- How They Grow
- Posts
- š± 5-Bit Fridays: Startup misconceptions, why to build slowly, the Modern Data Stack, monetization advice, and the LinkedIn algorithm explained
š± 5-Bit Fridays: Startup misconceptions, why to build slowly, the Modern Data Stack, monetization advice, and the LinkedIn algorithm explained
#32
š Welcome to this weekās edition of 5-Bit Fridays. Your weekly roundup of 5 snackableāand actionableāinsights from the best-in-tech, bringing you concrete advice on how to build and grow a product.

Happy Friday, friends š»
Iām sure youāve been privy to at least one video (you never asked for) of Mark Zuckerberg doing some Mixed Martial Arts training. And no, not just in the metaverse. And no, heās actually got skills!

Well, for us fans of tech, in case you missed it, Zuck and Elon Musk have agreed to fight in a UFC-style cage match. This will indeed be entertaining, and at minimum, will attract an audience of the ~15K laid-off Meta/Twitter folks.
Also, in a somewhat surprising move by Disney, Marvel has used generative AI to create the opening credits for the new show, Secret Invasion. As you can imagine, creatives are not happy at all. You can watch it here.
And lastly, before we get stuck in, shoutout to Turner Novak for finding this gem of a memeā¦

Ok, onto the more serious stuff.
Hereās what weāve got this week:
Misconceptions held by early-stage founders
The value of building slowly
What's the Modern Data Stack?
Monetization lessons from growing revenue from $10M to $50M
The LinkedIn 2023 Algorithm, explained
(#1) Misconceptions held by early-stage founders
I read a piece earlier this week by , and I thought it would be a fun one to share today because it bucks a lot of the conventional wisdom weāve covered so far in this newsletter, playing Devilās Advocate to many of the lessons weāve learned.
Of course, that is not to say any of this has been wrong. But rather, there is always another side to every piece of advice worth considering. And for startup founders, āadviceā can be overwhelming, chaotic, and contradictory.
So, Iāll let Ben add some more of it here for you. āļø
Across Benās career as an investor, heās found 11 misconceptions earlier-stage founders often have. Here are 5 of my favorites. š
You need to build a platform
Iāve argued many times that platforms always win. And generally, I still believe that to be true. However, as Ben describes very persuasively:
Platforms are cool, but they suffer from the challenge of being too horizontal. [And] horizontal platforms leave the use case up to the imagination.
Unfortunately, platforms struggle when users donāt have an immediate or painful enough use case, or canāt figure out how to use a generic platform designed to do āall the things.ā Going to prospective customers and saying, āYou can use it for this, and this, and this, and this!ā isnāt helpful.
You donāt need to build a platform at the outset. Typically I discourage it, and prefer to find very specific use cases (leaning into specific verticals or industries) where you can really understand the need, the user/customer and dominate. Use cases help people understand what youāre doing and why. Use cases help people figure out if youāre right for them versus all the other āgeneric platform tools.ā
You need to go after a big market
Bigger isnāt always better. If a market is already largeālike a tiny ship entering a massive oceanāthereās the risk of you just getting washed out and lost.
Proclaiming that if your startup just gets 1% of the video game industry youāll be a billion-dollar company, is/should be the quickest way to the door.

