Mo Features Mo Problems

Before we dig in, I have a quick favor to ask you.

Each week I spend several hours crafting this email entirely for free. It’d mean the world to me if you could share Big Desk Energy with just 1 person who you think would also enjoy it.

Here’s your unique referral code you can copy and paste: https://mail.bigdeskenergy.com/subscribe?ref=PLACEHOLDER

Or if you’re feeling lazy, you can just forward this email and tell them to click on that link and subscribe 🙏 🙏.

At beehiiv we launch dozens of new features and enhancements every single week. Our product velocity is actually probably the thing we are best known for.

Speaking of, just yesterday we launched custom mobile apps for newsletters. Each beehiiv user can now launch their very own app that their readers can install.

We also have a pretty massive launch scheduled again for next week (see above re product velocity).

I’ve previously written about how we accomplish that (you can read it here). One of the core philosophies is that we often ship things that aren’t entirely complete and are perhaps a little rough around the edges. That’s intentional — it allows us to get the product into our users hands more quickly and collect real feedback.

Something along the lines of the classic startup adage: if it’s perfect, you shipped it too late.

Plus everyone knows that the last 10% always takes the longest. It requires making assumptions about how users will utilize it and second guessing earlier product decisions. I’d much rather ship something that wasn’t fully polished and let the users tell us what’s missing and how we can make it a homerun.

Engineers also understand the urgency of fixing issues that are live in production and impacting users. So in a way this strategy expedites go-to-market in two ways:

1. We ship the feature sooner because it’s not entirely finished per se.

2. We’re quicker to address live feedback and bugs, reaching a better finalized product on an accelerated timeline.

And while it sounds great in theory, it’s not without tradeoffs.

Sometimes users will encounter bugs when using a new feature and lose trust in the reliability or quality of the platform. Rational or not, users are constantly judging your product as they use it. And each time you launch something new, you are increasing the odds of them finding something to fault.

As you scale your business, you’ll encounter tons of instances where users behave irrationally. It’s not that they’re dumb or needy, it’s that they’re busy like everyone else in the world… and they come with their own unique set of expectations and experiences.

I think it’s important to take this into consideration when making certain product decisions. Let me explain…

We recently revamped our downgrade process, and now collect a lot more data as to why someone is choosing to cancel or pause their account. Last week, I noticed a user churn quoting that they “weren’t growing as quickly as they expected using Boosts.”

I can’t speak to their expectations, and while I wish Boosts performed better for them, it’s a feature built on network effects. The performance varies from user to user based on their budget, content niche, location, language, and a bunch of other factors.

Big Desk Energy, for example, grows about 1,000 subscribers per week via Boosts, with those subscribers averaging a 44% open rate and 9% CTR.

Translation: it works really well (for me).

But that’s not what I find so frustrating about this. It’s that Boosts is a totally optional and ancillary feature we chose to build to help our users grow and monetize more seamlessly. And it’s a feature that none of our competitors even offer.

The user who I referenced above:

• Built an beautiful website using beehiiv.

• Successfully published dozens of newsletters, averaging a 46% open rate.

• Grew 3x over the past year, using several of our growth features.

• Monetizes their newsletter via the beehiiv Ad Network.

• Pays a fraction of what they would on another platform.

…but they weren’t growing as quickly as they had hoped using Boosts.

By choosing to build Boosts, we created another vector for people to judge our platform and decide how to perceive us (despite competitors not offering it at all). It doesn’t feel fair, or very rational, but it’s the reality of how people make decisions and navigate the internet.

Speaking of not feeling fair…

We caught a stray here and apparently “kinda suck.” So I replied and asked why, and this was his response…

1. I totally agree that that’s an annoying experience (and definitely something we already addressed and fixed).

2. What a remarkably small and niche thing to jump to the conclusion that our entire platform “kinda sucks.”

You might see how both instances relate to each other. As you scale, thousands of users will navigate your product and encounter tons of experiences that will shape how they perceive it. The more things you launch, the more surface area there is to find something they don’t like.

And as you can see, the most trivial of things can be the difference between viewing your company favorably or it being a total piece of shit (allegedy).

Last week I hosted the first Big Desk Energy Mastermind in Costa Rica with 7 other incredible founders. It was a remarkable experience — I’ll write a separate post about it and share some of the most valuable insights.

One of the founders in attendance started an incredible SaaS company that serves a very specific purpose. It’s growing quickly, is profitable, and overall a really tremendous product. He was discussing wanting to launch a “social” component to the platform, despite it not necessarily correlating to more revenue.

My feedback was two-fold:

1. Every “yes” is a “no” to dozens of other things. Saying “yes” to building a social component meant saying “no” to several other initiatives that may be more impactful.

2. Social is hard, and if it’s not your core competency, it’s very possible it doesn’t succeed and becomes a stain on your product (and the perception of your product).

#2 was clearly inspired by the recent anecdotes I described above.

If they make a concerted effort to drive awareness to their social feed and it never takes off, the narrative of their perfectly functional platform could irrationally shift to “their social feed sucks, it’s a total deadzone.” And when you’re a startup fighting for market share, you want narrative working in your favor, not against it.

The world can be such an irrational place, so you might as well plan accordingly.

If you enjoyed this post or know someone who may find it useful, please share it with them and encourage them to subscribe: mail.bigdeskenergy.com/p/mo-features-mo-problems

Shoutout Alex for the reader submission. Finally an AI that understands the importance of multiple monitors.

Reply with your own AI generated office and I’ll feature it in an upcoming issue.

Turn on, tune in, drop out. Click on any of the tracks below to get in a groove — each selected from the full Big Desk Energy playlist.

Some of my favorite content I found on the internet this week…

• 10 examples of people making money using Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Twitter)

• I’ve been following Othership for a couple of years. Their new Flatiron location looks epic (Twitter)

• New level of wealth just dropped 👇🏽

Share this newsletter with your friends, colleagues, and cute girls.

1 REFERRAL = 25% OFF EVERYTHING IN THE STORE

Your referral count: 0 

Or share your personal link with others: https://mail.bigdeskenergy.com/subscribe?ref=PLACEHOLDER

Enjoyed this newsletter? Forward it to a friend and have them signup here.

Until next Tuesday 🕺🏽