Negotiating Product Launches

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘆...𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁! 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳? If anything, the world today is in turmoil. We can’t even go a few hours without breaking news flooding in. It might be a major policy change from a global leader, the eruption of new conflicts, revolutionary innovations, or reports of tragic events halfway across the planet. The world has become more unpredictable than ever. So, how does our brain respond to this constant uncertainty? Research tells us that ambiguity—not knowing what the threat is—triggers stronger negative emotions than fear itself. Our brains struggle more with "what ifs" than with clear risks because the lack of clarity makes us feel powerless. 𝗔𝗺𝗯𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀. This insight is crucial for marketers, communicators, and anyone who reaches out to people. 𝗨𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 "𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲" 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀—𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿. When the world feels uncertain, people slow down, avoid risks, and become more cautious in their decision-making. How do we communicate effectively in this kind of environment? Here are some key takeaways for cutting through the noise and connecting meaningfully: 1. 𝗕𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁. When things are uncertain, people crave clarity. 2. 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆: Highlight aspects of your message, product, or brand that convey reliability, consistency, or security. Reinforce ideas that make people feel anchored amidst chaos. 3. 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: Acknowledge the uncertainty and emotional strain they're experiencing. 4. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: Avoid abstract promises. In uncertain times, audiences want clear steps they can act on to improve their situation. 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀: • 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱: Remember that your audience's attention is limited during times of upheaval. Strike the right balance between brevity and value. • 𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆: Avoid overwhelming your audience with too much information; clarity is your best friend. • 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲: Consistency in messaging is often more potent than one-off campaigns. The more you deliver on your promises, the more trustworthy you become. • 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲: Use empathy as a lens for crafting every piece of communication. Read more here: https://t.ly/1pmVj #neuromarketing #appliedneuroscience #emotions #uncertainty  

Product Marketing doesn't end at launch. That's where some of the most valuable work begins. Here's what great post-launch product marketing looks like: > Analyze launch 📊 Measure what worked, what didn't, and feed insights back to your GTM teams > Customer enablement 🎯 Give customers the tools and resources they need to succeed from day one > Product feedback loop ⭕ Build systems to capture and action customer insights > Customer stories 📖 Turn successful customers into compelling case studies > Community building 🤝 Create spaces for customers to learn, share and grow > Expansion strategy 📈 Partner with customer success to identify growth opportunities Remember: PMM doesn't own these touchpoints alone - success comes from orchestrating across teams. But the best product marketers don't just launch and move on... they build flywheels that deliver ongoing success. 🔁 Feel free to save and share

🚨 New Elevation Capital thesis: Quick Commerce x Fashion! Young Indians are discovering quick fashion through spontaneous moments - weekend plans, last-minute parties, or simply the urge to refresh their look within hours. While horizontal quick commerce players have added fashion to their offerings, the category demands specialized capabilities around assortment, sizing, and the critical try-and-buy experience that generic platforms struggle to deliver. Players like Slikk, KNOT, ZILO, NEWME and incumbent Myntra's M-Now are pioneering this space. These vertical fashion platforms are reimagining the entire shopping experience by marrying the discovery of online with the confidence of offline trial. Some highlights: > 10-20% of early users already buying twice monthly, transitioning from emergency use cases to regular browse-and-buy behavior > Impulse commerce creates entirely new demand - "I'm at a friend's place, we just made plans, I need an outfit in an hour" is driving adoption > Try-and-buy solves fashion's biggest online pain point - riders wait while customers try outfits, eliminating fit anxiety and reducing RTOs to 15% (vs 30% traditional) > Dark stores of 3,000-5,000 sq ft stock tens of thousands of styles, but the edge lies in merchandising algorithms that predict hyperlocal fashion preferences > Sale-or-return models critical for scaling without inventory risk - but success depends on brand relationships and negotiating power > Operating model complexity creates defensibility - balancing assortment breadth with inventory efficiency requires sophisticated demand prediction even when SOR isn't available > Categories like ethnic wear and bottom wear see strongest traction where fit matters most > Key challenges: expanding assortment without bloating inventory, achieving omnichannel coordination with brands, managing mix of SOR and outright purchases > TAM expansion opportunity - converting offline shoppers who avoid malls due to poor experience, not just capturing existing online wallet share

