Transcript Reader Lenny's Podcast
Library
Builder transcript 中文已完成

'From managing people to managing AI: The leadership skills everyone needs

> 当前版本已完成中文回填。

ChannelLenny's Podcast
Language中文
SourceYouTube
Coverage100%
0% 章节 01
Video Source 'From managing people to managing AI: The leadership skills everyone needs

Lenny's Podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_w0LaFahxk
Reading Mode

默认显示中文,缺失的章节会自动回退到英文原文,保证这页随时可读。

章节 01 / 07

第01节

中文 译稿已完成

> 当前版本已完成中文回填。

English Original transcript

Julian ShapiroWhy do good ideas arrive after the bad ideas are empty? It's because when you've gone through a bunch of bad ideas, your brain, your mind starts reflexively identifying what elements are causing the badness. Then it becomes way better at avoiding those bad elements and you become way better at pattern matching the novel ideas with way greater intuition. Most creators are resisting their bad ideas. If you sat down, scribbled a few thoughts in a blank document and just walked away because you weren't struck with gold, then you never actually finished the creative process. There's no way you would've come up with gold.

LennyWelcome to Lenny's Podcast. I'm Lenny, and my goal here is to help you get better at the craft of building and growing products. I interview world class product leaders, and growth experts to learn from their hard-won experiences building and scaling today's most successful companies today. My guest is Julian Shapiro. I actually spend a bunch of time introducing the wondrous Julian at the beginning of the episode. Instead, let me just share some of the things that we talk about. We get into a framework he calls product-led acquisition, which is work that has come out of his working with thousands of companies, helping to figure out their growth strategies.
We get into ways to increase your product's retention. Then we talk a lot about writing, the importance of novelty in your writing, how to choose a topic when you plan to write, and then a framework that Julian calls the Creativity Faucet. Julian is such a fascinating human, and I'm really excited to bring you this episode. With that, I bring you Julian Shapiro. I'm excited to chat with my friend John Cutler from podcast sponsor Amplitude. Hey, John.

John CutlerHey, Lenny. Excited to be here.

LennyJohn, give us a behind the scenes at Amplitude. When most people think of Amplitude, they think of product analytics. But now you're getting into experimentation and even just launched a CDP. What's the thought process there?

John CutlerWell, we've always thought of Amplitude as being about supporting the full product loop. Think collect data, inform that, ship experiments, and learn. That's the heart of growth to us. The big aha was seeing how many customers we're using Amplitude to analyze experiments, use segments for outreach, and send data to other destinations. Experiment in CDP came out of listening to and observing our customers.

LennySupporting growth and learning has always been Amplitude's core focus, right?

John CutlerYeah. Amplitude tries to meet customers where they are. We just launched starter templates and have a great scholarship program for startups. There's never been a more important time for growth.

LennyAbsolutely agree. Thanks for joining us, John, and head to Amplitude.com to get started. Hey, Ashley, head of marketing and Flatfile. How many B2B SaaS companies would you estimate need to import CSV files from their customers?

AshleyAt least 40%.

LennyHow many of them screw that up and what happens when they do?

AshleyWell? Based on our data, about a third of people will consider switching to another company after just one bad experience during onboarding. If your CSV importer doesn't work right, which is super common, considering customer files are chock- full of unexpected data and formatting, they'll leave.

LennyI am 0% surprised to hear that. I've consistently seen that improving onboarding is one of the highest leverage opportunities for both signup conversion and increasing long-term retention. Getting people to your aha moment more quickly and reliably is so incredibly important.

AshleyTotally. It's incredible to see how our customers like Square, Spotify, and Zuora are able to grow their businesses on top of Flatfile. It's because flawless data onboarding acts like a catalyst to get them and their customers where they need to go faster.

LennyIf you'd like to learn more or get started, check out flat file at flatfile.com/lenny. Julian Shapiro is what I'd call a polymath of the internet. He's an amazing writer, marketer and growth mind, investor, community builder, podcaster, tweeter. He's also an expert on building muscle. He's maybe most known for being the founder of Demand Curve, a YC startup that trains people on growth and marketing. Prior to that, he was a part-time columnist at TechCrunch. He was also VP of marketing at Webflow, which I had no idea about.
He also created a JavaScript web animation engine that is used by Uber and WhatsApp and Samsung and thousands of companies. Currently he is a full-time investor with his own fund and as a partner at Hyper. He's also one of the most hilarious and generous humans that I know. With that, Julian, welcome to the podcast.

Julian ShapiroThis is the greatest honor of my life. Thank you.

LennyWow!

Julian ShapiroI'm crying from that intro. Very nice of you.

LennyThat's the idea. This is the greatest honor of my life. We match.

Julian ShapiroExcellent. We'll cancel each other out and we'll see how interesting this is.

LennyThat's right. There's a lot of hype. I know you have something like 250,000 Twitter followers. You're very good at Twitter, but I've noticed that you've only tweeted three times this past year. What is going on there?

Julian ShapiroThere's a few things in parallel. One is a lot of people are writing threads and I found this to be very cringe. They're like these fortune cookie threads like here's 21 ways to rework your startup or something. I found them all cringe. What they actually do when you write that stuff is they attract people who think that's valuable information, and then they cause people who you actually want to follow you to unfollow you. I remember just seeing people unfollow me early days of threads when no one was doing them and I was experimenting. They were pissing off people that I actually cared to have dialogue with.
I kind of lost the momentum and enthusiasm for writing that sort of stuff. And now I'm only writing anything when it's basically a reflection or a condensed version of a blog post that I happen to be writing from my website. I know it's high quality. I know it's original. I know it's thoughtful. It's not for the click bait. That was part of it. The other thing is that it's kind of like too... Here's a mental model for thinking about the quality of your followers. You have people who follow you for the quality of your brain, and you have people who follow you for sort of you being a glorified curator. If they're following you for being a curator, they're sort of what I call labor followers.
They're following you for the work that you're doing, where you're finding cool, funny memes. You're posting cool, funny jokes. You're doing these fortune cookie threads. In contrast, if they're following you for your mind, which is category one, it means they're following you for the original thoughts and insights and takes that you have on the world. Someone like Paul Graham, the founder of Y Combinator, is doing original takes. He's not trying to write threads for the sake of gaining followers. He's trying to write interesting novel ideas. When he does that, he strengthens the affinity that his followers have for him and his mind, because like, "Wow! That was an original interesting take."
They're following you for your mind, not for the labor you're doing, putting together a virtual Buzzfeed to count on Twitter. When people follow you for your mind, when they're mind followers, not labor followers, higher affinity means more loyalty, means they pay closer attention to what you're saying. And if you actually try to get them to do something with you, you have an event offline, there's something you're selling, there's a cause you care about, they're way more likely to indulge.
Whereas if they're following you for your labor, you're interchangeable with all these other meme accounts and there's no real affinity for you as the individual. I just care more about the quality of the follower than I do the volume.

LennyI love that. That's such a good reminder, not to just focus on follower, follower, follower. I'm curious if someone... You have a lot of followers at this point and it's just so valuable to have Twitter followers. I've learned for me, anytime I have a question about anything, I just ask and I get so many amazing answers from people. There's this power to having a large following. I'm curious while we're on this topic, if you're just starting out on Twitter, do you have any advice for someone that's just thinking about building their following?

Julian ShapiroWhereas if you just tweet one clever thing, they're like, "Oh, that's probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows if that person can consistently generate clever stuff?" But in a long thread where it's 30 tweets and they're all good, they're like, "Whoa! This person is a machine. If I follow them reliably, I'll get more great stuff." It reaffirms to readers they should follow you, which is why threads trigger more follows. Basically you do want to do threads, frankly, and that's the backbone of it. Threads with very clickbaity opening tweets kind of how it works.

LennyAwesome. I wasn't expecting to go into Twitter as strategy, but this is interesting because you're really good at it. As you've said, your stuff is actually very thoughtful. It's not just a thirsty Twitter thread trying to find followers and retweets. Thanks for sharing that.

Julian ShapiroWell, it sort of started that way, because me and a few other friends of mine, I felt like we were the first people doing threads at scale. And then when we realized what it turned into, that's when we just stopped.

LennyI love that. I know what you mean about these cringy Twitter threads. Anyway, what I want to do is instead of asking a bunch of random questions is to focus on five big topics and kind of go deep on these topics. These are topics that are maybe most popular of the stuff that you've put out across your handbooks and writing and courses and things like that and also things that I've found to be most interesting. Does that sound good?

Julian ShapiroYeah, I would love to.

LennyCool. First, a little context, you write these super in depth handbooks on a bunch of different topics on growth and writing and muscle building and things like that. First of all, could you just explain what these handbooks are and why you create them?

Julian ShapiroThey're forcing functions for me to hold myself accountable and to be thorough when learning something for my own benefit. That's all they are. Basically if I want to go learn growth or writing well or some other topic, I will go ahead and do a ton of research, read everything I can get my hands on, do a ton of experimentation to try to build a set of novel insights that you couldn't find from other people's research hopefully, and then the next stage is try to make it as concise and actionable as possible so that I can reference it for my own selfish benefit. Here's my guidebook for myself on writing better blog posts, for example.
And then by the time I've done that work, what usually happens is its only like, I'm going to make up a number here, an extra 30 hours of work to make it palatable and digestible for the public. If I've done all this work privately, why not make it accessible publicly? At that point, it winds up being acquisition fodder for essentially building an audience and distributing my thoughts further. That's why I do that. But the thing that I pride myself on with them is by no means are they thoroughly unique, but in every one there's a lot of original stuff folks on average have never heard of before.
And that's what I'm proud of, is coming up with those insights between the lines that make that thing, whatever the topic is, much more approachable. I've succeeded, in my view, if I've made something that people often mistakenly think of as overwhelmingly complex very simple for them to follow. I think that's where the dopamine hit comes from for them.
No one's going to go refer to the epic guide in their email inbox that's very hard to navigate for building muscle or something. One, it's a UX decision. Two, I get the SEO traffic, which you don't. And then three, it's basically a living asset that I can keep updating over time. It's not stuck in someone's inbox and getting printed out. One of the things that might separate me from other writers, at least many other writers online, is I'm spending as many hours going back and rewriting old blog posts and handbooks as I am writing ones.
If you come back to anything I've written over the course of a year or year and a half, it'll be updated, because I consider everything I write to be evergreen. I avoid writing things that I feel like are a drop in the pan, just like talking about a trend or something, something very newsy. I avoid that altogether and I'm just interested in writing stuff that'll be relevant for a long time.

LennyI didn't know that. That is very cool. I love that you do that. You should make that clear. That's so interesting that this is not stale. Last updated, last week. I don't know if you already do that.

Julian ShapiroYeah, no, I actually don't and I probably should. People have complained to me that I haven't, so maybe I will one day.

LennyAll right. We got a good idea out of this, if nothing else.

Julian ShapiroThere you go.

LennyOkay. The first idea that I want to chat about is something that you call product-led acquisition. I believe it's the most popular page in any of your handbooks. It comes from you working with thousands of companies to help them figure out their growth strategies through Demand Curve. I'm curious to hear what this concept is and how people can use it to help their products grow.

Julian ShapiroProduct-led acquisition to your audience will be more commonly known as product-led growth, but I think product-led growth is a bit of a misnomer. It's often used, as you know, to basically refer to SaaS companies who are using self-serve sales funnels where a salesperson isn't required, right? Bypassing sales and allowing the product to grow itself. That's fine. But I think the term we really care about as growth marketers is product-led acquisition, meaning the use of the product grows the product. For example, if I'm using PayPal and I'm sending $1,000 to somebody else, there is no way they will not create a PayPal account to accept the $1,000.
By me trying to use PayPal in its everyday intention and me getting value out of it to settle a debt, I'm automatically enticing someone else, very strongly so, to also become a PayPal customer. That's product-led acquisition. There's a few different categories I've identified, and I think the reason why people like this part of this article I wrote is because it's, in my opinion, the absolute best way to grow any startup. If your startup can grow via product-led acquisition, not all can, maybe some are enterprise-base and all they're going to make work is sales, then it is by far the best way to grow because zero marginal cost to have users invite other users.
It's scalable. It creates network graphs typically and has compounding effects there in terms of both moats and the ability to acquire more customers quickly. Basically to the point I just mentioned is basically viral. The other interesting thing here is there are far fewer dependencies. Let's say your company primarily grows via content and SEO, where you're at the mercy of Google releasing an algorithmic update let's say twice a year, which occasionally will absolutely tank your traffic and most people know what I mean by that if they've experienced that. It's awful.
Or ff you're a paid acquisition-led company, as opposed to a content-led acquisition company, meaning you're running Facebook Ads, let's just stick a Facebook for now, Facebook and Instagram, you're also at the mercy of the volatility of CPMs and whatever weird updates Facebook introduces or whatever targeting options they suddenly remove. Your entire acquisition strategy is anchored on something that is completely out of your hands and very volatile. Product-led acquisition is like the better you craft your product and the incentive structures for existing users inviting other users, that's entirely in your control and the better you grow.
That's the quick context. Now, I'll go into some examples. We started with the example of... Actually one thing that came to mind that I love is Paul Graham, who we mentioned earlier, Paul Graham from YC, has this quote which is "don't start a startup where you need to go through someone else to get users." That always really resonated with me. Here are the categories of product-led acquisition that I've identified. Number one, like I mentioned, is users inviting other users to settle debts.
If I'm going to pay you money I owe you for splitting dinner on Venmo, or a business expense that I'm paying you, you're my vendor on PayPal, or anything that's allowing me to just pay you money I owe you and I have to use a product to do so, whoever is collecting the money from me is going to make an account on that product if necessary to claim their hard earned money. Almost guaranteed way for you to have user-led growth, product-led growth. Now, it doesn't have to be money. It can be settling a debt of like an NFT, for example.
Someone buys an NFT from you on OpenSea and the only way for them to receive their NFT, I'm just making this up right now, is to also have an OpenSea account or a wallet that's specific to that collection. Again, making this up. The point is if you're settling the debt of something you owe someone and they must make an account to capture the thing owed, they're going to sign up. That's category one. Category two is when you're inviting someone to join the product you're using to partake in a conversation that the otherwise cannot access. Why does Telegram, WhatsApp, iMessage, all these chat apps, Discord, grow so quickly?
Pretty obviously because if you and your little clique of friends are having your conversation in that app, then the person who's also in your real life friend group, but who hasn't yet installed the app has to install the app in order to have the conversation with you. Inviting people to critical, social, or business conversations in an app is the other way that you can nearly guarantee you'll grow very quickly from product-led acquisition. The business version of this is Slack. You sign up for Slack. You invite all your friends or all your coworkers. Then you even invite all your vendors via Slack Connect.
Slack Connect was a brilliant Slack feature where they're saying, "Hey, we're now going to encourage you to invite people who aren't using Slack who are outside of your work." I don't know how that's done for them as a feature, but in theory, it's a brilliant way to expand the surface area for inviting people via product-led acquisition. Just to recap where we are real quick, one of the ways of acquiring customers is to encourage existing users, to pay other people or to encourage them to come into your app to have conversation that's only happening on the app.
If I'm a product person and I'm road mapping my product, I will think, is there anything in my product conducive to either one of those two functionalities, settling debts, or can I introduce chat within my product? And if so, you might be cracking open an amazing channel. When I tell people about product-led acquisition, I'm usually doing it in the context of let's rethink your product feature roadmap to prioritize features that facilitate these things that can lead to explosive growth. I'll pause if there's anything you want to dive in there, but I have three more categories we could chat about if you want to, three more ways of doing PLA.

