We measure PMF now with “satisfaction” , turns out that is pre set before they even touch the product, so you are not measuring PMF but just seeing how different users where quilted before trying the product. That thing called PMF is just a post hoc rationalization of an empirically observable truth: Some products get spikes of growth, then we think that is because they are functionally superior Just remember NFTs (value=store monetary value) as the very best example that is all beliefs not functionalities (bitcoin still works as a way to store value because the shared belief (myth) that it’s still a a good way to store value (and increase it) until it’s not. Currencies are actually the best example of these dynamics because they are all functionally useless (a piece of paper or metal or numbers on an account) but due to the shared belief that they will keep storing value they have maximum value (can be exchanged for anything) until that belief shatters (hypernflaton - money on the streets in argentina) Products are exactly like currency but is much easier to rationalize the value with “functional value”, but slack was the same as hipchat but for some reason (a symbolic reason) they beat hipchat, and then MS Teams is the same as Slack but enterprises despise using pleb tools, to once there was one for them, the promptly ditched slack. --- NOTES: We call it now a state, the state of selling: you are selling, you have it, you are not selling, "it collapsed" ![[Pasted image 20250123235647.png]] So the key is to understand what are the dynamics that create that selling. Everyone is defining stages... but these are symptoms not dynamics. Then you have people mentioning factors, what is needed, it looks like dynamics but it's not: - have a product that people like is not a dynamic, is a pre-symptom - they are always defined assymetrically and rationalized when it works: -![[Pasted image 20250124000208.png]] How much people do need the product? If you are not selling you will blame that. (if company messaging before slack) Then slack comes, people adopt it, and you will say: oh, it's because people REALLY NEED IT! (maybe there is even a better example) The definition is always made with a pivot in mind, as if maybe you picked the wrong thing, then somebody suceeds in the same place and they were lucky? or did they get our dynamics wrong? It's not "are you retaining them" but "why do they switch away from you?" (in general and in particular in your case) , and are you sure the answer is "lack of value?" "too expensive?" then they go and buy something more expensive and we rationalize it: they deliver more value. Value is the perfect excuse for everything we can't explain. So what are the dynamics? first: why people switch? Then if they are switching, why do they choose one solution over another? If they ar enot switching, can you make them switch, how?