The idea when creating a new product is to have the minimum number of features that can still attract and retain users. In Lean Startup parlance this is called Minimum Viable Product (MVP). I pay attention to this movement. I follow a number of bloggers and authors that talk about it, including Steve Blank, Eric Ries and Andrew Chen. I have also played around with a number of Lean Startup models and ideas, fitting those ideas into my experiences.

Build a minimum viable product, gather input and feedback, iterate quickly.

There’s a lot of good stuff in this movement but one that has gone off the rails is that a releasable minimum viable products must be built quickly. It seems that when I read about a new idea it is often accompanied with “look what I did in a weekend” or “it only took us a month to MVP.”

I want to point out that there is no connection between speed and minimum viable product. Some MVPs might take a few days to build; others could take years. The point is to build something that you can start showing to people as quickly as possible. In other words, the focus here is on — as Steve Blank would say — getting out of the building and in front of customers, long before you are comfortable with your product and ready to release.

We have been working on our new product for over a year and a half. That’s a long time. But I started talking to people within two months of the initial idea. And we had coded a basic version we used internally in a few weeks. None of this was ready for primetime, none ready for release. I wouldn’t call any of this a minimum viable product. But we focused on the core of the product, built something we can show off, and got out of the building.

That process — getting out of the building — has had a huge impact. Not only has it helped us refine the product itself but the process of explaining it to others has helped us refine the messaging and use cases as well. As we move toward a shipping product, I know it wouldn’t be the same if not for this process.

Seth Godin has this picture in a post he did recently called the Circles of Marketing:

I was blown away by this representation as I’ve never seen marketing expressed this way before.

As many of you know I’ve been working on a new product that I have not announced yet. We started with an idea over a year and a half ago, spending months and months (part-time since we are funding this new project out of revenues) working through the product. Our goal was to keep you from thinking too much about how the app worked, remaining focused on how you accomplish the tasks desired. We spent countless hours focused on making this magic shine.

Throughout I’ve demonstrated the product to friends and colleagues, talked about it at trade shows and other places we went, refining the story of what it is all about. I’ve sought out voices from financing to design to technology to mathematics to lend their perspective on the product itself. Most importantly, I have talked to many potential users of the product trying to understand the use cases (and there are lots of them), trying to understand potential features and how we organize those features into appropriate pricing and distribution models given what is happening in the market. That’s where we are today.

When I saw this image (and read the article), as I said, I was blown away as this is exactly what we have been working on, from the inside out, all this time without knowing it. I have been obsessed through this process with the steps to building a successful company, trying to understand the repeatable path. I’ve taken advice from smart people I know and those I don’t. I read voraciously in an attempt to do this better.

I have been worried that maybe I haven’t been focused on the right things as our progress has felt so haphazard, that so much of our learning seems to have come by accident. But after seeing this, I have no doubt we are on the right path and have a keen sense of what needs to happen next.

There is a weird quirk about me when it comes to the people I work with: I prefer to be challenged. But I have a strong and dominating personality. Most don’t understand that I can be argued with. I’m well versed in many topics, have opinions about what works and what doesn’t, and generally have a well thought out perspective. Apparently this is intimidating.

When I work with someone for the first time I always tell them this and every time I am disappointed in that person’s willingness to challenge me. I’ve been told more than once that my ability to hold a strong opinion loosely is not a common trait and thus it takes time to get used to it. I try to be patient.

Om Malik wrote this a month ago and he couldn’t be more right on:

When you stand back from all the announcements made by Google today and increase the periphery, you start to notice that this is a company that is fighting a lot of battles on many fronts. In some places it is winning, but most places it is trench warfare.

He goes on to outline exactly how Google is fighting with Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon.

This reminds me of two things. The first is that in war it is nearly impossible to fight on multiple fronts. Just ask Germany in the 1940s.

The second is this video clip:

Is Google fighting a land war in Asia?

Seth Goden asks us to take a simple quiz:

There are a hundred people in a room, perhaps a trade show or a small theatre. What’s your choice:

1. Sit in the back, watch, listen and learn.
2. Cajole your way onstage so you can make a slick presentation that gets everyone on their feet, buzzing and excited, eager to do business with you or hire you.
3. Set up a booth in the lobby that energizes and engages 12 of the people enough that they tell their friends, while it disturbs or mystifies two of the others and is ignored by the rest.
4. Provide a service (like cookies and juice in a box at the exit) that many of the people there are appreciative of but few remember or talk about.

It’s an interesting question with a good answer. Go read it his short post now. (Hint: focus on your niche.)