We hink value is created via features. Value is a rationalization of expectations, expectations set by the quilting of the product not by the product itself. If you want to add value to your product, change the quilting (internal signification and then external one) , adding more features will not necessarily achieve that, in fact it can make meaning (and therefore expectations) less desirable for the user. --- OLD— ## "10x Value" In the old way we used to believe that "value" is the key product dimension that will make a user choose our product versus the alternatives, so "value" was considered the main "switch driver" That is; a user has a new task and wants a product to help her do that task. She will compare different alternatives that do such task and will choose the one with "more value" The "10x" part is just something VCs added to highlight the fact that "just some more value" will not be enough to win that comparison against alternatives consistently; therefore it will limit growth. ##### The problem with "value" This "value" we are talking about is "use value"; how well the product does the task, how much time it saves you or how flexible it is so it allows you to do things exactly the way you want... The unsaid part is "cost", so when we talk about 10x value as the switch driver to win a customer decision more often, it's in relation with it's cost or price (exchange value). So in reality we are talking about “10x better value/cost”. If your product is 10x better but cost 20x more than the alternatives, then, in theory (this old theory) you will go nowhere (I am saying "this theory" because then Apple releases something 1x better but 10x more expensive, and they sell millions of them, so there appears to be some missing elements in this theory) And while, as consumers, we can assess "cost" easily as you can just look at the price tag of all alternatives and decide what is high and what is low, as consumers **we can't assess what "value" is** Cost (price) is an intrinsic property of a product. It's the price tag the company decided. For consumer goods, then we know that you can probably find it cheaper on certain retailers, but for software, where we sell our products directly to the end consumer, then it's even a more certain property. But value is not an intrinsic property. **Value is a narrative.** ##### Value as a narrative There are many examples of products that when they launched nobody bought them until suddenly, they started trending and everyone wanted them. Very same product at the very same price. So what happened, value suddenly changed? Example of narrative change, then desire (kale?) Example of "seemingly functional changes" (EV) Example of "evolving meaning" (Tesla) , from a symbol to a different symbol <br> ## “10x Value” vs object:desire **So the "switch trigger" it's desire, not value. Desire created by the meaning (of a product) entering the Fantasy Frame of a user** Value is then just rationalized after the fact to fit our current functional view of the world cheap or expensive is the denotation after that symbolic value is set, and still sometimes we want to go for expensive as it in itself is a signifier Suggested next reading: [[Meaning (of a product)]]. What changes is the narrative, so it enters fantasy frame Their position is relative, example of lemons and oranges in Netherlands (orange being seen as the poor fruit) After the fact we rationalize it using "value model", but that was not what triggered it and from a VC point of view, it's rationalized as "if you are not growing is because you are not 10x value" that narrative is built via signs that add meaning if that add meaning (all of it: denotation) enters the fantasy frame, then you have desire