LennyYeah, absolutely. I just want to lob a question over there as you're going through these to maybe touch on this. Most founders would love to find a way to grow through virality and invites and all the things you're talking about. I find that it's often hard to lop onto something they're doing, if it's not a natural fit. As you're going through this, I'd love to know how often have you seen startups succeed adding something like this when their app is not a money exchange app or a chat app? I'm curious how often it works to add something like this when your app's kind of something else, if that makes sense?

Julian ShapiroWell, the real lesson is don't start a company if you have no idea how it's going to grow. Now, that's not categorically true for all startups. It's irrelevant for deep tech and biotech and climate tech and all that stuff, but for a lot of these people starting SaaS companies where they intend to grow very quickly among B2B customers or B2C. The real point of what I'm saying is if you have three ideas before you as a founder and one of them lends itself to product-led acquisition really beautifully, then lean in that direction perhaps if you think that growth is the key differentiator between them for what's going to lead to success.
It's like make life easier on yourself. Because if we're relying so heavily on SEO and content, which is extremely saturated, or paid acquisition, meaning ad channels which are extremely saturated, especially if you have low LTVs where we can't really tolerate the volatility of paid CAC or just the cost in general of those CACs, then we have to be thinking more strategically at the product level. It's less about tacking it on later, but sometimes this will work brilliantly if it's very organic. When we cover my next category, we'll actually see some examples of how you can pack it on more seamlessly.
But the other response to your question, which is a great question, is people mistake product-led acquisition for referral programs, which it is not. Because the referral programs are a tact on incentive trying to give people something to encourage them to invite because they otherwise are not inviting. Whereas PLA, as I've currently defined it, is through the natural use of the product, you get more value when you invite others. You settle your debt with the payment recipient. You get have a better conversation because now your friend Jack is part of the conversation. You don't have to incentivize them with anything artificial, with any rewards.
Referral programs generally are not exciting to me because you're usually trying to... Again, you're like self-selecting for folks who just want the reward very often. And then the people they invite might also just want the dual ended reward and they're not even here for the app really. And then they can bounce. And then they don't invite other people typicall.y. It doesn't have the same compounding sticky retentive nature of PLA. I'm not a fan of it. If you can make a work though, fantastic. Anyway, third category is what I call billboarding. Billboarding is this idea that the use of the product is inherently visible to people around you.
That's billboarding. It's a brilliant free way to get a ton more exposure. There's a few ways to do billboarding. One is the classic example of Hotmail and iPhone. When you send an email via Hotmail, at the end, it pens a signature saying sent via Hotmail. Same thing, sent from my iPhone. Every single email sent from an iPhone device, unless you remove that signature, is a free billboard for Apple itself, which further furthers the brand awareness and gets more people buying.
If I drive a Tesla, if I wear Nike shoes, if I have Apple AirPods, all of these are immediately visible to everyone around me, which is why sometimes physical products can really explode because they're just free walking billboards all over the world. And then the sort of most topical hot example right now on Twitter is when you switch your Twitter profile to an NFT in a particular collection, you're billboarding for that NFT collection, right? Same phenomenon that occurred with the Bitcoin laser eyes.

LennyAnd also for Twitter Blue, to be able to even do that.

Julian ShapiroYes, exactly. Exactly right. Like Telegram right now, they released something like Twitter Blue. I forget, I don't know what it's called. But now when you're a Telegram premium paying user, it has a little star thing next to your name that everyone else sees. "Wait, what is that? Oh, that's Telegram Pro. Let me take a look at that." Last example, which is one of my favorites, is billboarding via the nature of your product being something people are compelled to share in order to use. If I have a Calendly account, I have to share my Calendly link with the world in order to create an event on my calendar.
If you're like me, you get a million Calendly links every week. That's the phenomenal form of billboarding, people are sharing it willingly. No wonder they've exploded. Same thing with Dropbox sharing file links and you're seeing the Dropbox URL, or GoFundMe, when people share the GoFundMe page. You get the gist. Billboarding costs you nothing, scales infinitely, can have compounding effects. And if your product lends itself to billboarding, it's just a phenomenal way to grow if possible. That's category three, I guess. We'll cover one last one, if you'd like me too, which is basically UGC, so user generated content.
Same sort of thing. Basically I hop on YouTube or TikTok or Insta or whatever. I make content. I share it with the world. In so sharing that content, the platforms brand themselves on the content. At the end of every TikTok video on Twitter that you've ever seen or Insta, at the end it'll say, "Here's the TikTok user's account." They're billboarding themselves into the content that users themselves are generating, and the users are incentivized to share that content off platform, which brings users to the platform, because users want to get customers wherever they can. They're going to cross-sell to their YouTube channel and so on.
If you have a marketplace like eBay or some marketplace for selling collectible shoes or something where you're encouraging users to create beautiful content of the items being sold, like these cool landing pages that show off the products, and they share it elsewhere, then that's an example of users making content they're sharing off platform that is useful for their own followers. Another example of UGC that people often overlook is Quora or Reddit or Stack Overflow or TripAdvisor, where you're encouraging users to create content in the form of conversation that then surface itself on Google and SEO.
Basically if you just encourage users to have conversations that are publicly indexed, that increases your surface area on Google for hitting more keywords and you get way more search traffic. Basically the question that this boils down to is to leverage UGC in your product, you ask yourself, do users use my product to make content in any way, shape, or form? If so, what type of content that they make should we encourage them to then share? And then how can we make the page that they use to share the content as appealing and as easily to consume as possible? And that's basically UGC. We'll pause there, but basically that's PLA in a nutshell.
The thing that all of these have in common is you're not spending a dollar. They scale super quickly. You're not reliant on, well, maybe to some extent with SEO, but you're not relying on third party volatility. It's a much healthier narrative for how you're going to grow and scale.

LennyEppo does all that and more, delivering results quickly, avoiding annoying prolonged analytics cycles, and helping you easily get to the root cause of any issue you discover. Eppo lets you go beyond basic clickthrough metrics, and instead use your north star metrics like activation, retention, subscriptions, and payments. Eppo supports test on the front end, the backend, email marketing, and even machine learning clients. Check out Eppo at geteppo.com, getE-P-P-O.com, and 10X your experiment velocity. I have many questions I'd love to ask, but I also want to make sure we get to the other topics.

Julian ShapiroYeah, sure. The way I think about retention, my favorite strategy is what I call building state. It's a concept I stole from video games, where basically the more you play any given game, the more state you're accruing. That might be your armor, your weapons, your character skins, and whatever. As a player of the game, the more state you build, the more you're compelled to stick around, because you don't want to lose everything you've worked so hard for. The more state you have, the more you can exploit that state to get more. The rich keep getting richer. The same mental models apply to let's say SaaS retention.
This is as old as time, or at least as old as modern capitalism. If you think of credit card rewards or frequent flyer programs, you spend money. You accrue points. You convert the points into rewards. Once users build momentum doing that, they're less likely to switch to a competitor. That's the age old example of building state. Software, it's unbelievably powerful. This building state concept is why mediocre companies like eBay or Craigslist remain completely unbeatable for decades. Even though the UX is bad, people don't like using them, they fail to innovate, no one topples them and it's because of state.
Let's walk through some examples. State, kind of like my PLA mega spiel, mega rant there, subdivides into a few categories, but I'll make this one shorter and less boring. The first subcategory of building state is when you're encouraging your users to accrue non-transferrable reputation, meaning they're doing stuff to build reputation on the platform and they cannot take that reputation to them off platform. They're stuck there to get the compounding advantage of that reputation. For example, let's say you've spent years getting 10,000 or more feedback ratings as an eBay seller.
You are not leaving eBay anytime soon, because that reputation's just too valuable. It's producing a huge boost in revenue because of the trust it engenders with buyers on eBay. It probably results in you ranking better in search results for an eBay query. Because you cannot move those 10,000 feedbacks to an eBay competitor, you're not incentivized to go use an eBay competitor. This type of stickiness, this non-transferrable reputation, basically applies to all marketplaces and directories. Same thing on Yelp. You as a restaurant build your reputation on Yelp. The momentum keeps you stuck there. You want to keep getting reviews and hone your reviews.
Airbnb with your properties, Etsy, for you as a seller, Alibaba, all of this stuff are examples of companies that are kind of old now, cannot be top old or haven't been yet. People are like, why? Well, because of this exact reason. This is why those companies pester you so much to leave reviews and provide feedback all the time. They want you to play into this game of in market reputation building. The second state building technique that a startup could adopt, and again, this is all under the guise of how do we maximize retention and build somewhat of a moat, for example, the second way you can do this is you encourage your users to accrue a non-transferable audience.
Basically if you have a startup where you're creating a marketplace or an audience graph, you want to encourage users to build a follower graph within that product that they can take advantage of by pushing their product or their content or their insights too. This is why Twitter... By the way, a big shout out to Substack, which actually allows customers to export emails off of Substack. Substack is not playing that same game, which is better for users and a very nice thing for the ecosystem. But this is why Twitch and Instagram and Twitter are just irreplaceable. I mean, not necessarily. Everything dies over time like Facebook, but they're just so darn hard to topple.
Let's maybe touch one more. I don't want to ramble so much about this. Well, this one's kind of similar. Basically if you spent a lot of time building a social graph in a product, like if I spent the last 10 years trying to remember the names of all my high school friends and elementary school friends and add them one at a time over the years to Facebook, or I've added all my colleagues for the last 20 years onto LinkedIn and I've built a social graph on these products where I've curated and found people, that's really sticky. You're building state in the form of taking time to expand the graph. The graph is a representative of the state, the work you've put in.
You don't want to lose those connections with people. That makes that product extra sticky. This is why social networks in general can be sticky. It's not just the fact that you have your audience there, it's that you've invested time. If Facebook doesn't allow you to export your graph out, then that makes it extra sticky as well, because you don't know how else to talk to old Jimmy from elementary other than Facebook. Anyway, there's actually many more of these examples of building state. I'm going to just stop with that. But the basic concept is what can you encourage users to do within your product that makes them more deeper entrenched in the product, and most apps just completely lack this.

LennyI like that. It's a little bit like the concept of having skin in the game and just building more skin in the game with the product that you're using. One quick question, is there a company that you've seen do this, like add it on, and succeed and increased retention that you've worked with or out there? Just like is there a good example that comes to mind that added this piece?

Julian ShapiroAgain, none of this is really under the context of telling people to add it on after they've decided what they're building. This is all in the DNA of the product you're choosing to build. I'm not sure. I haven't thought of those examples. I'm thinking more so in whose DNA, which company's DNA are they doing this brilliantly? For example, one form of state is... One I did not cover is when you're embedded infrastructure. If you're Twilio, Striper, AWS, it's really hard to move off or segment because it's so much work to redo your code and introduce all this risk to screwing up your code base. People have built patterns around how they work with your API.
A lot of modern API startups automatically capture the stickiness by virtue of being so deeply embedded into a product. Generally speaking, none of this is in the context of like, hey, add it on post hoc, pretty much.

LennyGot it. I like that lens actually through a lot of these things you're talking about is maybe it's less like change your product to make this happen, and it's more idea selection. I know you're also an investor, and so it's a really good lens on how many of these things does this company have that I'm investing in.

Julian ShapiroEarlier I was mentioning why do I write handbooks, I wrote the handbook that PLA and state building come from to cement my diligence criteria for companies I believe might grow super fast and retain customers. You're exactly right. My investor's perspective is if you have a zero cost of acquisition mechanism for customer acquisition, such as PLA, and you can retain them through something like state building, but there are other ways to retain customers, then I lean in harder because I think you'll be more defensible as a company. Actually interesting little side note is you'll often hear retention and stickiness refer to as a moat, right?
But I find this term actually very misleading because very few companies have actual moats. To have a real moat, you're basically exploiting kleptocratic, meaning you're friends with the government and they're creating a literal barrier to entry for your competitors, or you have a scientific moat where you have an actual scientific breakthrough in the fusion energy space, plus protected by patents. Those are real moats. But the way most people use the word moat is wrong. In practice, your "moat" is just your mechanism for retaining users a little bit more than the average company.
I believe state building is one of the best ways to do exactly that. Really it just comes down to what are you doing to help users build state and get more value over time out of the product, not the same level of value over any time period.

LennyAwesome. Shifting a little bit away from growth and into writing, which I know you've spent a lot of time writing about, very meta, and sharing on Twitter and all the ways, you have a handbook where you go into this concept of novelty and a framework for how to be novel and why that's important in writing. I'd love for you to talk about why novelty is important in writing and ideally share your framework for creating something novel that keeps people engaged in reading.

Julian ShapiroSure. This actually goes back to your question about Twitter. What can one do to build an audience on Twitter? It often comes down to writing things that are novel. Novel is what powers click bait in most cases. The other way is via curiosity gap, where you raise a question you don't answer, but the other half is novelty is what gets people to click into a thread and read it. Novelty, I define, as new idea, so something I haven't heard of before, that's also significant, so it's not some trivial fact about Kim Kardashian, and it's something that I wouldn't have easily intuited on my own.
When you have those ingredients, it's new, it's significant, and you wouldn't have easily thought of it on your own, that's when you trigger that dopamine hit reaction, I'm not being scientifically accurate here, but you're going to get that dopamine hit like, "Whoa! That's super cool." The more you have readers pausing going, "Whoa! That was interesting," the more novel your writing is. My whole approach to writing is write something out, and then point out all the points of novelty. I do that by actually having 20 friends read something I've written and highlight the sentences that made them go, "Whoa."
And then I have this visualized map in a given blog post, where are the areas that people go, "That's really interesting," and then I can see all the white space between the interesting parts. I go in and I condense that white space. I chop it down so that the frequency of novelties as high as possible. This is how you get a blog post that just has this phenomenal momentum that gets the read to completion rate to be very high. The question is, what exactly does novelty look like? I've identified about five different categories for it, and this is the backbone of how I write in many cases.
The first category of novelty is what I call counterintuitive information. You tell people something and they go, "Oh wow. I never realized that the world worked that way," or different categories and you tell people counter-narrative information. That's where people respond, "Wow. That's not how I was told the world worked." Whereas counterintuitive novelty is, "That's not how I would've thought the world worked," counter-narrative novelty is, "That's not what I've been told. I've been lied to. Now you're telling me the truth." That also triggers a dopamine hit. Third category of novelty is just pure shock and awe like, "That's crazy. I would've never believed that's true."
For example, there's a volcano that's going to erupt the next 15 years that's going to swallow this whole island. Wow, that's shocking. Holy moly. Next category is what a lot of popular Twitter users do is what I call elegant articulation, where you're taking an idea... Naval does this, Naval on Twitter, the founder of AngelList. He'll say something that's a complicated rich thought and boil it down into a very concise sentence. And then the reader goes, "Wow, that's beautiful. I couldn't have said that any better myself."
That also triggers that dopamine reaction. There's a few more, but the point I want to get at here is all of these are formats for identifying the types of things you could say to get people to go, "Whoa." That's what I think of as novelty.

