'“Dumbest idea I’ve heard” to $100M ARR: Inside the rise of Gamma | Grant Lee

> 当前版本已完成全部中文回填。

Grant LeeI'm in my third pitch in, I get to the very end of the pitch, feeling pretty good about myself. The investor pauses a little bit, and then just says, "That has to be the worst pitch, worst idea I have ever heard. Not only are you trying to go against incumbents, you're going against incumbents that have massive distribution. You are never going to succeed."

Lenny RachitskyYou guys are at over 100 million ARR now, worth over $2 billion. One of the most interesting ways you guys grew early on was influencer marketing.

Grant LeeAll the initial influencers, I onboarded manually myself. I would jump on a call with each one of them so that they understood what Gamma represented, how to use the product. You want to be able to have them tell you story but in their voice. I think a lot of people think influencer marketing and they'll think these big trendy creators, people that have a million followers. This is the wrong approach. You basically give them a script to read, immediately feels like an ad. That product is not connected really to them in any way. You're much better doing the hard thing, which is hard to scale, finding the thousands of micro influencers that have an audience where your product maybe is actually useful. People really trust what they say. That ends up becoming this wildfire that can spread really, really fast.

Lenny RachitskySomething you talk about it, there is actually a lot of ways to think experimentally, even in the early stages.

Grant LeeWe would have an idea in the morning, come up with some sort of functional prototype, recruit a bunch of people that are legitimately good prospective users, but have zero skin in the game, ship fast so people can start playing with it. In the afternoon, we're already running pretty full scale experiment. You start actually hearing other people describe their usage of the product. We can also watch them struggle. By the evening or by the next day. We can actually go through all of it together and say, okay, we're going back and we have to fix this. This is not usable and we've done that for everything.

Lenny RachitskyToday my guest is Grant Lee, CEO and co-founder of Gamma. This is a really unique and inspiring, and very tactically useful conversation because Grant is building something that is essentially the dream for most founders. A massive AI startup that's profitable, and has been for a long time, that didn't raise a lot of money for a long time. And as a small team, it's just around 30 people, all who can fit in a small restaurant serving over 50 million users globally.

If you're not familiar with Gamma, they're an AI powered presentation and website design tool. They just hit 100 million ARR in just over two years. They're valued at over $2 billion. And unlike a lot of the fast growing AI startups that you hear about, they're growing profitably and sustainably, and in a category that most people did not believe had a huge business opportunity. As you'll hear in the conversation, one investor told Grant, this is the dumbest idea that he has ever heard.
In this conversation, Grant shares the very counter-intuitive lessons that he's learned, finding product market fit, how he knew they had product market fit, the specific tactics that helped them grow, including a deep dive into influencer marketing, which blew my mind. Also how they figured out their price, his thoughts on building a GPT wrapper company that is durable, a ton of hiring advice, and so much more. This could honestly have been another two hours of conversation. I suspect we'll do another follow-up conversation next year.
My podcasts guest and I love talking about craft and taste and agency and product market fit. You know what we don't love talking? About SOC 2. That's where Vanta comes in. Vanta helps companies of all sizes get complying fast and stay that way with industry-leading AI automation and continuous monitoring. Whether you're a startup tackling your first SOC 2 or ISO 27001, or an enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta's trust management platform makes it quicker, easier, and more scalable. Vanta also helps you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster so that you can win bigger deals sooner. The result, according to a recent IDC study, Vanta customers slashed over $500,000 a year and are three times more productive. Establishing trust isn't optional. Vanta makes it automatic. Get $1,000 off at vanta.com/lenny.

Grant LeeLenny, it's so great to be here. Thank you for having me.

Lenny RachitskyI see your face all the time in my LinkedIn feed. I don't know if you know this is a thing. On these JPMorgan Chase ads. I'm so curious if other people see this or if it's just me. Did you know this was a thing?

Grant LeeI think it's maybe once a day now I get a text message and just no message. It's just a screenshot or an image of me doing something in San Francisco on one of these ads that we're seeing. And so yeah, kind of embarrassing, but also we're happy customers of JPMorgan Chase, so trying to represent.

Lenny RachitskyOh my God, I hope you love them. Because it's always you. There's no one else. It's like Grant.

Grant LeeI know. Can I talk to you swap somebody out. I mean that'd be great. I'm totally fine with that.

Lenny RachitskyOkay, so to get serious, the reason I'm really excited to have you here is, unlike a lot of super fast growing AI startups, you are both growing like crazy, you are growing very profitably. We're going to talk about this. You did not raise a ton of money when you started. You waited a long time to raise a bunch of money. You also built a business in a category that I think most people never imagined there was this big of an opportunity. And you're basically, you've achieved the dream of a lot of founders these days, especially people building AI startups.

So my goal with this conversation is essentially do an anthropological study of a really successful AI startup. Talk about how you found product market fit, how you grew, all the lessons you've learned along the journey. And I'm going to break this conversation up kind of along the different milestones of the journey. Before we get into the first piece, is there anything that you think is important for people to hear broadly about the story of Gamma?

Grant LeeYeah. Maybe I'll just start with a quick story if that's okay. And it's really just the founding story. So we started the company back in 2020. This is peak pandemic. And even fundraising was just so different. So all of the fundraising was done over Zoom. You were kind of sitting in these Zoom meetings trying to pitch. Many investors you never met in person. So just a different era. And so for us, we're first time founders. I was actually living in London at the time, and so different time zone. I had to do all of my pitches at night. And I have two little kids, so wait for them to go to bed. 8:00 PM. We had a pretty modest flat, so nothing big. I would basically find this little corner between the kitchenette and the laundry room to kind of set up shot, far enough from the kids so they wouldn't be woken up.

In between 8:00 PM and like 2:00 AM, I'm just pitching. Trying my best. I had the fake Zoom background so people didn't know where I was, and just pitching. And so really the first day, I'm in my third pitch in, trying to tell the story of Gamma, obviously just starting to get the hang of the pitch. And I get to the very end of the pitch feeling pretty good about myself. And the investor pauses a little bit, and then just says, "That has to be the worst pitch, worst idea I have ever heard. Not only are you trying to go against incumbents, you're going against incumbents that have massive distribution. You are never going to succeed."
And so in my head, I'm already kind of shell shocked and thinking what's my rebuttal? And before I could even respond, he hangs up. And so I'm there sitting there thinking about it. And before I could really get down on myself because I had to prepare for the next pitch, I just internalize this feeling that maybe he's right. Maybe something about what he's saying is actually correct. And so for me, I started thinking about, if we're going to succeed in this category, we're going to really have to think about growth from the very beginning. This category is going to be really, really hard to break into.
And so we really kind of made this sort of promise to ourselves, that as we continue to build, growth was going to be critically important. And so my thing to your audience is that I don't come from a growth background. So if I can learn growth, anybody can learn growth. And I think especially in this sort of market, hyper competitive, oftentimes very crowded, it's going to be essential.

Lenny RachitskyThat is such a fun story. Oh my god. How bad must this investor feel at this point. We won't name names. Just to share some stats, I know this is going to be by the time this launches, this will be out, but you guys are at over 100 million ARR now, worth over $2 billion. A business that, again, most people did not think was going to work in this category.

Grant LeeYeah, thank you. Yeah, we feel super proud to have accomplished that. And again, yeah, I'm excited to share some of the growth tactics and things that worked for us because I think hopefully it'll help others kind of on their journey as well.

Lenny RachitskyOkay. So let's dive into it. Let's talk about product market fit. Tell us the story of just how you found product market fit, and how you knew you found product market fit.

Grant LeeYeah. I'll start by telling kind of the moment where we thought we maybe had product market fit. And I think a lot of founders ask themselves, do we have it or are we not? And I think there's often a sort of temptation to kind of almost fool yourself into thinking you have it. And so we sort of did our first public beta launch, this is back in August of 2022. We launched on Product Hunt, and felt really good. We had what we felt like was a great launch, ended up winning product of the day, product of the week, product of the month. And it was like, wow, I think we have something here.

And then we'd look at signups, and you'd get that initial spike in signups, and then they sort of flatten out. We were still getting new users every day, but it was clear we didn't have strong word of mouth. There wasn't strong organic virality. And so if we just kind of played things out, we knew that the product wasn't going to grow on its own. Something was missing there. We didn't have that strong word of mouth so that the product could just continue growing.
And so we really asked ourselves, okay, what do we need to change? And the answer is we need to fundamentally change everything. It for us almost became this sort of bet the company sort of moment. Because at that point we were running low on runway. We knew we needed to make progress and we didn't really know what could be done. And so we got everyone together. At this point, the team was just over 12 people. And we said, okay, it's going to be all hands on deck.
We are going to do everything we possibly can to make the first 30 seconds of the product feel magical. The moment you land into the product, it has to be great, and it has to be so great that someone that goes through that onboarding is going to tell all their friends. And if we can get that right, then maybe we have a chance at actually doing something in this space. And so we spent three, four months actually after the product launch, we felt great, but we knew we had to go back to the drawing board.
We spent the next three, four months actually revamping the entire onboarding experience. And of course, this is also where AI for us kind of played a big role. We actually rebuilt it so that AI was part of the actual onboarding. So every single new user would experience this sort of magic in the first 30 seconds. And so we relaunched, this is end of March 2023. And all of a sudden, we'd go from a few hundred signups a day to now first day it was like a couple thousand, and then the next day would be like 5,000 signups, and then 10,000 signups a day, and then 20,000 signups a day.
And then it just kept going up. And we weren't doing any sort of marketing, no advertising. It was all sort of organic word of mouth virality of the product, people using the product and sharing it with others, where we for the first time really felt this pull. We didn't have to do anything. Product was just growing. And it was just such a distinct difference between that feeling and coming out of the Product Hunt launch where we could have fooled ourselves into thinking we have product market fit. I think the temptation would've been, hey, let's just spend more on ads or spend more on marketing. Because we'll just fuel the top of the funnel and everything else will work itself out.
I think that would've been a trap. I think that would've led us down to this path of trying to brute force our way into product market fit. And it would just always be sort of a fleeting sort of destination. We would never actually arrive. And so I think we made the tough call, the right call. It was a sort of bet the company moment, and I think on the other side it just felt so different.

Lenny RachitskyGrant, this is exactly what I wanted this conversation to be. I'm so excited. I have so many questions I have to follow up on the stuff you shared before we even get to the rest of the journey. So one is essentially what you're describing is product market fit to you was when organic growth started to really take off, and it was just growing through word of mouth. You weren't doing much because it was so awesome, people were telling their friends about it. Is there anything more there that might be helpful for people to share just to hear about just like, okay, here's what it actually looks like?

Grant LeeYeah, I mean my one piece of advice is when you're early on, your mindset should almost be like you're trying to create a word of mouth machine. If you can get that part right, everything else becomes significantly easier. And if you have any, and I think this applies to both prosumer, B2C, as well as even B2B products, if you have a B2B product, even if you're not telling all of your friends, you should be telling colleagues where that product is relevant. You should probably be telling former coworkers where, hey, you've discovered something like, oh, I wish we had this in our prior lives, and that should even be magical.

And then you should see that in all the leads that are coming through or people coming through through your prospects and your existing customers. If you're not seeing a healthy chunk of those leads come through that way, I would go back. I'm like, why? Why is that not happening? Because again, that's the massive tailwind you need where every single thing you do on top of that, all the marketing, all the sales, all the advertising, you're just going to have it becomes way, way easier.

Lenny RachitskyHow much of this was, you described it as a word of mouth machine, how much of this was word of mouth loops and virality features versus just the product itself? One was awesome and two is kind of innately shareable because it's presentations people share with each other.

Grant LeeYeah, totally. I think for us, we do benefit from being in a category where, by nature of it, if you like Gamma, you're sharing it, presenting it to others. So I think for us it's a combination of both. And ideally, you have other ways where word of mouth or organic virality can happen in your product. So by nature of usage, like it's being shared.

We basically had an internal mantra that, we go back to the first 30 seconds, we want it to be dead simple for someone to create content, we want to be dead simple for them to share it. And everything we did for that first 30 seconds, or call it the first few minutes, is remove friction so that they can do both of those things. Create and share. And I think other people, when you look at your own product, you think about, okay, what is it about my product and how it gets used? Can you remove friction such that it can actually spread, and even if it's locally within an organization or within a workspace, just be able to enable that as much as you possibly can.

Lenny RachitskyThe other really profound point you're making here is the story of you won product of the day on Product Hunt, which alone is so hard. So many people try to win and don't. Most people don't. I've tried to help companies win, and it's a really hard thing to achieve. And then you won product of the week and product of the month, and still you're like, no, this isn't working. Most people that achieve that are like, no, we got this, and they would not have to bet the company. There wouldn't be a feeling that we have to rethink everything. What is it there that you're just like, no, this isn't going to work, as much as exciting as this is, this isn't it?

Grant LeeYeah, I mean part of being a founder is being as self-aware as you can and be your own worst critic. And so oftentimes you want to have these vanity metrics that feel good to celebrate, and you should celebrate. But you should know when it's a vanity metric versus is this core to our growth engine? If this number goes up, does it mean the product is working? And I think that's where we looked at, okay, it felt good to win those things. We kind of put ourselves at least on the map. But it wasn't good enough to actually have this sort of feeling that we had a core growth engine we could just invest in and get better and better. That wasn't there yet.

Lenny RachitskySo essentially it kind of started to just plateau and slow. It wasn't like this rocket ship that took off from that point.

Grant LeeYeah, it was still like we were still getting signups. They were coming through. But you could just tell there wasn't this building momentum. And I think that's where it's always hard to tell. You have to, me and my co-founders, we sat down, we're trying to be honest with ourselves. Okay, is this going to be enough? And it just really felt like it wasn't going to be good.

Lenny RachitskyThe other point here is the power of onboarding, which comes up a bunch on this podcast when you talk about driving retention. So you launched Product Hunt, did great and then started kind of petering out. How much did the product change after things started to work versus onboarding? Just like how important was onboarding? And then just tell us why the first 30 seconds, where'd you come up with that number?

Grant LeeYeah. So for us, the onboarding and the product experience, for us that's intertwined. The analogy I always think about is if you go into a restaurant and maybe the food is good, but when you really think about the user experience, it's like the moment you walk into the door, you get seated, the waitress, waiter comes by, greets you, you can order. And of course the food has to taste good. And then you finally get the bill and you leave. Is that entire experience something that feels delightful? Is it good enough for you to tell your friends about? If someone just came by and dropped the food on your plate on the table, and just left and never came with a bill, I'm like, okay, maybe I'm not going to recommend this to somebody else.

And so for us, we thought about, okay, the first moment someone walks through our door, dropping into the product, what is something we can give them? Can we shorten that time to value as much as possible? A lot of this is inspired by Scott Belsky, he talks about that first mile, the first 15 minutes. And I think that's totally right. And I think one approach is you think about new users as you almost have a cynical view of them. You have to think about them being selfish, vain, and lazy, right? They're coming in, they have no desire to learn a new tool.
And so what can you give them in that first 30 seconds that earns you the next 30 seconds and then the next 30 seconds? And so for us, we knew that if we can't, people's attention span is even shorter to today than maybe 10 years ago, and so what is it in that first 30 seconds, can we actually show you something and earn the right to keep building that relationship with you? We really thought a lot about that, and certainly that's all we could really afford at the time. We only had 12 people building. It's like we couldn't make an entirely revamp the entire product. We knew that we had to least put all of our energy into one spot, and so we made that coming into the door, come through the door, make that moment feel magical so that we can do a little bit more over time.

Lenny RachitskyI love your point about how you could think of it as like, okay, it's onboarding versus the product. The lens of how do we make this incredibly valuable and aha-ish for the first 30 seconds almost informs what the product should be.

Grant LeeYeah. It really helps you pull forward what is the most magical thing about your product. Sometimes founders will think about the five, 10 features. Well, maybe there's only one thing that kind of differentiates you. I try to learn a lot from, we'll get into some of the marketing pieces of this, but even just having this sort of founder led marketing lens of what can I do to help a new user just understand. There's this thing from consumer advertising, which is you throw a consumer one egg, they can probably catch it. You throw them four or five eggs, they're probably going to drop all of them.

And oftentimes founders want to talk about the four or five features they have, maybe 10 features. And then the consumer is totally confused, like why do I need this thing? We try to just give them that one egg, that one first experience. We're like, okay, create a slide in seconds. That's the egg. I'm going to throw you this egg. Is that compelling to you? Some people are still going to opt out, but for the people that catch that, you're solving a real problem for them, and then you can continue building on that over time. You've given them enough so that they'll sit around and keep playing with your product.

Lenny RachitskyThat is a hilarious metaphor I've never heard for onboarding time to value, just focus on one egg at a time. Just going even further back, what was the original insight that you had that led to Gamma and what Gamma is today?

Grant LeeAfter the last startup I was at was acquired, I went back into kind of my roots, which is consulting. I was advising early stage startups. And the sort of medium I was using was Google Slides. So I just remember this late night trying to prepare for next day's meeting, trying to format and figure out the right layout, and spending hours just trying to get the sort of look and feel right, rather than the content itself. And for me, that just felt completely backwards. I should be spending 90% of the time on the content, 10% maybe on the design and formatting.

And so the question just was what if there's a better way? What if we could reimagine this format from the ground up? Slides have been around for almost 40 years as the default medium of choice for a lot of this. And so we thought about, okay, if we had different building blocks, different primitives, so you're not locked into the fixed 16 by nine slide, what could we offer to users? And so that was really the starting point of all this.

Lenny RachitskyHearing this, I could see why investors would be like, I guess so. But slides has been around, PowerPoint has been around 40 years. I get it. I get why people would be... And specifically AI, was that a part of the vision initially, or did AI start to come up, and then wow, great timing,

Grant LeeGreat timing. It wasn't part of the original vision, although the spirit was there, which is we wanted to make it incredibly fast and effortless for people to create content. So it just so happened that AI was a magical gift that allowed us to do all those things along the same sort of ambition or vision that we had. And so we integrated it core to all the building blocks we were already building well before AI was part of the picture.

Lenny RachitskyIt's such a cool other example. There's just so many examples of ideas that were not possible before are now very possible with AI. And it's a great opportunity for people to come after as these places, categories, people think is an impossible place to build a big business. AI now allows it. Awesome.

Speaking of that, let's talk about the growth journey, and how you actually grew from nothing to 100 million ARR in just over two years. I'm thinking we break it up. I know these milestones aren't that clear, but kind of like zero to 100 million ARR, one to 10, 10 to 100, something like that. And let's just see how it goes. How did you get your first set of users? How'd you get your, say, first 100 users? How'd you get to 100 million ARR from zero?

Grant LeeOur first 100 looks very different, I'd say. So this was even pre this sort of AI launch we had. The first 100 users for a product like ours, you're trying to convince all your friends to use the product. Anybody that's ever made a slide deck, you're trying to talk to. And I think early on, your friends want to do you a favor, so they're going to try the product. They're also going to lie to you. They're going to tell you how great it is. And then you look at the usage and nobody's coming back.

And so I think our first 100 was sort of gradually hard-earned post the product launch, people learning like, okay, this is kind of becoming a little bit more useful. Usage was still pretty episodic, so they weren't coming back every week. And then I do think the moment post the AI launch is where all of a sudden we saw that sort of organic growth happening, people coming back to the product regularly. And so that's where, it wasn't even the first hundred, it was like probably the first 10,000 users all came within a pretty short time period after that initial launch.

Lenny RachitskyAwesome. We're going to talk about monetization pricing later, which is obviously an important part of actual getting to million ARR and 10 million AAR. So what I'm hearing essentially is the Product Hunt launch was a big part of just the first 10,000-ish users. I know there was also a tweet when you relaunched that helped in a big way. Talk about that.

Grant LeeYeah. So when we did our AI launch, we didn't do our AI launch on Product Hunt. We basically said, hey, let's just put it out on Twitter, see if we can get some virality. And honestly, we kind came up with kind of a clickbaity sort of tweet. It was like the most valuable skill in business is about to become obsolete. And so it was intentional in that we wanted to create a little bit of engagement. We knew that having sort of a more provocative in a tweet would allow people to engage with it.

And so after a couple of days, all of a sudden it started getting a little bit more viral and a lot more engagement. And we looked and it was basically because Paul Graham had commented and saying something like, "Surely, the thing that the slide deck is describing is more valuable than the slide itself." And obviously it was fun just to see that comment. I think once that comment came through, even more engagement on the post. And then that was really the whole intent of that post was just to be able to have that level of engagement so that people, it would have some level of reach.
And so for me, it was almost like my first learning moment, going back to what does founder led marketing even mean? It means how do you actually break through the noise? How do you get a chance to have people even engage with a post like that? Part of that is copywriting, part of that is storytelling. Part of that is just having even the right visuals to share. And so it was for me kind of a moment just understanding, hey, to kind of do this right, you kind of have to do things that maybe you're not super comfortable with, but it makes a difference.

Lenny RachitskySuch a fun story. So you intentionally set that announcement up to be controversial is what I'm hearing?

Grant LeeTotally. Yeah. I'd say provocative. A little spicy.

Lenny RachitskyThat is so cool. So essentially you got to 10,000 users through Product Hunt, and then essentially one controversial tweet that ended up baiting Paul Graham to comment.

Grant LeeTotally.

Lenny RachitskyAmazing. And it was just a comment. It wasn't even him retweeting it.

Grant LeeNo, just a comment. And then others would pile on.

Lenny RachitskyYeah. It's interesting how much a comment can increase the distribution of a tweet versus them retweeting it or quote tweeting it.

Grant LeeTotally. And of course the algorithm change all the time. So part of it was just luck based on when it happened, how it happened, who posted.

Lenny RachitskyAnd you use this term founder led marketing, which I love, and I'm already seeing it in action here. This is you thinking about, it's not delegating to someone in marketing, it's not hiring an agency, it's like how do I tell a story that I think will break through the noise based on you building this company, having the insight to build this product. And I guess is there anything more there you think is important for people to hear about the importance of the founder thinking through this stuff?

Grant LeeYeah. I mean, I think most people today are probably familiar with founder-led sales, which is still very, very important. I think before you hire your first salesperson or AE, it's great for the founder to understand what it takes. And they're going to craft the right narrative, the right story. At my previous role, I was the COO at a startup where I was doing a lot of, I wasn't founder, but I was early. And so I was helping the founders go through this, and really helping go into meetings with a client or a prospect and saying, "Hey, this is why our product is interesting."

And I think today there's so many AI startups that are much more either B2C or prosumer. And so you're not necessarily talking to individual prospects, but the idea that you can be really in control of the narrative on the marketing side is really, really important. And I think I'll describe a few things where, over time, I think that skill set just really, really helps you.
One is you have a chance to be a creator yourself these days. I think a lot of founders are trying to be more active on social media. And I think if you can kind of overcome the initial cringe factor of seeing yourself and postings like, oh, this doesn't feel authentic, if you can overcome that initial feeling, you start investing into like, okay, how do I become a better copywriter? How do I articulate something that is clear, not just clever? I think there's that saying where obviously if you can have that clarity, that's super important. And most people will try to get super creative with their copywriting, but that's not usually the right way to break through and communicate something. So how do you improve your own copywriting?
And then that allows you to actually have a higher bar when you start working with other marketers, or in this case for us, working with influencers. If you're working with influencers and creators, and you can totally empathize with how they approach that work, and you know what a good hook looks like or you know how to structure a good post, you can only do that if you've gone through it a little bit yourself and you know how hard it is. And I think too many founders will then just say, they'll write something that just feels so much like an ad, and then they'll give it to a creator to help amplify. And then that just never works. And so I do think part of founder-led marketing is going through this yourself.

Grant LeeAnd so I do think part of founder-led marketing is going through this yourself, using your own platform. In the beginning it's probably going to be super small. But as you get bigger, you have a platform to ... You have a voice and people listen. And you're going to get better and better at your own storytelling. I think these are all skills you should invest in as early as possible, because you know you're going to have to get better and better. It's like practice, you got to practice over and over.

Lenny RachitskyI definitely want to pull on this thread more because you tweeting the lessons you learned building Gamma is what led to this conversation. I was reading, I'm like, " Okay, he's sharing a bunch of stuff, but there's so much more I want to hear." And we're going to talk through this and go in a lot more depth than what you've shared on Twitter. But I love that that's example of that working, having this conversation.

So let me ask a couple of questions here. One is just how do you find time as a founder or CEO of a very fast growing crazy startup? We have so much to do. How do you just allocate the time to do this? And then any just key lessons you've learned about doing this well, beyond what you've already shared for people that want to try to start sharing things on LinkedIn and Twitter?

Grant LeeMy advice is definitely just to try to start small. Don't let it become so intimidating that you just don't get started. For me, it was like just having a notepad or a Google Doc around in the beginning where I would just constantly jot down, okay, this is something I learned or something I observed or something that worked well, something that was unintuitive but worked, and just start creating a log of that. And then once I had enough of those, and I'd spend basically every week, I'd block off a few hours to go a little bit deeper. I'd take a lot of those bullet points and try to say, "Is there enough here to turn this into maybe a post or something that can be shared broadly?" And in the beginning I didn't have enough. It was all sort of scattered thoughts. But over time you start accumulating some interesting themes. And then I would start stress testing some of that.

So I would tell my teammates like, "Hey, this is something interesting. Do you find this interesting?" And if there were enough like, "Oh yeah, I would not have expected that", or, "That's not something I've ever heard before," then I'd actually start crafting the initial post. And then you actually just put it out there. I think what I've learned is, even for LinkedIn versus Twitter, the audiences want different things. And so you almost have to then have different tones of voices or even nuggets or sharing. For me, I invested much more in LinkedIn early on just because it felt a little bit more natural for me. And then over time I said, "Okay, well I'm going to start packaging certain content for Twitter that's actually different than what I would post on LinkedIn." Sometimes on Twitter you get even more tactical or even more into the weeds. And so I found that to be helpful.
But honestly, I'm still learning. And so every time you post, you go back, after a couple of weeks you go and say, "Okay, what things are actually being engaged with? Are things actually creating ..." Ideally you're creating enough value where people are either bookmarking it, sharing it, retweeting it, these things that are signals for there's something valuable there. And then you just go back and you start collecting your own sort of, these are my all-star posts, these are the ones that I've actually broken through. And then you go back and try to understand, okay, what about that post do I think was actually useful? Was it the actual content? Was it the structure of the content? Was it some sort of contrarian advice? And you start thematically bunching that together such that as you're brainstorming every week, you just have a good sort of body of work to work off.

