I read some articles this week coming up with cheeky ways to mention that Twitter is finally going to star “making money.” How, oh how, are they going to do this? Well, of course – by hiring someone. A product manager, in fact.
Har har har.
This really goes to show just how little people understand the role of PM’s in the tech space.
Twitter’s job description on the other hand is bang on. But honestly, people – do you really think they would hire a PM if they didn’t already have some idea of what they were going to do? Come on.
The senior managers / founders / VCs already have at least some idea (if not a very strong idea) of the business model they are going to put in place. They only need a PM to help them validate the vision and carry it out. Maybe recommend some new opportunities along the way / think outside the box. But actually make it come to life.
PM’s aren’t “moneymakers.” They can be. But I guarantee you – in this situation, they are looking for someone to come in, research and think the market opportunities they have already identified and then follow through on my favorite term – “productization.”
So, really – before writing all these crazy articles about how “Twitter has no idea how to make money – so they need to hire someone!” You should actually understand what it is PM’s do and how they work in start-up environments.
Do you think super smart people like Fred Wilson would have given them another 11mm if Ev and Biz and the rest of the folks didn’t already have some clue about how they were going to generate a positive cash flow?
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Adam, great post. Very true – during my startup time I spent a lot of time re-educating the founders about the role of PM. It's not just “productization.” Founders have a strong vision of the future of the company since they've put their time/money in from the beginning. However that can also work against them if you as PM bring them ideas that go against their vision of what the product or company “should” do.
In these situations one of two things will happen: a weaker PM will just “go do” and implement the founders vision and “find” research to backup that vision, or a stronger PM will reset the founder based on what he/she is hearing from the market. You wonder if most of these startups would be better suited by hiring some ops people to just go make stuff happen, if they don't want thinkers.
Hi Adam, great post. Very true – during my startup time I spent a lot of time re-educating the founders about the role of PM. It's not just “productization.” Founders have a strong vision of the future of the company since they've put their time/money in from the beginning. However that can also work against them if you as PM bring them ideas that go against their vision of what the product or company “should” do.
In these situations one of two things will happen: a weaker PM will just “go do” and implement the founders vision and “find” research to backup that vision, or a stronger PM will reset the founder based on what he/she is hearing from the market. You wonder if most of these startups would be better suited by hiring some ops people to just go make stuff happen, if they don't want thinkers.
Adam,
I can't dispute your argument, except to say that a nothing is a sure thing. A service that has a lot of users is more *likely* to be able to generate meaning full revenue, but not guaranteed to do so. There are lots of services that still haven't figured that out properly. Facebook being one of them.
Not that it's the same as Twitter, but a company back in the dot com boom called AllAdvantage raised over $100,000,000 (yes, one hundred million), had millions and millions of users, and never amounted to anything. SoftBank funded them quite heavily.
Clay Christensen has stated that companies should be impatient for profit but patient for growth (or as I say, “Nail it, then scale it”). Twitter, Facebook and others seem to approach this completely backwards. I wonder whether in their case, if “necessity is the mother of invention” holds true, and being forced to generate revenue once the audience is there, is the best way to success.
Saeed
Adam,
I can't dispute your argument, except to say that a nothing is a sure thing. A service that has a lot of users is more *likely* to be able to generate meaning full revenue, but not guaranteed to do so. There are lots of services that still haven't figured that out properly. Facebook being one of them.
Not that it's the same as Twitter, but a company back in the dot com boom called AllAdvantage raised over $100,000,000 (yes, one hundred million), had millions and millions of users, and never amounted to anything. SoftBank funded them quite heavily.
Clay Christensen has stated that companies should be impatient for profit but patient for growth (or as I say, “Nail it, then scale it”). Twitter, Facebook and others seem to approach this completely backwards. I wonder whether in their case, if “necessity is the mother of invention” holds true, and being forced to generate revenue once the audience is there, is the best way to success.
Saeed
Paul – thanks for the comment. I've had the exact same experiences.
Even strong PMs can have a tough time getting founders (or even hired
guns in management) to see the true value of product managers.
Even if they are brought in with the title.
That's dangerous – not only because experienced PMs will probably get
frustrated, but less experienced PMs may not see what the problem is,
and think that's just the way things work…
Paul – thanks for the comment. I've had the exact same experiences.
Even strong PMs can have a tough time getting founders (or even hired
guns in management) to see the true value of product managers.
Even if they are brought in with the title.
That's dangerous – not only because experienced PMs will probably get
frustrated, but less experienced PMs may not see what the problem is,
and think that's just the way things work…
Saeed, I totally agree. In today's tech start-up environment, actual
business fundamentals are suffering.
In the 70s or 80s or even 90s would investors entertain the idea of
continuing to invest millions or dollars in to a company with a
product that isn't being paid for?
Surely, the climate is evolving / changing. But I wonder if having to
focus on value delivered first instead of creating widgets or free
products will become the norm once again.
Saeed, I totally agree. In today's tech start-up environment, actual
business fundamentals are suffering.
In the 70s or 80s or even 90s would investors entertain the idea of
continuing to invest millions or dollars in to a company with a
product that isn't being paid for?
Surely, the climate is evolving / changing. But I wonder if having to
focus on value delivered first instead of creating widgets or free
products will become the norm once again.
Twitter was founded by technologists. Product releases were user-driven and architecture-driven (to keep up with scalability and robustness issues). They've achieved a certain critical mass in the marketplace – a prerequisite to any meaningful monetization scheme.
So I'm not surprised they didn't need a PM until now – because the PM would have told them what they already knew:
1. Keep users happy
2. Keep the system on-line
3. Get more users
4. Repeat
I think they have ideas about how to make money – they wouldn't have started Twitter unless they did. But they didn't need an additional expensive headcount sitting around for two years telling them “you need a few million happy users and a stable infrastructure – when those happen we can talk about monetization schemes.”
Kudos to Twitter for managing their headcount properly. If I were running the place I would have made the same call. They knew what they had to do, and they did it.
I'm as much of a fan of the product manager as anyone, but I know when and where they add value. We have to give executives credit for knowing how to run their businesses. Sometimes.
Twitter was founded by technologists. Product releases were user-driven and architecture-driven (to keep up with scalability and robustness issues). They've achieved a certain critical mass in the marketplace – a prerequisite to any meaningful monetization scheme.
So I'm not surprised they didn't need a PM until now – because the PM would have told them what they already knew:
1. Keep users happy
2. Keep the system on-line
3. Get more users
4. Repeat
I think they have ideas about how to make money – they wouldn't have started Twitter unless they did. But they didn't need an additional expensive headcount sitting around for two years telling them “you need a few million happy users and a stable infrastructure – when those happen we can talk about monetization schemes.”
Kudos to Twitter for managing their headcount properly. If I were running the place I would have made the same call. They knew what they had to do, and they did it.
I'm as much of a fan of the product manager as anyone, but I know when and where they add value. We have to give executives credit for knowing how to run their businesses. Sometimes.
{ 1 trackback }