CEO: The board wants our new system live in 2 months. Can we do it? CFO: Marketing's pushing hard. They need those analytics. FP&A Manager: Original timeline was 6 months. For good reason. CEO: What's the hold up? We have budget. FP&A Manager: Money isn't the blocker. We need proper testing, data validation, user training. CFO: Can't we fast-track those? FP&A Manager: Last time we rushed, we spent 8 months fixing errors. Cost us $2.3M in corrections. CEO: That was different. We're better prepared now. FP&A Manager: Are we? Our data shows 67% of our departments still use manual workarounds from the last rush job. CFO: What's the real cost difference? FP&A Manager: 2-month rush: $1.2M upfront, but $3.6M in likely fixes within a year. 6-month proper launch: $1.8M all-in, stable system. CEO: The board won't like that timeline. FP&A Manager: They'll like a failed system less. Remember ProjectX? Rushed launch, looked great for one quarter. Then came the restatements. CFO: That audit was... painful. FP&A Manager: Every rushed system I've seen in 15 years needed rescue. Average rescue cost? 3x original budget. CEO: But our competitors— FP&A Manager: Are spending 8 months on similar rollouts. I checked. CFO: Hold on. Are we actually saving anything by rushing? FP&A Manager: No. We're buying speed with future debt. Technical debt, training debt, accuracy debt. CEO: What's your real timeline? FP&A Manager: 5 months. Not 6. I built in buffers we can trim safely. But that's the line. CFO: That's... actually cheaper than the rush job plus fixes. FP&A Manager: Exactly. Stable systems mean clean audits, reliable forecasts, and trained teams. CEO: Draft a revised plan. But make it airtight. FP&A Manager: It's ready. With cost comparisons and risk assessments. Bottom line: Speed isn't savings. It's borrowed time with interest. Proper launches look good on balance sheets. Rush jobs become liabilities. 73% of rushed systems need rescue within 18 months. Each rescue costs 3x the original budget. Fast feels good. Right feels profitable. Quality systems drive clean books. Clean books drive growth. The cheapest launch is the one you do once.

Marketing can turn the dial instantly. The system behind it cannot. In performance marketing, it is easy to increase pressure. Increase bids. Expand audiences. Push spend. The lever moves fast. But fulfilment capacity does not move at the same speed. Inventory planning does not adjust overnight. Supplier terms do not flex in real time. Operational throughput has limits. At first, everything looks fine. Traffic rises. Revenue spikes. ROAS holds. Then something subtle starts to happen. Shelves thin slightly faster than they refill. Best sellers go out of stock earlier in the cycle. Margin mix shifts quietly. Nothing collapses. The system just runs a little tighter than it should. That is where performance actually breaks. Not because marketing failed. Because the loop between demand and capacity was never fully connected. Growth is not just acquisition efficiency. It is throughput alignment. You can always push the lever further. The question is whether the system behind it was built for the speed. #retailmarketing #ecommerce #performance #digitalstrategy #operations #profitability

Bad news is like fish. The longer it sits, the worse the whole situation smells. The Dilemma: A high-stakes launch is on the roadmap. Your team has brilliantly de-risked the plan, securing the most critical milestone ahead of schedule. Rock-solid work. But... they also know the full scope won't make the original date. And leadership? They haven't been told yet. The temptation to stay silent is powerful. The logic is seductive: "Let's not raise a flag until we have the perfect solution," or "Let's wait for a 'better time' to deliver this news." Here’s the counterintuitive truth: Waiting is the riskiest move you can make. Transparency without all the answers isn't weakness; it's a strategic advantage. A Better Way: Proactive Transparency Escalation isn't failure; it's a tool for alignment and trust-building. You don't need a perfect solution. You just need to own the narrative. My playbook for this conversation: 💪 Lead with the Win: Start with the good news. "We've secured the most impactful part of the launch and will deliver it early." 💪 State the Reality, Simply: Be direct. "This smart pivot means the subsequent phases will be delayed." 💪 Show Proactivity: Demonstrate control. "We are actively re-planning the remaining milestones." 💪 Own the Next Step: Provide certainty on communication. "We will share a full, revised plan with you by next week." When you do this, you're no longer delivering "bad news." You're delivering a reality-checked, responsibly managed plan. You're treating your leaders like partners. Surprising your leadership is a risk you can't afford. Building their trust is an asset you can't put a price on. Don't wait until the house is on fire. Be the leader who points to the smoke and says, "I've got this, and here's the plan." – 👉 Follow me, Rony Rozen, for more real-world insights on tech leadership. 