Lenny RachitskyThis is so interesting and valuable. So let me mirror back a few of the lessons that I heard here that I think is easy for people to miss. So one is just what to share. What I heard here, and I completely agree with this, and this is what I try to do, is pay attention to things you've learned, things that you find interesting, things that are unintuitive to you. Just have a doc and just put these there. And every time you learn something, find something interesting, just add it to the doc. Or yeah, I haven't heard before is a good one too.

So it's essentially just like if you find it interesting, people on social media will also find it interesting. And one approach is just share it as it's happening, which is what I try to do. Just like, "Oh hey, just learned this thing with with clock code. Check it out." Or save it up for a big long post. The other interesting, I've never heard this before, of post different things to LinkedIn and Twitter. I just copy and paste the same thing. I love that you do something different for the two platforms.

Grant LeeI think we all kind of have intuition that there's just different audiences, right? And so if you know that kind of fundamentally, then the question is how do you package up the story the right way so that the audience is ready to receive it? And I think this can differ by the type of creator or the founder, whoever's posting it, and of course the actual content itself. And so for me, I'm still tweaking, but I do find that just copy and pasting from one to the other doesn't usually work. You almost need to be in the right mindset of, okay, what do I think will be more engaging on Twitter? And then what do I think will be more engaging on LinkedIn? And then test a bunch, see what actually works. Go back and iterate a little bit.

Lenny RachitskySo if you had one bullet point tip for what works on Twitter versus LinkedIn, you shared maybe more tactical on Twitter, is there anything more there you can share?

Grant LeeYeah, that's what I've found is tactical, oftentimes more contrarian on Twitter. And also I would say technical too. People really like to know, again, going back to getting into the weeds, is this something I feel like I could replicate? And I'm not going to give you ... There's no credibility if you just give a blanket statement or something that feels generic. I really need to know, if you could show me the metrics, even better. I feel like that ...

Versus LinkedIn, it's oftentimes more even just either more aspirational or aspirational or a topic or a theme that just feels relevant at that point in time. And you can just kind of make more of a broader statement. It doesn't need to be as tactical. It's more like inspirational, is like, "Oh, okay, now I need to go and learn a little bit more about pricing and packaging," for instance. And that could be the sort of spark that somebody needs. And you don't need to spell it completely out. Part of it's also that on LinkedIn you can't really do threads. And so doing a super long form post isn't as practical. Maybe that changes in the future, where maybe the tactical pieces, that element might actually change.

Lenny RachitskyAnd last piece is you said you just block off time. Is there a specific time of the week you do this? How do you actually ... Because everyone's like, "Oh sure, I'll block off time. And then, I don't know, okay, but I actually got to do all this other stuff so I'm not going to use it this time or maybe next week."

Grant LeeFor me, it's usually two times of the day, very first thing in the morning and last thing at night. And partly it's because of kids. It's almost like I need time where there's just zero distraction and there's no noise in the house, and so I can actually think. And then I think in the mornings it's about where are you finding inspiration, what are topics you're energized by? And then I think at night it's about reflection. What are the things you actually went through that day? You can almost pull up your calendar and be like, "Okay, I talked to X, Y and Z people. And was there anything from those conversations that might be relevant?" That's where I write some of those things. It's more of a recap of actually what happened.

Lenny RachitskyAnd what helps me to not feel like this is some cringey self-promo egotistical stuff is just it's useful stuff that I've learned that ends up being helpful to people. And people in the comments are always just like, "Oh, that is really cool and useful. Thank you." It's not like self-promotion-

Grant LeeTotally.

Lenny Rachitsky... it's not just like, "Look how amazing I am. Check out my amazing products." Like, "Here's a thing I learned. You might find it useful."

Grant LeeThat's exactly right. I think one way of thinking about it, with founder-led sales, it's always about exchange of value, right? You want to be able to give the customer this feeling that they're getting an amazing product. In exchange they're going to pay you money for it. I think with founder-led marketing, it's almost this mindset of you want to give people a ton of content, maybe it's a value in the content, so you're sharing something, maybe some secret tactic or you're giving them something where inherently there's value in it, and in exchange you sort of get goodwill back. You're not necessarily getting money back, you get goodwill. They're going to follow you, they're going to engage with your post, they're going to tell others about it. And then over time you can exchange maybe some of that goodwill for actually talking about my product and announcing it and they're going to help amplify the news. And I think that's magic, where you kind of bank the goodwill for a long period of time by providing just a ton of value with no expectation of anything immediately in return.

Lenny RachitskyThe book I always point people to when they're struggling with this sort of thing and like, "Okay, I did this and no one cared, didn't do any good," is there's a book by Scott Pressfield, I think is his name, called Nobody Wants to Read Your Shit, which is exactly what is right. Nobody wants to read it. The bar for people to care is very high. There's so much stuff to read and process. And so this book gives you a really good lens of just like, okay, the bar is very high and nobody wants to read your shit, so you have to try really hard to make it really good.

Grant LeeGreat reminder.

Lenny RachitskyWe'll link to that in the show notes. Okay, let's come back to the growth of Gamma. So we've talked about how you got your first tens of thousands of users, essentially product hunts, rethinking, onboarding, making it really magical, and then this very controversial tweet that Paul Graham commented, created some buzz. Let's talk about the next phase and maybe, I don't know, tell us kind of the ARR at that point through 100 million. Just broadly, what should we know?

Grant LeeSo when we got to about 10 million in ARR, I think there was this feeling for me, which was we knew we needed ways to help just continue to amplify and spread the word about Gamma. I think it was already working in terms of the organic virality was there, and so we did feel like it was time to start amplifying some of this. And I think the main blocker of my mind that I started feeling was that our initial brand was holding us back. And I think a lot of people will discount whether or not a rebrand is valuable. And I think sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

For us, there's a few different things we looked at. So one, our initial brand was almost more of a placeholder brand because we created it the moment we incorporated the company, which was again late 2020, beginning of 2021, where we needed something so that as we built, we could at least share it with people. We could put up a landing page and just feel like, okay, there's something here. But we didn't invest a whole lot into it. And so it was pretty limited in sort of what I call the DNA of the brand. There wasn't that many ... The art direction was very limited in scope. There wasn't much when it came to voice and tone.
And so it was something that we knew was good enough to start, but it wasn't scalable. And when I think about something that could be scalable, it's almost like you can take the ingredients of a brand and replicate it a ton, this DNA is something where you can imagine creating tons of content around and all feeling pretty cohesive. And I think that needs to be done by design. You're really being thoughtful about every single element. Like what is the art direction you want to go with? What is the voice and tone? Such that as you're creating thousands of pieces of copy, it all feels pretty cohesive.
And so we went back to the drawing board and we spent many months rethinking what would be the brand, what is this vision that we have longer term? Our creative director internally partner with Smith & Diction, an amazing agency that has helped folks like Perplexity also do their rebrand or their initial brand. And we many months just really trying to craft what we think is the core DNA of the brand, and doing so in a way that we could replicate it as much as possible.
Replication piece of it comes into play, because as you start scaling you're going to have to create a ton of content, your own content on social media, ads for performance marketing, assets for influencers to be able to use and showcase in their content. And so you're going from tiny pieces of content to all of a sudden every week we're testing thousands of pieces of creative. And you cannot do that if you don't feel confident that as you're replicating, you have that sort of cohesive feel. So for us that we realized it was going to be necessary and it's why we invested so much. It ended up being way more expensive, way more time consuming than I would've imagined. But I think coming on the other side of it being the right investment, feeling that that was the right time to do it.

Lenny RachitskyI love how many things you did that feel like this will not work out. Building a startup within the presentation space, doing a whole rebrand in the middle of scaling, also just reworking the entire product after you launched and just rethinking the whole thing. All these things and everyone's always like, "No, this is not how we win." And interestingly, worked out for you guys.

I want to come back to the brand stuff, but one of the most interesting ways you guys grew early on was influencer marketing, which a lot of people hear about and talk about. I haven't heard much of how to actually do this and what actually works. Talk about that as a broad growth lever for you guys. And then I want to get into just what tools did you use, who actually was really helpful there, thing like that. So yeah, just give us the big picture.

Grant LeeYeah. I think a lot of founders assume that with influencer marketing it's almost like turnkey. You set aside a budget, you find some creators, you figure out the right campaign or the right moment of time to do it and it's all done, you're ready to go. And I think the reality is, going back to this founder-led marketing mindset is like, well, you're going to set yourself up for success if you actually are super involved in that entire process. So for us, what this meant was all the initial influencers I onboarded manually myself. I would jump on a call with each one of them so that they understood what Gamma represented, how to use the product. You want to be able to have them tell your story but in their voice, right? And they can't do that if you're not willing to put in that investment.

And so we would spend a lot of time going through ... It wasn't my job to tell them how to pitch Gamma, but it was my job to make sure that they understood what Gamma was as a product. And so we'd spend a lot of time, like me just walking through the product, them asking questions, us just kind of brainstorming what could the hooks be, and me just giving them some initial feedback and saying, "Oh yeah, this one, I love that. I figure it's going to work great for your audience." But not trying to be super prescriptive. And working with a ton of micro influencers, people that don't have massive followings but are committed to ... Going back to giving value to your audience. They're committed to giving value to their audiences. They want to be able to showcase tools that actually they would use or they are using. And how do you do that in an authentic way? You can't really fake that. You really need to spend the time doing that.
And just like you would onboard a customer, you onboard an influencer the same way. You want them to be an extension of your team. And I think they can feel whether or not you're willing to put in the work. And if you're not, then they're just going to treat it like any other project, ship it and be done with it. If you invest in that relationship, guess what? They'll be back to actually post about you again. And you're all of a sudden having this sort of this relationship that actually you can build over time. I think that's really where the magic is. Too many people discount that initial piece.

Lenny RachitskyThis is awesome. To be clear, influencer marketing, essentially a person with a following on say TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, whatever, gets paid in some way to promote your product. That's the simple way to understand influencer marketing, yeah?

Grant LeeYes, that's definitely the simple way. And I'd say there's definitely different levels. I think a lot of people think influencer marketing and they'll think these big trendy creators, people that have a million followers for instance. And the idea is that, okay, we're going to carve out a really big budget, we're going to choose five or six that we feel like are really the tastemakers in the space and put all of our money into just having them talk about our product. And I think usually this is kind of the wrong approach. Because many of them, they do have massive audiences. And for you, you basically give them a script to read and it immediately feels like an ad. That product is not connected really to them in any way. It's just something that they're ... For this week they happen to be working with you and then they move on with their life. And it never feels organic or authentic and you wasted a ton of money doing so.

I think you're much better doing the hard thing, which is hard to scale, but it's finding the thousands of micro influencers that have an audience where your product maybe is actually useful. And for instance, for us early on it'd be educators, people that for them, part of their job is creating slides every day because they need to engage their students. And so for them, having a tool that actually saved them a ton of time was something they love talking about. And if you can find some of these pockets, we call them echo chambers, where if you find a pocket like educators, teachers love telling other teachers about products they love using. During summer break, they all come together and talk about, "Okay, what are the things that are going to actually improve my job next school season?" And obviously during this AI wave, a lot of those have been, "Okay, what are the AI tools that just save me a ton of time?"
And so if you can start actually tapping into these pockets of echo chambers, that's even better. It doesn't have to be this flashy, well-known influencer. It's actually just this person that has an audience where people really trust what they say. And that's amazing. That ends up becoming this sort of wildfire that can spread really, really fast.

Lenny RachitskyAnd what's the dollar amount these folks get? It's like a few hundred bucks, a few thousand bucks, something like that?

Grant LeeYeah, few hundred to low thousands, low single digit thousands.

Lenny RachitskyHow do you find these folks? Is there tools that you use? Is it just like a bunch of manual searching and looking?

Grant LeeYeah, in the very beginning it was all manual, a lot of cold outreach. And then we ended up finding a couple of different things. One is a platform, a YC company called 1stCollab. That has been amazing. They basically do all of the automated outbound for you. Plus you can help them actually create profiles or personas of different creators, so for instance educators being one, and then they'll go out and actually, based on that profile, find all the right creators for you. So they've been amazing, really great to work with.

And then we've also found small agencies to also help kind of augment that. I look for agencies that are super young and hungry. These are people that they're native to social media and so they really understand it. And they can really be able to bring in creators that are great to work with. And I think part of it is if you find creators that are great to work with, everything else becomes easy. So we've had a few, one is AKG Media, actually out in the UK, and they've been fantastic to work with as well. So you kind of find a few different things, either agencies or platforms that can help you actually scale this thing up.

Lenny RachitskyAnd when they post, they're generally transparent about this is a paid promotion, right?

Grant LeeYes.

Lenny RachitskyThey're not just pretending, "I found this tool and I love it"? Cool.

Grant LeeYeah, exactly right.

Lenny RachitskyOkay. And so how much impact did this lever of influencer marketing have on your growth, say from 10 to 100? Is this the biggest lever of growth other than just word-of-mouth, people continue to share it?

Grant LeeYeah, so word-of-mouth has definitely been the biggest. So we look at all new subscriber growth, over 50% of this is word-of-mouth. It's either people searching direct, coming direct, entering Gamma.op, or going through search and typing in Gamma, like a branded keyword search, where they're looking for Gamma, they've heard about Gamma. But I think for us, social media and influencers specifically has always been an amplifier. So every time we invest in influencer marketing, we actually see word-of-mouth increase even more. And it's always like you can just see it. Basically anytime you spend a little bit of money, you start seeing people come through influencer, the word-of-mouth factor actually will get another 1.5 additional users on top of that, which has been really interesting to see.

And I think part of this is just recognizing that ... And I think we kind of understand it, but with influencer marketing, why it's so effective, we all know Dunbar's number, which is have this number of 150 people that you call kind of your network. And your network you trust more than the average stranger down the street. If they tell you something, they recommend something, there is a sort of halo effect, you learn to trust them. A lot of these influencers, the reason why they share so much about their lives is because they want to be in your network. They want you to feel super close. And once you feel super close, you trust them to actually share things that are going to be useful.
And so when they recommend a tool, there is a sort of halo effect, where it doesn't feel like it's coming from a stranger, it feels like it's coming from a friend. And that's where every time we've spent money there you actually see this amplifications, like, "Okay, that's kind of interesting." You wouldn't necessarily expect that. But for us it's been this sort of amplifier from the very beginning.

Lenny RachitskyThis is so fun to hear about. I've not heard this level of detail on how influencer marketing works and how to make it work. A few more questions here. So you said there's maybe a few thousand people you ended up working with, roughly, influencers?

Grant LeeOver the course of a year. It wasn't all in the same time. Basically in the beginning you do ... In the very, very beginning we had a small budget. It was like 20 creators a month. And then you start increasing that to like 50, then 100. We're definitely not fully scaled at this point, but I could easily see a point where you're working with many, many creators every single month. And that gives you a chance to actually test a variety of, again, content hooks, ways to talk about the product, value props.

Lenny RachitskyAmazing. And you said the key here is you spend time with every one of these creators, influencers early on to help make sure they understand what you're doing and get excited about it. It isn't just like a thing you outsource.

Grant LeeI think there's a lot of value there. It's again hard to quantify. And most founders probably feel like they're too busy to allocate that time. But I think it was a good investment. Because going back to you want them to feel like an extension of your team. They're not going to feel like an extension of your team if, one, they've never met you, and two, you've never even told them really how the product works. They're forced to go to your website to figure it all out. Those are going to be not a whole lot of love that they're feeling from the outset.

Lenny RachitskySo what I'm hearing is quality over quantity, especially when you're getting started. And then there's this other piece of niche which I think is very counterintuitive. Instead of going to large influencers with a huge audience, it's good with folks that are small. What's like a audience size roughly that you think is ideal for this, or what niche just means?

Grant LeeHonestly, I don't think there's a minimum, because even with platforms like TikTok, they oftentimes are giving you credit for a brand new account. They want to help amplify that new account, because obviously if they're thinking from a creator perspective, if that new creator feels like, "Oh, coming to TikTok is a massive win for me," they're going to be more invested in it. And so there really isn't a minimum. A lot of these platforms are trying to shift to kind of the same thing, where they really reward new creators on the platform. And so you could have a small audience, it doesn't really matter. You could have 10,000 followers, that's also good. I think as long as the content feels, again, engaging, authentic to the people you're talking to I think it has a really good chance of actually taking off.

Lenny RachitskyThat's such a good point with TikTok, where it's not follower related, if it's useful and people find it clickable or whatever, likable, viewable, the algorithm will spread it to a lot of people. Such a good point.

Grant LeeTotally.

Lenny RachitskyOkay, there's a couple more points you made in the tweet that I want to make sure we highlight. So one is you made this point that 90% of your reach in influencer marketing comes from less than 10% of people. Is there anything there that you think is important for people to hear?

Grant LeeYeah, I mean this just goes back to it's hard to know where that 10% is going to come from. So you kind of just have to cast a super wide net. You can sort of, I think try to, again, trick yourself into thinking you're great at picking creators or you're great at telling them how to post about your stuff. But the reality is, even for me, I could never guess. I kind of had some idea, but I just had to make sure that I was meeting enough creators broadly such that when you meet enough, they're all posting, there's some pocket that end up just taking off. And I was not a good predictor of that. I was not smart enough to actually know which ones would take off. I just knew that we had to play the sort of numbers game to make it work.

Lenny RachitskySo one of your tips here is people fail often in this because they start too small or their budget's a little too small. You recommend 10,000 to 20,000 a month over six months and just trying this. It sounds like you're doing like 20 to 30 creators a month. Is that the right framework for how to just start this thing and explore?

Grant LeeYeah, totally. And I'd say it's not just that the budget's too small, it would be that they put all their eggs in one basket. So you can also easily blow that 20 K on just one bigger influencer and then be like, "Oh, that didn't work, so I'm going to try it again. That didn't work. Okay, I give up." And I think rather than doing that, you should be like, "Okay, that 20 K, I could actually probably work with 40 different influencers and see what actually works." And across the 40, I'm going to try to find a variety of personas, a variety of use cases, spend a lot of time with them, and then actually see what's working, what's not.

And then next month take those learnings and double down. If educators are working, go with educators. If consultants are working, go with consultants, find more consultants, there's going to be more there. I think that's where the putting all your eggs in one basket is just probably the surest way to fail, because you're going to miss a ton and it's going to take you way too long to learn and you're going to come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time.

Lenny RachitskyI feel like this whole podcast conversation could be just about this one lever. So much I want to keep talking about, but there's more questions here because this is so useful and interesting. You had this line in your tweet about how reality is not an accident and that this approach is how you figure out what actually works. And then once you do that, then you start leading into that messaging. Talk about that.

Grant LeeThis goes back to obviously if you're testing a bunch, you'll finally find that sort of post or set of posts that actually go viral. Going back to just the fundamentals, like make it easy for your influencers to be able to tell your story in their voice. One thing we did, we open sourced basically our entire brand. We have Brand.gamma.app, which is everything about our brand, our voice and tone, our art direction, what we use in mid-journey to create the sort of art direction that we have so that a creator can do the same, right? And they can actually just copy all of that so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time they're trying to post about Gamma. They have all of that.

And I think going back to this notion of just make it dead simple for them, remove friction. They already have enough on their plate to have to figure out. Don't make it any harder than it is. And if you remove friction, then it's like, oh, you get into this rhythm of adding creators is easy, having them post is easy, reviewing what's working, what's not is easy. And if you're able to do that relentlessly over many, many months, then all of a sudden hitting the sort of viral post is easy because you're going to have enough bats there where some are actually going to pop off. But you only can get there after you've done all the hard work before that to remove friction from the process. And feeling like it's almost like a well-oiled machine at that point.

Lenny RachitskyIs there a platform you find most helpful for the stuff you guys are doing? Is it like TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn, something else?

Grant LeeYeah, I mean this is one where for us we cast a pretty wide net too. But it's very clear, LinkedIn, the conversion rates are just substantially higher. They're 4X, maybe 5X higher than other platforms. And I think a lot of people are probably still sleeping on LinkedIn, frankly. And so it's one where some of the influencers there or creators there can be a little bit more costly. But if you can eventually be more targeted knowing that, hey, this type of creator is pretty impactful for our product, then working with them, it's just like, "Oh, that's great." The conversion rates are just so strong and it really feels like we're just getting started there.

So if in the beginning you're not sure, it's always helpful to cast a pretty wide net. And then similar to just the influencer strategy, like test and iterate, you'll figure out ... Many of these things will follow a power law. So it's like one or two channels are going to be the most important for you. For instance, Twitter for us hasn't been that impactful. And I think for tools like Notion, they've been really, really impactful. You're not going to really know, and so just test and then double down on the ones that really move the needle for your product.

Lenny RachitskyI think that many people listening now are like, "Wait, LinkedIn posts are sponsored sometimes? I didn't know that." How do you know if it's a sponsored post? Is it like a #sponsored or something like that? How do they communicate this?

Grant LeeUsually they'll say they're a partner or yeah, basically it is sponsored in some form, or they'll #ad or something along those lines. So that's probably the way you'll see it the most.

Lenny RachitskyCool. By the way, I don't do this sort of stuff. Have you ever seen me on LinkedIn? I'm not doing any paid stuff. It's just so people know. And I don't plan to do that.
... Often share Miro templates. I use it all the time to brainstorm ideas with my team. Teams especially can work with Miro AI to turn unstructured data, like sticky notes or screenshots, into usable diagrams, product briefs, data tables, and prototypes in minutes. You don't have to be an AI master or to toggle yet another tool. The work you're already doing in Miro's Canvas is the prompt. Help your teams get great work done with Miro. Check it out at miro.com/Lenny. That's M-I-R-O .com/Lenny. Let's come back to this brand point. So, one of your big lessons is invest in brand before you go heavy into hit paid ads and performance marketing. I imagine you do some ads at this point on Facebook and Google and things like that.

Grant LeeYeah, we run ads performance marketing. I think there's this stigma that brand marketing and performance marketing are sort of at odds with each other. I very much follow the sort of thought that brand marketing is performance marketing. Everything is some form of performance marketing. It just might not be as attributable, so the ability to actually map back to every single dollar spent is a little bit harder, but it doesn't mean that it's not impactful.

And I think as a company scales, you have to invest in both, and ideally they work really, really well together. The more you invest in brand marketing, it strengthens your performance marketing. This goes back to having enough creative to even test. If you're too limited in scope and you don't have a brand, you feel like you can actually amplify your handicapping, your ability to actually have a good performance marketing program.

Lenny RachitskyI love that heuristic of how do you know if you are under invested in brand is if you're limited in the number of ideas you can try in performance marketing.

Grant LeeTotally.

Lenny RachitskyIs your design system just... Is everyone having to redesign things from scratch and come up with all these frameworks every time they run an ad?

Grant LeeExactly. Yeah, yeah. Basically you kind of have a feeling for, "If I were to scale this up to a thousand pieces of creative, would it still feel cohesive or is it kind of all over the place?" And if it feels like it's all over the place, then you kind of have to go back to the drawing board.

Lenny RachitskyYou said when you talked about the rebrand, that it took a lot longer than you expected, that it was more expensive than you expected. That's the fear, I think, everyone has when they hear this like, "Oh, I don't have time for a rebrand." I also imagine, because your product is so visual, that it makes more sense to invest there and to spend the time and money.

For the typical founder, do you have any just, I don't know, thoughts of just like, "Here's when it makes sense. Here's a sign you really need to invest here heavily." Versus, "It'll probably be all right."

Grant LeeYeah. I mean, I do think it's probably more geared toward anything that's a little bit more prosumer or consumer because so much of your product, you're trying to create this feeling for a user, what are they experiencing. And the experience happens way before they even drop into your product. It might be they see an ad or they see a billboard or they see something. It's like, "Okay, that piqued my interest a little bit."

And then you need some sort of symmetric messaging in that they see there's some symmetry in that, they see the ad, then they drop into the product or they land on your website, it feels cohesive and it feels like, "Okay, this is interesting. I'm going to go all the way through to sign up and then maybe actually start using the product."
That's a little bit different when it's a B2B product or where there isn't as much reliance on that initial moment. They might just hear about it through a colleague and then sign up for it and then go through a huge procurement process and then it's like, "Okay, maybe it matters, but probably not so much as for a product where the brand can have so many different touch points."

Lenny RachitskyI want to talk about some broader things that have worked to help you grow, but before we do that, I just want to visualize the pie chart of how Gamma grows. Say, post-10 million ARR. If I have it correctly in my head, it's over 50% just word of mouth, organic, people are sharing it, doing presentations for each other, "Oh, it's Gamma. Just go check it out, sign up." Then it feels like the second-biggest bucket is influencer marketing, social stuff. And then is the third performance/paid marketing?

Grant LeeYep, that's right. Yeah.

Lenny RachitskyCool. On that last piece, is there anything else there for people that are starting to explore performance marketing, essentially Facebook Ads, Google Ads, all these other platforms, is there anything else that you think might be helpful for people to hear or learn just to get started down this road?

Grant LeeI would just have two recommendations. One, going back to my initial piece of advice, which is don't invest until you have word of mouth. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you'll solve other problems by just starting to ramp up a performance marketing program. Just get the word of mouthpiece first, so that you're coming into this program with some tailwinds and then start ramping it up.

The second piece is: set some constraints. You don't want your product to be at a point where more than 50% of your acquisitions are coming through paid acquisition. I think if that is happening, your core growth engine is broken. And it feeds right back to point number one, which is if your core growth engine is broken, you just have this leaky bucket. You're trying to spend so much money building top of the funnel, people are not making it all the way through. Something else should be fixed before you really try to dial it up. And it doesn't mean you don't spend a little bit of money, but just don't dial it up until you feel like your core growth engine is actually working.