Besides indicating that you probably just Googled āvideo game market sizeā and showing you used the laziest/most inaccurate way to ācalculate market sizeā for your product, you also likely donāt know enough about the space and the customers to calculate it more appropriately.
Simply, just never do that. Top-down market sizing is usually a mistake (especially for new products) even if it does give you a nice big number to show off in your pitch deck.
And while itās true that VCs generally prefer larger markets, or markets growing quickly, because it makes for a more justifiable opportunity and a clearer path to a big win in theory, as Ben says:
I prefer niche markets that you can really go deep on, learn from and take a big chunk out of. Then you can expand up market or go sideways into another market. Iām not suggesting doing this is easy, but itās easier than going after the biggest market possible and pretending you can win. By the way, you can also go after a smallish market and grow it.
And to continue with this thread:
It is possible to go after too small a market. There is no magic bullet for a Goldilocks market size. Ultimately, itās more about how you define the market (i.e. whoās in it, their propensity to pay, frequency of the problem, etc) in the beginning, vs landing on an actual number. Ben does give a loose range though: āIf your target market is sub $1B thatās probably too tiny. Anything over $50-$100B is probably too big to really wrap your head around.ā
Small markets should not equal small vision.
Itās not just about the total market size (TAM). Firstly and more practically, itās about which section of that market you can reasonably go after with your product. And secondly (and this is the sweet spot), itās about demonstrating a strategy for how you will expand the market (e.g. the new people you will bring into it).
More features = More usage & sales
According to a study by Pendo, ~80% of features in software products are hardly ever used.
In other words, being a feature factory and just shipping stuff is not how you solve customer problems, and drive usage and retention.
Instead of focusing on adding more features, figure out what really makes your product tick and get that right. Itās much more effective to go deep on one problem and type of customer than it is to spread yourself thin across many mediocre solutions.
You can copy competitorsā pricing because they tested it first
Just because it works for someone else, does not mean it will work for you.
It might, but just copying pricing is not a pricing strategy.
What it can do though is help you with price positioning and finding some benchmarks while you do your homework. As you map out what competitors at different areas of the market are charging, youāll learn about what units of value people are charging for, and what customersā propensities to pay for a solution are.
As Ben writes: āYou donāt know how other companies are making decisions. Youāre not in their board rooms. You donāt know if what theyāre doing is based on any legitimate research/validation or just the CEOās gut.ā
Everyone is out to steal your idea
The reality is that no one is looking to steal your idea. Why? Because they have their own ideas (and their own problems!)
Ideas are everywhere. Iām not belittling the importance of ideas (theyāre great starting points) but theyāre not proprietary or secret.
For more by Ben, subscribe to his free newsletter:
(#2) The value of building slowly
Sticking to the above theme of somewhat contrarian advice: shipping fast is not always the best move.
And hereās why:
The popular belief system still centers around the ālean startup,ā A/B testing, and shipping quickly. There are two reasons why I donāt think thatās necessarily the ideal approach.
Firstly, teams tend to underestimate the gravity created by shipping their first product. Once you share something with customers, you naturally start to think in iterations of that product; it becomes infinitely harder to change direction and climb a different mountain entirely. Shipping too quickly can become a prison ā a team can get trapped, iterating on something far longer than they should.
Secondly, moving too quickly can limit the benefits of product-led growth. As advertising has become more expensive, having a product that customers talk about is critical for acquisition. One of the key principles of product-led growth is to āsurprise and delightā ā to build something that customers will talk about with their friends. Itās easy to forget that people donāt tell their friends about a product that does exactly what they expected; they talk about products that surpassed their expectations.
If you need people to be talking about your product, you shouldnāt just ship a minimally viable product. On the contrary, you should polish and push beyond the core requirements to create something customers donāt expect and that can grow on its own.
ā Scott Belsky, CPO at Adobe, via The Generalist
Just something to noodle on. š¤
Thank you for reading How They Grow. This post is public so feel free to share it.
(#3) What's the Modern Data Stack?
This bit is a little more along the lines of āhow to get more technicalā. If youāre not a PM, or founder, or just not interested in unpacking the journey of how data moves aroundā¦feel free to just hop to the next bit.
Still with me?
Cool. As you know, data is good and it helps us with all sorts of decisions.
Whatās also good, especially as product managers looking to develop our technical chops, is having a better understanding of whatās going on under the hood, and how the data sausage is made. If we run to someone on the data team and ask, āCan you pull a report on X quickā, itās helpful to know (at a high level) what weāre asking for.
And a good place to start is by looking at The Modern Data Stack ā a term coined by Justin Gorge. As he describes it, the MDS is āa new-ish set of tools that data teams are using to collect, transform, explore, and make use of their companyās data.ā In other words, itās all the stages and machines along the sausage factory line for business intelligence, from raw data to clean charts that you stick in your decks to pitch new products.
In Jorgeās words:
There are a million ways to cut the data stack, but generally, it will fit into a few categories:
Something to pull in data from where itās generated
A place to store your data
Something to transform your data with
Something to visualize and analyze your data with
Hereās a summarized rundown of each:
1) Something to pull in data from where itās generated
Problem number 1 when you want to analyze data is that the data is nowhere to be found. Typically, analytics questions like āhow much revenue did we do this month?ā require integrating data from multiple sources ā perhaps in our case Stripe and our production database with user information. More generally, important data gets generated in a ton of tools your company might be using:
And to analyze that data alongside other data, you need to get it out of there and into your data warehouse. Youāve also probably got data that your companyās application is generating ā like who your users are and what theyāre doing ā that youāll want in there too.
2) A place to store your data
You need somewhere to put all of that nice, useful data weāve been talking about. The simple answer here is a database: but what kind of database? Generally, there are two categories:
You donāt want to use the same type of database for your application and you do for your analytics, because your queries for each are so different
3) Something to transform your data with
The data youāre pulling in from your systems is rarely (read: never) in the exact format you want it to be in. From the Technically post on ETL:
Hereās what a typical transform workflow might look like:
Typical ETL workflows can have tens or even hundreds of these kinds of transformations per dataset.
You can transform your data with SQL, Python, or any other language ā no matter what you use though, youāll need some sort of system and server for running this stuff, notifying you when it fails, debugging, etc.
š ļø Tools at this layer of the stack: dbt
4) Something to visualize and analyze your data with
Once your data is in the format and place it needs to be, itās time to analyze it. There are a lot of different types of analysis:
Each requires, or at least benefits from, some degree of specialized tooling. Data Scientists need somewhere to write one-off SQL queries, but also a place to build and maintain charts, which might be a separate place from where they share experiment results, and so on and so forth.
And to bring that together, hereās a handy visualization:

