As a lifelong advocate for focused strategies, I’ve consistently championed the power of concentration throughout my career. This approach has been a cornerstone of my professional philosophy, guiding my decision-making and strategic planning across various roles and industries.
Product success isn’t about doing more. It’s about doing less, but doing it extraordinarily well. This strategy might be counterintuitive, but it’s effective: do less with more. Let’s see how.
The Math of Concentration
In our pursuit of product excellence, let’s consider a typical scenario. Imagine a yearly team capacity of 200 person-weeks, with each development point equivalent to one person-week. You have 10 initiatives, each requiring 20 development points. Now, we’ll examine two approaches: a distributed approach tackling all 10 initiatives, and a focused approach concentrating on only 4.
The distributed approach, spreading resources across all 10 initiatives, paints a picture of breadth. With 5 concurrent initiatives, it takes approximately 12 months to complete them all, with a mean time to market of 6 months per initiative. The total cost? 200 points. The likely outcome? A broad but shallow market impact – jack of all trades, master of none.
Contrast this with the focused approach. By concentrating on just 4 initiatives, with 2 running concurrently, the landscape changes dramatically. The time to complete key initiatives shrinks to 5-6 months, with a mean time to market of 2.5-3 months. Total cost? A mere 80 points. And you still have the remaining half of year to improve on those 4 products, with more than double the resources you allocated initially! The potential outcome? Market leadership through focused, powerful product experiences.
The Time-Resource-Impact Triad
The focused approach demonstrates significant advantages. It slashes the development cycle from 12 months to 5-6 months, optimizes resource investment from 200 points to 80, and increases the probability of creating breakthrough initiatives. The net result? More impactful, strategically aligned development.
The Pros of Focus
Critical mass acceleration is the first benefit. Concentrated resources create momentum, like focusing sunlight through a magnifying glass – sparking innovation and rapid development. I call it the product quantum theory: if you do not concentrate enough energy (resources x time), the product won’t make the leap to success, and the energy will be wasted.
Next, we see reduced cognitive load. Fewer initiatives mean less mental overhead for teams. Context switching is a productivity killer, as demonstrated by several studies according to which it takes between 5 and 45 minutes to fully return to a task after an interruption (potentially reducing effective working time by up to 40 or even 80% according to Gerald Weinberg). By focusing on fewer, more critical initiatives, teams maintain deeper concentration, achieve flow states more easily, and produce higher-quality work.
Efficiency and market domination follow. Halving time to market from 6 to 2.5-3 months enables companies to capture first-mover advantages, respond faster to customer demands, and iterate rapidly based on feedback. It reduces development costs and boosts investor confidence. In fast-moving industries, this accelerated timeline can mean the difference between market leadership and obsolescence. Also, with more resources, iterations are faster, and the product can move from strength to strength, quickly.
Quality over quantity becomes achievable. Concentrated resources allow for deeper initiative development, more refined user experiences, and more sophisticated solutions. Ultimately, this leads to more success.
Finally, resource optimization comes into play. The 120 saved development points can be invested in deeper refinement of key product initiatives, extensive user testing, iterative improvements, exploring advanced capabilities, and continuous innovation of core product offerings. In one sentence, they can be used to let the initiative grow to its full potential.
The Potential Cons
It’s important to acknowledge potential downsides. There’s a risk of tunnel vision – concentrating too narrowly might mean missing emerging opportunities. Some markets require a broader approach, leading to potential missed diversification. Psychologically, teams might feel constrained by fewer initiatives. These risks can be mitigate though.
Strategic Considerations
This strategy isn’t about recklessness. It’s about surgical precision. The key lies in rigorous prioritization, data-driven initiative selection, continuous market validation, and rapid iteration capabilities. Rember: you can do anything you want, but you cannot do everything. Choose wisely.
Real-World Success Story: Spotify’s Podcast Power Play
Spotify’s podcast strategy serves as a masterclass in “do less with more.” Instead of diversifying across multiple content types or expanding into hardware, Spotify zeroed in on podcasts. They made significant moves in the podcast space, acquiring major production companies like Gimlet Media and The Ringer, and securing exclusive deals with high-profile creators such as Joe Rogan and the Obamas.
The results were substantial. Spotify saw a dramatic increase in podcast listeners, growing from 7% of their user base engaging with podcasts in 2019 to 25% by 2021. This growth not only diversified their content offering but also increased user engagement and opened new revenue streams through podcast advertising.
By choosing to do “less with more,” Spotify made a significant impact in a new market segment, enhanced their core product offering, and strengthened their position in the audio streaming industry. It’s a textbook case of concentrated resources creating outsized returns. Spotify passed on the opportunity to be in the middle of the pack of many markets, to be market leader in very few selected ones. The results speak for thelselves.
A Cautionary Tale: The Yahoo! Peanut Butter Manifesto
The Yahoo! peanut butter manifesto offers a nuanced lesson on the challenges of maintaining focus in a rapidly evolving tech landscape. As someone employed at Yahoo! during those years, I experienced firsthand both the company’s incredible potential and its strategic struggles. In 2006, Senior VP Brad Garlinghouse’s internal memo used the vivid metaphor of thinly spread peanut butter to describe the company’s approach of diversifying across numerous initiatives.
Despite being home to some of the brightest minds in tech and pioneering many innovative services, Yahoo! found itself at a crossroads. The company’s vast array of talented teams were working on a multitude of projects, each valuable in its own right. However, this breadth sometimes came at the cost of depth. While Yahoo! continued to be a major internet player, more focused competitors like Google began to edge ahead in key areas. This experience taught me the delicate balance between fostering innovation across a wide spectrum and maintaining a sharp focus on core strengths – a lesson that continues to shape my approach to product strategy in today’s dynamic tech environment.
The gist of Product Success
As we look at the future, the most successful product teams will be those who can identify the most promising initiatives, concentrate resources with precision, create breakthrough experiences in focused domains, and iterate and improve relentlessly.
Are you ready to embrace the “do less with more” philosophy? Consider these questions: If you could transform your development from broad to deep, what would you prioritize? Are your current product development strategies optimized for speed, impact, or breadth? How much potential impact are you sacrificing by spreading resources too thin?
The future of product success isn’t about doing more – it’s about doing less, but doing it extraordinarily well.
#ProductStrategy #ProductManagement #Leadership #Innovation #Focus #ProductDevelopment #ExecutiveInsights #LessonsLearned