Lenny RachitskyWhen you said the first point about wait until you have word of mouth before investing in performance marketing, is that essentially a large chunk of your growth should be coming from word of mouth, direct, organic?

Grant LeeYeah, yeah. And for us, even at scale, again going back to more than 50% of new signups still come through word of mouth. That, for us, is a sign like, "Okay, if something is still working, people are using the product, telling other people, then you want that feeling before you really start dialing anything else up."

Lenny RachitskyIs there a percentage that you think is helpful for people to think about just... Is it 25% or more something like that or just word of mouth for you to feel like, "Okay, we actually have organic growth as a major growth engine"?

Grant LeeYeah, I think this comes back to maybe just how maybe aggressive you want to be. I think just rough heuristic is the more, the better. If it's over 50%, I think that's great. If it's approaching that, good. And just going back to, don't fool yourself into thinking just ads is going to be the way you grow. Because you can do that, but everything else becomes harder and harder.

If you rely on paid acquisition to be the main growth engine, you should be prepared for things like CAC, like customer acquisition costs, to keep going up. The more you're trying to reach a new audience, it gets more and more expensive. So, don't assume it's going to be flat, and then all of a sudden you're running on this treadmill that's actually running faster and faster. And so that's where it's easy to get hooked on that early on when you're just investing a small amount of money, and then it's almost impossible to get off that treadmill when you're too far into it. So, anticipate that and give yourself a better chance at actually being able to sustain that growth long-term.

Lenny RachitskyImportant advice. Okay. There's a couple more elements you've shared that were key to Gamma's growth. One is sharing prototypes with users before you ship. What does that look like? What does that mean? Why is that so powerful?

Grant LeeYeah. I mean, this for us was a huge unlock. Going back to early days, when you're just trying to get your product into anybody's hands, you're getting to your friends trying to use it, and again, they're going to lie to you, tell you how great it is, and then never come back to using the product.

I think what you want to be able to do, the ideal situation is, you recruit a bunch of people that are legitimately good prospective users or customers of your product, but have zero skin in the game. They do not care at all whether or not your product succeeds. They're just in it to test it. And for us, it was people that have made slide decks or make slide decks regularly, let's drop them into Gamma, give them very little context. We just tell you, "Hey, this is an alternative to PowerPoint. Go ahead and try it."
And then as you're going through the onboarding flow and testing the product, just tell us everything that's going on in your head, describe what you're seeing, tell us what you're trying to do. We'll give you maybe a few different tasks like, "Oh, create a piece of content." And when you watch them do that and also hear what they're saying, you just immediately feel the pain.
All the places they're struggling and all the places are so confused by what they're seeing and you sort of then can internalize that pain and say, "Okay, we're going back and we have to fix this. This is not usable." We, oftentimes, are dog-fooding everything. And so you can get to the point where you're so familiar with your own product, everything feels kind of easy and you know where things are, but when you start actually hearing other people describe their usage of the product, that's a gift.
You're all of a sudden you're like, "Okay, now I know where to actually spend the time." People aren't even getting to the third screen. They're stuck on the first screen because they can't even find the button that we think is so dead obvious, and so let's go back and actually re-engineer, re-architect that piece of it.
And we've done that for everything: landing pages, onboarding experience, new feature launches, export, sharing, every single piece of that such that we can actually see where things are working or not. And then every time, we'll learn something that's kind of painful, but obvious that we need to fix and we go back and fix it.

Lenny RachitskyHow do you scale this sort of thing? How do you run every new big idea, new feature change by people? Do you have a closed beta group, a decent platform? How do you actually do this?

Grant LeeThere's a couple of great platforms. Voicepanel, which is also YC company, full disclosure, angel investor, and then there's also platforms like UserTesting, that really help you source and find these people that fit again, that persona or profile you're looking for. So, in our case, people that are in a specific job function or create decks regularly, and so you can use those platforms to really scale up these programs pretty fast.

And then once your team knows how to use those platforms... We would have an idea in the morning and in the afternoon, we're already running a pretty full scale experiment or a research study, and by the evening or by the next day, we can actually go through all of it together. So, it's pretty fast once you have it set up. It's more about how do you get the program onboarded the right way.
I think the other sort of mechanism we did early on was once we had some repeat users, we created sort of a program for our power users. We called it the Gammaster Program, which is we put them into a separate Slack workspace, and that was a place for us to share very, very early prototypes like wireframes, sometimes they were functional prototypes, and get them to get some initial feedback as well. This definitely helps with more later stage or features or things that aren't going to be necessarily important as part of onboarding, but once you understand Gamma, like, "Oh, how do you share it?"
For instance, this was a great way to start testing some of that because they already understand Gamma, but now you're adding that new functionality. And then we can also watch them struggle and hear how they're struggling with the product. And so that has been a great way just to have a separate Slack workspace. Anytime we're thinking about something, they're the first to hear about it. Give us some early indication if we're on the right track or not.

Lenny RachitskyI love this workflow that you shared of you have an idea in the morning, you built a prototype. Do you built it with AI prototyping tools like Cursor, Lovable, something like that?

Grant LeeYep. That or it could be... Yeah, I mean we're lucky a lot of our designers also know how to code, so even before the recent tools, come up with some sort of functional prototype and then be able to ship that so people can start playing with it.

Lenny RachitskyYeah. So, you have an idea in the morning, you build a prototype using various tools. By the end of the day, you are getting feedback from real people using one of these platforms, Voicepanel or UserTesting, and just that loop saves you, I imagine, potentially months of just building the thing nobody wants and shipping it, launching it, and then just failing.

Grant LeeTotally. Yeah. I think this is even more probably helpful for certainly a lot of folks that are starting to do much with vibe-coded apps. Yeah, that's great. You've lowered the amount of time to get something out there. Now, prove that it's useful to some set of users, and this should be again, every day, every week, you should be able to go through a ton of these, and then build on the things that seem to be working.

I feel like that's almost like a way to speed run a lot of that early... you're in the idea maze, you think you have something that could kind of work. How do you actually break through so that people are actually finding value in what you're building?

Lenny RachitskyYeah, I love it because so many people hear this idea of just run your stuff by users before you do the user research. It sounds so hard and heavy lift-y, and the way you're describing it is very automated, very quick to do. You don't have to go think about finding random people in a coffee shop. It's just like these platforms exist where you could go plug in your thing, get feedback by the end of the day.

Grant LeeTotally. Yeah, and that helps you just move way faster.

Lenny RachitskyIs there a feature that you were super excited about that you built and ran through this and just like, "Okay, that was a huge failure"?

Grant LeeI don't think any of the ones where we... We always try to chunk it down. So, none of the things we're testing earlier on are these massive features. They're always an inception or a starting point of, "This could be something interesting."

And then we take that initial learning and actually then build the product around it. It's never like, "Oh, we spent four months working on this thing. Let's see if anybody actually wants it." It's almost like we always start super early. And then a bunch of ideas die right away, but they're still pretty small ideas.
And then the ones that kind of pass the initial test, you start building towards something that could be, hopefully, more game-changing or much more value-add. And by the time you're actually shipping, you've gone through 10 different layers of actually testing and iteration before it actually sees the light of day.

Lenny RachitskyWhat's really interesting about you and the way your company operates, you guys are ex-Optimizely people, so you're very versed in experimentation. A lot of people talk about A/B testing experimentation as something that doesn't make sense for a startup because the scale is so low. What I'm hearing here, and I know this is something you talk about, is just there is actually a lot of ways to think experimentally, even in the early stages. Is there something more there you think is important for people to hear?

Grant LeeYeah. I really think it's more of... The mindset you go into to almost any problem or opportunity is the saying of, "Strong opinions weakly held." I think it's totally fine to have some of these assumptions or hypotheses going into a lot of these things, but you should always know that there's a way to start trying to validate some of this.

As a founder, you're always trying to build conviction, and so you build conviction by not having it all live in your head, but getting it out there and start testing this with users, prospect customers, and starting to see what are the things that actually feel right. And sometimes you have enough data to be statistically significant. Sometimes it's more of a, "Hey, we at least were able to gut check this a little bit and get some qualitative feedback." I think that's still valuable. It shouldn't be this sort of all or nothing like, "It has to be static for it to be useful." I don't think that's true.
In fact, I'll just share the very early story of when we first started Gamma, we knew we wanted to help change the way people communicate, and we actually had two different ideas we were parallel pathing kind of at the same time. Of course we had presentations, reimagining how people were creating presentations, and we also actually had this separate idea, which we called The Lobby, which is a virtual office. This is a place where this is, again, peak pandemic, much more hybrid work, much more virtual work. And so this was a place where everybody on the team, whether you're in the same office or not, could gather, collaborate to feel pretty magical.
And we worked on both for six months. We worked on both the virtual office and the presentation product for six months. We would dog-food both. So, oftentimes we'd be in the virtual office, presenting the presentation tool and kind of use both. And after six months, we came to this conclusion that we wanted to go all in on the presentation tool. And the reason was, when we looked at the virtual office tool, we were sort of always competing against what we thought was something we'd never be able to surpass, which is in real life experience, actually being able to work shoulder to shoulder with your colleagues and having this environment where you really feel like you're building together.
Virtual office could get pretty good, but we would never beat that. And so we were almost limited in our own imagination about how good could this product be versus the presentation product. We ended up with a million more ideas we thought we could actually introduce that could be better than how you work in PowerPoint today. We were just so energized by it.
And so for us, that was this sort of A/B test of testing these two things that we invested equal amount of time into, and coming out at the other end realizing that, one, was going to be the product we were pour all of our blood, sweat and tears into making it great because we saw the potential in it.

Lenny RachitskyI didn't know that about you guys, that you explored that other idea. There's so many startups that did that during COVID times, and like, "Okay, this is the future. We're all going to be remote, and let's work remotely in virtual offices." There's a startup and I'm a tiny investor in, Lindy, that is now a big AI agent company, and they did the same thing. I imagine that was their whole first concept. It was just these little avatars. It was like a little game where you walk around, go to little virtual meeting rooms.

Grant LeeYeah, it was a fun product to work on, but yeah.

Lenny RachitskyYeah, it's interesting how we just reverted back to the mean of just like, "Yeah, people are in offices again. That was a fun experience." Although things have changed. Just to highlight this point you made that I think is really powerful, I haven't heard it described this way before, just the power of testing prototypes very, very, very early, using these platforms that make it super easy.

We always hear, "Okay, you have a mock, you have a prototype. Yeah, testing with users always feels like this heavy thing. You got to have a user research team, go do interviews, do one-on-ones." What you're describing is something... I don't know why everyone's not doing this. With AI tools, it's so easy now. Have an idea, build the prototype, test it with, I don't know, is it like dozens of people? How many people actually run through a prototype on average?

Grant Lee20.

Lenny Rachitsky20 people. So, 20 people look at this thing, give you a bunch of feedback, you realize this was very dumb, or, "Here's the nugget that we want to lean into." And instead of building a thing, instead of doing all these user research sessions, things like that. Super cool.

Okay. Is there any other big lesson or lever that has helped you grow to today's 100 million ARR, and $2 billion company? We talked about influencer marketing, we talked about testing prototypes, investing in brand and a little bit of paid growth. Anything else?

Grant LeeCertainly for us, the ability to adapt and move fast in this environment. I attribute a lot of what we've been able to accomplish to a few things. One is we do have a small team and a lean team, one that's able to move really fast. I think that means, by default, we have to look for a lot of levers where a small team can do a lot of different things.

So, we can talk, one, obviously about how do you construct a team like ours and what I think has worked. And then two, going back to experimentation being this sort of thing where for us it's been a huge unlock because it allows you to not only test things and iterate a ton, it allows you to build much more efficiently. And so we've been in a startup where we've had great unit economics from the very beginning. We run profitably, we have really strong margins.
I don't think that would be possible if experimentation wasn't core infrastructure to us because the temptation would be you just throw the most expensive model at every job and assume that's going to work. And the reality is that never is the case. And so for us to be able to actually test across 20 different models in production today, always trying to align the kind of value we're delivering to our customers with our ability to actually scale this operation, that's been in the background.
And not always things that are easily quantifiable or things that you're sharing broadly, but it is core to our DNA. And again, going back to a team that came from Optimizely, probably not surprising, but I do think that's been part of our ability to actually execute at this level.

Lenny RachitskyI love that the product is so beautiful and such a good experience. It's such a good example of experimentation and being really obsessed with running experiments, A/B tests. Data can create really beautiful products and experiences that aren't just feeling like some kind of micro-optimized flow.

Grant LeeTotally. Yeah. And just going back to one part of the team, part of that plays a huge role, which is you want to build a product where people talk about taste and brand and all these things, what they emote. I'm not going to throw in whether or not, yes or no, but I do think it makes a difference. And for us, at some point, more than a quarter of a team or about a quarter of our team was product designers. I think that's an unintuitive level of investment, or at least that's not common. You don't see many startups at our stage or early stage where a quarter of the team's product designers.

And I think that was an important investment for us because when you think about with AI companies, so many companies are trying to invent new surface areas or new user experiences, and that's not possible if you're not really getting the foundation right, really thinking deeply about user problems and how can you solve them in a novel way. And so for us, we made that investment in the very beginning, even if it was counter to what other startups would do, because we actually felt like it was the right thing.

Lenny RachitskyOkay. I definitely want to spend more time on hiring. Before we get to that, you've touched on this kind of concept that you guys are, what many described, a GPT wrapper company. You essentially sit on top of other models, do some cool stuff, charge for that. There's historically, and there's been a big shift here, historically, there's this sense that, "Okay, you're just this thin layer on top of the model. How is there any sort of motor leverage or long-term business model here when it's just the model that is doing the thing and charging you guys to do all this AI work?"

It feels like people have started to realize maybe that is the only place money will be made because the models are just so hard to compete with, and that's not a place you can build a business anymore. Talk about just what you've learned about this concept of being a GPT wrapper, and what people may not be understanding about the business opportunity there.

Grant LeeWhen you think about maybe just literally only being a wrapper on one model or one provider, yeah, maybe there's only limited amount of utility or value add. But then when you start thinking about, "Okay, I'm going to go really deep into this one workflow, and it's not just one model." It's maybe 20 plus models powering all different parts of the product, and then you're thinking about the orchestration that's required and you're thinking about, obviously if you're experimenting constantly being able to test across the newest models versus models that have been around that are cheaper, you're doing a lot to really... Your job is to, again, align value, maximize the value you're delivering to the end user in a way that's sustainable for you as a business. And so there's a lot more to that.

And so for us, we've always been passionate about being very close to our customers, our users. Who, for them, their job to be done is visual communication, visual storytelling. And the default tool today is going into a PowerPoint or Google Slides where the amount of effort to create something... We've all been there late at night trying to format a deck, trying to find the right layout, all this manual and tedious work.
Well, what if you could abstract all that away and give them something that feels a little bit more delightful, a little bit easier, much more effortless? What would that earn you in terms of a customer that wants to come back to your product? And so that's everything that we focus on is you need to go deep into the workflow, be empathetic to the user and their job that you're trying to solve, and of course, apply the best technology possible so that you're delivering on that promise of a product experience that's way better than the status quo.
And I think if you can be laser-focused on, it doesn't matter if you're a wrapper or not, what is the technology you're doing and applying, that makes a real difference? So, that's the ultimate goal.

Lenny RachitskyThis is a really cool framework for how to think about what it takes to build a successful wrapper company that is... I don't know, I'll keep using that term. I don't know if it's , but just some ideas don't work. These model companies are launching their own products here and there.

So, what I love about what you're describing here is almost like a heuristic that'll tell you if there's an opportunity/how to be successful as a GPT "wrapper company." I'm putting in air quotes. It sounded like maybe there's three here. But talk about just if you think about the bullet points of what you need to do to build a successful business on top of existing models.

Grant LeeI mean, I think the most important thing is before we even talk about the technology, so we're skipping to the part where you're trying to apply the most interesting models or technology to solve some problem. Start with solving the problem you actually care about.

I think it's very tempting right now to chase shiny objects, like a founder might be able to gain some initial traction by literally being that GPT wrapper and solving any sort of problem. And you start to see some traction and then you just go with that. But before you do that, you should think about, "Is this a problem I can invest five to 10 years into actually solving? Do I care deeply enough about it?"
Because if you can't, you're never going to go... actually think about overcoming the variety of different hurdles, whether it's other startups or other incumbent tools that are trying to start doing the same thing.
And so for us, we go back to... We've started this company because we really care about helping change the way people communicate their ideas. We really feel like this idea of visual communication, visual storytelling matters. It helps elevate everybody and it gives people much more opportunity to do the things that in the past if you weren't great at making slides, your ideas might've died, and someone else that was able to actually articulate their ideas better ended up winning the deal or winning the favor of their manager or their boss.
And so we felt like that was the wrong, that didn't feel right, and so could we help democratize visual storytelling, visual communication? That was sort of our north star. And then you go back into thinking, "Okay, every step of the way, what are the tools and technology I can apply to help solve that and actually move the average person closer to that long-term vision of ours?"
And of course, AI has been, again, this gift where yes, you can apply that to solving this job. You can also apply that AI to many different jobs. Figure out what is the problem you care deeply enough to go deep, because going back to this sort of idea, you need to own the sort of end-to-end workflow. A customer needs to have... You want your product to live in their brain somewhere where when they think about, "Hey, I have to create a presentation." They come to you as the default tool.
And the moment they start creating it to the moment they ship it and send it to their boss, that end-to-end experience needs to feel magical, needs to feel great. And I don't think you can really do that unless it's actually a workflow you either know deeply yourself or you care deeply to actually help solve for somebody else.

Lenny RachitskySo, some of the elements I'm hearing here is, one, is just like actually really care about solving this problem, not come from, "Oh wow, this cool thing happened and it worked. Wow, maybe I could sell this thing to people." Because you may end up having to work on this thing for 10, 20 years.

Grant LeeTotally.

Lenny RachitskyTwo is: understand the problem really, really deeply and have real empathy for the people trying to solve this problem. You have this problem creating presentations at your previous job, so you understood it, and I imagine you understand even more deeply now that you worked on this. Essentially, care really deeply, go really deep on the problem, have real empathy for the people facing this problem, and then there's this actually be able to solve this problem using the technology out there.

And you made this point about how you guys use 20 different models to do what you do. Talk a little bit more about that just because people may think, "Oh, okay, I could just go to ChatGPT or Claude and it'll create an awesome presentation for me." Why does it take 20 different models? Why is that such a big part of the success here?

Grant LeeYeah, so going back to the workflow, you're trying to go and break down every step of the creation process for a user. So, the moment of the initial idea to maybe creating an outline of what you want to present or articulate to creating the first draft. What do we show you there to editing the content?

Like, "Okay, I have a first draft, but it's only 60% of the way there. How do I get to 100% of the way there?" Those are all things that might require different models. The initial outline might be better served by something that's purposed-built for actually creating the best outline, the best narrative, the best story arc, versus one where you're actually going back and saying... Gamma, our agent can actually go and review your entire deck and say, "Actually, if I were to add suggestions, I would say, 'You may want to change the visual layout on these set of cards, and you may want to actually change the imagery or the visuals for these cards to match everything else.'"
These are things that, again, every model might be better served for different things. And so knowing how that actually breaks down into the end user, sitting down, working on the product, working on their presentation, how do you help them? I think you can only do that by understanding-

Grant LeeTheir presentation, how do you help them? I think you can only do that by understanding that workflow and then breaking that down into finding the right tool for the right job.

Lenny RachitskyThat is super interesting. Essentially there's like, here's the things that AI has to do for us. I don't know, imagining some kind of a storyboard and then it's figure out the model and level of model and prompt for that model to achieve each of these steps as best as possible.

Grant LeeTotally. Yeah, and it applies to even on the visual side, finding the right image. I think certain models are great at photorealistic output versus others want more of the artistic vibe or something that feels more abstract. And so again, you can choose the right model for the right job. It doesn't mean that you'll never use other models, it's just like as you're going through that workflow, the content might dictate what's the best use case. So in that particular use case and so you're always trying to map to that, what is the end user trying to accomplish in that certain moment?

Lenny RachitskyWhich models are you finding most useful in the work? I don't know, is there anything surprising about, "Oh wow, this model's actually really good at this and this is really bad at that."

Grant LeeYeah, I think surprising or not surprising, the leaderboard is constantly changing and so this is where you almost, you have to have the mindset that you can be adaptable. We're just getting to the point where there's going to be more personalization too, is going back to a consultant's going to have different needs than an educator. Educator's trying to engage their students. They may want to have language or visuals are more animated and that makes sense. Consultant can't get away with that. They may need something that is much more structured or information dense. And so again, how do we actually be the same tool that can serve both of those needs? I think that's where it becomes interesting and it's almost like there isn't necessarily even a "best model". It's like what's the right model for that particular user? That's actually a much harder problem to solve and we're just starting to try to embrace some of that now.

Lenny RachitskyIs there one that's just like, "Oh, that's actually really cool." For something that we didn't expect?

Grant LeeEarly on, things like creating the outline, Perplexity was actually great. Not one that people talk about as often, but creating the outline and doing web search and actually integrating some of those elements together for us was pretty powerful.

Lenny RachitskyOkay, there's two more things I want to talk about. One is pricing. How you guys figured out your approach to pricing. You guys started monetizing really early and that feels like such an important piece to AI startups because you're spending real money on an inference and other things. And then I want to talk about hiring. So in terms of pricing, when did you decide it was time to really start charging and then how did you pick your approach to pricing your actual price?

Grant LeeSo we kind of stumbled into having to do pricing and packaging. I mentioned our big AI launch in March 2023. This was pre-revenue, so we wanted just to get, we focused all of our effort on the first 30 seconds, literally all hands on deck, just trying to get that right. And we spent zero time on actually monetization. So we had a credit system. All new users get 400 credits. Once they burn through those credits, there was actually nothing more you could do with AI. It kind of just got cut off. And so Intercom for us was just blowing up with people saying, "How do I purchase more credits? I want to keep using this thing." In a very fair question. So basically all of April we ended up having to do a quick sort of pricing and packaging exercise. We did a couple of different things.

We did run a form of Van Westendorp, which is just understanding-

Lenny RachitskyClassic.

Grant Lee...what is the overall willingness to pay. And so we did use that. We did kind of integrate some forms of conjoint analysis, which is just trying to understand what are the features or things that people actually value in your product. And so we'd survey a lot of our early users and ended up coming to a price point that was, in the beginning we only had one plan type. It was roughly like 20 bucks a month. Part of this was also just realizing we almost didn't need to overthink it too much because this is when the initial wave of AI companies and startups were coming out and products are coming out and you almost end up becoming anchored by, what does ChatGPT charge? Because everyone becomes familiar with that price point. And so we ask ourselves how complicated do we want to make it?

We always default to remove friction, make it as easy as possible for a user to understand. And so we end up coming up with a similar price point and ship that as the V1, basically end of May 2023. And for us, we wanted to see a couple of things like, okay, we have the initial price point. Is it economical for us at that price point? Are we actually making money? And we'd monitor there for that for many, many months realizing that yes, actually at that price point we could still generate pretty good margins and that would allow us to reinvest that profit back into growing the business.
Continue to add obviously head count, but then also investing even more into inference costs, whatever we wanted to do to experiment broadly with AI. And so we've always had that pricing and packaging. Does it not only need to be easy to understand for a user, obviously you have to have strong conversion rates, but it should be something where you feel like you could build an enduring durable business off of. And if it's not right, then you can always go back and try to tweak things, but it's something you should be monitoring as early as possible.

Lenny RachitskyWhat's interesting, we have the head of ChatGPT on the podcast and he shared the way they picked ChatGPT's prices is the Van Westendorp survey that they ran in Google Forms.

Grant LeeTotally. Yeah, I listened to that one. Yeah, it was a great one.

Lenny RachitskyOh, what a, that survey man, what a, and not only just that survey being the slick, I'm imagining that XKCD comic with the open source little, I don't know, block holding up the entire world, like this one little piece of code. That's like the survey, just behind everything. But it's interesting how that one decision just created this ripple effect on all AI startups, 20 bucks a month. Of course that's what everyone's doing.

Grant LeeTotally. Who knows what would happen if they chose a different number, but here we are.

Lenny RachitskyEveryone would be so much more rich if it's just like 25 bucks. Someone. Imagine the GDP of growth-

Grant LeeYeah.

Lenny Rachitsky...from that. Oh man. Okay. And then the way, so was Van Westendorp helped you pick a price point and then you said this conjoint analysis, we actually have a guest post that I think describes how to do this well and if not we'll find, appoint people to how to actually approach this. You started charging, so was post product launch, you launch with no paid features. People were just like, "I want to pay, I want to keep using this." You're like, "Okay, I guess we've got to start charging."

Grant LeeThat's right. Yep.

Lenny RachitskyIs there anything, looking back, I guess just you wish you'd known when you were approaching pricing for folks that are doing this now like, "Oh, we should have done this differently or should have thought about this."

Grant LeeYeah, I mean that one's hard. I think you never want to obviously just throw something together without giving it much thought, but for us with limited resources, we focused on the only thing we thought mattered, which was getting some initial users and having that organic growth. And I think there's maybe two checkpoints of thinking about whether or not you feel like you have product market fit. I think one checkpoint is organic growth. The second is are people willing to pay for the product? And I think if you pass both those, you feel like you've, at least within some pocket of the market you have some PMF. So I think those are both important questions to ask depending on your resources. Ideally you can do kind of both and experiment a little bit along at the same time. And then by the time you actually have paying users, you sort of check some of those boxes for yourself.

Lenny RachitskyBy the way, I love that your launch pricing. You're like, "Okay, let's figure out if we're actually making money or not." It's not obvious with AI companies.

Grant LeeWell, we also didn't have a choice because at that point runway was also low. So if we weren't making money, well we would actually be in a tough spot.

Lenny RachitskyThat's such a good point that you did not have a huge amount of money sitting around to spend on the way a lot of companies in AI do, just, "We'll deal with it and we'll figure out how to make money later."

