Every startup needs to make a choice: is their product a dashboard product or a pipes product?
Dashboard products are used directly and regularly by end users as their primary interface for accomplishing tasks. The goal for these products is to get customers to live in the product. The primary North Star metric for these companies is active users (daily / weekly / monthly, depending on the natural frequency of customer usage for the category). Facebook’s first product (aka Facebook :)) was a dashboard product.
Pipes products are used in the background to process transactions, data, payments, etc, and customers rarely interact with them directly after initial setup. The goal for these products is to for their customers to send as much of their data / payments / etc through them. Their North Star metrics is a volume metric (eg GPV). Databricks’ core product is a pipes product.
Companies can have both types of products in their portfolio. For example, ChatGPT is a dashboard product while OpenAI’s APIs are a pipes product. However, a given product has to determine which camp it’s primarily in.
This choice dictates product development, growth strategy, and org structure. For example, dashboard products require heavy investment in UI/UX polish, engagement features, and retention loops, while pipes products prioritize reliability, throughput, integration breadth, and seamless embedding into customer workflows. Dashboard products have consumer-style growth teams focused on activation and habit formation to grow [DWM]AUs, while pipes products focus on making their product invisible infrastructure that “just works” and on capturing more and more of their end customers’ volume.
Startup CEOs: do you know what kind of product your company is building? If so, have you set up your North Star metric, your product development processes and your org structure accordingly?
PS a big thank you to @MerrillLutsky for reminding me that I had never posted about this framework.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I didn’t overlap with @keithrabois at @Square, but when I joined, his precepts were (and still are) all over the company. One of the most powerful metaphors - not least because of the vivid imagery - was that of barrels and ammunition.
2. I use this metaphor often with founders. We were fortunate that Keith hired a number of barrels at Square. Not surprising that barrels make great entrepreneurs - many of these people have started category-defining companies.
1. One of the maxims about a startup is “everyone wears all hats”. This is not true about founder roles. With very few exceptions, it’s extremely important to clearly delineate founder roles between a BUiLDER and a SELLER. (Or more colloquially, a hacker and a hustler).
2. The builder role owns building the product, end to end. The seller role owns figuring out how to get distribution for the predict, but also interfacing with external constituents such as investors and partners.
3. Note that i didn’t say “skills”. I said “roles”. When two trained engineers are cofounders, one assumes the Builder role and the other takes on the Seller role.
With three cofounders, at least one must assume the Seller role.
0. Founders/CEOs: what are your thoughts on employee transparency? how transparent should founders be with employees? And on what topics?
DISCLAIMER this question is for startups and private cos only. Public CoS have a much higher level of requirements around confidentiality.
1. Context: A founder confided that a good chunk of their engineers quit because the founder was too transparent about the company’s fundraising struggles last year (co did ultimately raise strong round). He agonized over whether this was preventable, whether he had over shared.
2. My take: founders should be transparent about things that directly impact employees’ work, things that are in the here and now, and things that are irrefutably true and verifiable.
1. Founders and CEOs don’t have a good way to think about competitors. Some ignore them, others obsess over them. Neither is optimal.
IMO, the right way to evaluate competitors is through a customer lens.
2. Specifically, being obsessed with your customers’ problems will help you see early if a competitor is solving their problems better than you are.
The bigget thing that matters wrt competition is if your customers are choosing or switching to a competitor over you.
3. And if you see this happening, you need to root cause it with extreme urgency, figure out why your solution is falling short of your customer needs, and fix it.
1. If you work in tech, especially in Silicon Valley, check out @arta_finance - they just launched a new way to manage your finances with advanced tech like AI & ML. It’s designed to address the financial questions & challenges that so many of us in the tech industry have.
2. How do I manage my equity, make it work for me, get liquidity without selling, optimize for taxes, and determine if and when financing is worth it?
3. What’s the best way to build long-term wealth with my resources? How do I think through the tax implications of grants or vests or sales? How should I think about my RSUs? The list goes on.
1. There will be a spate of acquihires in the next 18-24 months. I've been closely involved in a dozen plus acquihires. After seeing both successes and failures, I believe he 3 principles of a successful acquihire are:
(a) Talent
(b) Domain
(c) Team size
2. Talent: Since acquihires are about talent, there must be 1-2 verifiably (ideally through prior collaboration) exceptional people on an acquihired team, folks who raise the bar for that function or domain at the acquirer. Acquihiring an average team is not worth the trouble.
3. Domain: The acquihired team should work in the same (or adjacent) domain as the acquirer. Otherwise, the acquirer ends up with a team that went along with the process for lack of options, but leave after 6-12 months because they are not excited about the space or mission.