LennySomething I've found to kind of identify something that I've written is going to be interesting is I just read it myself and I feel what I feel when I'm reading it the first time. Often I find that if I'm like, "Oh wow, this is really good and really exciting," I've learned to trust that feeling wherever that comes from. That's just like another way of knowing if your thing is interesting is like, are you excited about it? Are you interested in it as you're reading it? And that fades after you read it like 10 times and kind of edit and edit, but that's just a small tip I've learned, just kind of trust your own gut feeling when you're excited about something that you're writing about.

Julian ShapiroI agree. And that's why I tell people when you first encounter something that to you is novel, write down with a score, like let's say out a five, zero to five, how novel that thing was to you when you first heard it. You want to remember and capture the degree of novelty, because to your point, Lenny, it's going to become less novel over time. And then if you pull that out of your idea bank for a blog post in two years, it'll like, oh yeah, that will blow people's minds, even it doesn't blow my mind today.

LennyGood tip.

Julian ShapiroTo your point, the way you basically get novel ideas is you go live your life and write down every time you come across something that interests or surprises you, or any time you come across something that makes you think, "Well, that's obviously not true," meaning you found something that people say that you know the lie and you're about to tell people the way the world really works. Some examples of novelty... I'm scrolling through Twitter up here. This is a tweet I wrote where I wrote, "Reading many books is the most socially accepted vanity metric for adults." I give zero kudos for reading a hundred books a year, but I give you massive kudos for learning efficiently and making interesting things.
This tweet is an example of me using novelty. As we read the key novel part, it's where I say, "Reading many books is the most socially accepted vanity metric for adults." That is counter-narrative novelty, because the prevailing narrative is all the smart people I've ever met, they read a ton of books. They always have a book in their hand. They're reading five books a month, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. I'm saying no, that's a vanity metric how many books you read. That's counter-narrative. That gives people a dopamine hit. They lean in. They want to see what my punchline is and that tweet got a lot of engagement.
One more example. See if you can catch the novelty here. New tweet, "The world is not run by exceptional people. This is the hidden reason for imposter syndrome. We mistakenly think imposter syndrome is due to low confidence or low anxiety. No. It's caused by not accepting that your new world-class peers aren't that special. It's just discipline." The key statement there that has the novelty is the world is not run by exceptional people, and the type of novelty being used there is counterintuitive. Your intuition is the world's run by the best of the best or many of these experts are there for a reason.
I'm saying not in most cases. Anyway, those are some examples of novelty. Of course, these tweets took off largely due to that reason. People love having their eyes opened. They'll reflexively retweet you to agree with your worldview if they feel like you're finally speaking truth, the power, in some sense, if that makes sense.

LennyWe'll link to those in the show notes. By the way, I love your reading your own tweets voice that you have.

Julian ShapiroI'm adopting my... Who's the guy from Star Trek who's amazing, who reads the kids?

LennyOh yeah, LeVar Burton. Reading Rainbow.

Julian ShapiroThere you go. That's my voice.

LennyJulian Shapiro, the new LeVar Burton. I know you have to run in not too long from now. We have two more topics. How about I set up both topics and then you kind of talk through as much as you want with each? That sound good?

Julian ShapiroSure.

LennyCool. The fourth topic we want to talk about is topic selection, how meta, essentially picking what to write about, and you have a bunch of great advice on what's worth writing about and the framework around that. And then the fifth idea is something you called it the Creativity Faucet, which is essentially how to get more creative. I will turn it over to you to share your thoughts on these topics.

Julian ShapiroHere's what that looks like more specifically. Anytime that I write something, I'm first trying to identify what is my objective. Here's a few examples of objectives that I'll use before sitting down to write. Number one, I want to open people's eyes to prove the status quo wrong, or two, I want to articulate something that everyone's thinking about, but no one is saying. I want to cut through the noise. Another objective might be, I want to contribute original insights to my own research and experimentation. Hence, some of my handbooks. Another objective is just telling a suspenseful and emotional story that maybe imparts a lesson.
These are all clear cut objectives that give me a guidepost. I know that I'm done writing a piece if I can read the piece and say, "I've accomplished that particular objective," because people don't know when they're done writing, "Oh, I petered out here and this seems like a good place for an outro." With an objective, you know whether you should actually stop. But then the question is, how do you sustain the motivation to see through an objective? Again, an objective might be something like open people's eyes by proving the status quo wrong. To do all the work necessary to accomplish that, you need a motivation in my opinion.
I'll pair one of those objectives that I've selected with a motivation. Some example motivations are, does writing this piece get something off my chest that I really badly need to get off? Or does it help me solve a nagging unsolved problem that I've been dealing with and this piece is way for me to explore and find the solution? Or is it like me obsessing over a topic that I want others to also geek out about? These are all powerful motivations that I pair with an objective to guarantee my follow through to get done writing the piece.
By the way, everything I've mentioned in this entire chat with you, the novelty stuff, the topic selection, PLA, state building, everything we've covered, I have tons of examples on Julian.com. That's why I'm not trying to go through every single one.

LennyYeah, and we'll link to all that.

Julian ShapiroAbsolutely.

LennyAwesome.

Julian ShapiroThe flip side I'll point out is that I think writing quality overall is... Again, these are all me being hand wavy and these are not rules. There's no right way to write, just like there's no right way to paint. These are just frameworks I've developed, that when I use them, I'm more frequently arriving at success as far as I define it. The thing I want to point out though is that very closely tied to everything I'm talking about is my framework or my equation for determining how good any piece of writing is, is novelty times resonance. Writing quality equals novelty times resonance.
Novelty is like we discussed, here are all these things that are giving you dopamine hits where I'm opening your eyes about how the world really works and shocking you and elegantly synthesizing things, times resonance and resonance means I can tell you the most novel thing on the planet. But if I don't wrap it in a way that resonates and really lifts off the page and into your mind and is something you remember, then it's fairly ineffective novelty. It's more like just trivia. It's bland, dry trivia. When you add resonance to the novelty, now it becomes a beautifully written piece. Resonance is a matter of including examples, analogies, metaphors, stories.
Really writing quality is novelty times the storytelling power you have to make the novelty resonate in the back of people's minds. The way that I structure my writing process is draft one, I'm just focused on finding my novelty, just the backbone of what makes anything interesting. And then draft two, I come back and try to increase the resonance by embedding story and analogy and examples. That's basically my process there.

LennyI like that a lot. Just to add real quick, something I've learned is that if your stuff is really useful, it doesn't have to be written beautifully. A lot of people I think are afraid of writing because they think they have to write really well, like be real good writers. What I've learned is it's okay if you're not like. You just be good enough and you'll get better the more you do it. The most important thing is the content is valuable and interesting, which I think you're describing as novelty. I just want to make sure people don't get scared away and be like, "Oh my god, I need stories and metaphors and all these beautiful writing." Initially you don't is my experience, but it helps in a big way.

Julian ShapiroI agree. In fact, the biggest criticism of my writing is that it is too dry, it's too novelty focused, and there's a lack of the resonance, but I do that purposely because oftentimes people can over-indulge in resonance and then it really bloats the piece. As a reader myself, I like reading super concise pieces, like reference manuals almost. I'm looking for the length from personal anecdotes, personal stories of people's lives or life lessons they've learned that they want to share with me, or actual fiction. To each their own. You're spot on. Do what you would want to read to me is the golden rule.

LennyAwesome, and also don't be afraid. Don't feel like the bar's that high if you want to get started.
The thing that I always strive for is this needs to be actionable and useful. It's something someone could take and do something with that day versus just a bunch of theory and pontification and philosophy. It's like, oh, here's a thing you can go do today.
I'm happy to answer that, but I also know you got to run soon. I guess we could touch on... We could just save the fifth topic maybe for a follow up episode is one idea, or we could touch on it.

Julian ShapiroSure. Up to you. Anything you want, my friend. If you want me to cover the next topic, super happy to. Up to you. Everyone listening right now is like, "Man, Julian's just been fucking rambling for an hour." I realized we were not having a conversation. Now I feel bad because I was so in my momentum of sharing some concepts that I didn't really have a conversation with.

LennyThis is very normal for this podcast, so do not stress.

Julian ShapiroAll right. Good. Actually, you should leave this all in here so they know I feel bad. I'm not cutting anything. What was the last topic again? Remind me.

LennyI was just saying, I think one of the things people really like about this podcast from what I hear often is they like that I'm not talking a lot. They kind of like that I'm letting the guests speak mostly, because a lot of podcast, the guest thinks they know at all, or sorry, the host and they just talk, talk, talk.

Julian ShapiroOh, got you. The thing is you are brilliant. You're an actual host who is a useful, amazing human being and we want to hear your thoughts.

LennyWhat was the last topic again?

Julian ShapiroThe last topic was the Creativity Faucet. We can save that for another talk, or if you want to touch on it, we can do that too.

LennySure. Yeah, let's do it.

Julian ShapiroThe quick version here is that this is an idea that I saw recur across three of the most prolific creators in the world, John Mayer, Ed Sheeran, Neil Gaiman. Ed Sheeran might work with other producers and so on, but the basic thing between the three is they're very independent creators who are constantly making blockbusters in large part on their own. I was curious, what on earth are those three doing that very few other people are doing? Taylor Swift also. One day I actually found the answer, what is their approach to consistently making phenomenal content? The way I found it was interesting.
I was watching a masterclass, like Masterclass.com, with Neil Gaman and he explained his process for writing fiction novels. And then in the same year, I watched the documentary of Ed Sheeran explaining his process for writing songs and they were identical. And then a year later, I came across a YouTube video that I posted on Twitter with John Mayer spinning his process, also identical. I'm like, fuck, there's the answer. They don't have a name for their process, so I just call it the Creativity Faucet. Very quickly, what they do is they visualize their creativity as a backed up pipe of water. The first mile is packed with wastewater, and this wastewater has to be emptied before the clear water behind it can arrive.
Because your creativity pipe or Creativity Faucet only has one faucet, there's no shortcut to achieving the clarity, the clear water of good ideas, until you first empty the wastewater out. If we apply that to creativity at the beginning of every writing session, write out every bad idea that comes to mind. Instead of being self-critical and resisting these bad ideas, you have to recognize bad ideas is progress. Because once they are emptied out of you, the better ideas begin to arrive. Here's the key part, why do good ideas arrive after the bad ideas are empty? It's because when you've gone through a bunch of bad ideas, your brain, your mind starts reflexively identifying what elements are causing the badness.
Then it becomes way better at avoiding those bad elements and you become way better at pattern matching the novel ideas with way greater intuition. Most creators are resisting their bad ideas. If you sat down, scribbled a few thoughts in a blank document, and just walked away because you weren't struck with gold, then you never actually finished the creative process. There's no way you would've come up with gold. Like Neil and Ed, for example, they know they're not superhuman. What they're doing is in every creative session, they simply have the discipline to allot time no matter how long it takes, it could be an hour, to empty all of the bad ideas.
And then they're not worried about whether good ideas will come after the bad ones because they know the following process. You start with a weak imitation. You identify what makes your invitation weak, and then you iterate the imitation until it's finally original. And that is the process you have to just throw yourself into.

LennyI love that. I feel like I don't do that enough. I feel like when I get to writing, I'm just like, "Okay, let's make this awesome." This is a really good reminder just to get stuff out. It connects to the concept of the shitty first draft. Just write. It'll be bad. And then you edit. You asked me this question, what my process is for writing, and most of it is just refining like a thousand times. I just kind of take a first pass and then I look at it, make it better, look at it, make it better, and just kind of keep editing for days and days and days until it's not bad.

Julian ShapiroI love that. That's what I've always done, until one day I was like, "I need a process here." Anyway dude, pleasure chatting. You're a gent. Sorry to all the listeners for rambling so much at a high pace. Cut anything you want. You can cut all of that. I don't care. Whatever you find interesting, go with. We're just going to have this final goodbye and that's it.

LennyThat was very anti-climactic. Cool, man. Where can folks find you online and how can listeners be useful to you?

Julian ShapiroSure. You can go to Julian.com. It has everything, Twitter, handbooks, all that good stuff. And that's it. I hope you guys find the handbooks useful.

LennyAmazing, Julian. I know you don't do a lot of podcasts. I really appreciate you being here. This was awesome. I'm excited to get this out.

Julian ShapiroDude, truly my pleasure. I think you're awesome and you're why I'm doing the podcast. Really my pleasure, man. Have a great day.

LennyThanks, man. Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.

章节 02 / 07

第02节

中文 译稿已完成

Julian Shapiro为什么好点子总要先把坏点子耗光以后才冒出来?因为当你经历了一堆坏点子后,大脑会本能地识别出到底是哪些元素在制造“坏”。这样你就会越来越擅长避开这些坏元素,也会更擅长凭直觉把新点子和这些模式对应起来。大多数创作者其实都在抗拒自己的坏点子。你如果坐下来,在空白文档里随便写了几条想法,然后因为没碰到金子就走了,那你其实根本没有完成创作过程,也就不可能真的写出金子。

Lenny欢迎来到 Lenny's Podcast。我是 Lenny,这里主要是想帮你提升做产品、做增长的手艺。我会采访世界级的产品领导者和增长专家,听他们讲那些一路摸爬滚打、最终把公司做大做强的经验。今天的嘉宾是 Julian Shapiro。我在节目开头其实已经认真介绍过他了,所以这里我只说我们今天会聊什么。我们会聊他所谓的 product-led acquisition,也就是产品驱动获客,这是他和几千家公司打交道、帮他们梳理增长策略时总结出来的一套方法。
然后我们会聊怎么提高产品留存。接着会聊很多写作相关的东西,比如写作里为什么“新意”这么重要,写之前怎么选题,Julian 还提出了一个叫 Creativity Faucet 的框架。Julian 是个特别有意思的人,我很期待把这期节目带给大家。接下来有一段赞助口播,我先略过。Julian,欢迎来到播客。

Julian Shapiro这是我人生中最光荣的一件事,谢谢你。

Lenny哇!