Grant LeeTotally. Within a couple of months we had hit a million in ARR and became profitable. And so those were both two exciting milestones for a company that months prior were heads down figuring out how we even survive.

Lenny RachitskyWhat a story. I'm so excited to be telling this story. Okay, final topic I want to talk about is hiring. You have some really hot takes on hiring, clearly it's worked out for you guys. What are some things you've learned about hiring well, what is your approach to hiring?

Grant LeeSo we had this mantra internally, I mean even before the sort of AI launch for us, which was "Hire painfully slowly." And I think the temptation is once things start working, you just start, scaling this thing and start adding more and more headcount. And for us that always, I don't know, that didn't feel right. We wanted to build the team very thoughtfully, be lean, but also be a team that every individual feels like they have high amount of impact that they have on a daily basis. And so for us that was from sort of the very beginning. And so even as we've scaled up, I think we've been super efficient by nature of just being a very lean team.

Lenny RachitskySo I think a lot of people hear this advice of "Stay lean, be efficient." You have some even more concrete pieces of advice here of just what that looks like. You have a huge, I don't know, philosophy of just huge leverage per person. You focus a lot on revenue per employee. Talk about that.

Grant LeeSo obviously we look at things like revenue per employee, but we never let that be the sort of North Star. It's not something that dictates our strategy per se. Same thing with profitability. I think by being efficient, that ends up becoming a side effect of yeah, we are profitable and growing. But I think for us more is like we care a ton about adding the right team members. So it's easy. You can almost sort of shoot yourself in the foot as a founder by just setting the wrong goals. If your goal is to double in headcount and add a hundred people to the company, then that becomes the goal. The goal is no longer to add the best people. It's no longer to maintain a high quality bar. The goal is to hit a hundred people and that's everything everyone's focused on. So then guess what?

If that's the goal, then the thing that ends up dropping is, okay, maybe we will settle for employees that are good enough and we're going to make sure we get to that hundred because a hundred is going to help us get to the next phase of growth. And then the next phase of growth. And I think we've tried to resist that temptation, which is we want everybody that comes through the door and joins our team to really be the type of person that represents Gamma. Our first 10 to 12 employees, we spent so much time really getting the DNA right. I think Brian Chesky talks about this. Your goal is you get that first 10 and you want to be able to then replicate the next 10 and then replicate the next 10, but that 10 needs to be all super cohesive. You need to have the same shared values, same principles, same ambition, same vision, and if you don't, then what are you even replicating?
Right? At that point you're just adding headcount and you can easily just be adding headcount because we're chasing the next shiny startup to join. And so for us, we really focused on that first 10. That allows us to really have this sort of community of teammates that basically want to stick around. A lot of founders think about not wanting to have a leaky bucket on the product side, but the same thing applies on the team side. If you have a leaky bucket, people are just constantly leaving, revolving door. That's a huge amount of cost. The continuity cost is massive and it's really hard to quantify.
And I mentioned our first 10 employees, all 10 of them are still here today, five years later. And so that sort of continuity, it means that you have this tribal knowledge that sticks with you. It means that people can continue building and having that sort of cohesive feeling. So I think that's one piece that's just like, it's hard to quantify, but I do think, new startups I would advise just to really be thoughtful about that, get that to a point where you really feel confident that as you're adding the next 10 and next hundred, you're actually replicating the same DNA and not actually just adding a bunch of random people to the company.

Lenny RachitskyOne of your very specific piece of advice is hire generalists versus someone that's just really deep in one thing, why is that so important? What does that look like?

Grant LeeThis very much feels like the age of the generalist or the rise of the generalist right now. When we think about of a team that can be really flat, you still want people that can be very spiky in certain areas. So for instance, obviously a product designer that knows how to code, that's great. It allows you to actually span across many different domains. And again, an organization that's super flat, when you're wearing a lot of different hats, that means every individual, if you're a generalist, you can wear by default a lot of different hats. And that's helped us just maintain this idea that the work, the opportunity in front of us can easily expand. Each person plays a huge role. They don't need to wait and ask for permission. They can go after and pick up a piece of work because it's there and they can at least get it started even if they're not the one that always sees it through.

And so for us, I do think this rise of the generalist is going to be important. You can always augment that by working with contractors or agencies that are hyper-specialized in certain areas. And this is where, for instance, going back to influencer marketing, you might work with an agency rather than kind of scale up your own influencer marketing team. You work with a hyper-specialized team there. But my marketing team is all generalists. Our head of marketing more recently launched this cool drone show in San Francisco. We have 4,000 people in San Francisco. The mayor came by, she created that entire project and managed that entire project end to end herself while also managing the entire marketing team. And so it's like this idea that a generalist is able to play all these different roles, can still be super high impact. For us, it also goes hand in hand with, I mentioned sort of this other role, which is the player coach. Traditional management layer is like a manager manages a ton of people and that's kind of their core focus.
All of our people leaders are player coaches in that they still do the end work themselves and they can mentor and coach those around them. This analogy came from, or this mindset came from, it's something I borrowed from just the sports world in general because there's a lot of sports that just move incredibly fast. Like football for instance, it moves really, really fast. And so you might have a coach that's calling into play, but the quarterback can actually make a last-minute adjustment based on what he's seeing the defense do. And so you want a player that is on the field that can adapt as needed and that way the coach doesn't have to call every single thing in. He's just kind of giving you the general intent of what you want to run as the play and then the quarterback can still make the adjustments.
And so all of our people leaders, our management layer is all folks that actually can make those adjustments. If they're seeing something that doesn't feel right on a daily or weekly basis, they're adjusting priorities for that team and they're still doing the work themselves too. They're so close to it that they understand what is the relative prioritization at all times. So both of those I think have been, when I think about founders, they oftentimes think about innovation in the sense, we're going to innovate on products or innovate on technology. I think every founder today has a chance to innovate on org design, and that starts by just thinking about what is the type of company we want to build today? What does it mean? And when it comes to the management later, what type of sort of leaders do we hire? What does it mean when it comes to hiring specific roles and specific functions? All of that is a chance for you to be very thoughtful and build a company that you're excited to be at for hopefully many, many years to come.

Lenny RachitskySo what I'm hearing here is manager, there's no pure managers at Gamma and your plan is to not have people that are just managing the ideas. Everyone, even a manager is doing their own IC work.

Grant LeeYes.

Lenny RachitskyAnd then the other piece of advice here is just generalists. People that can do a lot of stuff, and I hear this a lot on this podcast just like everyone is, there's no more just like you're a designer, that's all you're going to do. Designers need to build stuff, market stuff, write some PRDs probably.

Grant LeeJust one thing to add is that's where we are at today. I think being adaptable means that certain things may evolve and change and how the player coach model evolves and maybe in certain functions or as the team scales, that's not going to be practical everywhere. I think the reality is you just have to know and be willing to adopt different frameworks over time and being honest with yourself with what's working, what's not. I think we're constantly trying to learn and evolve ourselves. I think we're doing it in a way that we don't believe it really has been done before, and so we have to kind of pave our own path over time.

Lenny RachitskyI love that. Giving yourself an out when the time comes when you need to just hire managers.

Grant LeeA year later when you invite me back, I'll say, "Yeah, this is what we learned."

Lenny RachitskyYeah, that makes sense. That's probably going to happen. It's like people are like, "We don't need product managers." "I see. Maybe we do." Yeah, that makes sense. One last piece I want to talk about is you have this really cool quote that you shared on Twitter. " When you find someone exceptional, bet big on them." This is a big part of your philosophy is just bet big on the people that are doing super well. Just talk about what that looks like and why that's so important.

Grant LeeYeah, I mean this starts top of the funnel, which is you meet candidates, you decide who you actually hire. And so if you don't start with a high bar there, going back to what is the goal? The goal is to hit a hiring target versus maintaining a super high quality hiring bar. Those are different goals and I don't think we've ever kind of dropped our bar. And so then you bring somebody in that you think is exceptional, that brings something unique to the table, that can be a good teammate. When they're thriving, you just give them more and more resources. I think what you realize, another sports analogy is when you're on an A team for instance, or a team that you feel like is exceptional, A players want actually more playing time. You never see a star player that says "I actually want less playing time."

They want more time on the field, they want to actually go after the hardest problems. They want to be able to feel like they're making a huge impact. And so if you have fewer exceptional teammates where you can just throw almost anything at them and they'll figure it out, that feels for you as a team, just feels great because then they get what they find rewarding, which is the ability to go after hard hairy problems and to be able to come out through the other end feeling like they've accomplished something. And I think that for us has always been something that goes beyond just almost everything else. We give people a chance to really thrive in this environment and we try to nurture that as much as humanly possible every step of the way.

Lenny RachitskyIs there anything else around hiring that you think is really important or a big lesson you've learned or lesson you share that we haven't talked about yet?

Grant LeeI mean, there's some of these intangibles, which is for the founding team, does this feel like this could be your life's work? When you're pitching a potential candidate, does this feel like something where you're actually committed? The unfortunate side of a lot of what's happening in the AI world broadly is I think you're coming to learn which founders are sort of missionaries versus mercenaries. And many that were just chasing maybe just a big outcome, or something shiny, or something to feel good about themselves, they'll go off and then the company, I guess doesn't live on or maybe has to find a different way, a different path.

And so something I admire is you look at some of the founders, obviously before this sort of AI era, folks like Dylan or Melanie, Figma, Canva, Ivan at Notion, they've been doing this for over a decade now. They had many chances to just leave and sunset off into doing whatever they wanted to do, but they care so much about the mission, they've stuck it through. And I think when you're talking to candidates, candidates can kind of tell, is this something the founders even care about? And I think you're going to have a better chance of attracting true missionaries, people that want to build with you for the long haul, if it's authentic and it's something you actually care about.

Lenny RachitskyOh man, I keep saying this. I feel like we could have at least five more hours of stuff to talk about. That'll be good content for when you come back and you're making a billion dollars a year. Before we get to our very exciting lightning round, Grant, is there anything else that you think is important for people to hear? Any last, I don't know, lesson you want to double down on? Anything you want to leave listeners with?

Grant LeeYeah, I mean, just going back to the original story of that was probably the ultimate low point. Having an investor that spent 20 minutes listening to my pitch, telling me that it was the worst thing, worst idea in the world. I think throughout the journey there's going to be those low moments. And when I think about being a founder and working a startup, you're honestly just trying to increase your luck surface area as much as possible. And for me, luck surface area has two dimensions. The first dimension is people. Who are you surrounding yourself with that share your same ambition, share the same values, same principles, and find those people and then give yourself enough time to prove that you guys can accomplish great things. I'm lucky to have two amazing co-founders. We've been working on this thing for five years. There's 0% chance we'd be where we are if I didn't have them. And we've had to overcome a lot. But I guess for us it's like creating that own luck over a long time horizon has been the only way that it's been possible.

Lenny RachitskyWell, it's clearly showing in the success you guys are having. Grant, with that, we've reached our very exciting lightning round. Are you ready?

Grant LeeYep. Yes.

Lenny RachitskyAll right. I've got five questions for you. First question, what are two or three books that you find yourself recommending most to other people?

Grant LeeYeah, so I'll give one that's for pre-product market fit folks and the one post-product market fits.

Lenny RachitskyPerfect.

Grant LeePre-product market fit I would say is Shoe Dog, which is written by Phil Knight, founder of Nike. And he talks about two things. One, you should chase your sort of crazy ideas, but these should be ideas you're passionate about. He was an athlete, and so not surprisingly, he focused a lot about creating tools or shoes in this case for other athletes and was passionate about that. And the second thing he taught me was going back to the team thing, he surrounded himself with other people that were super passionate about athletics and shoes as well. And so the folks that he had as his initial startup crew were all that.

And I think that gives you a chance of overcoming a ton, where you're focused on problems you actually care about solving, and you're dealing with a team that shares the same ambition as you. Post-product market fit, there's a book called 7 Powers by Hamilton Helmer, where I think when you think about how to build a durable business, there's so much in there. I think there's a lot that you can kind of read and reread as you kind of evolve and hit new milestones yourself. And so much of that can be both tactical but also zooming out and thinking about what are the big picture strategic questions you as a founding team you need to be thinking about. So both are great.

Lenny RachitskyHamilton was on the podcast, we'll link to that episode. I also love that book. Many people mention it. Next question, do you have a favorite recent movie or TV show you've really enjoyed?

Grant LeeYeah, The Lazarus Project is one, I'm a huge sucker for time travel and sci-fi, so this is one I just started watching. And for me, it has all the right ingredients for a fun show.

Lenny RachitskyIs there a product you recently discovered that you really love?

Grant LeeYeah, I mentioned this already, Voicepanel. So again, a full disclosure angel investor, but we've been using it and going back to kind of being a cheat code for folks that are starting to experiment a ton with different ideas, vibe coding, maybe some of these might get this into the hands of users, hear what they think about it. I think, and honestly can help speed up a lot of things and save you time from wasting time on the wrong ideas or ideas where there's no market.

Lenny RachitskyIs there a life motto that you often find yourself coming back to in work or in life?

Grant LeeYeah, so there's this Chinese idiom that my mom used to say, it's a [foreign language 01:50:24] which the translation is "A frog at the bottom of a well". And the story is like there's a frog at the bottom of the well. He looks up every night and he sees the world and he imagines he knows everything about the world. And then one day a bird comes along and describes all the things that he sees, the ocean, the mountains, and the frog realizes that what he sees is just such a limited part of the world and the bird asks, "Do you want to come join me?" And kind of see the rest of it. And so frog goes along.

And so for me, I came from a pretty modest childhood. My parents, we didn't have a whole lot and I think it would've been very easy to kind of have a very narrow lens on the world and be like, "Oh, this is what it is." But my mom never allowed me to do that. She always pulled me to dream much bigger to say, "Hey, the world is vast. It's your opportunity to seize it. You have to go out there, don't have a narrow view of what's possible. Always dream bigger." And so for me, that's always carried through and every time I feel like I'm thinking too little or too small, I try to zoom out and remind myself that there's much more out there to go after.

Lenny RachitskyThat is so good and so important and so valuable in today's world where so much more is possible. Just like, most of what limits people it feels like now is just, I don't know what idea I have. I don't know what to do. Now you could get things done so much quicker and so much more is possible. So that's such valuable thinking. Okay, final question. You help people present better. Your tools basically help people become better presenters. What's one tip you've learned or one tip you teach people to become better presenters that might be helpful to listeners?

Grant LeeYeah, I mean, I'll go back to the consumer advertising concept, which is one idea at a time, this notion of you give them one egg, someone can catch it, give them too many eggs, they're going to drop it. So don't try to throw too many concepts all at once. Keep it simple. People will appreciate it. And so with every sort of presentation, break it down into the core concepts, try to make sure you're covering one at a time. And I think once you sort of see a through line there, then it becomes easy for it to package up into something that feels more cohesive.

Lenny RachitskyLess is more, as they say.

Grant LeeTotally.

Lenny RachitskyGrant, two final questions. Where can folks find you online? Where can they find Gamma? What should they know? Just plug anything you want and then how can listeners be useful to you?

Grant LeeYeah, so you can find me on both Twitter and LinkedIn, DM's open. I honestly hear just knowing how hard the journey is in general, whether just thinking about a startup idea or you're deep into startup land, I want to be hopefully helpful. I'm going to be hopefully your biggest cheerleader, so let me know how I can help. And then for us, we're always looking for feedback. So if you're trying Gamma, it's falling short of your expectations, let us know. We'd love to help in terms of just trying to make it better. And yeah, really appreciate all the feedback and support along the way.

Lenny RachitskyGrant, this was awesome. I really appreciate you making time. I know you're trying to build a crazy fast-growing startup with a lot going on, so I really appreciate you making time for this.

Grant LeeThanks, Lenny. It's been a blast.

Lenny RachitskyIt's been a blast for me too. Bye everyone.

Thank you so much for listening. If you found this valuable, you can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, 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.

Grant Lee我大概刚进行到第三场 pitch。讲到最后时，我还觉得自己状态不错，感觉这次说得挺顺。结果那位投资人停顿了一下，然后直接说：“这大概是我听过最差的一次 pitch，也是我听过最差的一个想法。你不只是要跟 incumbents 对着干，你要对上的还是那些分发能力极强的 incumbents。你根本不可能赢。”

Lenny Rachitsky你们现在已经做到超过 1 亿美元 ARR，估值也超过 20 亿美元。你们早期增长里，有一个特别有意思的方法是 influencer marketing。

Grant Lee最早那批 influencer，几乎都是我一个一个亲手带起来的。我会跟每个人都约电话，确保他们真的理解 Gamma 代表什么、产品该怎么用。你希望他们最终讲出来的是“他们自己的故事”，但这个故事里有 Gamma，而且要用他们自己的语气说出来。很多人一提 influencer marketing，脑子里想到的都是那些很红的大 creator，觉得得找那种一两百万粉丝的人。其实这是错的。你基本上是给他们一份稿子让他们照着念，那听起来立刻就像广告，产品跟他们本人也没有真正的连接。你更应该去做那件更难、也更难 scale 的事：去找到成千上万个 micro influencers，他们的受众里，这个产品真的可能有用，而且大家也真的信他们说的话。最后形成的，反而会是一场能扩得非常非常快的野火。

Lenny Rachitsky你还提到过一点，就是哪怕在很早期，其实也有很多方式可以用实验思维做事。

Grant Lee我们经常是早上有了一个想法，很快做出一个能跑的 functional prototype，然后去招一批真正有可能成为用户的人来试。但这些人有一个前提：他们对你没有任何“人情债”，没有 skin in the game。我们会尽可能快地把东西放出去，让他们开始玩起来。到下午时，很多时候我们就已经在跑一个相当完整的实验了。你会开始真正听到别人怎么描述自己在用这个产品，也能直接看到他们卡在哪里、怎么 struggle。到了晚上，或者最迟第二天，我们就能把这些观察拉到一起复盘：好，这块我们得回去改，这个根本没法用。我们几乎所有东西都是这么做出来的。

Lenny Rachitsky今天的嘉宾是 Gamma 的 CEO 和联合创始人 Grant Lee。这期对话非常特别，也很鼓舞人，而且在战术层面上特别有用。因为 Grant 正在做的，基本就是绝大多数创始人梦寐以求的那种公司：一家体量巨大的 AI 创业公司，而且是盈利的，并且已经盈利很久；早期也没有融很多钱；团队非常小，大概只有 30 人左右，小到大家一起去一家小餐馆都坐得下，但服务的却是全球超过 5000 万用户。

如果你还不熟悉 Gamma，它是一款由 AI 驱动的演示文稿和网站设计工具。他们只用了两年多一点就做到 1 亿美元 ARR，估值超过 20 亿美元。而且和很多你平时听到的高速增长 AI 创业公司不一样，他们是盈利、可持续地增长，所在的还是一个大多数人原本根本不相信能做出大生意的品类。正如你会在这期里听到的，有位投资人曾直接对 Grant 说：这是他听过最蠢的点子。
在这次对话里，Grant 会分享很多非常反直觉的经验：他们是怎么找到 product-market fit 的，怎么确认自己真的有了 PMF，哪些具体策略帮他们实现增长，包括一段让我听得非常震撼的 influencer marketing 深聊；还有他们怎么定价、他如何看待打造一家有长期生命力的 GPT wrapper 公司，以及大量关于招聘的建议，等等等等。说实话，这期完全可以再多聊两个小时。我猜我们明年还会再录一次 follow-up。
我和播客嘉宾们都很喜欢聊 craft、taste、agency 和 product-market fit。你知道我们不爱聊什么吗？SOC 2。Vanta 就是来解决这个问题的。Vanta 帮各种规模的公司更快完成合规，并持续保持合规状态，靠的是行业领先的 AI 自动化和持续监控。不管你是第一次做 SOC 2 或 ISO 27001 的初创公司，还是在管理 vendor risk 的大型企业，Vanta 的 trust management 平台都能让整个过程更快、更轻松、更易扩展。它还可以帮你把安全问卷填写速度提升到最多 5 倍，这样你就能更快拿下更大的订单。根据 IDC 最近的一项研究，Vanta 客户每年能节省超过 50 万美元，而且生产效率提升了 3 倍。建立信任已经不是可选项，Vanta 把这件事变成自动化。去 vanta.com/lenny，可以减免 1000 美元。

Grant LeeLenny，能来这里真的很开心。谢谢你邀请我。

Lenny Rachitsky我在 LinkedIn 信息流里老是看到你的脸，不知道你知不知道这件事。就是那些 JPMorgan Chase 的广告。我一直很好奇，到底是不是只有我会看到。你知道这事吗？

Grant Lee我现在差不多每天都会收到一条短信，没有正文，只有一张截图，或者一张我在旧金山做点什么的广告图。所以，对，是有点尴尬，但我们确实也是 JPMorgan Chase 的满意客户，多少也算是在帮他们站台。

Lenny Rachitsky天啊，我真希望你是真的喜欢他们。因为每次都是你，永远没有别人，就是 Grant。

Grant Lee我知道。要不我去跟他们说说，看能不能换个人？如果能把别人顶上去，我完全没意见。

Lenny Rachitsky好，那我们认真一点。之所以特别想请你来，是因为和很多超高速增长的 AI 创业公司不一样，你们不仅增长非常快，而且还增长得非常赚钱。我们后面会展开聊这个。你们刚开始时也没有融很多钱，而是等了很久才去融一大笔。你们做的还是一个大多数人原本根本不觉得机会有这么大的品类。某种意义上说，你们已经实现了现在很多创始人的梦想，尤其是那些在做 AI 创业的人。

所以我希望这场对话能像一次“成功 AI 创业公司的田野调查”。我们来聊聊你们怎么找到 product-market fit，怎么长出来，整条路上都学到了什么。我准备把这场对话按几个不同阶段拆开来聊。进入第一段之前，你觉得关于 Gamma 的故事，有没有什么是大家特别值得先听到的？

Grant Lee可以的话，我想先讲一个小故事。其实就是我们的创始故事。我们 2020 年创办这家公司，那正好是疫情高峰期。连融资的方式都完全不一样了，所有融资都是在 Zoom 上完成的。你就是坐在 Zoom 会议里 pitch，而很多投资人你从头到尾都没在线下见过。所以那真的是一个很不一样的时代。我们当时又是第一次创业。我那会儿其实住在伦敦，时区也不一样，所以所有 pitch 都得在晚上做。我还有两个很小的孩子，所以总得等他们睡着。晚上 8 点以后，在一个不大的公寓里，我基本就是在小厨房和洗衣区之间找一个小角落，把镜头架起来，尽量离孩子远一点，免得把他们吵醒。

然后从晚上 8 点一直讲到凌晨 2 点，疯狂 pitch，尽自己最大努力。我还特地用了假的 Zoom 背景，不想让人知道我到底在哪儿。就这么一直讲。结果第一天，讲到第三场 pitch 时，我正在努力把 Gamma 这个故事讲清楚，也开始慢慢找到一点节奏了。讲到最后时，我感觉自己表现得还挺不错。然后那位投资人停顿了一下，直接说：“这大概是我听过最差的一次 pitch、最差的一个想法。你不只是跟 incumbents 对着干，而且你面对的 incumbents 还有极强的分发能力。你根本不可能成功。”
我当时脑子里一下子就被打懵了，心里在想我该怎么回这句话。结果我还没来得及开口，对方就把电话挂了。我一个人坐在那里，脑子里还在回味刚才那句话。甚至还没来得及彻底自我怀疑，因为我马上就得准备下一场 pitch。但那一刻，我的确把一种感觉吃进去了：也许他说得对。也许他指出来的某些东西，真的就是问题所在。所以我开始想，如果我们真要在这个品类里活下来、做出来，那从第一天开始就必须认真思考增长。这会是一个极其难打进去的市场。
所以我们后来几乎是对自己做了一个承诺：接下来继续做产品的时候，增长会是绝对关键的一件事。也想顺带跟你的听众说一句，我自己并不是 growth 出身。所以如果连我都能学会增长，那我觉得任何人都能学。尤其在今天这种市场环境下，竞争高度激烈、品类又经常很拥挤，增长能力会是必修课。

Lenny Rachitsky这个故事太有意思了。天啊，那位投资人现在得有多后悔。我们就不点名了。顺带给大家报个数字，等这一期上线时，这些数据应该已经是公开的：你们现在 ARR 已经超过 1 亿美元，估值超过 20 亿美元。而且再说一遍，这是一个原本大多数人都不觉得能在这个品类里跑出来的生意。

Grant Lee对，谢谢。我们自己也非常为这件事感到骄傲。也很期待把一些对我们真正有效的增长策略和做法分享出来，希望也能对别人的旅程有一点帮助。

Lenny Rachitsky好，那我们开始吧。先聊 product-market fit。跟我们讲讲你们是怎么找到 PMF 的，又是怎么确认自己真的找到了。

Grant Lee我先讲讲我们第一次觉得“也许我们真的摸到 PMF 了”的那个瞬间。很多创始人都会反复问自己：我们到底有了，还是没有？而且这里面很容易出现一种诱惑，就是你会不自觉地骗自己，硬把一些信号解读成“我们有了”。我们第一次公开 beta 发布，是在 2022 年 8 月。那次我们是在 Product Hunt 上发的，发完之后感觉特别好。我们自己觉得那次 launch 很成功，最后还拿到了 product of the day、product of the week、product of the month。当时的感觉就是：哇，我们可能真有点东西了。

