fix (see A Second Product Only Needs to Fix One Weak Link).

These are diagnostic categories for post-mortems: the first is a resourcing/patience failure, the second is a validation failure, the third is a scope-discipline failure.

The Three Modes, Stated Directly

  1. PMF exists but costs far more than expected — the destination is real, but reaching it requires substantially more time/resources than the original bet assumed.
  2. The destination is illusory — no real demand exists for what's being built, regardless of execution quality.
  3. Drift from the original problem — the team achieves some success, but along the way drifts away from the business problem the initiative was originally funded to solve.

Use these three as a checklist before deciding whether to keep funding or cut a struggling new-product initiative — each implies a different verdict (fund longer, kill, or re-scope back to the original problem).

Solution-First Jumps and Non-Opportunity Needs (Olsen)

Dan Olsen frames 80-90% of new products failing as coming down to two root causes: teams starting from a solution rather than a validated customer problem (a Problem Space vs. Solution Space conflation), and teams validating a real need that nonetheless isn't a good opportunity — i.e., a need that's already high-satisfaction, so there's little room to win (see Importance vs. Satisfaction (Opportunity) Framework). The second failure mode is subtler than the first: the problem is real and correctly identified, but the team never checked whether it was underserved before building for it.

Из тем: Growth, PMF, and Business Model Design