Julian Shapiro听完你这个介绍,我都快哭了,太好了。

Lenny这就是效果。对我来说这也是人生中最光荣的一件事,我们扯平了。

Julian Shapiro太好了。那我们就彼此抵消一下,看看这样会不会更有意思。

Lenny没错。话题很多。我知道你在 Twitter 上大概有 25 万粉丝,你在 Twitter 上很强,但我注意到你这一年只发了三条推。怎么回事?

Julian Shapiro有几个原因同时在发生。第一,很多人都在写 threads,我发现这东西真的很尬。那种“这里有 21 个方法帮你重做创业公司”之类的鸡汤串,尬得要命。它们的实际效果,是把那些觉得这类信息有价值的人吸引过来,同时把你真正想维系关系的人劝退。我记得 thread 刚兴起那会儿,我自己在试,也看到有人开始取关我,因为那些内容惹恼了我很在意交流的那批人。
慢慢地,我就没了写那类东西的动力和热情。现在我只在写一些东西时顺手发推,基本上是我网站文章的反映版或者浓缩版。我知道它质量高、是原创的、是经过思考的,不是为了博眼球。这是一个原因。

另一个原因是,粉丝质量这件事其实可以分成两种。你有一类人是因为你的脑子而关注你,另一类人则是把你当成一个“高级内容搬运工”。

Julian Shapiro如果他们是因为你在做搬运工式的劳动而关注你,那我叫他们 labor followers。他们追的是你帮他们找有趣梗图、发冷笑话、写鸡汤 thread 这些劳动成果。相反,如果他们是因为你的脑子关注你,那就是第一类,也就是他们关注的是你的原创想法、洞见和你对世界的看法。像 Y Combinator 的 Paul Graham 就是在输出原创观点,他不是为了涨粉去写 thread,而是为了写出有趣的新想法。这样一来,粉丝对他和他的大脑的认同感就更强了,因为他们会想:“哇,这个观点太原创、太有意思了。”
他们关注的是你的脑子,不是你在网上整理一个虚拟 BuzzFeed 的劳动。这样的 mind followers 认同感更高,忠诚度也更高,会更认真看你说什么。要是你真想让他们支持你,比如办线下活动、卖东西,或者推动某个你在乎的事情,他们会更愿意买单。
如果他们只是因为你的劳动关注你,那你就会和一堆 meme 账号没什么区别,他们也不会对你这个人本身有真实认同。我更在意粉丝质量,而不是数量。

Lenny这个提醒太好了,不能只盯着 follower、follower、follower。我很好奇,如果一个人刚开始玩 Twitter,你会给什么建议?尤其是现在 Twitter 粉丝真的很值钱,我自己的经验是,凡是我有任何问题,直接发出去,就能收到一堆很棒的答案。拥有大受众是很有力量的。那如果一个人刚起步,你会怎么建议他?

Julian Shapiro而如果你只发一句聪明话,别人会想:“哦,这可能只是碰巧。谁知道这人是不是稳定能产出聪明东西。” 但如果一个 thread 有 30 条推,而且每条都好,大家就会想:“哇,这人是个机器。只要持续关注他,就会一直拿到好内容。” 这会重新强化别人应该关注你的判断,这也是 threads 更容易带来关注的原因。说白了,你确实应该发 threads,老实讲,这就是核心。再加上一个足够吸睛的开头,这事就成了。

Lenny很棒。我本来没想到会聊到 Twitter 策略,但这确实有意思,因为你真的很擅长这件事。也像你说的,你的内容是很认真思考过的,不是那种为了粉丝和转发而硬凹的 thread。谢谢你分享这些。

Julian Shapiro这事其实一开始也是那样做的,因为我和几个朋友算是最早大规模玩 threads 的人之一。后来我们意识到它最后会变成什么样,就停了。

Lenny我懂你的意思,那些尬 thread 真的很烦。总之我想做的,是与其问一堆散乱的问题,不如聚焦五个大主题,顺着这五个主题深入聊。这些主题一部分来自你在手册、写作、课程里反复讲的内容,一部分也是我自己觉得最有意思的。可以吗?

Julian Shapiro当然,我很愿意。

Lenny好。先说点背景。你写了很多很深入的手册,内容涵盖增长、写作、健身等等。首先你能不能解释一下,这些手册到底是什么,为什么你要做这些?

Julian Shapiro这些手册对我来说,就是一种强迫机制,让我在学东西时对自己负责,同时逼自己学得足够彻底。就这么简单。比如我想系统学增长、学写作,或者学别的什么主题,我就会去做大量研究,把能找到的东西全读一遍,再做很多实验,尽量形成一些你从别人研究里不容易直接看到的新洞见。然后下一步,就是尽量把这些东西压缩得足够简洁、足够可执行,好让我自己以后查阅。比如这本就是我自己的“写更好博客”的指南。
等这些工作做完后,通常只需要再花个我随口说的 30 个小时,把它打磨成公众也能看懂、也愿意看得下去的版本。既然我已经为自己做了这么多工作,为什么不顺手公开呢?到了这一步,它其实也就变成了获客素材,能帮我建立受众,把我的观点传播得更远。这就是我这么做的原因。
但我最骄傲的一点是,这些手册虽然谈不上彻底独一无二,可每一本里都有很多原创内容,是普通人之前没怎么听过的。我最有成就感的,就是把那些夹在字里行间的洞见提炼出来,让原本看起来很复杂的事情变得特别容易理解。对我来说,如果我能把一个大家通常会觉得“超级复杂”的东西,变成大家都能顺着看懂的内容,我就算成功了。我想读者的多巴胺反应也来自这里。
没几个人会去翻自己邮箱里那篇超长、超级难找的健身指南邮件。第一,这是一个 UX 选择。第二,我能拿到 SEO 流量,而你拿不到。第三,这其实是一个可以持续更新的活资产。它不会死在别人邮箱里,也不会被打印成纸。也许我和很多线上写作者不太一样的地方在于,我花在回头重写旧文章和旧手册上的时间,和写新东西差不多。
如果你一年或一年半之后再回来读我写过的任何东西,它都会被更新,因为我把所有写作都看成 evergreen 内容。我尽量不写那种一过就没的东西,比如追热点、写新闻。那类我几乎都避开,我更想写能长期有用的东西。

Lenny这点我之前还真不知道,挺酷的。我很喜欢你这样做。你最好把这事写清楚一点。很有意思,这并不是“过时内容”,而是“上次更新还是上周”。你现在可能已经这么做了吧?

Julian Shapiro没有,我其实还没这么标,可能我确实应该这么做。有人也跟我抱怨过,说我没写更新时间,所以我也许哪天会加上。

Lenny好吧,至少我们今天有了一个好主意。

Julian Shapiro那就行。

Lenny好。今天第一个想聊的点,是你叫做 product-led acquisition 的概念。我觉得这是你任何一本手册里最受欢迎的页面之一。这个概念来自你和几千家公司一起工作、帮他们梳理增长策略的经验。我很好奇,这个概念到底是什么,大家怎么拿它来帮产品增长?

Julian Shapiro对你的受众来说,product-led acquisition 可能更常被叫做 product-led growth,但我觉得这个词有点名不副实。它经常被拿来泛指 SaaS 公司用自助式销售漏斗,不需要销售人员介入的那种增长方式,也就是绕开销售,让产品自己长大。这样说也没错。但从增长营销的角度,我们真正关心的是 product-led acquisition,也就是“产品的使用本身会推动产品增长”。
比如我在用 PayPal 给别人转 1000 美元,那对方为了收这 1000 美元,几乎不可能不去注册一个 PayPal 账号。因为我在日常场景里使用 PayPal,借它来结清一笔债务,而我在得到价值的同时,也自动、而且非常强烈地在诱使对方成为 PayPal 用户。这就是 product-led acquisition。
我识别出了几类不同的情况。我之所以觉得我写的那篇文章会受欢迎,是因为在我看来,这几乎是增长任何一家初创公司的最好方式。如果你的公司能靠 product-led acquisition 增长,那当然不是所有公司都行,毕竟有些企业级产品只能靠销售,那它就是远远最好的增长方式,因为用户邀请用户的边际成本接近于零。
它很可扩展,而且通常会形成网络图,带来复利效应,既能造出护城河,也能更快获取更多客户。说白了,它就是 viral。另一个很有意思的点是,它的外部依赖少得多。假设你的公司主要靠内容和 SEO 增长,那你就得看 Google 算法更新的脸色。比如一年两次的算法更新,偶尔会把你的流量直接打穿。经历过的人都知道那种感觉,太糟了。
或者如果你是靠付费获客长大的公司,比如靠 Facebook Ads、Instagram Ads,或者就先说 Facebook,那你同样得看 CPM 波动和平台各种奇怪更新、删掉某些定向选项的脸色。你的整个获客策略都压在一个完全不受你控制、而且波动很大的东西上。相对来说,product-led acquisition 的好处是:你把产品做得越好,把现有用户邀请新用户的激励机制设计得越好,这一切都在你掌控之中,你就能增长得越好。
先给个快速背景。我们刚才举过一个例子……其实我很喜欢 Paul Graham 说过的一句话,我们前面也提到过,他说“不要去做那种你得先经过别人才能拿到用户的创业公司”。这句话一直很打动我。下面是我识别出的几类 product-led acquisition。第一类,刚才已经提过,就是用户邀请其他用户来结清债务。
比如我通过 Venmo 给你付我们平摊晚餐时我欠你的钱,或者我用 PayPal 给你付一笔业务款,你是我的供应商,或者任何能让我把欠你的钱直接还给你的场景,只要我必须借助某个产品完成支付,对方为了把该得的钱拿到手,几乎都会去注册那个产品。这个就是很典型的 user-led growth / product-led growth。它不一定非得是钱,也可以是别的债务,比如 NFT。
比如有人在 OpenSea 上从你这里买了一个 NFT,而他们唯一能拿到这个 NFT 的方式,是也要有一个 OpenSea 账户,或者一个和这个 collection 绑定的钱包。我现在就是随口举例,关键是:如果你在结清欠别人的东西,而对方必须注册账号才能拿到它,他们就会去注册。这就是第一类。
第二类,是你邀请别人加入你正在使用的产品,好参与一段否则他们没法接触的对话。为什么 Telegram、WhatsApp、iMessage 这些聊天应用,或者 Discord,能长这么快?原因显而易见:如果你和一小群朋友的聊天都在这个 app 里,那现实生活里也在你朋友圈中的某个人,只要还没装这个 app,就必须装上它,才能跟你继续聊天。
邀请别人加入关键的社交对话或业务对话,是另一种几乎可以保证 product-led acquisition 很快增长的方式。商业版的例子就是 Slack。你注册 Slack,然后把所有同事都拉进来,甚至再通过 Slack Connect 把你的供应商都加进来。
Slack Connect 也是 Slack 一个很聪明的功能:它会鼓励你邀请那些不在 Slack 上、但和你有业务往来的人加入。具体他们是怎么把这个功能做出来的我不清楚,但从理论上说,这绝对是通过 product-led acquisition 扩大邀请面的一种漂亮方式。总结一下我们现在讨论的点:获取客户的方式之一,是让现有用户去付钱给别人,或者把别人拉进 app 里参与只能在 app 内发生的对话。
如果我是做产品的人,在做 roadmap 时,我会想:我的产品里有没有什么东西,能支撑前面说的那两种功能之一,也就是结清债务,或者在产品里引入聊天?如果有,那你可能就打开了一个非常惊人的增长渠道。我讲 PLA 的时候,通常就是在这个语境里:重新思考你的产品路线图,把优先级放到那些能促成这种爆发式增长的功能上。如果你想深挖,我可以先停一下,不过如果你愿意,我们还有三个类别可以继续聊,另外三个 PLA 的方式。

Lenny当然可以。我想顺着你讲这些时抛个问题,顺便碰一下这个点。大多数创始人都很想通过病毒传播、邀请机制和你刚才说的这些方式来增长。但我发现,如果这不是产品的自然形态,往往很难硬塞进去。你在讲这些案例的时候,我很想知道:对于一个既不是收款 app,也不是聊天 app 的产品,你见过多少公司成功加上这种机制?如果这是别的类型的 app,这种做法到底多常见,能不能成?

Julian Shapiro这里真正的教训是:如果你完全不知道公司以后要怎么增长,就别去创业。当然,这对所有创业公司不一定都成立。深科技、生物科技、气候科技这些方向不太适用。但对于很多打算做 SaaS、并且想在 B 端或者 B 端/ C 端市场里快速增长的人来说,我真正想表达的是:如果你作为创始人摆在面前有三个点子,其中有一个特别适合 product-led acquisition,那就可以偏向那个方向,尤其是当你觉得“增长能力”会是决定成败的关键差异时。
这样做就是让自己轻松一点。因为如果我们太依赖 SEO 和内容,而这两样都极度拥挤;或者依赖付费获客,也就是广告渠道,而这些渠道也同样拥挤,尤其当你的 LTV 很低时,我们根本扛不住付费 CAC 的波动,甚至连这些 CAC 的成本本身都很难接受,那你就必须从产品层面更战略性地思考。它不是简单地以后再补一个功能,有时候当然会很自然地做成。但如果它足够有机,效果会非常好。等我们讲到下一个类别时,你会看到一些更自然地把它塞进去的例子。
但你问的另一个回答点,也是个很棒的问题,就是很多人会把 product-led acquisition 和 referral program 混为一谈,但它们其实不是一回事。Referral program 本质上是在产品之外再加一层激励,试着告诉用户:“你去邀请别人吧,因为不然你不会主动邀请。” 而我现在定义的 PLA,是用户在自然使用产品的过程中,邀请别人本身就能让你得到更多价值。你清结债务时,收款人需要注册;你有更好的聊天,因为 Jack 也进来了。这里不需要拿什么人工奖励去刺激。
我对 referral program 一般没什么兴趣,因为它往往会筛出那些只想要奖励的人。然后他们邀请的对象也可能只是想拿双向奖励,根本不是为了 app 本身,拿完就走。之后他们通常也不会再拉其他人。它没有 PLA 那种复利式、粘性强、留存好的特性。我不太喜欢这种方式。当然,如果你能把它做成,那也很棒。总之,第三类我叫做 billboarding,也就是产品的使用本身对周围的人可见。
产品自己给自己打广告。这个词的来源其实是我在旧金山看高速公路上的 billboard 时想到的:我看到那些真正挂 billboard 的公司,会在 billboard 上既展示自己卖的广告,也顺手把自己的 logo 一起打出去。他们是在拿自己的展示面给自己打广告。再比如你在网页广告网络里看到 Google banner ads,它下面写着“由 Google Ads 提供”,这也是在用自己的展示面给自己打广告。
这就是 billboarding。它是一个非常棒、而且几乎免费的方式,能给你带来大量曝光。它有几种做法。最经典的例子是 Hotmail 和 iPhone。当你通过 Hotmail 发邮件时,结尾会自动附上一句“sent via Hotmail”。iPhone 也是一样,几乎每一封从 iPhone 发出去的邮件,除非你手动去掉签名,都会变成一块免费广告牌,给 Apple 自己打广告,进一步强化品牌认知,也更容易让人买。
再比如说,如果你的应用里有发邮件或者向公司外部发送沟通内容的功能,比如一个发短信的 app,或者你是个给供应商发 invoice 的工具,那你在生成这些消息时,可以在签名里写上“由某某创业公司提供”,把自己的展示面用起来,增加品牌曝光。这就是两种 billboarding 方式。第三种就更直白了:在现实世界里做出一个一眼就能认出来的东西。
我开 Tesla、穿 Nike、戴 AirPods,这些东西周围的人一眼就能看到,所以有时候实体产品之所以能爆发,就是因为它们本身就是移动的免费广告牌。现在 Twitter 上最典型的热点例子,就是你把头像换成某个 NFT 系列时,你就在给那个 NFT 系列打广告,对吧?Bitcoin 的 laser eyes 也是同理。