🎯 Why Most Business Problems Remain Unsolved (And How to Fix That) Last week, I had the privilege of facilitating a Problem Solving & Business Acumen workshop for our teams at L'Oréal Indonesia. 💡 The Problem We All Face (But Rarely Talk About) Here's an uncomfortable truth: we're wired to jump to solutions. In business, this looks like: ✔️ Launching promotions without understanding why sales declined ✔️ Hiring more people without diagnosing process inefficiencies ✔️ Copying competitor tactics without validating if they fit our context The cost? Wasted resources, frustrated teams, and recurring problems that never truly go away. According to the World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2023, analytical and critical thinking are the #1 and #2 most important skills for workers. Yet, most of us were never formally taught how to think critically or solve problems systematically. 🛠️ The Problem-Solving Process: A Step-by-Step Guide Step 1: Define the Problem (Don't Jump to Judgment!) 📝 Craft a Problem Statement with 6 components: "How can [responsible party] improve/reduce [reality] to meet [expectation] within [timeline] without [anti-goals], in order to fulfill [reason]?" Example: "How can the product team launch a new product on time in Q4 2024 without sacrificing key processes, in order to meet the sales target?" Step 2: Find Alternatives (Issue Tree + MECE) Once the problem is clear, break it down using an Issue Tree. For instance, if mascara sales dropped -14% YoY: 📦 Placement → Gondola compliance, visibility, signage 🎁 Promotion → BOGO mechanics, POS materials 💰 Price → Elasticity, perceived value 🎨 Product Claims → Content freshness, reviews 🔥 Competition → Share of voice, endcap presence ✅ Ensure hypotheses are MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)—no overlaps, no gaps. Step 3: Test Your Hypotheses Don't fall in love with your first idea. Run quick tests: 📊 For a skincare serum declining in pharmacies, we tested: ✔️ Hypothesis A: Reduced pharmacist advocacy is the issue → Micro-detailing pilot in 10 stores ✔️ Hypothesis B: Cold chain OOS drives lost sales → Warehouse SOP audit + temperature logs ✔️ Hypothesis C: Execution gaps suppress promo ROI → Endcap compliance audit Each hypothesis had clear KPIs and timelines—no guessing, just data. Step 4: Make the Decision (Impact vs. Effort Matrix) Not all solutions are equal. Prioritize: 🟩 Quick wins—do this! 🟦 Strategic bets 🟨 Fill-ins 🟥 Avoid Focus on low effort, high impact moves first. Build momentum, then tackle the big bets. 🚨 What Happens When We Skip These Steps? A mascara brand saw sales drop -14% YoY. The reaction? "Let's run a BOGO promo!" The result? Sales stayed flat. Why? Because the real issues were: ❌ Poor gondola compliance (only 68% correct facings) ❌ Weak influencer share of voice ❌ Competitor secured prime endcap space The lesson: Solutions applied to the wrong problem = wasted budget and missed targets.

A lot of pre- launch #startupfounders that I have met express this concern and fear That, if they launch their product without perfecting it to the tee, their rivals will copy it, beat them to it and thus their odds of success will get jeopardized than if they launched it later What's everyone's opinion on this based on their own experiences or others' ? ✅ My sense is that companies fail due to poor "product-market fit" despite iteration and pivots vs less-than-perfect product launches and quick imitation by rivals The fear of launching a product that isn't perfect often leads to paralysis, delaying valuable market entry From what I've seen and heard, a few key points emerge : ✳️ Product-Market Fit vs. Perfection: Many founders mistakenly believe that a perfect product is the key to success. In reality, achieving product-market fit is often more crucial. A quick launch allows for real user feedback, which is essential for iterations that actually meet market needs e.g. Zomato isn't what it was launched as many years ago viz an advertising space for standalone restaurants ✳️ Speed vs. Quality: In fast-moving industries, being first can give a significant advantage. While a polished product is important, a minimally viable product (MVP) can help establish a foothold. Once users are engaged, you can improve the offering based on actual usage rather than assumptions and discussions between a small group of people e.g. Battery Smart, where coincidentally I had the pleasure of writing their seed cheque ( past firm), went ahead of its rivals at that time by perfecting their low-cost franchise proposition and zero-CAC acquisition along the way ✳️ Imitation Risks: Yes, rivals can imitate quickly, but a strong brand, customer loyalty, and the ability to iterate based on user feedback and early failures can create a sustainable advantage that isn't easily replicated e.g. Groww has emerged as the market leader in fintechs offering MF investing. There was a deluge of free apps past 5 years that offered direct MFs but none of them has created a UX these guys have. The insight that time-poor users want easy-to-use dashboards and interfaces to manage their investments has been executed here ✳️ In fact, many companies fail because founders didn't iterate and persisted with the same model or design and even threw more marketing dollars at it to raise the sales graph and be able to raise funds quickly on the back of it However, investors look for customer love and stickiness vs new sales as a sign of success In summary, while the fear of being copied is valid, the focus should ideally be on getting your product out there, learning from your users, and adapting quickly #coffeemusings #venturecapital #perfection #outexecute