但接着你去看 signup 数据，就会发现一开始确实有一波明显的峰值，然后它就慢慢平了。我们每天还是会有新用户进来，但很明显，强劲的 word of mouth 并没有发生，也没有那种很强的 organic virality。所以如果只是顺着当时的状态继续往前推，我们其实知道，产品并不会靠自己长起来。中间少了点什么。缺的就是那种足够强的口碑，能让产品自己继续滚动增长。
于是我们就认真问自己：那到底要改什么？最后得出的答案是，我们得从根上把一切都改掉。对我们来说，那几乎成了一个“赌公司”的时刻。因为那时我们的 runway 已经不多了，我们知道必须尽快做出实质进展，但又并不真的知道还有什么办法可行。于是我们把所有人召集起来。当时团队大概刚刚超过 12 个人。我们说，好，接下来全员上阵。
我们要尽一切可能，让用户进入产品后的前 30 秒显得像魔法一样。只要一落进产品里，那一下就得足够好，而且要好到什么程度？好到一个走完 onboarding 的人，会忍不住去告诉身边所有朋友。如果我们能把这件事做对，也许我们才真的有机会在这个品类里干出点什么。所以在发布后，我们明明一开始感觉很好，但还是知道自己必须重新回到画板前。
接下来的三四个月，我们几乎是在把整个 onboarding 体验推倒重做。当然，这里面 AI 对我们来说也起了很大作用。我们直接把 onboarding 重新设计成：AI 本身就是 onboarding 的一部分。这样每个新用户在前 30 秒里，都能直接感受到那种“magic”。然后我们在 2023 年 3 月底重新发布。结果突然之间，signup 从原来每天几百个，第一天先跳到几千，第二天大概就有 5000 个，然后 10000 个、20000 个每天。
而且这个数字还在继续往上走。那时候我们并没有做什么 marketing，也没投广告，几乎全是靠产品本身的 organic word of mouth 和 virality 在长：用户用了产品，再分享给别人。也是从那一刻开始，我们第一次真正感觉到那种“被产品往前拉”的 pull。我们几乎不用做什么，产品自己就在长。那种感觉和 Product Hunt launch 之后的感觉截然不同。因为如果是从 Product Hunt 那次的状态出发，我们其实完全有可能骗自己，告诉自己：“我们已经有 PMF 了。”
而且那种时候，最大的诱惑其实是：不如我们多投点广告，多做点 marketing 吧。反正只要把 top of funnel 做大，剩下的自然会自己跑起来。但我觉得那会是个陷阱。那条路会把我们带进一种“硬砸资源去 brute force PMF”的状态里，而 PMF 会永远像个海市蜃楼，你以为快到了，但其实永远到不了。所以我觉得我们当时做了一个很难、但也是对的决定。那确实是个“赌公司”的时刻，而翻过去以后，整个手感完全不一样。

Lenny RachitskyGrant，这正是我最想让这场对话呈现出来的东西，我已经开始兴奋了。你刚刚这段里，我马上就有一堆追问，甚至都还没走到后面的增长阶段。你这里说得其实很关键：对你来说，product-market fit 的信号，某种意义上就是 organic growth 真正开始起飞，产品开始靠口碑自己长。你几乎不用怎么推，因为东西足够好，大家自然会去告诉朋友。除了这个判断之外，还有没有什么你觉得对别人也会有帮助的信号？就是那种“好，这东西真长出来了”时，实际感受上到底是什么样？

Grant Lee有的。我最想给的一个建议是：在很早期时，你的心态几乎应该是“我要造一台 word of mouth machine”。只要你把这部分做对了，后面其他很多事情都会一下子容易非常多。而且我觉得这不只适用于 prosumer 和 B2C，哪怕是 B2B 产品也一样。如果你做的是 B2B，哪怕你不会把它发给所有朋友，你也至少应该会想把它推荐给那些在工作里真的会用上的同事，甚至是以前一起共事过的人。你应该会忍不住说：“天啊，我们以前要是有这个就好了。”这种感觉本身也该是有点 magic 的。

然后你还应该能从所有进来的 leads 里看到这种迹象：无论是 prospect，还是已有客户继续带来的线索。如果这些线索里，不是有一块相当健康的比例是这样自然长出来的，那我会回头追问：为什么？为什么没有发生？因为这才是你最需要的巨大 tailwind。有了它之后，你在上面叠加的每一件事，无论是 marketing、sales 还是 advertising，都会一下子变得容易得多。

Lenny Rachitsky你这里还有一个点很值得展开。你把它叫作 word of mouth machine。这里面有多少是靠 word of mouth loops、viral features，本身就是传播机制设计出来的；又有多少其实只是因为产品本身够好，再加上它天然就是可分享的，因为 presentation 本来就会被拿去给别人看？

Grant Lee对，完全是这样。我觉得我们有一个很大的天然优势，就是我们所在的这个品类，本身就很适合传播。你喜欢 Gamma，通常就会把它拿去分享、拿去展示给别人看。所以对我们来说，确实是两者的结合。理想状态当然是，你的产品里还有别的路径，也能让 word of mouth 或 organic virality 自然发生。也就是说，它会随着使用本身被传播出去。

我们当时内部有一句 mantra，始终围绕着那“前 30 秒”打转：第一，要让一个人能极其简单地创造内容；第二，要让他能极其简单地把东西分享出去。所以我们为那前 30 秒，或者说前几分钟做的所有事，本质上都是在 remove friction，让用户把这两件事完成：create 和 share。我觉得别人回头看自己产品时，也可以这么想：我的产品在真实使用方式里，到底有什么东西是天然带传播属性的？我能不能继续去掉更多 friction，让它真的扩散起来？哪怕只是先在一个组织内部、一个 workspace 里局部扩开，也要尽可能把这个能力放大。

Lenny Rachitsky你这里还有一个特别深的点，就是你们当时在 Product Hunt 上拿了 product of the day，这本身已经很难了。太多人想拿，最后都拿不到。我自己也帮一些公司冲过，这件事真的很难。结果你们不只是 day，还拿了 week 和 month，但你们最后还是说：不行，这还不够，这不算成。大多数做到这一步的人都会觉得“我们成了”，根本不会有“我们得赌公司、重新来过”的感觉。你们当时到底看到了什么，才会在这么兴奋的表面结果下，依然觉得“不对，这不是它”？

Grant Lee我觉得一部分原因就是：作为 founder，你得尽可能自知，并且做自己最狠的批评者。很多时候你会很想抱住那些看起来很好看的 vanity metrics 来庆祝，而且你也应该庆祝。但你得分得清：这到底只是 vanity metric，还是它真的是你增长引擎的核心？如果这个数字上涨，它是不是就意味着产品真的在工作？我觉得我们当时就是这样去看那件事的。拿下那些名次当然感觉很好，至少说明我们开始被看见了、开始上地图了。但它还远远不够，不足以让我们产生那种“我们已经拥有一个可以持续投资、持续优化、越做越强的核心增长引擎”的把握。那时候，这个东西还不存在。

Lenny Rachitsky所以本质上就是，它后来开始慢慢 plateau、慢慢放缓了。不是那种从此直接起飞的 rocket ship。

Grant Lee对，还是会有 signup 继续进来，也不是完全没有增长。但你能明显感觉到，那种 momentum 没有在越滚越大。这种判断其实一直都很难，所以最后还是得我和几位 co-founder 坐下来，尽可能诚实地问自己：这真的够吗？而当时我们的真实感觉就是，不够，这样下去不行。

Lenny Rachitsky这里还有一个特别重要的点，就是 onboarding 的力量。这档播客里只要聊 retention，经常都会绕回来这个问题。你们做完 Product Hunt launch，前面很亮眼，后面开始慢慢掉下去。那后来真正开始起飞时，到底是产品本身改了多少，还是 onboarding 改了多少？onboarding 到底有多关键？以及，为什么你们会把那个数字定成前 30 秒？

Grant Lee对我们来说，onboarding 和产品体验本身，其实是缠在一起的。我脑子里常用的类比是：你去一家餐厅，可能菜本身不错，但如果你真的从用户体验角度去想，体验其实从你走进门的那一刻就开始了。你进门、被带位、服务员过来打招呼、你点餐，当然最后菜也得好吃；然后你吃完、拿到账单、离开。整个链路如果放在一起看，它是不是一个让你觉得愉快、顺滑、值得推荐给朋友的完整体验？如果只是有人走过来把菜往桌上一扔，然后就再也不出现，连账单都不拿来，那我大概率也不会想把这家店推荐给别人。

所以我们在想的是：一个人第一次走进我们“这家店”，也就是第一次落进产品里时，我们到底能先给他什么？我们能不能把他的 `time to value` 尽可能缩到最短？这其实也受 Scott Belsky 很大启发，他总讲 first mile、first 15 minutes。我觉得他说得非常对。但我们的做法是更进一步：你几乎得用一种有点“悲观”的眼光去看待新用户。你得假设他们是自我中心的、爱面子的、懒的，对吧？他们走进来时，根本没有兴趣去认真学习一个新工具。
所以问题就变成了：在前 30 秒里，你到底能先给他什么，来换取下一个 30 秒？然后再换来下一个 30 秒？对我们来说，当时很清楚，今天人的注意力比 10 年前还短得多。所以这前 30 秒里，我们到底能不能先给你看见某个东西，先赢得继续建立关系的资格？我们真的花了很多精力去想这个问题。当然，从现实角度说，那也是我们当时唯一真正有资源狠狠干的点。我们只有 12 个人在做，根本不可能把整个产品一次性完全重做。所以我们知道，必须把所有火力压到一个点上。于是我们就选了“用户进门的第一刻”，要把那一下做得足够有 magic，这样后面才有机会慢慢再做更多。

Lenny Rachitsky我很喜欢你这个说法。你把它看成“不是 onboarding 和产品谁更重要”，而是“怎样让用户在前 30 秒就觉得这东西特别有价值、特别有 aha 感”。从这个角度看，反而会反过来定义产品应该长成什么样。

Grant Lee对，它其实会逼着你把产品里最有魔力的那一部分提前拎出来。很多 founder 一开始总想讲自己有五个、十个 feature，但真正能让你和别人拉开差距的，也许就只有那一个点。我在这方面其实也受了很多启发，后面我们聊 marketing 时还会展开。哪怕只是站在 founder-led marketing 的视角去想，本质也是：我到底能做什么，才能让一个新用户一下子就懂这个产品的价值？消费品广告里有个说法，我很喜欢：如果你朝消费者扔一颗鸡蛋，他大概率能接住；但你要是一口气扔四五颗，他多半一颗都接不住。

而 founder 常犯的毛病就是，恨不得一口气把四五个 feature，甚至十个 feature 全讲完。最后用户完全懵了，不知道自己为什么需要这东西。我们一直在努力做的，是只先递给他那“一颗蛋”，也就是那个最初的体验。比如我们会说：几秒钟做出一页 slide。这就是那颗蛋。我先把这个抛给你，看你接不接、觉得有没有吸引力。肯定还是会有人不买账，但那些接住的人，你其实已经帮他们解决了一个真实问题。接下来你就可以在这个基础上继续慢慢往上搭。因为你已经给了他们足够的理由，让他们愿意继续坐下来玩你的产品。

Lenny Rachitsky这个 onboarding / time-to-value 用“一次只扔一颗蛋”来讲，太好笑了，我以前从来没听过。那如果再往前倒一点，当初到底是什么原始洞察，让你们做出了今天的 Gamma？

Grant Lee我上一家公司被收购之后，我有点回到了自己的老本行，也就是做咨询。我那时在给一些早期创业公司做顾问，而我主要使用的媒介，就是 Google Slides。我还记得有一次深夜，我在为第二天的会议做准备，反复调格式、找合适的布局，花了几个小时只是想把整体 look and feel 调对，而不是在打磨内容本身。对我来说，这件事完全本末倒置了。照理说，我应该 90% 的时间都花在内容上，可能只有 10% 花在设计和排版上。

所以问题就变成了：有没有一种更好的方式？如果我们从头开始重新想这个格式，会怎么样？Slides 作为很多人默认的表达媒介，已经存在快 40 年了。于是我们开始思考：如果不再被固定的 16:9 slide 限制住，而是换一套 building blocks、换一套 primitives，我们能给用户什么样的新东西？这其实就是一切的起点。

Lenny Rachitsky这么一讲，我也能理解为什么投资人会觉得“嗯，我懂，但……” 毕竟 slides、PowerPoint 都已经存在 40 年了。我完全能理解为什么大家会犹豫。那具体说到 AI，它一开始就是你们 vision 的一部分吗？还是说后来 AI 突然起来了，然后你们才发现，哇，这个 timing 太好了？

Grant Lee更像是 timing 非常好。AI 不是我们最初 vision 的一部分，但那个精神内核其实一直都在：我们一直想让内容创作这件事变得极其快速、极其 effortless。只是后来 AI 像一份非常神奇的礼物，让我们终于能把这件事真正做出来。所以在 AI 还没有出现在画面中央之前，我们就已经在围绕那些 building blocks 搭东西了；等 AI 到来时，它刚好让我们原本就想实现的野心一下子变得可行。

Lenny Rachitsky这又是一个特别酷的例子。现在越来越多以前根本不可能成立的 idea，因为 AI 变得完全可做了。对于很多人来说，这就是一次很大的机会，可以进入那些原本大家觉得“不可能做出大公司”的品类。太棒了。

既然讲到这里，我们就来聊聊增长旅程吧。你们到底是怎么从 0 长到两年多一点就 1 亿美元 ARR 的？我在想，也许可以按阶段来拆。虽然这些分界线肯定没那么清楚，但比如 0 到 100 万 ARR、100 万到 1000 万、1000 万到 1 亿，大概这样来聊。先从最开始讲起：你们最早那批用户是怎么来的？比如前 100 个用户，你们是怎么拿到的？从 0 到 100 万 ARR 是怎么发生的？

Grant Lee我们的前 100 个用户，说实话和后面完全不是一个画风。那还是在 AI launch 之前。对于我们这种产品来说，前 100 个用户基本就是你得想尽办法让朋友先用起来。任何一个做过 slide deck 的人，你都想拉来聊一聊。问题是，早期朋友一般都想帮你个忙，所以他们会愿意试一下产品；但他们也会骗你，他们会告诉你“挺好的、很棒”，可你一看 usage，根本没人回来。

所以我觉得我们前 100 个用户，其实是产品上线之后一点一点很难啃下来的。那时候大家才慢慢觉得：哦，这东西开始有点用了。但 usage 还是很 episodic，不是那种每周都会回来。然后我确实觉得，真正的拐点是在 AI launch 之后。就是那之后，我们突然看到了 organic growth 真正开始发生，用户开始规律性地回到产品里。所以严格说，不只是前 100 个用户，而是前 1 万个用户，其实都几乎是在那次 launch 之后相当短的时间里涌进来的。

Lenny Rachitsky太好了。后面我们还会专门聊 monetization 和 pricing，那显然也是从 100 万 ARR 到 1000 万 ARR 的关键部分。所以如果我理解得对，你的意思基本是：Product Hunt 的那次 launch，是你们拿到前大概 1 万用户的一个重要来源。我还知道，你们后面 relaunch 时有一条 tweet 也起了很大作用。讲讲那个。

Grant Lee对。我们做 AI launch 时，其实没有上 Product Hunt。我们当时想的是，先直接在 Twitter 上放出去，看看能不能打出一点 viral。说实话，我们当时还故意写了一条有点 clickbaity 的推文，大意是：“商业世界里最有价值的一项技能，马上就要过时了。” 这个说法是故意写得有点挑衅感的，因为我们知道，更 provocative 一点的 tweet，更容易让人停下来参与讨论。

结果过了几天，那条推文开始有点发酵，互动明显变多。后来我们去看原因，发现是 Paul Graham 在下面评论了一句，大意是：“slide deck 里描述的那个东西，难道不应该比 slide 本身更有价值吗？” 当然，光是看到这个评论就已经很有意思了。但更重要的是，这条评论一出来，整条推文的互动又上了一个台阶。而我们发这条推文的本意，其实也正是为了拿到这种级别的 engagement，好让它能有一定 reach。
对我来说，这几乎算是一次第一次真正学到“founder-led marketing 到底是什么意思”的时刻。它的核心就是：你怎么穿透噪音？你怎么争取到一个机会，让别人愿意先停下来、哪怕只是看一眼你的内容？这里面一部分是 copywriting，一部分是 storytelling，还有一部分其实是你分享出来的视觉材料本身是不是对。所以对我来说，那次也让我开始明白：如果你真想把这件事做好，你有时候必须去做一些自己没那么舒服的事，但这些事确实会带来差别。

Lenny Rachitsky这个故事太好玩了。所以我的理解是，你们那次 announcement，本来就是故意想把它做得稍微有争议一点？

Grant Lee完全是。可以说是故意做得更 provocative 一点，稍微带点辣味。

Lenny Rachitsky太酷了。也就是说，你们从 0 到 1 万用户，大体上靠的是 Product Hunt，再加上一条故意写得很有争议的 tweet，最后把 Paul Graham 钓下场来评论。

Grant Lee没错。

Lenny Rachitsky太厉害了。而且他还只是评论了一句，不是转发，也不是 quote tweet。

Grant Lee对，就只是评论，然后其他人就开始一层层往上叠。

Lenny Rachitsky也挺有意思的，原来一条评论对 tweet 分发的提升，能比转发或者 quote tweet 都更明显。

Grant Lee对，当然算法一直在变，所以也有运气成分。包括它发生在什么时候、怎么发生、是谁发的，里面都有一些时机因素。

Lenny Rachitsky你刚才提到 founder-led marketing 这个词，我很喜欢。而且我已经能从你这个例子里看到它是怎么运转的了。这里面不是把事情交给 marketing 团队，也不是去找 agency，而是你自己去想：基于我在做这家公司、基于我理解这个产品，到底什么样的故事最有可能穿透噪音。关于这件事，你还有没有什么觉得大家应该特别听到的？也就是为什么 founder 自己来想这些事这么重要？

Grant Lee对。我觉得现在很多人已经很熟悉 founder-led sales 这个概念了，而且它确实仍然非常重要。通常在你招第一个 salesperson 或 AE 之前，最好 founder 自己先真的把这一套走一遍，因为只有这样，你才会知道应该怎么讲那个 narrative、怎么讲那个故事。我上一份工作是在一家 startup 里做 COO，我虽然不是 founder，但进去得很早，所以也花了很多时间陪 founders 一起跑这些事，跟客户、潜在客户一起进会议室，亲口讲清楚：“我们的产品为什么值得看。”

而今天很多 AI startup 其实更偏 B2C 或 prosumer，所以你不一定是在和单个 prospect 一对一对话。但即便如此，founder 能不能牢牢掌握营销叙事，仍然非常重要。我后面还会多讲几件事，因为我觉得随着时间过去，这套能力真的会越来越值钱。
第一，今天的 founder 本身就有机会成为 creator。我觉得很多 founder 现在都在努力让自己在社交媒体上更活跃。如果你能扛过最开始那种 cringe 的感觉，比如看着自己发内容会觉得“这不太像我”“这看起来有点尴尬”，只要你能先跨过那道坎，你就会开始进入一个新的问题：我怎么把 copywriting 练得更好？我怎么把一件事说得清楚，而不是只是说得聪明？我很认同一个点：清晰比巧妙重要。很多人写文案时，总想先显得有创意，但那通常并不是最能帮助你穿透噪音的方式。所以你得先把自己的 copywriting 练起来。
而一旦你自己练过这些，你和其他 marketer 合作时的标准自然就会更高。对我们来说，这一点在和 influencer 合作时尤其明显。因为如果你要和 influencer、creator 一起工作，而你自己又真的理解他们是怎么做内容的，你知道一个好的 hook 长什么样，也知道一条内容应该怎么组织，这种共情能力只有在你自己亲自下场做过一点之后才会有。你也会知道这件事到底有多难。我觉得很多 founder 的问题就在于，他们写出来的东西太像广告了，然后把它丢给 creator 让对方帮忙放大，最后当然不会有效。所以我确实认为，founder-led marketing 的一部分，就是 founder 自己得先走一遍。

Grant Lee所以我确实觉得，founder-led marketing 很重要的一部分，就是你得先亲自上手，用自己的平台做。刚开始你的平台可能很小，但随着你越来越大，你就会有自己的声音，也会有人开始听你说话。而你会在这个过程中越来越会讲故事。我觉得这些能力都应该尽可能早地开始投入，因为你知道自己迟早得把它练出来。这就像肌肉训练一样，必须一遍一遍练。

Lenny Rachitsky我特别想把这条线再往下拽一拽，因为你在 Twitter 上分享自己做 Gamma 过程中学到的东西，最终才把这场对话带到了我面前。我当时一边看一边想：“好，你已经分享了不少，但我还想听更多。” 所以我们今天才会坐下来，把你在 Twitter 上提到的那些点往更深里聊。我也很喜欢这本身就是一个 founder-led marketing 起作用的例子，最后甚至促成了这次采访。

所以我接着问两个问题。第一，作为一家高速增长、节奏非常疯狂的 startup 的 founder / CEO，你们手上事情多到爆，时间到底怎么挤出来做这些内容？第二，除了你刚才已经提到的东西之外，如果有人也想开始在 LinkedIn、Twitter 上分享，你觉得还有哪些关键经验值得他们知道？

Grant Lee我的建议一定是：先从很小的地方开始。别把这件事想得太吓人，最后反而连开始都不敢。对我来说，最开始就是随手放一个 notepad 或 Google Doc 在手边。只要我碰到什么值得记的东西，不管是学到的一点、观察到的一点、某个特别有效的方法，或者某个明明很反直觉但真的有效的东西，我都会先记下来，慢慢积成一个 log。

等积到一定数量之后，我基本每周都会专门 block 几个小时，去把这些东西往深一点的方向整理。会把里面一些 bullet points 拿出来想：这里面有没有哪一条，其实已经足够长成一篇 post，或者至少是一段可以公开分享的内容？最开始其实并没有，很多都只是零散念头。但时间久了，你会慢慢积出一些有意思的主题。然后我会先拿这些点去 stress test 一下。
比如我会问团队里的人：“这个点你觉得有意思吗？” 如果他们的反应里有足够多那种“哦，这个我没想到”“这个我以前没听过”，那我才会开始真正去写初版内容。然后写出来之后，就发出去。我现在学到的一件事是，即便是 LinkedIn 和 Twitter，这两个平台的受众想看的东西也不一样。所以你几乎得为它们切换不同的语气、甚至不同的 nuggets、不同的讲法。对我来说，早期我投入更多的是 LinkedIn，因为那个平台的表达方式对我更自然一点。后来我才慢慢开始想：好，那我应该给 Twitter 单独打包一些和 LinkedIn 不一样的内容。有时候 Twitter 上的内容会更 tactical，更钻进细节里。所以我觉得这对我挺有帮助。
但说实话，我现在也还在学。所以每次你发完内容，过几周最好都回头看一下：到底什么东西真的有人在互动？理想情况下，你希望你的内容有足够的价值，让别人愿意 bookmark、愿意转发、愿意 retweet，因为这些都是在告诉你：这里面确实有东西。然后你就可以开始积累自己的“全明星帖子库”了，知道哪些内容是你真正打穿过的。再回头分析：到底是什么让这条内容有用？是内容本身？是内容的结构？还是它有某种 contrarian 的视角？慢慢把这些东西按主题归类好。这样你每周再 brainstorm 时，手上就已经有一套可用的语料和经验库了。

Lenny Rachitsky这段真的非常有意思，也非常有价值。我想复述几个我刚才听到的点，因为我觉得很多人很容易漏掉。第一就是：到底该分享什么？我听下来，也完全认同，就是你要去留意那些你自己学到的、自己觉得有意思的、自己也觉得很反直觉的东西。然后随手用一个 doc 记下来。每当你学到一点、看到一点、发现一点有趣的东西，就往里扔。或者像你说的，那种“咦，这个我以前没听过”的东西，也很值得记。

本质上有点像：如果连你自己都觉得这个点有意思，那社交媒体上的人多半也会觉得有意思。一种做法是像我这样，边发生边发：“我刚用 clock code 学到一件事，来，大家看看。” 另一种做法则是攒起来，最后写成长一点的帖子。还有一点我以前真没听过，就是 LinkedIn 和 Twitter 不能发一样的东西。我自己基本就是复制粘贴同一份内容。你会专门给两个平台做不同版本，这点我很喜欢。

Grant Lee我觉得我们其实都隐约知道，这两个平台的 audience 就是不一样，对吧？既然这个前提很明确，那下一步的问题自然就是：你要怎么用对的方式把故事包装出来，让那个 audience 愿意接住它。我觉得这个会因 creator 或 founder 本人而异，也会因内容本身而异。对我来说，这件事我还在不断调，但我确实发现，从一个平台直接 copy paste 到另一个平台，通常不会太有效。你几乎得切换到那个平台特有的思维模式里去想：什么样的东西在 Twitter 上更容易引发兴趣？什么样的东西在 LinkedIn 上更容易被接住？然后不断测试，再回来迭代。

Lenny Rachitsky如果只让你用一句 bullet point 说清楚：Twitter 上什么更容易有效，LinkedIn 上什么更容易有效？你刚才提到 Twitter 可以更 tactical，还有别的吗？

Grant Lee对，我自己的观察是：Twitter 上更 tactical、也更 contrarian 的内容通常更有效，另外 technical 的内容也很吃香。大家很想知道的其实是：你说的这个东西，我能不能照着复现？如果你只是丢一句很空的判断，或者一种很 generic 的说法，那基本没有什么 credibility。最好是你连 metrics 都能拿出来，那会更有说服力。

而 LinkedIn 上，很多时候更适合的是稍微 aspirational 一点的内容，或者某个在当下很 relevant 的主题。你可以说得更大一点，不一定非得那么 tactical。它更像一种 spark，让人看完会想：“哦，原来我可能该去多学一点 pricing 和 packaging 了。” 你不需要把所有细节都展开。还有一个现实原因是，LinkedIn 现在也不太适合做 thread，所以特别长、特别战术化的拆解，操作上本来就不如 Twitter 方便。当然以后平台机制如果变了，这点也可能会变化。

Lenny Rachitsky最后一个细节是，你说你会专门 block 时间。那具体是怎么 block 的？有没有固定的时间？因为每个人都会说“对，我也会安排时间”，但最后往往都会变成：“我这周别的事太多了，先不做了，下周再说。”

