2 ms·

I spent some time in UX consulting and I started to notice a pattern that surprised me a bit - having really slick UX (if that isn't your key selling point!) in

I spent some time in UX consulting and I started to notice a pattern that surprised me a bit - having really slick UX (if that isn't your key selling point!) in a very early product seemed to be a bit of an anti-pattern for long-term success. My hypothesis is that there are a group of users who will sign up for anything and "play with it" if it is easy enough and slick enough, but that doesn't make them good customers, much like the customers Andrew is talking about.

graemep 3y ago
Could you elaborate? Easy to signup for or initially easy to use? Would it actually lose customers long term or just give you early extra customers you fail to retain?
- eightysixfour 3y ago
  Sure - an example for me is RunwayML. It is a neat product that is very accessible to anyone, so I signed up and played with it a bit. Every once in a while I hop on and show someone a little demo of it as a cool GenAI/ML thing, but video isn’t a medium I work with or intend to work with. I am never going to become a paying customer. The low barrier to entry (both in sign-up and usage) helps amp up user counts and usage which makes you think you have some sort of market fit, but the interest is not real. The startups I worked with that experienced explosive growth were ones where their initial UX was mediocre or even hostile, but the demand for the thing was so high they had customers anyways. Improving the UX unlocked more growth. I have a skewed perspective since people came to us for UX issues, so this isn’t an iron law or anything, but I think about it a lot when I see very shiny, polished launches. A counter to this may be something like Linear, where the UX is the value.
  - graemep 3y ago
    Thank you. That makes a lot of sense.
  - properbrew 3y ago
    > The startups I worked with that experienced explosive growth were ones where their initial UX was mediocre or even hostile, but the demand for the thing was so high they had customers anyways. Improving the UX unlocked more growth. Thank you for this comment. I've been stressing over UI elements a bit and this was the kick I needed to just go and get it out there.
    - eightysixfour 3y ago
      Glad it was helpful for you, good luck!
SkyPuncher 3y ago
This aligns with my experience as well. My hypothesis is slightly different. When people have a strong enough need, they’re willing to look past UX/UI issues because they see the core value. They’re okay using a “crappy” product because it’s actually doing something really important for them. Later in a products life, it needs a better Ui to attract the remaining user and compete with the market. The crappy UI serves as a bit of a filter, helping you learn quickly if something is valuable.
- eightysixfour 3y ago
  I agree and I think our hypotheses are two sides of the same coin - if the UX is great it gains users that aren’t good for business, if the UX is bad it filters for users that deeply need the product. I’d certainly rather be in a startup that is dealing with the latter than the former.

graemep 3y ago

Could you elaborate? Easy to signup for or initially easy to use? Would it actually lose customers long term or just give you early extra customers you fail to retain?

eightysixfour 3y ago
Sure - an example for me is RunwayML. It is a neat product that is very accessible to anyone, so I signed up and played with it a bit. Every once in a while I hop on and show someone a little demo of it as a cool GenAI/ML thing, but video isn’t a medium I work with or intend to work with. I am never going to become a paying customer. The low barrier to entry (both in sign-up and usage) helps amp up user counts and usage which makes you think you have some sort of market fit, but the interest is not real. The startups I worked with that experienced explosive growth were ones where their initial UX was mediocre or even hostile, but the demand for the thing was so high they had customers anyways. Improving the UX unlocked more growth. I have a skewed perspective since people came to us for UX issues, so this isn’t an iron law or anything, but I think about it a lot when I see very shiny, polished launches. A counter to this may be something like Linear, where the UX is the value.
- graemep 3y ago
  Thank you. That makes a lot of sense.
- properbrew 3y ago
  > The startups I worked with that experienced explosive growth were ones where their initial UX was mediocre or even hostile, but the demand for the thing was so high they had customers anyways. Improving the UX unlocked more growth. Thank you for this comment. I've been stressing over UI elements a bit and this was the kick I needed to just go and get it out there.
  - eightysixfour 3y ago
    Glad it was helpful for you, good luck!

SkyPuncher 3y ago

This aligns with my experience as well. My hypothesis is slightly different. When people have a strong enough need, they’re willing to look past UX/UI issues because they see the core value. They’re okay using a “crappy” product because it’s actually doing something really important for them. Later in a products life, it needs a better Ui to attract the remaining user and compete with the market. The crappy UI serves as a bit of a filter, helping you learn quickly if something is valuable.

eightysixfour 3y ago
I agree and I think our hypotheses are two sides of the same coin - if the UX is great it gains users that aren’t good for business, if the UX is bad it filters for users that deeply need the product. I’d certainly rather be in a startup that is dealing with the latter than the former.