To go deeper on the MDS, read Justinās essay on WHAT YOUR DATA TEAM IS USING: THE ANALYTICS STACK
(#4) Monetization lessons from growing revenue from $10M to $50M
Dan Layfield was the head of the growth team at Codecademy for 3 years. As a product manager, he helped the learn-to-code platform grow from $10M to $50M ARR+ before it sold for $525M.
From his journey in scaling Codecademyās revenue by 5x, Dan recently shared a few lessons heās learned from growing a recurring revenue business.
TL:DR: Setting up the basics of a monetization system early on makes a world of difference as your product grows. Simply, the folks that sign up and you donāt monetize early are likely gone forever, so it pays huge dividends to set up a strong foundation. If you can get to a place where you have a strong checkout page, good pricing structure (not just copied), paywalls, payment processing, and a process to manage churn, then youāll be better off than 90% of early-stage companies.
Letās go a bit deeper. āļø
Recurring revenue businesses are basically structured like this diagram.
Many companies go wrong because they only focus on making acquisition cheaper and faster when you should have been systematically improving LTV to afford higher acquisition costs.
There is a Dan Kennedy quote, which is something like:
Assuming that you donāt have a bunch of VC money light on fire (and even if you do), the best chance that you have in the long term is figuring out to better monetize each monthly cohort of users and increase your overall LTV, which will allow you to spend more to acquire more customers profitably.
So, with that helpful context, hereās Danās advice for reliably making improvements to your monetization system. šø
Figure out monetization early in your product/companyās life
Everything gets more expensive to change the longer you wait. It involves convincing people who may be used to free value, changing more code, retraining more sales/customer service people, etc.
Every cohort you under-monetize during your early years is money you never get back.
While speed is essential in all businesses, itās extra important in subscription businesses
Subscription businesses are slower to scale than most B2B businesses because most of your customers will pay incrementally across their lifecycle, and you are not likely to close a big enterprise account that allows you to collect a lot of cash upfront.
Because of this, every missed cohort of users you didnāt monetize well is lost forever. The faster you get the best practices running, the more revenue youāll have to compound in the following years. Donāt overthink the fundamentals.
Rule of thumb: work from the bottom of the funnel upwards
Your active paying users are hands down the most valuable to you. You donāt want to lose them for things like payment failures that could have been prevented.
If you are in a company that drives decisions based on A/B tests, you will be beholden to a concept called minimum detectable effect (MDE).
Itās hard to convince people to pay you money, so start by finding all the people who are trying to pay you, and itās not working
I love this advice.
Itās similar to the idea: āA bird in the hand is worth two in the bushā.
In practice, this means finding all the dead ends, points of confusion, and areas of friction that people who are already willing to buy are experiencing.
These people donāt need carrots or sticks to move them along, theyāre already there.
One way to do this, as Dan says: āEnsure the checkout page error states are clear, that any payment integrations arenāt broken in specific browsers, etc. Are the bugs that happen during certain edge cases in important parts of the app?ā
Focus where most users are and focus on improving clarity
Try to find the places in your product that most users are converting from and ensure that youāre setting context correctly the step before.
One of our most successful tests on our homepage changed the primary CTA from āStart Codingā to āSign Up.ā Most of the time, we were cute with copy or messaging; it hurt us.
(#5) The LinkedIn algorithm, explained
Looking for ways to boost your LinkedIn reach and get the most juice out of your LI content?
Same. š
Well, this infographic could help. Building on research conducted by LinkedIn expert Richard van der Blom last year, the Creativity and Innovation Network has published some new findings on key LinkedIn algorithm recommendations, based on an analysis of 2,000 posts published between February in March this year.

But, emojis, format, and time of dayāas seemingly important as they areāare never a substitute for quality, value-adding, content.
š± And now, byte on this if you have time š§
We encounter friction every dayā in all its formsā as we brush our teeth, go for a jog, or argue with a friend.
In an NPR episode of TED Radio Hour, speakers explore how this force can be dialed up or down to improve our lives.
For builders, thereās a lot of wisdom in here. Often, itās not about convincing people to do something (like buying our products). They are already convinced, and instead, itās about finding and removing less obvious barriers.
And thatās a wrap, folks.
As always, thank you for reading and giving me some of your time today.
If you learned something new, or just enjoyed the read, the best way to support this newsletter is to give this post a like, share, or a restack ā it helps other folks on Substack discover my writing.
Or, if youāre a writer on Substack, enjoy my work, and think your own audience would find value in my various series, Iād love it if you would consider adding HTG to your recommendations.
Until next time.ā Jarydāļø
Start writing today. Use the button below to create your Substack and connect your publication with How They Grow
Reply