Grant Lee对我来说，通常就是一天里的两个时段：清晨第一段时间，以及晚上最后一段时间。某种程度上也是因为有孩子。你得等到家里真的一点噪音都没有、完全没有干扰时，脑子才进得去。所以我早上更多是在想：最近我被哪些主题激发了？我对哪些话题有能量？到了晚上，更多就是做反思：今天到底发生了什么？你甚至可以把日历拉出来过一遍：“我今天和 X、Y、Z 聊过，这里面有没有什么值得记下来的点？” 我通常就是在那个时刻把这些东西写下来，它更像是对当天经历的一次 recap。

Lenny Rachitsky而且有一件事能帮我不把这件事看成某种尴尬的自我宣传或 ego 展示，那就是：我分享的其实是我真学到、而且对别人有用的东西。评论区里大家也总会说：“哦，这个真的很酷、很有用，谢谢。” 所以它不是那种“看我多厉害，看我的产品多牛”的自我炫耀——

Grant Lee完全是。

Lenny Rachitsky——而更像是“我刚学到一件事，你可能也会觉得有帮助”。

Grant Lee对，正是这个逻辑。我很喜欢一个思路：founder-led sales 的本质，其实一直是在做价值交换。你希望客户感觉自己拿到了一个很棒的产品，而作为交换，他们愿意付钱。我觉得 founder-led marketing 其实也很像，只不过你交换的不是钱，而是 goodwill。你先给出去很多内容价值，可能是一条实用技巧，可能是一个别人原本不知道的秘密战术，也可能只是某种天然有价值的洞察。作为交换，你得到的是大家对你的好感和信任。他们不一定立刻给你钱，但他们会关注你、和你的内容互动、把它分享给别人。然后慢慢地，你就能把一部分 goodwill 再兑换成别的东西，比如当你发产品更新、讲自己公司时，他们会更愿意帮你扩散。我觉得这就是 magic 的地方：你先长期无条件地提供大量价值，把 goodwill 一点点存起来，之后它会以别的方式回来。

Lenny Rachitsky每次有人在这种事情上卡住，觉得“我发了也没人理，没用”，我都会推荐一本书，Scott Pressfield 写的，书名就叫《Nobody Wants to Read Your Shit》。这个书名本身就说得很直白：对，没人想看。大家能分给你的注意力门槛其实非常高，因为每个人每天都要处理太多内容。所以这本书给人的一个很重要的视角就是：门槛真的很高，没人天然想看你的东西，所以你必须非常努力把内容做得足够好。

Grant Lee这是个很好的提醒。

Lenny Rachitsky我们会把这本书也贴到 show notes 里。好，我们再回到 Gamma 的增长这条线。前面我们已经讲了你们是怎么拿到前几万用户的，大致上是 Product Hunt、重做 onboarding、让产品一上来就足够有魔力，再加上一条很有争议、被 Paul Graham 评论过的 tweet，带来了 buzz。那我们接着讲下一阶段吧。比如从那个节点开始，到 1 亿 ARR 之间，整体上我们应该知道些什么？

Grant Lee当我们大概做到 1000 万 ARR 时，我自己很强烈地感受到一件事：我们已经知道 Gamma 自己的 organic virality 是在工作的，也知道口碑在扩散，但如果想继续把这个势能放大，我们需要更多能帮我们 amplify、帮我们 spread the word 的手段。而当时我脑子里最大的阻碍之一，其实是：我开始觉得我们最初的 brand 正在拖我们的后腿。很多人会默认 rebrand 不一定有价值，我觉得有些时候确实没价值，但有些时候真的很重要。

对我们来说，当时主要看到了几件事。第一，我们最早的 brand 本质上更像一个 placeholder brand。因为它是在我们刚注册公司那会儿，也就是 2020 年底、2021 年初，为了能让产品先跑起来、先挂个 landing page、先对外能给人看点什么，而临时搭出来的东西。它满足“起步够用”，但我们并没有在里面做太多真正的投入。所以它在我看来有一个问题：它的 brand DNA 太弱了。无论是 art direction、voice 还是 tone，能延展出去的空间都很有限。

所以我们知道它已经足够好，可以先开始用了，但还不够可扩展。说到可扩展，我指的是，你可以把一个品牌的核心元素拆出来，再不断复制；这套 brand DNA 还能让你围绕它持续产出大量内容，而且整体感觉始终统一。这件事必须从设计之初就想清楚。你得非常认真地打磨每一个元素：art direction 要怎么走？voice 和 tone 要怎么定？这样当你开始写成千上万条文案时，它们依然会显得很连贯。
所以我们又回到了画板前，花了好几个月重新思考品牌应该是什么、我们长期的愿景又是什么。我们内部的 creative director 还和 Smith & Diction 合作了，那是一家很厉害的 agency，也帮过 Perplexity 做 rebrand，甚至是最初的品牌搭建。接下来几个月里，我们几乎都在打磨我们认为最核心的品牌 DNA，并且尽量把它做成可以大规模复用的形式。
之所以要考虑“复用”，是因为一旦开始规模化，你就得产出海量内容：你自己的社媒内容、performance marketing 的广告素材、给 influencer 拿去展示的素材等等。你会从一开始很小的内容量，一下子变成每周都要测试成千上万条 creative。如果你没有信心，觉得复制出来的东西还能保持统一感，这件事根本做不下去。所以对我们来说，这已经变成了必须做的投资。只是后来发现，它比我原本想象的要贵得多、耗时得多。但回头看，我还是觉得这是正确的投入，而且那个时间点做正合适。

Lenny Rachitsky我很喜欢你们做的这些事，听上去每一件都像是“这事肯定成不了”，但你们偏偏都做了：在演示文稿这个品类里创业、在规模化过程中做整套 rebrand、产品上线后又把整个东西推倒重来。大家总会说，这不是赢法。但有意思的是，最后你们偏偏赢了。

我还是想把品牌这条线继续聊下去，不过你们早期最有意思的增长方式之一其实是 influencer marketing。很多人听说过，也会聊，但我很少听到真正怎么做、什么方法有效。先整体讲讲这条增长杠杆对你们意味着什么吧，然后我再追问你们用了什么工具、谁真的帮上了忙之类的。先给我们一个大图。

Grant Lee对。很多 founder 会以为 influencer marketing 差不多是开箱即用的：拨一笔预算，找几位 creator，定好 campaign 或投放窗口，事情就齐了。但现实完全不是这样。回到 founder-led marketing 的思路，如果你真想把这件事做好，就得深度参与整个过程。对我们来说，最开始那批 influencer，都是我自己一个个手动 onboard 的。我会跟每个人单独开电话，让他们真正理解 Gamma 代表什么、产品该怎么用。你希望他们最后讲出来的是你的故事，但要用他们自己的声音讲出来。你不愿意投入这笔时间，就别指望他们替你讲好。

我们会花很多时间一起过内容。我的工作不是教他们该怎么 pitch Gamma，而是确保他们真的理解 Gamma 这款产品是什么。所以我会花很多时间带着他们过一遍产品，回答他们的问题，一起 brainstorm 可以怎么切入，然后给一些初步反馈，比如“这个我很喜欢，我觉得会很适合你的受众。”但我不会对他们下指令。我们合作的是大量 micro influencers，这些人未必有巨大的粉丝量，但他们真的愿意给自己的受众提供价值。回到“给受众价值”这件事，他们想展示的是那些自己会用、或者已经在用的工具。怎么把这件事做得真实？你没法假装，必须花时间去做。
如果把 influencer 当成客户来 onboard，逻辑其实是一样的。你要让他们觉得自己像是你团队的一部分。我觉得他们能感觉出来，你到底愿不愿意投入。如果你不投入，他们就会把它当成普通项目，发完就走。但如果你投入了这层关系，你会发现他们之后真的会再回来帮你发帖。这样一来，你们之间就形成了能长期经营的关系。我觉得魔力就在这里。太多人会把最初那一步低估掉。

Lenny Rachitsky这个很棒。为了说得更清楚一点，influencer marketing 的意思基本就是：某个在 TikTok、Instagram、Twitter、LinkedIn 之类平台上有一定受众的人，用某种方式收钱来推广你的产品。这样理解对吧？

Grant Lee对，这是最简单的理解方式。不过这里面层级差别很大。很多人一听 influencer marketing，脑子里想到的都是那些很火、很潮的 creator，比如粉丝有一两百万的那种。他们会想：好，我们拉出一大笔预算，挑五六个我们觉得是这个领域审美最强的人，把所有钱都砸给他们，让他们来讲我们的产品。我通常觉得这不是最好的做法。因为很多人虽然受众很大，但你其实只是给了他们一份稿子照着念，内容立刻就像广告，产品和他们本人也没有真正连接。他们这周刚好在和你合作，下一周就继续过自己的生活。结果整个过程一点都不自然、不真实，你还花了很多钱，最后很可能打了水漂。

更好的办法，是去做那件更难、但更有可能成功的事：找到成千上万个 micro influencers，他们的受众里，刚好你的产品真的有用。比如我们早期就发现教育工作者特别适合：老师、讲师之类的人，每天都要做 slide，因为他们得抓住学生注意力。对他们来说，能省很多时间的工具就特别值得讲。而且一旦你找到这些小圈层，我们会叫它 echo chambers，传播就会很快。比如 educator 这个圈子，老师会特别愿意把自己喜欢的产品告诉别的老师。暑假一到，他们聚在一起聊的就是“下个学年有哪些东西能真正改善我的工作？”而在这一波 AI 浪潮里，很多对话都变成了：“哪些 AI 工具真的能帮我省很多时间？”
所以如果你能真正切进这些 echo chambers，那效果会更好。你不一定非得找那种声量最大、最知名的 influencer。很多时候只是一个受众刚好很信他的人就够了。这个效果会非常好，最后就会像野火一样，传播得特别快。

Lenny Rachitsky那这些人一般拿多少钱？是几百美元、几千美元这种级别吗？

Grant Lee对，通常就是几百到几千美元，低位数千美元。

Lenny Rachitsky那你们是怎么找到这些人的？有用什么工具吗？还是基本全靠手工搜索、手工去翻？

Grant Lee一开始全靠手工，很多 cold outreach。后来我们找到了几种方式。第一种是一个平台，YC 公司 1stCollab，真的很好用。他们基本会帮你做自动化 outbound。你还可以帮他们建立不同 creator 的 profile 或 persona，比如教育者就是一个 persona，然后他们就会根据这个 profile 去帮你找合适的 creator。这个平台对我们帮助很大，合作得非常顺。

另外我们还找了一些小 agency 来补位。我喜欢那种很年轻、很有冲劲的 agency，因为这些人对社交媒体是 native 的，真的懂这个生态，也能帮你找到很适合合作的 creator。如果你找到合适的 creator，后面很多事都会顺起来。我们合作过几家，像英国的 AKG Media，就很不错。所以你最后会同时用平台和 agency 这两类东西，帮助你把这件事规模化。

Lenny Rachitsky而且他们发帖的时候，通常都会透明标注这是赞助推广，对吧？

Grant Lee对。

Lenny Rachitsky他们不会假装成“我偶然发现这个工具，真的很喜欢”那种吧？明白。

Grant Lee对，没错。

Lenny Rachitsky那 influencer marketing 这条杠杆，对你们从 10 到 100 的增长贡献有多大？除了口碑本身继续扩散之外，它是不是最大的增长杠杆？

Grant Lee口碑当然还是最大的。我们看所有新增订阅，超过 50% 都来自 word of mouth。要么是用户直接搜索、直接访问、直接输入 Gamma.com，要么就是通过搜索，输入 Gamma 这样的品牌词，说明他们已经听说过 Gamma。但对我们来说，social media 和 influencer 更多是放大器。每次我们加大 influencer marketing 的投入，word of mouth 还会继续往上走。这个现象很明显。基本上只要你花一点钱，就能看到有人通过 influencer 进来，而 word of mouth 这边又会额外再带来 1.5 个用户左右的增量，这点特别有意思。

这背后其实也很好理解。我们都知道 Dunbar's number，也就是大概 150 人左右这个你会真正当成自己网络的人。你对自己的网络信任度，会高过街上一个完全陌生的人。如果网络里有人推荐你什么东西，你会更信一点，会产生一种 halo effect。很多 influencer 之所以会频繁分享自己的生活，就是想让自己进入你的网络，让你感觉和他们很近。一旦你觉得足够近，你就会相信他们推荐的东西真的有用。
所以当他们推荐一个工具时，就会有一种 halo effect，感觉这不是陌生人说的，而像是朋友推荐的。每次我们在这上面花钱，都会看到这种放大效应：哦，原来还能这样。这种结果其实未必在第一时间能预料到。但对我们来说，从一开始它就一直是个放大器。

Lenny Rachitsky这个太有意思了。我以前从来没听过这么细的 influencer marketing 细节，也没听过它到底怎么做、怎么做有效。再问几个问题。你刚刚说，合起来可能跟了几千个 influencer，大概是这样吗？

Grant Lee是一整年累积下来的，不是同一时间并行那么多。最开始预算很小，一个月大概只做 20 个 creator，然后慢慢涨到 50 个、100 个。那时候其实还没完全 scale 开来，但我完全能想象，某一天你会每个月和很多很多 creator 合作，这样你就能测试各种不同的内容 hook、讲法、价值主张。

Lenny Rachitsky太厉害了。你刚才还说，一个关键点是前期要花时间跟每一个 creator、influencer 打交道，帮助他们理解你们在做什么、也让他们对这件事兴奋起来。它不是一件可以完全外包出去的事。

Grant Lee我觉得这里面的价值很大，只是很难量化。大多数 founder 可能都会觉得自己太忙了，不该把时间花在这里。但我觉得这笔投入是值得的。因为回到最基本的一点，你得让他们真的把自己当成你团队的延伸。你都没见过他们，他们也没真正听你讲过产品是怎么运作的，那他们不可能从一开始就觉得自己是你团队的一部分。这样一来，他们对这件事的投入感也不会太高。

Lenny Rachitsky所以我听到的是，刚起步的时候要更看重质量，而不是数量。还有一个我觉得非常反直觉的点是，你们不去找那种粉丝巨多的大号，而是更偏向小型 creator。你觉得这里面有没有一个大概的受众规模，或者说所谓 niche 具体指什么？

Grant Lee说实话，我觉得没有最低门槛。因为像 TikTok 这种平台，很多时候甚至会给一个新账号加权。他们希望帮新账号起势，因为站在 creator 的角度，如果一个新 creator 会觉得“哇，来 TikTok 这边对我来说是个巨大机会”，他们就会更愿意投入。所以其实没有什么最低粉丝数要求。很多平台也在往这个方向走，就是更奖励新 creator。你粉丝少也没关系，1 万粉丝也完全可以。只要内容对目标受众来说足够有趣、足够真实，我觉得它就很有机会跑出来。

Lenny Rachitsky你提到 TikTok 的这一点特别好。它不是只看粉丝量，只要内容有用、大家愿意点、愿意看，算法就会把它推给很多人。这个判断太关键了。

Grant Lee对。

Lenny Rachitsky好，还有你在那条 tweet 里提到的几个点，我想确认一下。一个是你说 influencer marketing 的 90% 覆盖，往往来自不到 10% 的人。这个点有什么是大家应该听懂的吗？

Grant Lee有。这个还是回到一个问题：你很难知道那 10% 会从哪里冒出来。所以你只能撒大网。你当然可以试着骗自己，说自己很会挑 creator，或者很会教他们怎么发内容。但现实是，哪怕是我，也根本猜不准。我的做法只是确保自己见到足够多的 creator，让他们都去发，这样总会有一个角落突然冒出来、真的跑起来。我不是那种能准确预测哪条会爆的人，我只知道必须做足样本量，靠数量把事情做成。

Lenny Rachitsky那你的建议里还有一点是，很多人失败，是因为一开始规模太小，或者预算太小。你建议的是，拿 1 万到 2 万美元，持续六个月去试。听起来你们当时是每个月 20 到 30 个 creator，是这个框架吗？

Grant Lee对，完全是。不过问题不只是预算太小，也可能是把所有鸡蛋都放在一个篮子里。比如你也可以很轻易地把那 2 万美元全砸在一个大号 influencer 身上，然后结果没起效果，你又再试一次，还是不行，最后就放弃了。相比之下，你应该想的是：这 2 万美元其实可以分给 40 个不同的 influencer 去试，看看到底什么有效。在这 40 个里，你去找不同 persona、不同使用场景，花时间跟他们一起做，然后真的去看什么有效、什么无效。

等到下个月，就拿着这些经验去加码。比如 educator 这类人群有效，那就继续找 educator；consultant 这类人群有效，那就继续找 consultant，多找一些 consultant，里面肯定还有更多空间。我觉得把所有鸡蛋放在一个篮子里，大概就是最稳妥的失败方式，因为你会错过太多，而且学得太慢，最后很容易得出结论：这东西没用。

Lenny Rachitsky我感觉这整期播客都可以只讲这一个杠杆，因为实在太有用了。我还有很多问题想继续问，因为真的很值得深挖。你在 tweet 里还提到一句，说 reality 不是偶然的，这种方法就是用来找出什么真的有效的。然后一旦找到，就开始围绕它调整信息表达。聊聊这个。

Grant Lee这还是回到前面说的：如果你测试得足够多，最后总会找到某条真正能跑起来的 post，或者一组 post。最基础的原则还是那几个：让 influencer 很容易用自己的声音讲你的故事。我们做过的一件事，是把整个 brand 基本开源了。我们有一个 Brand.gamma.app，里面放了所有和品牌有关的东西：我们的 voice and tone、art direction、我们在 Midjourney 里怎么生成那种视觉方向，creator 也可以直接照着用。他们不需要每次发 Gamma 相关内容时都重新发明轮子，所有东西都摆在那里。

所以回到那句话本身，就是尽量把这件事变得极其简单，去掉摩擦。别人本来就已经有很多事要操心了，别再给他们增加难度。你把 friction 拿掉之后，节奏就会变成：加 creator 很容易，发帖很容易，看什么有效、什么无效也很容易。如果你能持续很多个月都这样做，最后真正跑出 viral post 就会变成水到渠成，因为你已经积累了足够多次尝试，总会有几条突然爆掉。但前提一定是，你前面先把那些苦活都做完，把流程里的摩擦一点点拿掉，让它最后像一台润滑得很好的机器。

Lenny Rachitsky你们有没有发现某个平台特别有用？比如 TikTok、Instagram、LinkedIn，或者别的什么？

Grant Lee有，我们当时也同样是广撒网。不过有一点非常明确：LinkedIn 的转化率就是显著更高，能高出 4 倍，甚至 5 倍。很多人可能真的还没把 LinkedIn 当回事。我觉得它是一个很多 creator 会略微贵一点的平台，但如果你后面能更精准地判断出“这种 creator 对我们的产品特别有效”，那跟他们合作就非常值得。转化率真的很强，而且我觉得这块其实才刚刚开始。

所以如果一开始你不确定，就先撒一张大网。然后就像 influencer 策略一样，测试、迭代，最后你会发现很多东西都遵循幂律：一两个渠道会最重要。比如对我们来说，Twitter 就没那么有效，而对 Notion 这种工具来说，Twitter 可能特别有用。你一开始不会知道，所以就先测，再把效果最好的那几个加码。

Lenny Rachitsky我想现在很多听众都在想：“等等，LinkedIn 上也会有赞助帖？”我之前都不知道。那你怎么知道一条帖子是 sponsored 的？会写 `#sponsored` 之类的吗？

Grant Lee通常他们会写自己是 partner，或者直接标注 sponsored，或者加 `#ad` 之类的标签。一般你会看到这些。

Lenny Rachitsky明白了。顺便说一下，我可不做这种事。你有没有在 LinkedIn 上见过我？我没有做任何付费合作，就是让大家知道一下，我也没打算做。

本期节目由 Miro 赞助。每天都有新的头条在吓唬我们，说 AI 会抢走我们的工作，让人越来越焦虑。但 Miro 最近的一项调研给出的结论却不一样：76% 的人相信 AI 能帮助自己的工作，但有超过一半的人并不知道什么时候该用它。Miro 的 Innovation Workspace 就是为了解决这个问题的，它是一个智能平台，把人和 AI 放在同一个共享空间里，让大家更高效地把事做成。十多年来，Miro 一直在帮助团队把大胆想法变成下一个大项目。今天，它正站在把产品更快推向市场的最前线，把 AI 和人类潜力结合起来。这个播客的嘉宾经常会分享 Miro 模板，我自己也经常用它和团队一起 brainstorm。
Miro AI 还能把你已经在做的那些杂乱信息，比如便利贴或截图，快速变成可以直接使用的图表、产品 brief、数据表和原型，而且只需要几分钟。你不需要变成 AI 专家，也不需要再切来切去打开另一个工具。你在 Miro 画布里正在做的工作，本身就是 prompt。去 Miro.com/Lenny 看看吧，M-I-R-O 点 com slash Lenny。我们再回到品牌这个话题。你们的一个重要经验是：在大规模做 performance marketing 之前，先把品牌投入做好。我猜你们现在应该也会投一些广告，比如 Facebook、Google 之类的。

Grant Lee对，我们确实会跑 ads，也会做 performance marketing。我觉得外面常有一种误解，好像 brand marketing 和 performance marketing 是对立的。我其实更认同另一种看法：brand marketing 本身就是 performance marketing，所有东西某种意义上都是 performance marketing。只是它不一定那么容易归因，你很难把每一笔花费都立刻追溯得那么清楚，但这不代表它没有效果。

而且随着公司规模变大，这两件事都得投，而且最好它们能配合得特别好。你在 brand marketing 上投入得越多，performance marketing 的效果就越强。这里还是回到一个点：你得有足够多的 creative 去测试。如果你的范围太窄，又没有一个真正成型的品牌，你其实会放大自己的短板，也会削弱 performance marketing program 真正跑起来的能力。

Lenny Rachitsky我很喜欢这个判断标准。怎么知道自己在品牌上投得不够？就是你在 performance marketing 里能尝试的点子太少了。

Grant Lee没错。

Lenny Rachitsky你们的设计系统是不是就是……每次跑广告，大家都得从头重新设计，自己再想一套框架？

Grant Lee对，完全是这样。你基本会有一种直觉：如果我要把这件事扩到一千条 creative，它还会不会看起来很统一，还是会乱成一团？如果感觉会乱，那你就得回到画板前重新想。

Lenny Rachitsky你在聊 rebrand 的时候说，这件事比你预期花的时间更长、也更贵。听到这种话，大家通常都会怕：哦，那我哪有时间做 rebrand。我也能想象，因为你们的产品本身特别视觉化，所以把时间和钱投在这里其实更说得通。

对一般 founder 来说，你有没有什么判断标准？比如什么情况下，真的值得重仓做品牌；什么情况下，其实“差不多也行”？

Grant Lee我觉得这更适合那些偏 prosumer 或 consumer 的产品，因为你产品的大部分体验，本质上都是在给用户制造一种感受。用户感受到什么，体验就从哪里开始。而这种体验，往往在他们真正进入产品之前就已经发生了。可能是他们先看到了广告、看到了海报、看到了什么别的东西，然后会想：嗯，这个东西好像有点意思。

接下来，你就需要有一种对称的表达：他们先看广告，再进入产品，或者进到你的网站时，整个感觉是连贯的，是一致的，会让人觉得“好，这东西有意思，我愿意一路走下去，先注册，再真的开始用它”。
如果是 B2B 产品，或者对那个第一瞬间没有那么依赖的产品，这一点就不那么一样了。用户可能只是从同事那儿听说，然后注册，再走一遍很长的采购流程。那时品牌当然也重要，但通常没有那种 brand touchpoints 很多的产品那么关键。

Lenny Rachitsky我想聊聊一些更大的、真正帮你们增长的东西。不过在那之前，我先想把 Gamma 的增长结构画出来。假设是在 ARR 超过 1000 万之后。如果我没理解错的话，超过一半的增长还是来自 word of mouth，来自自然传播，大家会分享、会把它拿来互相做演示，“哦，这是 Gamma，去看看，注册一下”。那第二大块应该就是 influencer marketing、社媒这些；第三块是不是 performance / paid marketing？

Grant Lee对，没错。

Lenny Rachitsky好。那关于最后这块，如果有人刚开始探索 performance marketing，也就是 Facebook Ads、Google Ads 和其他这些平台，你觉得还有没有什么特别值得他们听到或学到的，能帮助他们入门？

Grant Lee我就给两个建议。第一，回到我最开始说的那条：先别投，直到你已经有 word of mouth。别骗自己，以为只要把 performance marketing program 规模做起来，其他问题自然就会被解决。先把口碑这块做出来，让你进入这个项目时是带着顺风的，然后再开始放大。

第二，给自己设一些约束。你不希望自己有一天发现，超过 50% 的获客都来自 paid acquisition。如果真到了那一步，说明你的核心增长引擎已经坏了。这个判断又会回到第一点：如果核心增长引擎坏了，你其实就是在往一个漏水的桶里倒水。你花很多钱去做 top of funnel，但人根本没走到最后。你得先把别的地方修好，再考虑把预算往上调。不是说完全不能花一点钱，但不要在你确认核心增长引擎真的正常运转之前就猛加。

Lenny Rachitsky你刚刚说，先等到已经有 word of mouth，再去投 performance marketing。你的意思是，至少有一大块增长应该来自 word of mouth、direct、organic 这些渠道，对吧？

Grant Lee对，对。我们自己即便做到现在这个规模，还是有超过 50% 的新注册来自 word of mouth。对我们来说，这就是一个信号：只要这个东西还在起作用，大家还在用、还在告诉别人，那你就会想在去动其他杠杆之前，先看到这种感觉。

Lenny Rachitsky你觉得有一个百分比，能帮助别人判断“好，我们已经真的有 organic growth 这个主增长引擎了”吗？比如 25% 还是别的什么？

Grant Lee有，我觉得这更多取决于你想多 aggressive。粗略来说，当然是越高越好。如果超过 50%，那很好；如果已经接近这个比例，也很不错。然后还是那句话，别骗自己，以为只靠广告就能长。你当然可以这么做，但其他事情只会越来越难。