Lenny而且你还得有 Twitter Blue 才能做到这个。

Julian Shapiro对,没错。Telegram 现在也做了点类似 Twitter Blue 的东西。我一时想不起名字了。总之现在,如果你是 Telegram 的付费高级用户,名字旁边会多一个小星星,所有人都能看到。“哎,这是什么?哦,这是 Telegram Pro。那我也去看看。” 再举一个我很喜欢的例子,就是通过产品本身的属性去做 billboarding:你为了使用它,必须把它分享出去。
比如我有一个 Calendly 账号,我要创建日程,就必须把我的 Calendly 链接分享给别人。相信我,你每周都会收到一百万个 Calendly 链接。这种 billboarding 真的太厉害了,因为人们是自愿在分享。难怪它们会爆发。Dropbox 也一样,你分享文件链接时,别人会看到 Dropbox 的 URL;GoFundMe 也是,你把页面分享出去就行。道理你懂的。billboarding 不花你一分钱,可以无限扩展,而且有复利效应。如果你的产品天然适合这种方式,那它就是一个极好的增长方式。
这算第三类吧。最后一个,如果你愿意听,我也可以讲,就是 UGC,也就是 user generated content。
本质上就是我上 YouTube、TikTok、Instagram 之类的平台去发内容。我把内容分享给全世界,而在分享内容的同时,平台本身也会在这些内容上给自己打广告。你在 Twitter 或 Insta 上看过的每一个 TikTok 视频结尾,都会写着“这是 TikTok 用户的账号”。平台把自己嵌进了用户生成的内容里,而用户又被激励把内容分享到平台外,这样就把用户引回了平台,因为用户总是希望尽可能把客户带到自己能带去的地方。他们会顺手把流量引到自己的 YouTube 频道等等。
如果你做的是 eBay 这类 marketplace,或者卖收藏鞋子的市场,你会鼓励用户为商品做出漂亮的内容,比如展示商品的酷炫落地页,然后他们再把这些内容分享到别处,这就是一种 UGC:用户生成的内容被分享到平台外,而这些内容本身也对他们自己的关注者有用。另一种经常被忽略的 UGC,是 Quora、Reddit、Stack Overflow、TripAdvisor 这类产品:你鼓励用户生成对话内容,然后这些内容会被 Google 和 SEO 自然收录。
如果你鼓励用户围绕公开可索引的话题进行对话,就会扩大你在 Google 上能覆盖的关键词面,从而拿到更多搜索流量。说到底,这就落在一个问题上:如果你想在产品里利用 UGC,就要问自己,用户会不会在你的产品里生产某种内容?如果会,那我们应该鼓励他们生成什么类型的内容去分享?又该怎么把他们分享内容用到的页面做得尽可能吸引人、尽可能容易消费?这基本就是 UGC。先在这里停一下,但说白了,PLA 的骨架就是这些。
这些方式有一个共同点:你一分钱都不用花。它们扩张极快,你也不用太依赖……嗯,某种程度上 SEO 算例外,但总体上你不是在依赖第三方的波动。对于怎么增长和扩张来说,这是一种健康得多的叙事。

Lenny太棒了。

English No English text found
No English transcript text was found for this chapter.
章节 03 / 07

第03节

中文 译稿已完成

Julian Shapiro真正的教训是,如果你作为创始人,根本不知道公司以后会怎么增长,那就别去创业。当然,这不适用于所有公司。深科技、生物科技、气候科技这些方向另当别论。可对很多打算做 SaaS、而且想在 B 端或 B/C 两端快速增长的人来说,我真正想表达的是:如果你眼前有三个点子,其中有一个特别适合 product-led acquisition,那就可以优先选它,尤其是当你判断“增长能力”会决定谁赢谁输的时候。
这样做就是让自己轻松一点。因为如果你太依赖 SEO 和内容,而这两个渠道都已经非常拥挤;或者依赖付费获客,也就是广告渠道,而这些渠道同样拥挤,尤其当你的 LTV 很低、我们根本承受不住付费 CAC 的波动,甚至连这些 CAC 的绝对成本都很难接受时,你就必须从产品层面更有战略性地思考。它不只是之后再塞个功能进去,有时当然也能自然长出来。我们讲下一个类别时,你会看到一些更顺手地把它嵌进去的例子。
不过你这个问题还有一个很重要的回应,也很棒,就是很多人会把 product-led acquisition 和 referral program 混为一谈,但它们根本不是一回事。Referral program 本质上是在产品外面再加一个奖励,试图逼用户去邀请别人,因为他们本来不会主动邀请。可我现在定义的 PLA,是你在自然使用产品的过程中,邀请别人本身就会让你得到更多价值。你给收款对象结清欠款;你把朋友 Jack 拉进来,聊天质量就更好了。这里不需要拿什么人工奖励去刺激。
我对 referral program 一般不太感冒,因为它通常是在筛出那些只想拿奖励的人。然后他们邀请的人也可能只是想拿双向奖励,根本不是为了 app 本身,拿完就走。之后他们通常也不会再去拉别人。它没有 PLA 那种复利式、粘性强、留存好的特征。我不太喜欢这种方式。当然,如果你能把它做成,那也很棒。总之第三类,我叫它 billboarding,也就是产品的使用本身对周围的人可见。
产品会自己给自己打广告。这个词是我看到旧金山高速公路上那些 billboard 时想到的:我发现真正挂 billboard 的公司,会在 billboard 上既展示他们卖的广告,又顺手把自己的 logo 露出来。他们是在用自己的展示面给自己打广告。另一个例子,是你在网页广告网络里看到 Google banner ads,底下写着“由 Google Ads 提供”,这同样是在用自己的展示面给自己做宣传。
这就是 billboarding。它是一种非常聪明、几乎免费的方式,能给你带来大量曝光。做法有几种。最经典的例子是 Hotmail 和 iPhone。你用 Hotmail 发邮件,结尾会自动带一句 “sent via Hotmail”。iPhone 也是一样,几乎每一封从 iPhone 发出去的邮件,除非你把签名删掉,都会变成给 Apple 打的免费广告,进一步强化品牌认知,也更容易带来购买。
再比如,如果你的应用里有给产品外部的人发邮件或发消息的功能,比如一个发短信的 app,或者一个帮你给供应商发 invoice 的工具,那你在生成这些消息时,可以在签名里写上“由某某创业公司提供”,把自己的展示面用起来,增加品牌曝光。这就是 billboarding 的两种方式。第三种就更直白了:在现实世界里做出一个一眼就能认出来的东西。
我开 Tesla、穿 Nike、戴 Apple AirPods,这些东西周围的人一眼就能看到,所以有时候实体产品会爆发,就是因为它们本身就是移动的免费广告牌。现在 Twitter 上最典型的热点例子,就是你把头像换成某个 NFT 系列时,你就在给那个 NFT 系列打广告,对吧?Bitcoin 的 laser eyes 也是一样。

Lenny而且你还得有 Twitter Blue 才能这么做。

Julian Shapiro对,没错。Telegram 现在也出了点类似 Twitter Blue 的东西。我一时想不起名字了。总之现在,如果你是 Telegram 的付费高级用户,名字旁边会多一个小星星,所有人都能看到。“哎,这是什么?哦,这是 Telegram Pro。那我也去看看。” 再举一个我很喜欢的例子,就是通过产品本身的属性去做 billboarding:你为了使用它,必须把它分享出去。
比如我有一个 Calendly 账号,我要创建日程,就必须把我的 Calendly 链接分享给别人。说真的,你每周都会收到一百万个 Calendly 链接。这种 billboarding 太强了,因为大家是自愿分享的。难怪它能爆发。Dropbox 也是一样,你分享文件链接时,别人就会看到 Dropbox 的 URL;GoFundMe 也是,你把页面分享出去就行。道理你懂的。billboarding 不花你一分钱,可以无限扩展,而且有复利效应。如果你的产品天然适合这种方式,那它就是极好的增长路径。
这算第三类吧。最后一个,如果你愿意听,我也可以讲,就是 UGC,也就是 user generated content。
本质上就是我上 YouTube、TikTok、Instagram 之类的平台去发内容。我把内容分享给世界,而在分享内容的同时,平台本身也会在这些内容上给自己打广告。你在 Twitter 或 Insta 上看过的每一个 TikTok 视频结尾,都会写着“这是 TikTok 用户的账号”。平台把自己嵌进了用户生成的内容里,而用户又被激励把这些内容分享到平台外,这样就把新用户带回平台,因为用户总想把客户带到自己能带去的地方。他们会顺手把流量导到自己的 YouTube 频道等等。
如果你做的是 eBay 这类 marketplace,或者卖收藏鞋子的市场,你会鼓励用户为商品做出漂亮的内容,比如展示商品的酷炫落地页,然后他们再把这些内容分享到别处,这就是一种 UGC:用户生成的内容被分享到平台外,而这些内容本身也对他们自己的关注者有用。另一种经常被忽略的 UGC,是 Quora、Reddit、Stack Overflow、TripAdvisor 这类产品:你鼓励用户生成对话内容,然后这些内容会被 Google 和 SEO 自然收录。
如果你鼓励用户围绕公开可索引的话题进行对话,就会扩大你在 Google 上能覆盖的关键词面,从而拿到更多搜索流量。说到底,这个问题可以总结成:如果你想在产品里利用 UGC,就要问自己,用户会不会在你的产品里生产某种内容?如果会,那我们应该鼓励他们生成什么类型的内容去分享?又该怎么把他们分享内容用到的页面做得尽可能吸引人、尽可能容易消费?这基本就是 UGC。先停在这里,但说白了,PLA 的骨架就是这些。
这些方式有一个共同点:你一分钱都不用花。它们扩张极快,你也不需要太依赖……嗯,某种程度上 SEO 算例外,但总体上你不是在依赖第三方的波动。对于怎么增长和扩张来说,这是一种健康得多的叙事。

Lenny太棒了。

English No English text found
No English transcript text was found for this chapter.
章节 04 / 07

第04节

中文 译稿已完成

Well, the real lesson is don't start a company if you have no idea how it's going to grow. Now, that's not categorically true for all startups. It's irrelevant for deep tech and biotech and climate tech and all that stuff, but for a lot of these people starting SaaS companies where they intend to grow very quickly among B2B customers or B2C. The real point of what I'm saying is if you have three ideas before you as a founder and one of them lends itself to product-led acquisition really beautifully, then lean in that direction perhaps if you think that growth is the key differentiator between them for what's going to lead to success.

Julian ShapiroIt's like make life easier on yourself. Because if we're relying so heavily on SEO and content, which is extremely saturated, or paid acquisition, meaning ad channels which are extremely saturated, especially if you have low LTVs where we can't really tolerate the volatility of paid CAC or just the cost in general of those CACs, then we have to be thinking more strategically at the product level. It's less about tacking it on later, but sometimes this will work brilliantly if it's very organic. When we cover my next category, we'll actually see some examples of how you can pack it on more seamlessly.
But the other response to your question, which is a great question, is people mistake product-led acquisition for referral programs, which it is not. Because the referral programs are a tact on incentive trying to give people something to encourage them to invite because they otherwise are not inviting. Whereas PLA, as I've currently defined it, is through the natural use of the product, you get more value when you invite others. You settle your debt with the payment recipient. You get have a better conversation because now your friend Jack is part of the conversation. You don't have to incentivize them with anything artificial, with any rewards.
Referral programs generally are not exciting to me because you're usually trying to... Again, you're like self-selecting for folks who just want the reward very often. And then the people they invite might also just want the dual ended reward and they're not even here for the app really. And then they can bounce. And then they don't invite other people typicall.y. It doesn't have the same compounding sticky retentive nature of PLA. I'm not a fan of it. If you can make a work though, fantastic. Anyway, third category is what I call billboarding. Billboarding is this idea that the use of the product is inherently visible to people around you.
That's billboarding. It's a brilliant free way to get a ton more exposure. There's a few ways to do billboarding. One is the classic example of Hotmail and iPhone. When you send an email via Hotmail, at the end, it pens a signature saying sent via Hotmail. Same thing, sent from my iPhone. Every single email sent from an iPhone device, unless you remove that signature, is a free billboard for Apple itself, which further furthers the brand awareness and gets more people buying.
If I drive a Tesla, if I wear Nike shoes, if I have Apple AirPods, all of these are immediately visible to everyone around me, which is why sometimes physical products can really explode because they're just free walking billboards all over the world. And then the sort of most topical hot example right now on Twitter is when you switch your Twitter profile to an NFT in a particular collection, you're billboarding for that NFT collection, right? Same phenomenon that occurred with the Bitcoin laser eyes.

LennyAnd also for Twitter Blue, to be able to even do that.