“Strategy on paper looks perfect.. until it meets the streets.” When our plan was drafted, it looked straightforward:- use our competitive margin advantage, target 30 retailers in a week, and secure shelf placements. On paper, it was flawless. But the streets taught me something different. Markets don’t run on neat PowerPoint slides , they run on ground realities. The first few days, I realized that retailers wanted more than just higher margins. Some asked for smaller SKUs to test the market. Others wanted promotional materials like posters or trial packs. A few even requested flexible delivery timings. These were factors the strategy hadn’t accounted for. And in those moments, I realized the importance of agility in execution. I quickly adapted: - ~ I worked with the distributor to provide smaller starter packs. ~ We brainstormed low-cost in-store displays. ~ I adjusted my pitch based on the kind of shop I was in. By staying flexible, we didn’t just meet our target of 30 placements, we built a framework for scaling further. 💡 Takeaway A good strategy doesn’t resist change; it absorbs it. On the ground, adaptability is as critical as planning.

Superior technology usually loses to trust deficits. The NewCos who win understand this deeply. LegacyCos provide coverage - decades of embedded relationships, compliance infrastructure, institutional safety. NewCos provide velocity - direct paths to outcomes without legacy constraints. Enterprise buyers increasingly ask: "Will this deliver outcomes fast?" and "Can I justify this choice?" LegacyCos excel at the second. NewCos must excel at both. The solution isn't copying LegacyCo's relationship playbook. It's building trust infrastructure optimized for a high clockspeed world. The Trust Ceiling Trust deficits create velocity ceilings regardless of technology quality. This is structural, not situational. Your product solves problems 10x faster, but if buyers don't trust delivery, speed becomes irrelevant. NewCos must engineer trust through domain expertise and proven outcomes - without institutional baggage. The NewCo Playbook: Wedge and Expand Today's mega-deals are fragmenting into smaller, milestone-driven projects. This creates opportunities LegacyCos are too expensive and slow to pursue effectively. Your strategy isn't competing on massive transformations. It's winning wedges and expanding from strength. Domain Expert Credibility Hire thought leaders who understand enterprise needs but aren't tied to legacy delivery models. Import domain knowledge, not institutional constraints. Champion-Led Wedge Entry Embed with operational teams before procurement involvement. Find specific pain points where speed matters more than coverage. Example: You deliver working inventory optimization in 30 days, reducing costs 15%. LegacyCo proposes 12-month workflow optimization before any results. The Speed Advantage LegacyCos take 12 months because they're carrying decades of institutional process. You take 3 months because you're purpose-built for outcomes. This speed differential compounds: - Faster implementation → faster results → stronger references - Wedge wins → adjacent problems → organic expansion - Proven outcomes → higher trust → shortened sales cycles The Readiness Test: Before entering any market → Do you have domain experts who'll publicly endorse your approach? → Can you name three specific wedges where your speed beats their coverage? → Do you have proof points of 3x faster outcomes than traditional approaches? If yes, you have trust infrastructure built for velocity. If no, you're just another vendor. The Choice Enterprise buyers increasingly prefer fast wins over comprehensive coverage. You can build trust infrastructure optimized for velocity, or watch superior technology stall in trust deficit. In enterprise markets: speed without trust stalls; trust without speed stagnates. The network rewards companies that understand both realities. (Full version sent to newsletter subscribers)