如果你主要依赖 paid acquisition 来驱动增长，你就得做好准备，CAC，也就是 customer acquisition cost，会一直往上走。你接触的新受众越多，成本就会越来越高。所以别默认它会一直是平的。很多人一开始会被这件事迷住，因为他们只是先投一点点钱，看起来效果还行；可一旦你真的踩进去了，后面就很难从那台加速的 treadmill 上下来。所以你要提前想到这一点，给自己更好的机会，确保这套增长能长期撑得住。

Lenny Rachitsky这个建议很重要。好，你们还分享过几个对 Gamma 增长特别关键的点。其中一个是：在发版之前，先把 prototype 拿给用户看。这到底是怎么做的？什么意思？为什么这么有效？

Grant Lee对我们来说，这个真的是一个很大的突破。还是回到早期：你刚开始只是想把产品送到别人手里，会去找朋友试用。但朋友往往会骗你，说产品很棒，结果再也不会回来。

理想状态是，你找一批真的很适合当你产品 prospective users 或 customers 的人，但他们对这件事完全没有“利益相关”。他们根本不在乎你的产品会不会成功，他们就是来测试的。对我们来说，就是找那些平时会做 slide deck、或者经常做 slide deck 的人，把他们拉进 Gamma，给他们非常少的上下文。我们只会跟他们说：“这相当于 PowerPoint 的替代品，你试试看。”
然后在他们走 onboarding、测试产品的时候，让他们把脑子里在想什么都说出来，描述他们看到什么、想做什么。我们可能会给他们几项任务，比如“做一段内容”。你一边看他们做，一边听他们说，立刻就能感受到痛点。
他们卡在哪些地方、看到什么会困惑，这些你都能马上内化成一种真实的痛感，然后你就会说：好，我们得回去改，这玩意儿现在根本不好用。我们自己平时很多东西都会 dogfood，所以很容易进入一种状态：对自己的产品太熟了，什么都觉得很顺手，知道按钮在哪儿。但当你真的开始听别人描述他们怎么用这产品时，这其实是个礼物。
你会突然知道时间该花在哪儿。原来他们连第三个屏都没走到，就卡在第一个屏，因为他们根本找不到那个我们以为一眼就该看到的按钮。那我们就得回去，把这一块重新设计、重新架构。
我们对所有东西都这么干：landing page、onboarding 体验、新功能发布、导出、分享，每一个环节都做同样的测试，这样就能看出哪些地方真的好用，哪些地方不行。然后每一次测试，都会学到一些有点痛，但又非常明显必须修的东西，接着我们就回去修。

Lenny Rachitsky那这种测试怎么规模化？每次新点子、新功能都怎么让人来试？你们有封闭 beta 群组，还是用某个平台？实际操作到底怎么做？

Grant Lee有几个很好的平台。一个是 Voicepanel，它也是 YC 公司，先说明一下，我自己还是 angel investor。还有像 UserTesting 这种平台，也很能帮你找到符合你想要的 persona 或 profile 的人。比如在我们这里，就是那些在特定岗位、或者经常做 deck 的人。你可以用这些平台很快把这种研究项目规模化。

然后一旦团队学会怎么用这些平台……我们经常是早上想到一个点子，下午就已经在跑一个相当完整的 experiment 或 research study，到了晚上或者第二天，我们就能把整个结果一起过一遍。所以一旦流程搭起来，速度其实非常快。更关键的是，怎么把这个 program 正确地 onboard 起来。
我们早期还有另一个机制。等到有了一些回访用户之后，我们会为 power users 搭一个单独的项目，叫 Gammaster Program。我们会把他们拉进一个单独的 Slack workspace，在那里分享非常早期的原型，比如 wireframe，有时候是 functional prototype，让他们先给一些初步反馈。这个特别适合测试更后面的功能，或者那些不一定属于 onboarding 的东西。可一旦大家已经理解 Gamma 了，比如“好，那怎么分享？”这种功能，就特别适合在这里测。
因为他们已经知道 Gamma 是什么了，现在只是多了一个新功能。我们还能看他们怎么卡住，听他们怎么描述自己卡在哪儿。所以这套单独的 Slack workspace 特别有用。只要我们在想什么新东西，他们都是第一批知道的人，也能帮我们很早判断：我们是不是走在对的方向上。

Lenny Rachitsky这套流程太棒了。你们早上想到点子、做出原型。你们是用 Cursor、Lovable 这类 AI prototyping tools 做的吗？

Grant Lee对，没错。也不一定非得是这些工具。我们运气很好，很多 designer 自己也会写代码，所以在这些新工具出来之前，我们就已经能做出某种 functional prototype，然后把它发出去，让大家开始玩了。

Lenny Rachitsky对，所以你们是早上想到点子，用各种工具做个 prototype。到一天结束的时候，就能通过 Voicepanel 或 UserTesting 这种平台拿到真实用户的反馈。我想这套 loop 省下来的，可能是好几个月去做一个没人想要的东西、发出去、上线、然后失败的时间。

Grant Lee完全是这样。我觉得这对很多现在在做 vibe-coded apps 的人尤其有帮助。你已经把把东西做出来的时间大幅缩短了，那下一步就是证明它对某些用户真的有用。这个过程应该是每天、每周都能重复很多次，然后在那些看起来有效的东西上继续往下搭。

我觉得这几乎就是一种“速通”早期 idea maze 的办法。你以为自己好像有个东西能成，那到底怎么真正突破，让人发现你在做的东西是有价值的？

Lenny Rachitsky对，我很喜欢，因为太多人一听“先把产品拿给用户看”这件事，就觉得得先做用户研究，听起来又重又费事。而你讲的这套流程非常自动化，也特别快。你不用专门去咖啡店找陌生人，只要把你的想法丢进这些平台，到了当天结束就能拿到反馈。

Grant Lee对，而且这会让你快很多。

Lenny Rachitsky有没有哪一个功能，是你当时特别兴奋，结果拿去这么跑了一轮之后，发现“好吧，这完全失败了”？

Grant Lee我觉得没有哪一个是那种我们一下子投了很大力气、结果完全翻车的东西。我们一直都尽量把它切得很小。所以我们早期测试的，从来都不是那种巨型功能。它们总是一个起点，或者一个雏形，也就是“这件事可能有意思”。

然后我们会把最初学到的东西拿回来，再围绕它往产品里继续长。不会出现那种“哦，我们花了四个月做这个东西，看看有没有人真的要”的情况。我们一般都是很早就开始试。很多想法会很快死掉，但它们本来就只是很小的想法。
接着，真正通过最初测试的那些想法，才会继续往下做，慢慢长成更有可能改变游戏规则、或者更有价值的东西。等到你真正发出去时，前面其实已经经过了十层不同的测试和迭代，才走到见光的那一步。

Lenny Rachitsky你和你们公司的运作方式有个很有意思的地方：你们是 ex-Optimizely 出身，所以对 experimentation 这一套非常熟。很多人觉得 A/B testing 在 startup 里没意义，因为规模太小。但我从你这里听到的是，哪怕在早期，还是有很多方式可以用实验思维去想问题。你觉得这里还有什么特别重要、大家值得听到的？

Grant Lee有。我真的觉得更关键的是，你进入任何问题或机会时的心态，也就是那句老话：“Strong opinions, weakly held.” 你完全可以对很多事情先有假设、有判断，但你也应该永远知道，自己可以开始验证这些判断。

作为 founder，你一直都在建立 conviction。建立 conviction 的方式，不是把所有东西都闷在脑子里，而是把它拿出来，去跟用户、潜在客户一起测，看看哪些地方真的对味。很多时候，你拿到的数据足够大，可以做统计显著性分析；但有时候，也只是“嘿，我们至少做了一次 gut check，拿到了一些定性反馈”。我觉得这依然有价值，不应该变成那种非黑即白的判断，好像“必须做到统计显著才有意义”。我不觉得是这样。
其实我可以讲一个 Gamma 刚开始时的很早期故事。我们那时就知道自己想改变人们沟通的方式，而且我们其实同时在平行推进两个想法。当然一个是 presentations，也就是重新想象人们如何做演示文稿；另一个则是我们叫 The Lobby 的东西，它本质上是一个 virtual office。那是疫情最严重的时候，大家都在 hybrid work、virtual work，所以我们想做一个地方，让团队里不管大家是不是在同一个办公室，都能聚在一起、协作起来，感觉会有一点 magic。
我们前后花了六个月同时做这两个东西。virtual office 和 presentation product 都做了六个月。我们会自己先用，也就是 dog-food 两个产品。很多时候，我们会在 virtual office 里演示 presentation tool，两个都一起用。六个月后，我们得出结论：我们要把全部精力都押在 presentation tool 上。原因是，当我们看 virtual office 的时候，我们总是在跟一个我们永远不可能超过的东西竞争，那就是现实中的体验：真的和同事肩并肩一起工作，真的在一个让人感觉“我们是在一起搭建东西”的环境里。
virtual office 可以做得不错，但我们永远赢不了那个体验。所以我们其实被自己对产品的想象限制住了：它到底能有多好？反过来看 presentation product，我们却一下子冒出了无数点子，觉得它完全可以做得比今天的 PowerPoint 好太多。我们整个人都被它点燃了。
所以对我们来说，那就是一次 A/B test：我们把同样多的时间投给了两个方向，最后得出的结论是，其中一个会成为我们愿意把所有 blood, sweat and tears 都砸进去、拼命做到极致的产品，因为我们真的看到了它的潜力。

Lenny Rachitsky我之前还真不知道你们探索过那个方向。很多公司在疫情时期都这样：觉得“这就是未来，我们都要远程办公，那就做个虚拟办公室吧。” 我其实还投过一个很小的公司，叫 Lindy，现在已经成了很大的 AI agent 公司，他们当时也是这么起家的。我感觉他们最早的概念就是那些小头像，像个小游戏一样，你在虚拟空间里走来走去，去不同的会议室。

Grant Lee对，那是个很好玩的产品，做起来也挺有意思。

Lenny Rachitsky是啊，挺有意思的。后来我们又回到了平均值：人还是回办公室了，那段体验就变成了“嗯，挺好玩的一段经历”。虽然事情确实也变了。你刚才这个点我特别想再强调一下，因为我觉得它真的很强，我以前没听别人这样讲过。就是尽早测试原型，而且用这些让测试变得特别容易的平台。

我们总听人说：“好，你有 mock、有 prototype 了，那就去做用户测试。” 但听上去总像很重、很费事。你描述的这个方法其实完全不同。现在有 AI 工具，真的太容易了：有想法，就做原型；然后拿去测试。我不知道，你们一次会让多少人看这个 prototype？平均会过多少人？

Grant Lee20 个。

Lenny Rachitsky20 个人。也就是说，20 个人看过这个东西，给你一堆反馈，你就会发现这玩意儿很蠢，或者“好，这里有一个 nugget 是我们应该往下押的”。然后你根本不用真的把完整产品做出来，也不用做一堆用户研究 session。太酷了。

好，那除了我们已经聊过的 influencer marketing、prototype 测试、品牌投入和一点 paid growth 之外，还有没有其他大招，帮助你们做到今天的 1 亿美元 ARR、20 亿美元公司？

Grant Lee对我们来说，特别关键的是在这个环境下能快速适应、快速行动。我觉得我们能做到现在，主要有几个原因。第一，我们团队很小，也很 lean，所以动作很快。这个意味着，我们默认就得去找很多“一个小团队也能做很多事”的杠杆。

所以我们可以聊的一个点，就是怎么搭一支像我们这样的团队，以及我觉得哪些做法真正有效。第二，还是回到 experimentation。对我们来说，这一套是个巨大的 unlock，因为它不只是让你能不断测试、不断迭代，也让你能更高效地构建产品。所以我们从一开始就拥有很好的 unit economics，而且一直都在盈利，margin 也很强。
如果 experimentation 不是我们的核心基础设施，我不觉得这件事能成立。因为最自然的诱惑就是：每个任务都直接扔最贵的模型，想当然觉得这样就会好。可现实从来不是这样。对我们来说，今天能在 production 里测试 20 个不同模型，始终尝试把我们提供给客户的价值和我们真正能扩展运营的能力对齐，这件事一直都在后台发生。
这些东西不一定都很容易量化，也不一定是你会大张旗鼓分享出去的内容，但它们确实是我们 DNA 的一部分。回到我们这支来自 Optimizely 的团队，这一点也许不算意外，但我确实觉得，这也是我们能做到这个水平的重要原因之一。

Lenny Rachitsky我很喜欢你们的产品这么漂亮、体验这么好。这其实是一个特别好的例子，说明实验、A/B test 和对实验的执着，不一定会把产品做成那种微优化的流程；相反，它也可以创造出非常漂亮、很有质感的产品和体验。

Grant Lee对，完全是这样。回到团队的一部分，这一点起了很大作用，就是你得做出一个能让人谈 taste、谈 brand、谈那些情绪表达的产品。至于这到底有没有用，我就不在这里简单下结论了，但我确实觉得它会有影响。对我们来说，某个阶段团队里超过四分之一，甚至大概四分之一的人，都是 product designers。我觉得这是一种挺反直觉的投入，至少不常见。你很少会看到我们这个阶段、或者更早期的 startup，有四分之一团队是 product designers。

我特别喜欢你分享的这个工作流：早上想到一个点子，马上就做出原型。你们是用 Cursor、Lovable 这类 AI 原型工具做的吗？

Grant Lee对，没错。或者也可以是别的方式。我们很幸运，很多设计师其实也会写代码，所以在这些新工具出来之前，我们就已经能先做出某种 functional prototype，然后把它发出去，让别人先玩起来。

Lenny Rachitsky对，所以你们就是早上有个点子，用各种工具做出原型。到了当天结束，就能通过 Voicepanel 或 UserTesting 这类平台拿到真实用户的反馈。我感觉这套循环，可能直接帮你们省下好几个月去做一个没人想要的东西、上线、发布，然后失败的时间。

Grant Lee完全是这样。对很多现在开始大量做 vibe-coded apps 的人来说，这套方法可能更有帮助。对，你已经把把东西做出来的时间压下来了。那下一步就是证明它对某一批用户真的有用。这个流程应该是每天、每周都能做很多次，然后在那些看起来有效的东西上继续往下长。

我觉得这几乎就是在“速通”早期的 idea maze。你以为自己有个东西可能能成，那到底怎么真正穿过去，让人真的在你做的东西里找到价值？

Lenny Rachitsky对，我很喜欢，因为很多人一听“先拿给用户看”这件事，就会觉得这像用户研究，要做得很重，很麻烦。而你说的这套流程其实非常自动化，也非常快。你不用专门去咖啡店找陌生人，只要把东西丢进这些平台，到当天结束就能拿到反馈。

Grant Lee完全是这样，这会让你快很多。

Lenny Rachitsky有没有哪一个功能，是你当时特别兴奋地做出来，跑了一轮之后发现，“好吧，这简直是个巨大失败”？

Grant Lee我觉得没有哪一个是那种我们一开始就大规模投入、最后彻底翻车的东西。我们一直都尽量把问题切得很小。所以我们在早期测试的，从来都不是那种巨型功能。它们通常只是一个起点，或者一个“这可能有点意思”的雏形。

然后我们会把最初学到的东西拿回来，再围绕它去真正搭产品。不会出现“哦，我们花了四个月做这个，看看有没有人真的要”的情况。我们一般都是从很早很早就开始。很多想法会很快死掉，但它们本来就只是很小的想法。
然后那些通过了最初测试的东西，我们才会继续往下搭，慢慢做成更可能改变游戏规则、或者更有价值的产品。等真正发出去的时候，其实已经经过了十层不同的测试和迭代，才终于见光。

Lenny Rachitsky你和你们公司的运作方式有个很有意思的地方：你们是 ex-Optimizely 出身，所以对 experimentation 这一套非常熟。很多人会说 A/B testing 在 startup 里没意义，因为规模太小。但我听下来，你们其实会在很早期就用很多实验思维去想问题。你觉得这里还有什么特别重要的东西，值得大家听？

Grant Lee有。我觉得更重要的是你带着什么样的心态去面对几乎任何问题或机会，也就是那句话：“Strong opinions, weakly held.” 你完全可以在很多事情上先有一些假设或者判断，但你也应该始终知道，这些东西是可以开始验证的。

作为 founder，你一直都在建立 conviction。建立 conviction 不是把所有东西都关在脑子里，而是把它拿出来，开始和用户、潜在客户一起测试，看看哪些东西真的对味。有时你拿到的数据足够多，可以做统计显著性分析；有时也只是，“嘿，我们至少做了个 gut check，拿到了一些定性反馈。”我觉得这依然很有价值，不应该变成“要么全有，要么全无”，好像“必须静态显著才有用”。我不觉得是这样。
其实我可以分享一个 Gamma 刚开始时非常早期的故事。我们一开始就知道自己想改变人们沟通的方式，而且当时其实同时在平行推进两个想法。一个当然是 presentations，也就是重新想象人们如何制作演示文稿；另一个是我们叫 The Lobby 的东西，本质上是一个 virtual office。那会儿正好是疫情高峰，大家都在做 hybrid work、virtual work，所以我们想做一个地方，让团队里不管人是不是在同一个办公室，都能聚在一起、协作起来，体验会有点 magic。
我们前后花了六个月同时做这两个东西。virtual office 和 presentation product 都做了六个月。我们自己也会用，也就是 dog-food 两边。很多时候，我们会在 virtual office 里演示 presentation tool，两个产品都一起用。六个月后，我们得出结论：我们要把所有筹码都押在 presentation tool 上。原因是，当我们看 virtual office 时，我们总是在跟一个我们永远不可能超过的东西竞争，那就是现实中的体验：真的和同事肩并肩一起工作，真的在一个让人感觉“我们是在一起建东西”的环境里。
virtual office 可以做得挺好，但我们永远赢不了那个体验。所以我们其实是被自己对产品的想象限制住了：它到底能有多好？反过来看 presentation product，我们却一下子冒出了一大堆想法，觉得它完全可以做得比今天的 PowerPoint 好得多。我们整个人都被它点燃了。
所以对我们来说，那就是一次 A/B test：我们把同样多的时间投给两个方向，最后得出的结论是，其中一个会是我们愿意把所有 blood, sweat and tears 都砸进去的产品，因为我们真的看到了它的潜力。

Lenny Rachitsky我之前还真不知道你们探索过那个方向。疫情期间有太多 startup 都这样做了：觉得“这就是未来，我们都要远程办公，那就做个虚拟办公室吧。” 我有一个很小的投资，投了 Lindy，他们现在是很大的 AI agent 公司，他们当时也是这么起家的。我猜他们最早的概念大概就是那些小头像，像个小游戏一样，你在里面走来走去，进小会议室。

Grant Lee对，那是个很好玩的产品，做起来也挺有意思。

Lenny Rachitsky是啊，挺有意思的。后来我们又回到了平均值：大家还是回办公室了，那段体验就变成了“嗯，那是一段挺好玩的经历”。虽然事情还是变了。你刚才这个点我特别想再强调一下，因为我觉得它真的很强，但我以前从没听别人这样讲过。就是：极早地测试 prototype，而且用这些让测试变得超级容易的平台。

我们总听人说：“你有 mock、有 prototype 了，那去做用户测试吧。” 可听上去总像一件很重、很费劲的事情。你描述的这套方式完全不一样。现在有 AI 工具，真的太容易了：有想法，就做原型；然后拿去测试。我不知道，你们一次会让多少人看这个 prototype？平均下来多少人？

Grant Lee20 个。

Lenny Rachitsky20 个人。也就是说，20 个人看过这个东西，给你一堆反馈，你就会发现这玩意儿很蠢，或者“好，这里有一个 nugget，是我们应该押下去的”。然后你根本不用真的做一个完整产品，也不用做那么多用户研究 session。太酷了。

好，那除了我们已经聊过的 influencer marketing、prototype 测试、品牌投入和一点 paid growth 之外，还有没有别的关键经验，帮助你们做到今天的 1 亿美元 ARR、20 亿美元公司？

Grant Lee对我们来说，特别关键的是在这个环境下能快速适应、快速行动。我觉得我们今天能做到这一步，主要有几个原因。第一，我们团队很小，也很 lean，所以跑得很快。这个意味着我们默认就得去找很多“小团队也能做很多事”的杠杆。

所以我们可以聊的一个点，就是怎么搭一支像我们这样的团队，以及我觉得哪些做法真的有效。第二，还是回到 experimentation。对我们来说，这一套是个很大的 unlock，因为它不只是让你能测试很多东西、快速迭代，也让你能更高效地构建产品。所以我们一开始就有很好的 unit economics，而且一直都在盈利，margin 也很强。
如果 experimentation 不是我们的核心基础设施，我不觉得这件事能成立。因为最自然的诱惑就是：每个任务都扔最贵的模型，想当然觉得这样会好。但现实从来不是这样。对我们来说，今天能在 production 里测试 20 个不同模型，始终尝试把我们给客户交付的价值和我们真正能扩展运营的能力对齐，这件事一直都在后台发生。
这些东西不一定都很容易量化，也不一定是你会大张旗鼓分享出去的内容，但它们确实是我们 DNA 的一部分。回到我们这支来自 Optimizely 的团队，这一点也许不算意外，但我确实觉得，这也是我们能做到这个水平的重要原因之一。

Lenny Rachitsky我很喜欢你们的产品这么漂亮、体验这么好。这其实是一个特别好的例子，说明实验、A/B test 和对实验的执着，不一定会把产品做成那种微优化的流程；相反，它也可以创造出非常漂亮、很有质感的产品和体验。

Grant Lee对，完全是这样。回到团队的一部分，这一点起了很大作用，就是你得做出一个能让人谈 taste、谈 brand、谈那些情绪表达的产品。至于这到底有没有用，我就不在这里简单下结论了，但我确实觉得它会有影响。对我们来说，某个阶段团队里超过四分之一，甚至大概四分之一的人，都是 product designers。我觉得这是一种挺反直觉的投入，至少不常见。你很少会看到我们这个阶段、或者更早期的 startup，有四分之一团队是 product designers。

Grant Lee我觉得这对我们来说是一笔很重要的投入。因为你看现在很多 AI 公司，都在尝试发明新的表层界面，或者新的用户体验；但如果底层没有打牢，如果你没有真的深入理解用户问题，也没想清楚要怎么用一种新的方式把它解决掉，这件事根本做不成。所以我们从一开始就做了这笔投入，哪怕它和别的创业公司通常会做的事情不太一样，因为我们真心觉得这是对的。

Lenny Rachitsky好。我肯定还想多聊聊招聘。但在那之前，你也提到过一种概念，就是很多人会把你们描述成一家 GPT wrapper 公司。你们本质上是站在别的模型之上，做一些很酷的事，然后向用户收费。历史上，尤其在这个圈子里，一直有一种看法：‘好吧，你只是模型上面一层很薄的壳。真正干活的是模型，最后也是模型在为这些 AI 工作买单，那你们在中间到底还有什么杠杆，长期商业模式又在哪里？’

现在大家似乎开始意识到，也许钱就只能在这一层赚，因为模型太难竞争了，而那已经不是一个还能靠模型本身去建立业务的地方了。聊聊你对 GPT wrapper 这个概念的理解，以及大家可能误解了这个商业机会的什么地方。

Grant Lee如果你真的只是在一个模型或者一个提供商上面套一层 wrapper，那也许你能增加的效用或价值确实有限。但一旦你开始想：好，我要把某个工作流做得非常深，而且这不只是一个模型。它可能是 20 多个模型在驱动产品的不同部分；你还得考虑编排；如果你一直在做实验，那你就需要不断测试最新模型和更便宜、但已经成熟的模型。你其实在做很多事，而你的工作，说到底还是要把价值对齐，把你交付给终端用户的价值最大化，同时还得保证这门生意对你自己是可持续的。所以这里面的东西远远不只是“套壳”这么简单。

对我们来说，我们一直都很看重和客户、和用户保持很近的距离。因为对他们来说，真正要完成的任务，是视觉沟通、视觉表达。今天默认的工具是 PowerPoint 或 Google Slides，而做出一份东西要花的力气……我们都经历过，半夜还在排版、找合适的布局，做这些又手工又琐碎的活。
如果你能把这些全部抽象掉，给他们一个更愉快、更简单、也更省力的东西，会在什么程度上让用户愿意回到你的产品里？所以我们关注的一切都是：你必须深入工作流，对用户以及他们要完成的任务保持同理心，当然还要尽可能应用最好的技术，去兑现那个承诺，让产品体验比现状好得多。
我觉得如果你能足够聚焦，关键就不是你到底是不是 wrapper，而是你到底用了什么技术，又把这些技术怎么应用进去，能不能真的带来差异。那才是终极目标。

Lenny Rachitsky这其实是一个很酷的框架，可以拿来思考怎样做成一家成功的 wrapper 公司。我还是先沿用这个说法吧。我也不知道这个说法是不是 ，但有些想法确实不行。很多模型公司现在也在自己推出产品，时不时来一点。

所以我喜欢你刚才讲的，是因为它几乎像一个 heuristic，能帮你判断一件事：如果你想做成一家 GPT “wrapper company”，机会在哪里、怎么才可能成功。我这里打了引号。听起来这可能有三条。你能不能讲讲，如果把做一家建立在现有模型之上的成功业务拆成几个要点，会是什么？