Julian ShapiroYes, exactly. Exactly right. Like Telegram right now, they released something like Twitter Blue. I forget, I don't know what it's called. But now when you're a Telegram premium paying user, it has a little star thing next to your name that everyone else sees. "Wait, what is that? Oh, that's Telegram Pro. Let me take a look at that." Last example, which is one of my favorites, is billboarding via the nature of your product being something people are compelled to share in order to use. If I have a Calendly account, I have to share my Calendly link with the world in order to create an event on my calendar.
If you're like me, you get a million Calendly links every week. That's the phenomenal form of billboarding, people are sharing it willingly. No wonder they've exploded. Same thing with Dropbox sharing file links and you're seeing the Dropbox URL, or GoFundMe, when people share the GoFundMe page. You get the gist. Billboarding costs you nothing, scales infinitely, can have compounding effects. And if your product lends itself to billboarding, it's just a phenomenal way to grow if possible. That's category three, I guess. We'll cover one last one, if you'd like me too, which is basically UGC, so user generated content.
Same sort of thing. Basically I hop on YouTube or TikTok or Insta or whatever. I make content. I share it with the world. In so sharing that content, the platforms brand themselves on the content. At the end of every TikTok video on Twitter that you've ever seen or Insta, at the end it'll say, "Here's the TikTok user's account." They're billboarding themselves into the content that users themselves are generating, and the users are incentivized to share that content off platform, which brings users to the platform, because users want to get customers wherever they can. They're going to cross-sell to their YouTube channel and so on.
If you have a marketplace like eBay or some marketplace for selling collectible shoes or something where you're encouraging users to create beautiful content of the items being sold, like these cool landing pages that show off the products, and they share it elsewhere, then that's an example of users making content they're sharing off platform that is useful for their own followers. Another example of UGC that people often overlook is Quora or Reddit or Stack Overflow or TripAdvisor, where you're encouraging users to create content in the form of conversation that then surface itself on Google and SEO.
Basically if you just encourage users to have conversations that are publicly indexed, that increases your surface area on Google for hitting more keywords and you get way more search traffic. Basically the question that this boils down to is to leverage UGC in your product, you ask yourself, do users use my product to make content in any way, shape, or form? If so, what type of content that they make should we encourage them to then share? And then how can we make the page that they use to share the content as appealing and as easily to consume as possible? And that's basically UGC. We'll pause there, but basically that's PLA in a nutshell.
The thing that all of these have in common is you're not spending a dollar. They scale super quickly. You're not reliant on, well, maybe to some extent with SEO, but you're not relying on third party volatility. It's a much healthier narrative for how you're going to grow and scale.

LennyEppo does all that and more, delivering results quickly, avoiding annoying prolonged analytics cycles, and helping you easily get to the root cause of any issue you discover. Eppo lets you go beyond basic clickthrough metrics, and instead use your north star metrics like activation, retention, subscriptions, and payments. Eppo supports test on the front end, the backend, email marketing, and even machine learning clients. Check out Eppo at geteppo.com, getE-P-P-O.com, and 10X your experiment velocity. I have many questions I'd love to ask, but I also want to make sure we get to the other topics.

Julian ShapiroYeah, sure. The way I think about retention, my favorite strategy is what I call building state. It's a concept I stole from video games, where basically the more you play any given game, the more state you're accruing. That might be your armor, your weapons, your character skins, and whatever. As a player of the game, the more state you build, the more you're compelled to stick around, because you don't want to lose everything you've worked so hard for. The more state you have, the more you can exploit that state to get more. The rich keep getting richer. The same mental models apply to let's say SaaS retention.
This is as old as time, or at least as old as modern capitalism. If you think of credit card rewards or frequent flyer programs, you spend money. You accrue points. You convert the points into rewards. Once users build momentum doing that, they're less likely to switch to a competitor. That's the age old example of building state. Software, it's unbelievably powerful. This building state concept is why mediocre companies like eBay or Craigslist remain completely unbeatable for decades. Even though the UX is bad, people don't like using them, they fail to innovate, no one topples them and it's because of state.

### 中文译文

Julian Shapiro当然。对留存,我最喜欢的策略叫做“积累状态”(building state)。这个概念我从游戏里借来的:你玩得越久,积累的状态就越多,比如护甲、武器、角色皮肤等等。作为玩家,你积累的状态越多,就越不想离开,因为你不想失去自己辛苦攒下的一切。状态越多,你就越能利用这些状态去得到更多,富者愈富。这个思路放到 SaaS 留存里也一样。
这套逻辑其实一直存在,至少和现代资本主义一样久。你看信用卡返现、常旅客计划这类东西:你花钱,攒积分,再把积分换成奖励。用户一旦在这个体系里形成惯性,就更不容易转去竞争对手。软件里这件事同样强大得惊人。也正因为“积累状态”这个概念,eBay、Craigslist 这种产品体验并不算好的公司,几十年都没人打得下来。即便 UX 很差,大家也不爱用,它们也没怎么创新,还是屹立不倒,原因就是状态。

English No English text found
No English transcript text was found for this chapter.
章节 05 / 07

第05节

中文 译稿已完成

Let's walk through some examples. State, kind of like my PLA mega spiel, mega rant there, subdivides into a few categories, but I'll make this one shorter and less boring. The first subcategory of building state is when you're encouraging your users to accrue non-transferrable reputation, meaning they're doing stuff to build reputation on the platform and they cannot take that reputation to them off platform. They're stuck there to get the compounding advantage of that reputation. For example, let's say you've spent years getting 10,000 or more feedback ratings as an eBay seller.

Julian ShapiroYou are not leaving eBay anytime soon, because that reputation's just too valuable. It's producing a huge boost in revenue because of the trust it engenders with buyers on eBay. It probably results in you ranking better in search results for an eBay query. Because you cannot move those 10,000 feedbacks to an eBay competitor, you're not incentivized to go use an eBay competitor. This type of stickiness, this non-transferrable reputation, basically applies to all marketplaces and directories. Same thing on Yelp. You as a restaurant build your reputation on Yelp. The momentum keeps you stuck there. You want to keep getting reviews and hone your reviews.
Airbnb with your properties, Etsy, for you as a seller, Alibaba, all of this stuff are examples of companies that are kind of old now, cannot be top old or haven't been yet. People are like, why? Well, because of this exact reason. This is why those companies pester you so much to leave reviews and provide feedback all the time. They want you to play into this game of in market reputation building. The second state building technique that a startup could adopt, and again, this is all under the guise of how do we maximize retention and build somewhat of a moat, for example, the second way you can do this is you encourage your users to accrue a non-transferable audience.
Basically if you have a startup where you're creating a marketplace or an audience graph, you want to encourage users to build a follower graph within that product that they can take advantage of by pushing their product or their content or their insights too. This is why Twitter... By the way, a big shout out to Substack, which actually allows customers to export emails off of Substack. Substack is not playing that same game, which is better for users and a very nice thing for the ecosystem. But this is why Twitch and Instagram and Twitter are just irreplaceable. I mean, not necessarily. Everything dies over time like Facebook, but they're just so darn hard to topple.
Let's maybe touch one more. I don't want to ramble so much about this. Well, this one's kind of similar. Basically if you spent a lot of time building a social graph in a product, like if I spent the last 10 years trying to remember the names of all my high school friends and elementary school friends and add them one at a time over the years to Facebook, or I've added all my colleagues for the last 20 years onto LinkedIn and I've built a social graph on these products where I've curated and found people, that's really sticky. You're building state in the form of taking time to expand the graph. The graph is a representative of the state, the work you've put in.
You don't want to lose those connections with people. That makes that product extra sticky. This is why social networks in general can be sticky. It's not just the fact that you have your audience there, it's that you've invested time. If Facebook doesn't allow you to export your graph out, then that makes it extra sticky as well, because you don't know how else to talk to old Jimmy from elementary other than Facebook. Anyway, there's actually many more of these examples of building state. I'm going to just stop with that. But the basic concept is what can you encourage users to do within your product that makes them more deeper entrenched in the product, and most apps just completely lack this.

LennyI like that. It's a little bit like the concept of having skin in the game and just building more skin in the game with the product that you're using. One quick question, is there a company that you've seen do this, like add it on, and succeed and increased retention that you've worked with or out there? Just like is there a good example that comes to mind that added this piece?

Julian ShapiroAgain, none of this is really under the context of telling people to add it on after they've decided what they're building. This is all in the DNA of the product you're choosing to build. I'm not sure. I haven't thought of those examples. I'm thinking more so in whose DNA, which company's DNA are they doing this brilliantly? For example, one form of state is... One I did not cover is when you're embedded infrastructure. If you're Twilio, Striper, AWS, it's really hard to move off or segment because it's so much work to redo your code and introduce all this risk to screwing up your code base. People have built patterns around how they work with your API.
A lot of modern API startups automatically capture the stickiness by virtue of being so deeply embedded into a product. Generally speaking, none of this is in the context of like, hey, add it on post hoc, pretty much.

LennyGot it. I like that lens actually through a lot of these things you're talking about is maybe it's less like change your product to make this happen, and it's more idea selection. I know you're also an investor, and so it's a really good lens on how many of these things does this company have that I'm investing in.

Julian ShapiroEarlier I was mentioning why do I write handbooks, I wrote the handbook that PLA and state building come from to cement my diligence criteria for companies I believe might grow super fast and retain customers. You're exactly right. My investor's perspective is if you have a zero cost of acquisition mechanism for customer acquisition, such as PLA, and you can retain them through something like state building, but there are other ways to retain customers, then I lean in harder because I think you'll be more defensible as a company. Actually interesting little side note is you'll often hear retention and stickiness refer to as a moat, right?
But I find this term actually very misleading because very few companies have actual moats. To have a real moat, you're basically exploiting kleptocratic, meaning you're friends with the government and they're creating a literal barrier to entry for your competitors, or you have a scientific moat where you have an actual scientific breakthrough in the fusion energy space, plus protected by patents. Those are real moats. But the way most people use the word moat is wrong. In practice, your "moat" is just your mechanism for retaining users a little bit more than the average company.
I believe state building is one of the best ways to do exactly that. Really it just comes down to what are you doing to help users build state and get more value over time out of the product, not the same level of value over any time period.

LennyAwesome. Shifting a little bit away from growth and into writing, which I know you've spent a lot of time writing about, very meta, and sharing on Twitter and all the ways, you have a handbook where you go into this concept of novelty and a framework for how to be novel and why that's important in writing. I'd love for you to talk about why novelty is important in writing and ideally share your framework for creating something novel that keeps people engaged in reading.

Julian ShapiroSure. This actually goes back to your question about Twitter. What can one do to build an audience on Twitter? It often comes down to writing things that are novel. Novel is what powers click bait in most cases. The other way is via curiosity gap, where you raise a question you don't answer, but the other half is novelty is what gets people to click into a thread and read it. Novelty, I define, as new idea, so something I haven't heard of before, that's also significant, so it's not some trivial fact about Kim Kardashian, and it's something that I wouldn't have easily intuited on my own.
When you have those ingredients, it's new, it's significant, and you wouldn't have easily thought of it on your own, that's when you trigger that dopamine hit reaction, I'm not being scientifically accurate here, but you're going to get that dopamine hit like, "Whoa! That's super cool." The more you have readers pausing going, "Whoa! That was interesting," the more novel your writing is. My whole approach to writing is write something out, and then point out all the points of novelty. I do that by actually having 20 friends read something I've written and highlight the sentences that made them go, "Whoa."
And then I have this visualized map in a given blog post, where are the areas that people go, "That's really interesting," and then I can see all the white space between the interesting parts. I go in and I condense that white space. I chop it down so that the frequency of novelties as high as possible. This is how you get a blog post that just has this phenomenal momentum that gets the read to completion rate to be very high. The question is, what exactly does novelty look like? I've identified about five different categories for it, and this is the backbone of how I write in many cases.
The first category of novelty is what I call counterintuitive information. You tell people something and they go, "Oh wow. I never realized that the world worked that way," or different categories and you tell people counter-narrative information. That's where people respond, "Wow. That's not how I was told the world worked." Whereas counterintuitive novelty is, "That's not how I would've thought the world worked," counter-narrative novelty is, "That's not what I've been told. I've been lied to. Now you're telling me the truth." That also triggers a dopamine hit. Third category of novelty is just pure shock and awe like, "That's crazy. I would've never believed that's true."
For example, there's a volcano that's going to erupt the next 15 years that's going to swallow this whole island. Wow, that's shocking. Holy moly. Next category is what a lot of popular Twitter users do is what I call elegant articulation, where you're taking an idea... Naval does this, Naval on Twitter, the founder of AngelList. He'll say something that's a complicated rich thought and boil it down into a very concise sentence. And then the reader goes, "Wow, that's beautiful. I couldn't have said that any better myself."
That also triggers that dopamine reaction. There's a few more, but the point I want to get at here is all of these are formats for identifying the types of things you could say to get people to go, "Whoa." That's what I think of as novelty.

### 中文译文

Julian Shapiro我们举几个例子来拆。状态这件事,和我前面那段关于 PLA 的长篇大论一样,也可以拆成几个子类,不过这次我尽量讲短一点,别太啰嗦。第一类,是让用户积累“不可转移的声誉”。也就是说,他们在平台上做的事,会持续累积成声誉,而且这份声誉带不走,只能留在平台里吃复利。比如你在 eBay 上卖东西,花了很多年攒到一万多条好评。
那你基本不会轻易离开 eBay,因为这份声誉太值钱了。它会给你带来很大的收入增长,因为 eBay 买家会更信任你;它大概率也会让你在 eBay 的搜索结果里排得更靠前。可你没法把这 1 万条好评搬到别的 eBay 竞品上,所以你也没什么动力跳槽。这样的粘性,这种“声誉带不走”的机制,几乎适用于所有 marketplace 和目录站。Yelp 也是一样:餐厅在 Yelp 上建立口碑,做着做着就被粘住了。你会不断想拿更多评价,也会不断打磨自己的评价页。
Airbnb 上的房源、Etsy 上的卖家、Alibaba 等等,都是这类公司的例子。它们都已经不算新了,但就是很难被替代。为什么?原因就在这儿。也正因为这样,它们才会不停催你去留评价、给反馈,因为它们想让你参与这场“在平台内积累声誉”的游戏。第二种积累状态的方法,也是新创公司可以采用的,而且同样是在思考:我们怎么最大化留存、怎么建立一点护城河。第二种方式,是让用户积累“不可转移的受众”。
所以如果你做的是 marketplace,或者你在做受众图谱(audience graph),你就该鼓励用户在产品里建立自己的关注关系网,然后利用这个关系网去推自己的产品、内容或观点。顺带一提,给 Substack 点个赞:它其实允许用户把邮件列表导出,这点跟很多平台不一样。这个设计对用户更友好,对生态也更健康。但这也就是为什么 Twitch、Instagram、Twitter 这类产品很难替代。当然,它们也不是永远不死,Facebook 也会慢慢衰退,但就是特别难被掀翻。
我再讲一个吧,不想在这点上绕太久。这个例子其实也很像。假设你花了很多时间在某个产品里建立社交图谱,比如我花十年一点点把高中同学、小学同学加到 Facebook 上;或者我把过去二十年的同事都加到了 LinkedIn 上,在这些产品里慢慢筛选、整理出人脉,这就会非常粘。你是在用时间去扩张图谱,而图谱本身就是你投入的状态的体现。
你不想失去这些人际连接,所以这个产品会特别粘。这也是社交网络天然粘人的原因。并不只是因为你的受众在那里,而是因为你投进去的是时间。如果 Facebook 不让你导出你的关系图,它就会更粘,因为你除了 Facebook 之外,也不知道怎么去联系小学时代的老 Jimmy。总之,积累状态的例子还有很多,我就先讲到这里。核心问题很简单:你能不能让用户在你的产品里做一些事,让他们越来越深地嵌入进去?大多数 app 根本没有做到这一点。

Lenny我喜欢这个说法。它有点像“在游戏里有 skin in the game”,就是让你对产品有更多投入。我快速问一个问题:你有没有见过哪个公司真的把这类机制加进去之后,留存明显提升?是你自己合作过的,还是你想到的一个好例子?

