See, that's the reason why I dislike this whole "Start with the Why" charade. The term is just too ambiguous. The way you use it is about the motivation for th

See, that's the reason why I dislike this whole "Start with the Why" charade. The term is just too ambiguous. The way you use it is about the motivation for the founder/company. That motivation is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the nature and success of the company. Steve Jobs could have started Apple because he thought it was a good way to make a boatload of money. Who cares? Certainly not the customers. What causes the company to exist isn't the point. The other way to understand the "why" is more about the purpose or meaning or even vision for the company. These are also, to a large extent, arbitrary, but they make more sense. The purpose of the company, in the broadest sense, is to offer people a worldview they may or may not subscribe to, and in which the products they sell play a justified role. Personally, I think before "who", you need to define "where" (to). You need to paint a picture of your vision, so that people who will subscribe to it can identify with it, and hopefully with your products. It's a more vision-centric way of doing things. "Who"-first is your run-of-the-mill "customer-centric" approach. The customer is always right, adapt to their needs and just give them what they ask for. It works to an extent, but suffers from "People would have said faster horses" problem.