Grant Lee我觉得最重要的是，甚至在聊技术之前，我们先别跳到“我要把最有意思的模型或者技术应用到某个问题上”这一步。先从解决你真正关心的问题开始。

现在很容易追逐那些 shiny objects。创始人可能甚至只靠做一个 GPT wrapper、解决某种问题，就能先拿到一点 traction。然后一旦看到一些起色，就顺着往下做。但在那之前，你得先想清楚：这是一个我愿意花五到十年去真正解决的问题吗？我真的足够在乎它吗？
因为如果你不够在乎，你永远不会真正去想怎么跨过各种障碍，不管是别的创业公司，还是那些也在尝试做同样事情的老牌工具。
所以对我们来说，我们回到最初的出发点……我们创办这家公司，是因为我们真心在乎改变人们表达想法的方式。我们真的相信，视觉沟通、视觉表达这件事很重要。它能让每个人都更有机会，也能让那些过去不擅长做 slides 的人，不至于因为表达方式不够好，想法就被埋没；反而是那些更会讲的人，最后赢下了交易，或者赢得了上司的认可。
我们觉得这不对，所以我们想：能不能把视觉表达、视觉沟通真正普及开来？这就是我们的北极星。然后你再往回推：好，那我每一步可以用什么工具和技术，去帮助解决这个问题，真的把普通人一步步拉近到我们长期愿景里来？
当然，AI 又给了我们这个礼物：没错，你可以把它用来解决这个工作；你也可以把同样的 AI 用在很多别的工作上。你要搞清楚的是，你到底有多在意这个问题，值不值得深入，因为回到刚才那个想法，你必须拥有端到端的工作流。你希望你的产品在用户脑子里占有一个位置，让他们一想到“嘿，我得做个 presentation”，第一反应就是来找你。
而从他们开始创作，到真正完成并发给老板，这整个端到端体验都必须让人觉得很魔法、很顺、很棒。我不觉得你真的能做到这一点，除非这本来就是一个你自己非常熟悉的工作流，或者是一个你真心想帮别人解决的工作流。
所以我听到的几个要点是：第一，你得真的很在意解决这个问题，不是因为“哇，这个东西很酷而且能跑”，就想着“也许我可以卖给别人”。因为你很可能要在这上面花 10 年、20 年。

Grant Lee完全是。

第二，是要真正、非常深入地理解这个问题，并且对正在面对这个问题的人有真实的同理心。你之前在自己的工作里就遇到过做 presentations 这件事，所以你理解它；而且我想，等你自己真的做了这个产品之后，你对它的理解只会更深。归根结底，就是要真的很在乎这个问题，深入去理解它，对面对这个问题的人有同理心，然后还得真的能用现有技术把它解决掉。
而且你刚才提到，你们会用 20 个不同的模型来完成你们在做的事情。能不能再展开讲讲这个？因为很多人可能会想：“哦，那我直接去 ChatGPT 或 Claude，它不就能帮我做一份很棒的 presentation 了吗？”为什么一定要用 20 个不同的模型？为什么这是你们成功里这么重要的一部分？

Grant Lee对，回到工作流本身，你其实是在拆解用户创建内容的每一个步骤。从最初的想法，到可能先搭一个大纲，再到起草第一版。那些环节你到底给他什么？比如“我已经有第一版了，但它只完成了 60%，怎么让它走到 100%？” 这些步骤可能都需要不同的模型。最初的大纲，也许更适合用专门为产出最优大纲、最强叙事、最好故事弧线而生的模型；而在另一个环节，你其实是在回头对整个 deck 做 review。Gamma 里的 agent 可以直接检查整份 deck，然后说：“如果让我给建议，我会说，你可能要改一下这些卡片的视觉布局，也可能要改这些卡片的图像或视觉元素，让它们和其他部分更统一。”

这些事情里，不同模型可能各自更擅长不同环节。所以你必须真正理解终端用户在做什么，坐下来和他们一起用产品、一起做 presentation，才能知道该怎么帮他们。我觉得你只有先理解那个工作流，再把它拆开，去给每个步骤找最合适的工具，才能做到这件事。
这太有意思了。说白了，就是 AI 需要帮我们完成这些事情。可以想象成一块 storyboard，然后再去为每一步挑选合适的模型、模型级别和 prompt，尽可能把每一步都做到最好。

Grant Lee完全是。视觉层面也一样，比如找合适的图片。我觉得有些模型特别擅长写实输出，有些则更有艺术感，或者更抽象。所以同样可以按任务选对模型。这不代表你永远不会用别的模型，只是说在走这个工作流的时候，内容本身会决定什么是最佳用法。每一种具体场景里，你都在问同一个问题：终端用户在那个瞬间到底想完成什么？

你们觉得哪些模型最好用？有没有什么让你们觉得“哇，这个模型居然很擅长这个，而在那个上面又很差”的意外发现？

Grant Lee有，或者说不意外也好，排行榜一直在变，所以你得有一种随时能适应的心态。我们也刚开始走到一个阶段，就是会有更多个性化了。回到前面说的，顾问和教育者的需求就不同。教育者是想让学生参与进来，他们可能会想要更活泼的语言和视觉，这很合理；但顾问就不能这么来，他们可能需要更结构化、信息密度更高的东西。所以问题就变成了，我们怎么让同一个工具同时服务这两种需求？我觉得这才有意思，而且几乎不存在一个绝对“最好的模型”。更重要的是，这个特定用户当下最合适的模型是什么？这个问题其实难得多，我们也是最近才开始认真拥抱这件事。

有没有哪一个模型会让你们觉得，“哇，这个真挺酷的，是我们没预料到的”？

Grant Lee一开始，像做 outline 这件事上，Perplexity 其实特别好用。虽然它不是大家经常会提到的那个模型，但对我们来说，它在生成大纲、做网页搜索、再把这些元素整合起来这件事上，真的很有帮助。

Lenny Rachitsky好，还有两件事我想聊。一个是定价。你们是怎么想清楚定价策略的？你们很早就开始 monetization，而这对 AI startup 尤其重要，因为推理和其他部分都是真金白银在烧钱。另一个是招聘。所以先说定价：你们是什么时候决定该开始收费的？又是怎么定出实际价格的？

Grant Lee我们其实是被逼着去做定价和 packaging 的。我刚才提到，我们在 2023 年 3 月做了那次很大的 AI launch。那时还没开始赚钱，所以我们几乎把所有精力都放在前 30 秒上，真的是全员上阵，只想把这个体验做对。至于变现，我们一点时间都没花。于是我们做了一个 credit 系统。所有新用户都会拿到 400 credits，一旦用完，其实就没法再继续用 AI 了，功能会直接被切断。所以 Intercom 里全是用户在问：“我怎么再买 credits？我想继续用这个东西。”这完全是合理的问题。于是整个 4 月我们都在快速做 pricing 和 packaging。我们做了几件事。

我们做了 Van Westendorp 这类方法，本质上就是去理解用户整体的支付意愿。

Lenny Rachitsky经典。

Grant Lee对。我们也做了一些 conjoint analysis，主要是想弄清楚用户到底看重产品里的哪些功能或元素。于是我们去调查了很多早期用户，最后定出了一个价格点。最开始我们只有一个方案，大概是每月 20 美元左右。另一个原因是，我们也意识到这件事其实不用想得太复杂，因为当时第一波 AI 公司和 AI 产品正在出来，大家都在看什么。你很容易就会被 ChatGPT 的价格锚住，因为每个人都熟悉这个价位。所以我们就问自己：我们到底要把这个事情搞得多复杂？

我们一直默认的原则就是去掉 friction，让用户最好理解。所以最后我们定了一个差不多的价格点，并在 2023 年 5 月底把 V1 上线了。对我们来说，我们还想验证几件事：好，我们有了初始价格点，这个价格点对我们来说经济上划算吗？我们真的能赚钱吗？在接下来的很多个月里，我们一直盯着这件事，结果发现是的，在这个价位下我们仍然能拿到相当不错的 margin，这样就能把利润再投入到业务增长里。
继续增加员工，也继续往 inference 成本里投钱，或者把我们想做的各种 AI 实验都做起来。我们对 pricing and packaging 的判断一直都是：它不仅要让用户一眼看懂、转化率也要高，还得是你觉得自己真能靠它做出一家长久、耐用的公司。如果不是，那就回头改；但这件事一定要尽早监控。
有意思的是，我们最近采访了 ChatGPT 负责人，他说他们也是用一个 Google Forms 里的 Van Westendorp 调查来定 ChatGPT 的价格。

Grant Lee完全是。我听过那期，真的很好。

哦，那份调查真是……我脑海里甚至都浮现出那个 XKCD 漫画：一个小小的开源组件，却撑起了整个世界。我感觉这份 survey 也有点那个意思。但有意思的是，正是这个决定在所有 AI startup 之间产生了连锁反应，20 美元/月。难怪大家都这么定。

Grant Lee完全是。谁知道如果他们定了别的数字会怎样，不过现在就是这样。

如果是 25 美元，大家会不会都更有钱一点？想象一下 growth 的 GDP……

Grant Lee是啊。

……会被那个数字拉动多少。哦对，那 Van Westendorp 既帮你们选了价格点，又配合 conjoint analysis。我们其实还有一篇 guest post 讲怎么把这事做得更好，如果没有我也会找给你。你们是在 launch 后才开始收费的吗？当时没有任何付费功能，用户只是说：“我想付钱，我想继续用。”你们就说：“好吧，那我们得开始收费了。”

Grant Lee没错。

回头看，你有没有什么希望当时就知道的？就是你现在会怎么建议正在做这件事的人，“哦，我们本来应该换个做法，或者至少早点想到这个”。

Grant Lee这个问题比较难。我当然不想随便拼一个东西出来而不认真思考，但在我们资源有限的情况下，我们只聚焦于我们认为最重要的事：先拿到一些初始用户，并让增长是 organic 的。我觉得判断自己有没有 product-market fit，大概有两个检查点。第一个是 organic growth；第二个是用户愿不愿意付费。如果这两个都过了，那至少在某个细分市场里，你会觉得自己有了一些 PMF。所以这两个问题都很重要，要看你手上的资源。理想情况下，你可以两个都做，并行地做一些实验。等你真的有付费用户时，你也就给自己做了几个验证。

顺便说一下，我很喜欢你们 launch 时的定价。你们当时就是在想：“好，先看看我们到底能不能赚钱。” 这对 AI 公司来说并不那么显而易见。

Grant Lee对，我们当时也没得选，因为那时候 runway 也很紧。如果我们不赚钱，局面会很糟。

这点特别好。你们当时并没有像很多 AI 公司那样，手里攥着一大笔钱，可以先不管，后面再想办法赚钱。

Grant Lee完全是。几个月内我们就做到 100 万 ARR，而且开始盈利了。对一家公司来说，这两个里程碑都很让人兴奋，而就在几个月前，我们还在埋头想怎么活下去。

真是个好故事。我已经很期待把这个故事讲出来了。好，最后一个大话题，我们来聊招聘。你们对招聘有一些非常狠的观点，显然这也确实让你们受益了。你们在招聘上学到了什么？你们的招聘方法是什么？

Grant Lee我们内部其实一直有个口号，甚至在 AI launch 之前就有了，叫“Hire painfully slowly.” 一旦事情开始顺起来，人很容易就想疯狂扩张，不停加人。对我们来说，这种感觉一直都不对。我们想很有意识地把团队搭起来，保持 lean，同时又要让每个人每天都感到自己有很高的影响力。这个想法从一开始就是这样。即便现在团队变大了，我们也仍然因为保持 lean，而天然很高效。

所以我觉得很多人听到“保持 lean、保持高效”这种建议时，听起来还是有点空。你们其实给出了更具体的做法，背后那套理念就是每个人要有很高的杠杆。你们也很看重 revenue per employee。能不能展开讲讲这个？

Grant Lee我们当然会看 revenue per employee 这类指标，但它从来不是北极星，也不是我们策略的直接驱动。同样，盈利能力也一样。高效率带来的结果，是我们确实在盈利、也在增长。但对我们来说，更重要的是招对人。这一点很容易因为设错目标而自己绊倒自己。比如你的目标是 headcount 翻倍，要把公司人数加到 100 人，那这个就会变成目标。结果就不再是招最好的人，也不再是维持高标准，而是只想着凑够 100 人。然后会发生什么？

如果目标就是这个，那最后被牺牲的往往就是质量。你可能会开始接受一些“够用就行”的人，只为了赶紧到 100 人，因为你觉得 100 人会帮你进入下一阶段增长。可下一阶段又是下一阶段。我们一直试着抵抗这个诱惑。我们希望每一个走进来、加入我们团队的人，都真的是那种能代表 Gamma 的人。我们的前 10 到 12 名员工，我们花了非常多时间去把 DNA 选对。Brian Chesky 也讲过这个：你的目标是先把前 10 个人找对，然后再复制下一个 10，再复制下一个 10，但这第一个 10 必须超级 cohesive。你得有同样的价值观、同样的原则、同样的 ambition、同样的 vision；否则你到底是在复制什么？
到了那一步，你其实只是在加 headcount，而且很容易只是因为大家都在追下一个 shiny startup。对我们来说，我们非常专注于前 10 个人。这让我们真的形成了一群想留下来的 teammate。很多 founder 会担心产品侧有 leak bucket，但团队侧其实也是一样。如果你有个漏水桶，大家不停离开、门口像旋转门一样，那成本会非常高。延续性的成本巨大，而且很难量化。
我前面提到过，我们最早的 10 名员工，现在 5 年后都还在。这个连续性意味着你手里有一份会跟着你的 tribal knowledge，也意味着大家可以持续搭建，而且那种 cohesive 的感觉一直都在。所以我觉得这件事很难量化，但我确实会建议新的 startup 非常认真地对待它。你要把它做到一个程度，让自己真的有信心：当你继续加下一个 10、下一个 100 的时候，你是在复制同样的 DNA，而不是在公司里不断塞进一堆随机的人。
你有一个很具体的建议是：招 generalists，不要招那种只在某一个领域特别深的人。为什么这很重要？这又会是什么样？

Grant Lee对我们来说，我确实觉得“通才崛起”这件事会很重要。你当然也可以靠和那些在某些领域特别专精的 contractor 或 agency 合作来补足这一块。比如回到 influencer marketing 这件事，你可能会去找一家 agency，而不是把自己的 influencer marketing 团队越做越大。那部分就交给一个高度专精的团队去做。但我的市场团队基本上都是通才。我们市场负责人最近就在旧金山做了一个很酷的无人机秀。我们在旧金山有 4,000 人。市长也来了，她一个人把整个项目从头到尾做出来、管下来，同时还在管整个市场团队。所以你会发现，通才能扮演很多不同角色，而且一样可以产生很大的影响力。

对我们来说，这也和我前面提到的另一个角色是连在一起的，就是 player coach。传统管理层的逻辑，就是一个 manager 管很多人，这基本就是他的核心工作。但我们所有的人事负责人都是 player coach，也就是他们自己仍然会下场做事，同时还能带人、教人。这个比喻或者这种心态，其实是我从体育世界里借来的，因为很多运动节奏都特别快。比如橄榄球，速度就非常快。场上会有教练在 call play，但四分卫可以根据他看到的防守，在最后一刻临时调整。所以你需要的是一个能在场上随时适应的人，这样教练就不用把每个细节都下死命令。他只需要告诉你大概想跑什么战术，四分卫再自己做调整就行。
所以我们所有的人事负责人、我们的管理层，都是那种真的能做这些调整的人。如果他们每天或每周看到什么不对劲，就会给那个团队重新排优先级，同时自己也继续下场干活。因为他们离一线很近，所以他们始终知道什么是相对更重要的事。对我来说，这两点一直都很有用。很多创始人谈创新，想到的通常是产品创新、技术创新。但我觉得今天每个创始人都有机会在组织设计上创新。第一步就是先想清楚：我们今天想做一家什么样的公司？这意味着什么？到了管理层，我们要招什么样的领导？到了具体岗位和职能，又该怎么招？这些都是让你可以更认真思考、做出一家你会想长期待下去的公司的机会，希望能一直做到很多年以后。

Lenny RachitskySo what I'm hearing here is manager, there's no pure managers at Gamma and your plan is to not have people that are just managing the ideas. Everyone, even a manager is doing their own IC work.

Grant LeeYes.

Lenny RachitskyAnd then the other piece of advice here is just generalists. People that can do a lot of stuff, and I hear this a lot on this podcast just like everyone is, there's no more just like you're a designer, that's all you're going to do. Designers need to build stuff, market stuff, write some PRDs probably.

Grant LeeJust one thing to add is that's where we are at today. I think being adaptable means that certain things may evolve and change and how the player coach model evolves and maybe in certain functions or as the team scales, that's not going to be practical everywhere. I think the reality is you just have to know and be willing to adopt different frameworks over time and being honest with yourself with what's working, what's not. I think we're constantly trying to learn and evolve ourselves. I think we're doing it in a way that we don't believe it really has been done before, and so we have to kind of pave our own path over time.

Lenny RachitskyI love that. Giving yourself an out when the time comes when you need to just hire managers.

Grant LeeA year later when you invite me back, I'll say, "Yeah, this is what we learned."

Lenny RachitskyYeah, that makes sense. That's probably going to happen. It's like people are like, "We don't need product managers." "I see. Maybe we do." Yeah, that makes sense. One last piece I want to talk about is you have this really cool quote that you shared on Twitter. " When you find someone exceptional, bet big on them." This is a big part of your philosophy is just bet big on the people that are doing super well. Just talk about what that looks like and why that's so important.

Grant LeeYeah, I mean this starts top of the funnel, which is you meet candidates, you decide who you actually hire. And so if you don't start with a high bar there, going back to what is the goal? The goal is to hit a hiring target versus maintaining a super high quality hiring bar. Those are different goals and I don't think we've ever kind of dropped our bar. And so then you bring somebody in that you think is exceptional, that brings something unique to the table, that can be a good teammate. When they're thriving, you just give them more and more resources. I think what you realize, another sports analogy is when you're on an A team for instance, or a team that you feel like is exceptional, A players want actually more playing time. You never see a star player that says "I actually want less playing time."

They want more time on the field, they want to actually go after the hardest problems. They want to be able to feel like they're making a huge impact. And so if you have fewer exceptional teammates where you can just throw almost anything at them and they'll figure it out, that feels for you as a team, just feels great because then they get what they find rewarding, which is the ability to go after hard hairy problems and to be able to come out through the other end feeling like they've accomplished something. And I think that for us has always been something that goes beyond just almost everything else. We give people a chance to really thrive in this environment and we try to nurture that as much as humanly possible every step of the way.

Lenny RachitskyIs there anything else around hiring that you think is really important or a big lesson you've learned or lesson you share that we haven't talked about yet?

Grant LeeI mean, there's some of these intangibles, which is for the founding team, does this feel like this could be your life's work? When you're pitching a potential candidate, does this feel like something where you're actually committed? The unfortunate side of a lot of what's happening in the AI world broadly is I think you're coming to learn which founders are sort of missionaries versus mercenaries. And many that were just chasing maybe just a big outcome, or something shiny, or something to feel good about themselves, they'll go off and then the company, I guess doesn't live on or maybe has to find a different way, a different path.

And so something I admire is you look at some of the founders, obviously before this sort of AI era, folks like Dylan or Melanie, Figma, Canva, Ivan at Notion, they've been doing this for over a decade now. They had many chances to just leave and sunset off into doing whatever they wanted to do, but they care so much about the mission, they've stuck it through. And I think when you're talking to candidates, candidates can kind of tell, is this something the founders even care about? And I think you're going to have a better chance of attracting true missionaries, people that want to build with you for the long haul, if it's authentic and it's something you actually care about.

Lenny RachitskyOh man, I keep saying this. I feel like we could have at least five more hours of stuff to talk about. That'll be good content for when you come back and you're making a billion dollars a year. Before we get to our very exciting lightning round, Grant, is there anything else that you think is important for people to hear? Any last, I don't know, lesson you want to double down on? Anything you want to leave listeners with?

Grant LeeYeah, I mean, just going back to the original story of that was probably the ultimate low point. Having an investor that spent 20 minutes listening to my pitch, telling me that it was the worst thing, worst idea in the world. I think throughout the journey there's going to be those low moments. And when I think about being a founder and working a startup, you're honestly just trying to increase your luck surface area as much as possible. And for me, luck surface area has two dimensions. The first dimension is people. Who are you surrounding yourself with that share your same ambition, share the same values, same principles, and find those people and then give yourself enough time to prove that you guys can accomplish great things. I'm lucky to have two amazing co-founders. We've been working on this thing for five years. There's 0% chance we'd be where we are if I didn't have them. And we've had to overcome a lot. But I guess for us it's like creating that own luck over a long time horizon has been the only way that it's been possible.

Lenny RachitskyWell, it's clearly showing in the success you guys are having. Grant, with that, we've reached our very exciting lightning round. Are you ready?

Grant LeeYep. Yes.

Lenny RachitskyAll right. I've got five questions for you. First question, what are two or three books that you find yourself recommending most to other people?

Grant LeeYeah, so I'll give one that's for pre-product market fit folks and the one post-product market fits.

Lenny RachitskyPerfect.

Grant LeePre-product market fit I would say is Shoe Dog, which is written by Phil Knight, founder of Nike. And he talks about two things. One, you should chase your sort of crazy ideas, but these should be ideas you're passionate about. He was an athlete, and so not surprisingly, he focused a lot about creating tools or shoes in this case for other athletes and was passionate about that. And the second thing he taught me was going back to the team thing, he surrounded himself with other people that were super passionate about athletics and shoes as well. And so the folks that he had as his initial startup crew were all that.

Grant LeePre-PMF 我会选《Shoe Dog》，就是 Nike 创始人 Phil Knight 写的那本书。他讲了两件事。第一，你要去追那些有点疯狂的点子，但前提是这些点子真的是你有热情的事。他自己本来就是运动员，所以不奇怪，他很大一部分精力都放在给其他运动员做工具、做鞋子这件事上，而且他是真的很投入。第二点，我从他身上学到的还是团队这件事：他把自己周围围了一圈同样热爱运动、热爱鞋的人。所以他最早那批创业伙伴，基本都是这类人。

而我觉得，这会让你更有机会扛住很多事，因为你盯着的是自己真心想解决的问题，身边又是和你有同样 ambition 的团队。到了 PMF 之后，我会推荐 Hamilton Helmer 写的《7 Powers》。如果你想搞清楚一家耐久的业务到底该怎么建，这本书里有很多东西。随着你自己不断成长、不断到新的里程碑，你会一遍一遍地重读它。这里面的内容既有很落地的战术层面，也有往后退一步、思考你作为创始团队应该盯住哪些大方向战略问题。两本都很值得读。

Lenny RachitskyHamilton 上过节目，我们会把那期链接放上去。我也很喜欢这本书，很多人都会提到它。下一个问题，你最近有没有特别喜欢的电影或电视剧？

Grant Lee有，《The Lazarus Project》算一个。我对穿越和科幻完全没有抵抗力，所以这是我刚开始追的一部。对我来说，它该有的爽点基本都有，挺适合放松看。

Lenny Rachitsky你最近有没有发现什么特别喜欢的产品？

Grant Lee有，我前面提过，Voicepanel。先说明一下，我也是它的天使投资人，不过我们确实一直在用。它对那些开始疯狂试不同点子、做 vibe coding 的人来说，几乎像个作弊码。你可以很快把一些想法塞到用户手里，听听他们怎么说。我觉得这东西能帮你提速很多，也能省下把时间浪费在错误点子、或者根本没有市场的点子上的时间。

Lenny Rachitsky你在工作里或生活里，会经常想起的一句座右铭是什么？

Grant Lee有一句我妈以前常说的中文成语，叫“井底之蛙”。故事就是，井底有只青蛙，它每天晚上抬头看天，以为自己已经看懂了整个世界。后来有一天，一只鸟飞来，跟它讲外面的世界：大海、群山、还有它一路看到的很多东西。青蛙这才发现，自己看到的只是世界很小的一部分。那只鸟就问它，要不要跟自己一起出去，看看外面更多的东西。然后青蛙就跟着走了。

对我来说，我的童年其实很普通。家里条件也没那么好，所以本来很容易只用很窄的视角看世界，然后说，“哦，世界就是这样。” 但我妈从来不让我这样。她总会把我往更大的地方推，告诉我：“世界很大，这是你去拿走的机会。你得走出去，不要把可能性看窄了。永远要把梦做大一点。” 这句话一直陪着我。每次我觉得自己想得太少、太小的时候，我都会试着把视角拉远一点，提醒自己，外面还有很多东西值得去追。

Lenny Rachitsky这真的很好，也很重要。在今天这个世界里，能做成的事比以前多太多了。现在限制人的，很多时候感觉都只是“我不知道自己有什么想法”“我不知道该做什么”。而现在事情能做得快很多，可能性也大很多，所以这种想法真的很有价值。最后一个问题。你帮助别人把演示做得更好，你的工具本质上就是帮人变成更好的演讲者。你学到过哪一条建议，或者你会教别人哪一条建议，能让他们做更好的 presentation，也许对听众会有帮助？

Grant Lee我还是回到消费广告里的那个概念，就是一次只讲一个想法。你可以把它理解成“只给别人一个蛋”，人家还能接住；你要是一下子丢太多颗蛋，最后只会掉一地。所以别试图一次抛太多概念。保持简单，大家反而更容易接受。每次做 presentation，都把核心概念拆开，确保自己是一条一条讲的。我觉得一旦你看出那条主线，最后就很容易把内容收成一个更完整、更连贯的整体。

Lenny Rachitsky少即是多，大家常这么说。

Grant Lee没错。

Lenny RachitskyGrant，最后两个问题。大家能在哪儿找到你？Gamma 在哪儿能找到？大家还应该知道什么？你想顺手宣传什么都行。然后听众又能怎么帮到你？

Grant Lee你可以在 Twitter 和 LinkedIn 上找到我，私信是开的。说真的，不管你是刚在想一个创业点子，还是已经深陷创业泥潭，我都希望尽量帮上忙。我大概会是你最大的啦啦队之一，有需要就告诉我怎么帮你。至于我们这边，也一直在收反馈。如果你在用 Gamma，但它没达到你的预期，也请告诉我们，我们很愿意继续把它做得更好。一路上的所有反馈和支持，我们都非常感激。

Lenny RachitskyGrant，这期太棒了。我真的很感谢你抽时间来录，我知道你现在在做一家增长飞快、事情很多的公司，所以特别感谢你能来。

Grant Lee谢谢你，Lenny。聊得很开心。

Lenny Rachitsky我也聊得很开心。大家再见。

非常感谢收听。如果你觉得这期有帮助，可以在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 或你常用的播客 App 上订阅这档节目。也欢迎给我们打分或留评论，这真的很有助于其他听众找到这个播客。往期节目和更多关于节目的信息，都可以在 lennyspodcast.com 找到。我们下期见。