Julian Shapiro还是那句话,我不是在说“先把产品做完,再后补这些功能”。这整套思路本来就应该写进你要做的产品 DNA 里。我倒没仔细想过那种“后加上去”的例子。我更想的是:哪个公司在 DNA 里就把这件事做得特别漂亮?比如说,状态的一种形式是……我前面还没讲到的,是“嵌入式基础设施”。如果你是 Twilio、Stripe、AWS 这种公司,想迁走几乎难上加难,因为你得重写代码,还要承担一堆把代码库搞坏的风险。大家已经围绕你的 API 建好了工作方式。
很多现代 API 创业公司,光是因为自己已经深深嵌进了别人的产品里,就天然把粘性做出来了。总之,我说的这些都不是“先决定做什么,再回头硬塞进去”的语境,基本不是。

Lenny明白了。我其实挺喜欢你看这些问题的方式:这可能不是“改产品让它发生”,而更像是“先选对题”。我知道你也是投资人,所以这个视角也很适合拿来判断一家公司到底有没有这些特征。

Julian Shapiro我前面说过为什么写手册——就是为了把 PLA 和 state building 这套东西,固化成我尽调公司时的标准。你说得对。从投资人的角度看,如果一家公司能拿到零边际成本的获客方式,比如 PLA,同时又能靠 state building 之类的方法把用户留住,哪怕它还有别的留存手段,我都会更愿意押重一点,因为这家公司会更有防守性。顺带说一句,留存和粘性常常会被叫做 moat,对吧?
但我觉得这个词其实很误导,因为真正有“护城河”的公司非常少。真正的 moat,要么是你利用了裙带型优势,也就是你和政府关系很好,政府给你筑了一道法律上的进入壁垒;要么是你真的有科学突破,比如聚变能源领域的突破,再加上专利保护。那才叫真正的护城河。可大家平时说的 moat,其实都不对。现实里所谓的 moat,更多只是你让用户比平均水平更难离开的机制。
我觉得积累状态就是做到这一点的最佳方式之一。说到底,就是你到底做了什么,帮助用户积累状态,让他们能随着时间推移从产品里拿到更多价值,而不是在任何一个时间段都拿到同样的价值。

Lenny太棒了。我们稍微从增长转到写作吧。我知道你在写作这件事上花了很多时间,还是挺元的,还会在 Twitter 等地方分享。你有一篇手册专门讲 novelty,以及如何变得更有新意、为什么这很重要。我想请你讲讲,为什么写作里的新意这么重要,以及你用来创造“新意”的框架是什么,怎么让人读下去停不下来。

Julian Shapiro可以。这其实也回到你刚才问的 Twitter 问题。一个人怎么在 Twitter 上建立受众?很多时候靠的就是写出有新意的东西。新意在大多数情况下,都是点击率的发动机。另一半则是好奇缺口:你抛出一个问题但不回答它;而新意则是让人点开 thread、读下去的另一个关键。对我来说,新意指的是“新的想法”——就是我以前没听过的东西,而且它还得有分量,不是那种关于 Kim Kardashian 的无聊小八卦;同时它还得是我自己不会很容易就想到的。
当这几个条件都满足——新的、有分量、而且不是我随便就能想到的——就会触发那种“哇,好酷”的反馈。严格说我不是在做科学定义,但你知道那种多巴胺式的反应。当读者不断停下来想“哇,这很有意思”,你的写作就越有新意。我的写作方法其实很简单:先把东西写出来,然后把里面所有的新意都标出来。
我会让大概 20 个朋友读我写的东西,让他们把那些让他们“哇”一下的句子都标出来。然后我会拿到一张可视化的热区图,看看一篇文章里到底哪里让人觉得有意思,再看这些有意思的地方之间空出来的白区。我会把这些白区压缩掉,把它们删短,让新意出现得尽可能频繁。这样就能做出一篇推进力特别强、读完率很高的文章。问题是,新意到底长什么样?我大概整理出了五类,这也是我很多时候写作的骨架。
第一类新意,我叫它“反直觉信息”。你告诉别人一件事,他们会说:“哇,原来世界是这么运作的。” 另一类则是“反叙事信息”,你告诉人们一些和主流说法相反的东西。前者让人感觉:“原来不是我以为的那样。” 后者则是:“这跟别人告诉我的完全不一样。原来我一直被灌输错了,现在你在告诉我真相。” 这两种都会触发那种多巴胺反馈。第三类就是纯粹的震撼和惊叹,比如“这也太夸张了吧,我以前绝对不相信这是真的。”
比如有一座火山未来 15 年内就要喷发,而且会把整个岛吞掉。哇,这就很震撼。下一类,则是很多受欢迎的 Twitter 用户会用的方法,我叫它“优雅表述”。比如 Naval 会把一个复杂、丰厚的想法,压缩成一句很简洁的话,然后读者会觉得:“哇,太漂亮了,我自己都不可能说得这么好。”
这也会触发同样的反应。类似的类型还有几种,但我想说的是,这些都是帮你识别“哪些话能让人哇一声”的格式。这就是我对 novelty 的理解。

### 中文译文

Julian Shapiro我们举几个例子来拆。状态这件事,和我前面那段关于 PLA 的长篇大论一样,也可以拆成几个子类,不过这次我尽量讲短一点,别太啰嗦。第一类,是让用户积累“不可转移的声誉”。也就是说,他们在平台上做的事,会持续累积成声誉,而且这份声誉带不走,只能留在平台里吃复利。比如你在 eBay 上卖东西,花了很多年攒到一万多条好评。
那你基本不会轻易离开 eBay,因为这份声誉太值钱了。它会给你带来很大的收入增长,因为 eBay 买家会更信任你;它大概率也会让你在 eBay 的搜索结果里排得更靠前。可你没法把这 1 万条好评搬到别的 eBay 竞品上,所以你也没什么动力跳槽。这样的粘性,这种“声誉带不走”的机制,几乎适用于所有 marketplace 和目录站。Yelp 也是一样:餐厅在 Yelp 上建立口碑,做着做着就被粘住了。你会不断想拿更多评价,也会不断打磨自己的评价页。
Airbnb 上的房源、Etsy 上的卖家、Alibaba 等等,都是这类公司的例子。它们都已经不算新了,但就是很难被替代。为什么?原因就在这儿。也正因为这样,它们才会不停催你去留评价、给反馈,因为它们想让你参与这场“在平台内积累声誉”的游戏。第二种积累状态的方法,也是新创公司可以采用的,而且同样是在思考:我们怎么最大化留存、怎么建立一点护城河。第二种方式,是让用户积累“不可转移的受众”。
所以如果你做的是 marketplace,或者你在做受众图谱(audience graph),你就该鼓励用户在产品里建立自己的关注关系网,然后利用这个关系网去推自己的产品、内容或观点。顺带一提,给 Substack 点个赞:它其实允许用户把邮件列表导出,这点跟很多平台不一样。这个设计对用户更友好,对生态也更健康。但这也就是为什么 Twitch、Instagram、Twitter 这类产品很难替代。当然,它们也不是永远不死,Facebook 也会慢慢衰退,但就是特别难被掀翻。
我再讲一个吧,不想在这点上绕太久。这个例子其实也很像。假设你花了很多时间在某个产品里建立社交图谱,比如我花十年一点点把高中同学、小学同学加到 Facebook 上;或者我把过去二十年的同事都加到了 LinkedIn 上,在这些产品里慢慢筛选、整理出人脉,这就会非常粘。你是在用时间去扩张图谱,而图谱本身就是你投入的状态的体现。
你不想失去这些人际连接,所以这个产品会特别粘。这也是社交网络天然粘人的原因。并不只是因为你的受众在那里,而是因为你投进去的是时间。如果 Facebook 不让你导出你的关系图,它就会更粘,因为你除了 Facebook 之外,也不知道怎么去联系小学时代的老 Jimmy。总之,积累状态的例子还有很多,我就先讲到这里。核心问题很简单:你能不能让用户在你的产品里做一些事,让他们越来越深地嵌入进去?大多数 app 根本没有做到这一点。

Lenny我喜欢这个说法。它有点像“在游戏里有 skin in the game”,就是让你对产品有更多投入。我快速问一个问题:你有没有见过哪个公司真的把这类机制加进去之后,留存明显提升?是你自己合作过的,还是你想到的一个好例子?

Julian Shapiro还是那句话,我不是在说“先把产品做完,再后补这些功能”。这整套思路本来就应该写进你要做的产品 DNA 里。我倒没仔细想过那种“后加上去”的例子。我更想的是:哪个公司在 DNA 里就把这件事做得特别漂亮?比如说,状态的一种形式是……我前面还没讲到的,是“嵌入式基础设施”。如果你是 Twilio、Stripe、AWS 这种公司,想迁走几乎难上加难,因为你得重写代码,还要承担一堆把代码库搞坏的风险。大家已经围绕你的 API 建好了工作方式。
很多现代 API 创业公司,光是因为自己已经深深嵌进了别人的产品里,就天然把粘性做出来了。总之,我说的这些都不是“先决定做什么,再回头硬塞进去”的语境,基本不是。

Lenny明白了。我其实挺喜欢你看这些问题的方式:这可能不是“改产品让它发生”,而更像是“先选对题”。我知道你也是投资人,所以这个视角也很适合拿来判断一家公司到底有没有这些特征。

Julian Shapiro我前面说过为什么写手册——就是为了把 PLA 和 state building 这套东西,固化成我尽调公司时的标准。你说得对。从投资人的角度看,如果一家公司能拿到零边际成本的获客方式,比如 PLA,同时又能靠 state building 之类的方法把用户留住,哪怕它还有别的留存手段,我都会更愿意押重一点,因为这家公司会更有防守性。顺带说一句,留存和粘性常常会被叫做 moat,对吧?
但我觉得这个词其实很误导,因为真正有“护城河”的公司非常少。真正的 moat,要么是你利用了裙带型优势,也就是你和政府关系很好,政府给你筑了一道法律上的进入壁垒;要么是你真的有科学突破,比如聚变能源领域的突破,再加上专利保护。那才叫真正的护城河。可大家平时说的 moat,其实都不对。现实里所谓的 moat,更多只是你让用户比平均水平更难离开的机制。
我觉得积累状态就是做到这一点的最佳方式之一。说到底,就是你到底做了什么,帮助用户积累状态,让他们能随着时间推移从产品里拿到更多价值,而不是在任何一个时间段都拿到同样的价值。

Lenny太棒了。我们稍微从增长转到写作吧。我知道你在写作这件事上花了很多时间,还是挺元的,还会在 Twitter 等地方分享。你有一篇手册专门讲 novelty,以及如何变得更有新意、为什么这很重要。我想请你讲讲,为什么写作里的新意这么重要,以及你用来创造“新意”的框架是什么,怎么让人读下去停不下来。

Julian Shapiro可以。这其实也回到你刚才问的 Twitter 问题。一个人怎么在 Twitter 上建立受众?很多时候靠的就是写出有新意的东西。新意在大多数情况下,都是点击率的发动机。另一半则是好奇缺口:你抛出一个问题但不回答它;而新意则是让人点开 thread、读下去的另一个关键。对我来说,新意指的是“新的想法”——就是我以前没听过的东西,而且它还得有分量,不是那种关于 Kim Kardashian 的无聊小八卦;同时它还得是我自己不会很容易就想到的。
当这几个条件都满足——新的、有分量、而且不是我随便就能想到的——就会触发那种“哇,好酷”的反馈。严格说我不是在做科学定义,但你知道那种多巴胺式的反应。当读者不断停下来想“哇,这很有意思”,你的写作就越有新意。我的写作方法其实很简单:先把东西写出来,然后把里面所有的新意都标出来。
我会让大概 20 个朋友读我写的东西,让他们把那些让他们“哇”一下的句子都标出来。然后我会拿到一张可视化的热区图,看看一篇文章里到底哪里让人觉得有意思,再看这些有意思的地方之间空出来的白区。我会把这些白区压缩掉,把它们删短,让新意出现得尽可能频繁。这样就能做出一篇推进力特别强、读完率很高的文章。问题是,新意到底长什么样?我大概整理出了五类,这也是我很多时候写作的骨架。
第一类新意,我叫它“反直觉信息”。你告诉别人一件事,他们会说:“哇,原来世界是这么运作的。” 另一类则是“反叙事信息”,你告诉人们一些和主流说法相反的东西。前者让人感觉:“原来不是我以为的那样。” 后者则是:“这跟别人告诉我的完全不一样。原来我一直被灌输错了,现在你在告诉我真相。” 这两种都会触发那种多巴胺反馈。第三类就是纯粹的震撼和惊叹,比如“这也太夸张了吧,我以前绝对不相信这是真的。”
比如有一座火山未来 15 年内就要喷发,而且会把整个岛吞掉。哇,这就很震撼。下一类,则是很多受欢迎的 Twitter 用户会用的方法,我叫它“优雅表述”。比如 Naval 会把一个复杂、丰厚的想法,压缩成一句很简洁的话,然后读者会觉得:“哇,太漂亮了,我自己都不可能说得这么好。”
这也会触发同样的反应。类似的类型还有几种,但我想说的是,这些都是帮你识别“哪些话能让人哇一声”的格式。这就是我对 novelty 的理解。

English No English text found
No English transcript text was found for this chapter.
章节 06 / 07

第06节

中文 译稿已完成

### 中文译文
很多时候,我判断自己写出来的东西会不会有意思,方法很简单,就是我自己重新读一遍,感受第一次读到它时那种感觉。很多时候,如果我会想“哇,这真的很好,也真的很让人兴奋”,我就学会了信任这种感觉,不管它从哪儿来。判断一段内容有没有意思,另一个办法就是看你自己是不是兴奋、是不是在读的时候也被吸引。只不过这种感觉在你读了十遍、改了又改之后会慢慢淡掉,但这只是我自己学到的一点小技巧:当你真的对正在写的东西感到兴奋时,要相信自己的直觉。

Julian Shapiro我同意。所以我才会告诉大家:当你第一次碰到一个对你来说很新鲜的东西时,就给它打个分,比如 0 到 5 分,记录一下你第一次听到它时觉得它有多新鲜。你要把这种新鲜感记下来,因为正如你说的 Lenny,它会随着时间推移慢慢褪色。等你两年后把它从灵感库里翻出来写成一篇文章时,你会想:“对,这东西一定会把别人震住。” 即使它今天已经没那么震住我了。

Lenny这个建议很好。

Julian Shapiro顺着你说的,获取新想法的方式其实就是去生活,然后每次遇到让你感兴趣、让你惊讶的东西就记下来;或者每次遇到那种让你忍不住想“这显然不对”的东西也记下来。也就是说,你发现了别人说的一个你知道是假的说法,然后你要准备告诉大家世界真实的运作方式。举个新意的例子……我现在随手翻着 Twitter。这里有一条我发过的推文:“对成年人来说,读很多书是最被社会接受的虚荣指标。” 我一点都不给“每年读 100 本书”打高分,但我会给那些高效学习、做出有意思东西的人很高的评价。
这条推文就是我在用新意的例子。关键的新意就在于我说:“对成年人来说,读很多书是最被社会接受的虚荣指标。” 这就是反叙事的新意,因为主流叙事是:我认识的所有聪明人都读很多书,他们手里总拿着一本书,一个月读五本,等等。我在说,不,读了多少本书本身就是个虚荣指标。这是反叙事。它会让人产生多巴胺反应,忍不住想继续看我后面要说什么,所以那条推文的互动量很高。
再给你一个例子,看看你能不能找出里面的新意。新推文是:“这个世界不是由特别优秀的人在运转的。这就是冒名顶替综合症背后隐藏的原因。我们误以为冒名顶替综合症是因为自信太低或者焦虑太强。不,它是因为你没有接受一个事实:你身边那些世界级的新同事并没有那么特别。关键只是纪律。” 这里真正有新意的那句话是“这个世界不是由特别优秀的人在运转的”,而这里用的是反直觉的新意。你的直觉会觉得,世界应该是由最顶尖的人推动的,很多专家坐在那个位置是有原因的。
我说的是,大多数情况下并不是这样。总之,这些就是新意的几个例子。当然,这些推文之所以火起来,很大程度上就是因为这个原因。人们喜欢被打开眼界。如果他们觉得你终于说出了真相,就会下意识地转推你,认同你的世界观,在某种意义上支持你。

Lenny这些我会放到节目说明里。顺便说一句,我很喜欢你读自己推文时的那个声音。

Julian Shapiro我现在在模仿……《星际迷航》里那个很棒、会给孩子们读书的人是谁来着?

Lenny哦,对,LeVar Burton,《Reading Rainbow》。

Julian Shapiro对,就是这个。我现在的声音就是那个感觉。

LennyJulian Shapiro,新的 LeVar Burton。我知道你过一会儿就得走了。我们还有两个话题。要不我先把两个话题都抛出来,然后你愿意展开多少就展开多少,怎么样?

Julian Shapiro当然。

Lenny好。我们第四个想聊的话题是“选题”,很元,也就是到底写什么。你对什么值得写、怎么判断这个题目、背后的框架都有很多很棒的建议。第五个想聊的是你叫做“Creativity Faucet”的东西,也就是怎么更有创造力。接下来我把舞台交给你。

Julian Shapiro更具体一点说,我每次写东西,第一件事都是先搞清楚我的目标是什么。举几个我会在坐下来写之前先定好的目标:第一,我想打开别人的眼界,证明现状是错的;第二,我想把大家都在想、但没人说出来的东西讲清楚,想把噪音切开。第三,我可能想把自己研究和实验里的一些原创洞察贡献出来,所以才有那些手册。还有一种目标,就是讲一个有悬念、有情绪的故事,顺便传递一个道理。
这些都是非常明确的目标,能给我一个坐标。我判断一篇文章什么时候算写完了,就是我读完之后能说:“我已经实现了这个目标。” 因为很多人写着写着不知道什么时候该停,最后只是觉得“好像差不多了,那就来个结尾吧”。有了目标,你就知道到底该不该停。但问题是,你怎么保证自己有动力把这个目标走完?比如一个目标是通过证明现状是错的来打开别人的眼界。要完成这件事,需要很多工作,而你必须有动力去做。
所以我会把一个我选定的目标,配上一个动机。比如有些动机会是:写这篇东西能不能把我憋了很久的话说出来?或者它能不能帮我解决一个一直没解决、老在脑子里转的问题,让我通过这篇文章去探索并找到答案?又或者,是不是我对某个话题特别着迷,我希望别的人也能跟我一起 geek out?这些动机都很强,我会把它们和目标配在一起,确保自己能把这篇东西写完。
顺带说一句,我刚刚整场聊到的东西,不管是新意、选题、PLA 还是积累状态,我在 Julian.com 上都有大量例子。所以我不打算把每一个都展开讲一遍。

Lenny对,这些我们都会放链接。

Julian Shapiro当然。

Lenny太好了。

Julian Shapiro再反过来说,我想指出的是,整体写作质量……还是那句话,这些都只是我个人摸索出来的经验,不是铁律。没有唯一正确的写法,就像画画也没有唯一正确的画法。这些只是我总结出来的一些框架,而我在用它们的时候,更容易得到我定义里的成功。不过有一点我要强调,和我今天讲的所有东西都紧密相关,那就是我判断一篇文字好不好的公式:新意乘以共鸣。写作质量 = 新意 × 共鸣。
新意,就是我们刚刚讲的那些能让你产生多巴胺反应的东西:它在打开你的眼界,告诉你世界真实怎么运作,震一下你,再把东西优雅地综合起来。而共鸣,意思是:就算我讲了全世界最有新意的东西,如果我没有把它包装成一种真正能落到你脑子里、能让你记住的形式,那它其实还是没那么有效的新意,更像是 trivia,一些干巴巴的冷知识。只有加上共鸣,新意才会变成一篇真正好看的文章。共鸣的关键,就是例子、类比、隐喻、故事这些东西。
说到底,写作质量就是新意乘以你把新意留在别人脑子里的讲故事能力。我的写作流程通常是:第一稿只盯着找新意,也就是找出什么东西真正有意思。第二稿再回来,通过加故事、加类比、加例子,把共鸣补上。基本就是这么一个流程。

Lenny这个我很喜欢。顺便补一句,我自己学到的一点是:如果你的内容真的有用,那它不一定非得写得很漂亮。很多人不敢写,是因为他们觉得自己必须写得特别好,必须是很厉害的写作者。我的经验是,先够用就行,写得越多就会越好。最重要的是内容要有价值、有意思,我觉得你说的就是新意。我只是想提醒大家,不要被吓跑,觉得“天啊,我还得会写故事、会写隐喻、会写很美的文字”。一开始其实不用到那个程度,但它确实会帮很大忙。

Julian Shapiro我同意。其实别人对我写作最大的批评就是:太干了,太偏新意了,缺少共鸣。但我这么做是有意的,因为很多时候人们会在共鸣上过度投入,结果把文章写得特别臃肿。作为读者,我自己喜欢读那种超级简洁、像说明手册一样的东西。我想要看的,通常是个人故事、人生经历、别人想分享给我的人生课,或者真正的小说。各有各的口味。你说得完全对。做你自己会想读的东西,这是黄金法则。

Lenny太好了,也别害怕。别觉得如果你想开始写,门槛高得吓人。
我一直追求的是,它必须可执行、必须有用。就是读者今天看完后,能马上拿去做点什么,而不是一堆理论、感想和哲学。像是“哦,这里有个你今天就能去做的动作”。

English No English text found
No English transcript text was found for this chapter.
章节 07 / 07

第07节

中文 译稿已完成

### 中文译文

Lenny我很愿意回答这个,但我也知道你很快就得走了。我在想,要不我们干脆把第五个话题留到下一期再聊?这是一个方案。当然,如果你想现在就聊,也可以。

Julian Shapiro当然,随你。你想聊什么都行,朋友。如果你想让我继续讲下一个话题,我也很乐意。完全看你。现在听的人大概都在想:“天啊,Julian 已经这样滔滔不绝讲了一个小时。” 我自己也意识到,我们刚刚其实不算在真正对话。现在我有点不好意思,因为我太沉浸在分享概念里了,没有好好对话。

Lenny这在我的播客里非常正常,不用紧张。

Julian Shapiro那就好。其实你最好把这些都留着,让大家知道我会不好意思。我不删任何东西。刚才最后一个话题是什么来着?提醒我一下。

Lenny我只是说,我听到很多听众最喜欢这个播客的一点,就是我话不多。他们喜欢我把大部分时间留给嘉宾,因为很多播客都是主持人觉得自己什么都懂,然后就一直说、一直说、一直说。

Julian Shapiro哦,懂了。问题是你真的很厉害。你是一个真正有用、很棒的人,我们都想听你的观点。

Lenny最后一个话题是什么来着?

Julian Shapiro最后一个话题是 Creativity Faucet。我们也可以留到下次再聊,如果你想现在碰一下,也可以。

Lenny好啊,那就聊聊。

Julian Shapiro这个版本讲短一点:我是在 John Mayer、Ed Sheeran、Neil Gaiman 这三个世界上最高产的创作者身上反复看到同一个方法。Ed Sheeran 可能还会和别的制作人合作,但这三个人的共同点是,他们都非常独立,很多爆款内容都是靠自己做出来的。我当时就很好奇,这三个人到底在做什么,是大多数人没在做的?Taylor Swift 其实也是。后来我真的找到了答案:他们持续产出高质量内容的方法到底是什么。这个发现的过程也挺有意思。
我当时看了 Neil Gaiman 在 MasterClass 上讲自己怎么写小说;同一年,我又看了 Ed Sheeran 的纪录片,他讲自己怎么写歌。结果两个人的方法一模一样。后来一年后,我又在 Twitter 上发过一个 John Mayer 的视频,他讲自己的创作流程,也完全一样。我当时就想,靠,这就是答案。他们没给这套方法起名字,所以我就把它叫做 Creativity Faucet。简单说,他们会把创造力想成一根堵住的水管。前面一大段都是废水,而这些废水必须先排掉,后面清水才能流出来。
因为你的创造力水管,或者说 Creativity Faucet,只有一个水龙头,所以在你先把废水倒空之前,没有任何捷径能直接到达那种清澈、好点子的状态。如果把这个思路应用到创作里,那么每次写作一开始,你就要把脑子里冒出来的坏点子全写下来。你不要因为这些点子差就自我批评、就抗拒它们。相反,你得把坏点子看成进展,因为只要这些坏点子被你倒空了,更好的点子才会开始出现。关键在于:为什么好点子会在坏点子被清空之后才来?因为当你经历了一堆坏点子后,你的大脑会开始自动识别,到底是哪些元素在导致“坏”。
然后你就会更擅长避开这些坏元素,也会更擅长靠直觉去识别那些新鲜点子。大多数创作者都在抵抗自己的坏点子。如果你坐下来,在空白文档里记了几条,然后因为没看到金子就直接走人,那你其实根本没完成创作过程。你是不可能凭那样就写出金子的。Neil 和 Ed 这些人并不是超人。他们做的事情很简单:每一次创作时,他们都给自己留足时间,不管要多久,哪怕一个小时,也要把所有坏点子先清空。
然后他们不会担心好点子会不会从坏点子后面冒出来,因为他们知道接下来的过程是:先从一个很弱的模仿开始,识别这份模仿到底弱在哪里,再一轮一轮迭代,直到它终于变成原创。你必须把自己投进这个过程里。

Lenny这个我太喜欢了。我感觉自己做得还不够。我每次写东西的时候,通常都是“好,咱们把它写得很厉害”。这确实是个很好的提醒,就是先把东西倒出来。它跟“糟糕的第一稿”这个概念也很像:先写,写出来肯定很差,然后再改。你问过我写作流程是什么,我其实大多数时候就是反复打磨一千遍。我会先草拟一版,然后回头看、改好一点,再看、再改一点,就这样改上好多天,直到它不再差。

Julian Shapiro我很喜欢这点。我一直也是这么做的,直到有一天我突然想:“我得给这个过程起个方法了。” 总之,跟你聊天很开心。你是个很棒的人。抱歉刚刚对所有听众讲得这么快、这么满。你想删什么都可以,整段删掉我也无所谓。你觉得哪些有意思,就留哪些。最后我们就简单道个别,完事。

Lenny这收尾真是有点反高潮。好吧,兄弟,大家能去哪里找到你?又怎么对你最有帮助?

Julian Shapiro当然。你可以去 Julian.com,上面什么都有:Twitter、手册,以及其他好东西。就这样。我希望大家能觉得那些手册有用。

Lenny太棒了,Julian。我知道你平时上播客不多,我真的很感谢你来。今天太棒了,我很期待把这一期发出去。

Julian Shapiro兄弟,真的很开心。我觉得你特别棒,这也是我愿意来做这个播客的原因。真的很荣幸,伙计。祝你今天愉快。

Lenny谢谢你,兄弟。也非常感谢大家收听。如果你觉得这期有价值,可以在 Apple Podcast、Spotify,或者你喜欢的任何播客客户端订阅我们。另外也欢迎你给节目打个分或留个评论,这真的很有助于其他听众发现这个播客。你也可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到之前所有节目,或者了解更多。我们下期见。

Julian ShapiroThen it becomes way better at avoiding those bad elements and you become way better at pattern matching the novel ideas with way greater intuition. Most creators are resisting their bad ideas. If you sat down, scribbled a few thoughts in a blank document, and just walked away because you weren't struck with gold, then you never actually finished the creative process. There's no way you would've come up with gold. Like Neil and Ed, for example, they know they're not superhuman. What they're doing is in every creative session, they simply have the discipline to allot time no matter how long it takes, it could be an hour, to empty all of the bad ideas.
And then they're not worried about whether good ideas will come after the bad ones because they know the following process. You start with a weak imitation. You identify what makes your invitation weak, and then you iterate the imitation until it's finally original. And that is the process you have to just throw yourself into.

LennyI love that. I feel like I don't do that enough. I feel like when I get to writing, I'm just like, "Okay, let's make this awesome." This is a really good reminder just to get stuff out. It connects to the concept of the shitty first draft. Just write. It'll be bad. And then you edit. You asked me this question, what my process is for writing, and most of it is just refining like a thousand times. I just kind of take a first pass and then I look at it, make it better, look at it, make it better, and just kind of keep editing for days and days and days until it's not bad.

Julian ShapiroI love that. That's what I've always done, until one day I was like, "I need a process here." Anyway dude, pleasure chatting. You're a gent. Sorry to all the listeners for rambling so much at a high pace. Cut anything you want. You can cut all of that. I don't care. Whatever you find interesting, go with. We're just going to have this final goodbye and that's it.

LennyThat was very anti-climactic. Cool, man. Where can folks find you online and how can listeners be useful to you?

Julian ShapiroSure. You can go to Julian.com. It has everything, Twitter, handbooks, all that good stuff. And that's it. I hope you guys find the handbooks useful.

LennyAmazing, Julian. I know you don't do a lot of podcasts. I really appreciate you being here. This was awesome. I'm excited to get this out.

Julian ShapiroDude, truly my pleasure. I think you're awesome and you're why I'm doing the podcast. Really my pleasure, man. Have a great day.

LennyThanks, man. Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. Also, please consider giving us a rating or leaving a review as that really helps other listeners find the podcast. You can find all past episodes or learn more about the show at lennyspodcast.com. See you in the next episode.

English No English text found
No English transcript text was found for this chapter.