The Playbook to Running Growth Experiments at Scale with Ex Machina Founder Guillaume Cabane
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
3 gostaram•842 visualizações
The Playbook to Running Growth Experiments at Scale with Ex Machina Founder Guillaume Cabane
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a The Playbook to Running Growth Experiments at Scale with Ex Machina Founder Guillaume Cabane
Semelhante a The Playbook to Running Growth Experiments at Scale with Ex Machina Founder Guillaume Cabane (20)
Mais de saastr
Mais de saastr (20)
Último
Último (20)
The Playbook to Running Growth Experiments at Scale with Ex Machina Founder Guillaume Cabane
- 2. You don’t report on leads if your goal is revenue. You report on revenue. Duh
- 4. 4 growth teams and counting
- 5. 1 industry: SaaS 1 job: create a defensible GTM moat 1 focus: $$$
- 6. Hypergrowth
- 8. Now I am a Growth Advisor
- 9. How do you compete?
- 10. How I Compete
- 11. How I Compete I build engineering heavy Growth Marketing teams Independent teams, with cross-functional reporting I split out traditional marketing I trash most KPIs for reporting purposes I implement & enforce a high-pace experimentation framework
- 12. Why a Growth Team?
- 14. Not smarter - > just a different approach => VC model. Take more risks, accept high failures. Power-law distribution of returns => Lower the cost of trying, increase the pace of experimentation
- 18. Marketing needs innovation too
- 19. Who wins when you don’t innovate
- 20. Who wins when you don’t innovate53% of marketers say half or more of their budget is allocated to lead generation (source). Outbound leads cost 39% more than inbound leads (source)
- 21. 25 Internet Trends 2019 Google + Facebook Lead But Others Gaining Share Select USA-Based Advertising Platform Revenue, Global Source: Company public releases & Morgan Stanley estimates. $0 $20B $40B Google +1.4x Facebook +1.9x Amazon / Twitter / Snap / Pinterest +2.6x
- 24. Law of decreasing efficiency "Over time, all marketing strategies result in shitty clickthrough rates.” @andrewchen
- 25. When to build a Growth team? • After PMF • Once critical mass is achieved (> 10 product engineers) • When initial product growth stalls
- 27. Growth Model: independent (Facebook)
- 29. Growth Model: Mix (Atlassian)
- 31. What does your boss want? 1. “Good” KPIs 2. Prioritized roadmap 3. Reliable forecast of impact 4. Don’t humiliate others or become enemy #1
- 32. KPI Issues
- 34. Who has a clawback clause for their sales team? Who has one … for their marketing team? Marketers aren’t *financially* incentivized towards LTV
- 39. Failed 3x getting teams behind ICE Failed communicating ICE internally
- 40. Poor KPIs + Bad Prioritization + no Forecasting = Lack of Trust (deserved)
- 41. Leveraging revenue forecast models in your day-to day
- 45. A new Hope Process Running Growth teams with $ as *the* KPI
- 47. At all stages of the funnel… We keep only one metric: forecasted revenue
- 51. ⇒ What projects are we doing next? ⇒ What impact will it have, and how much time to we need? $270K weighted revenue in 5.5 days of work.
- 52. Questions we can now answer Visibility: What is the team working on? Prioritization: Are you working on the right things? Forecasting: What will the impact be? (in dollars) If I give you another engineer, what will it change?
- 53. New Process: 1. Aligned on existing org structures (Sales) 2. Predictable output for a given input 3. Commitment on impact
- 54. The End
Notas do Editor
- Hello - I’m G. Today, for once, I’m not going to cover my latest tactics to grow a SaaS B2B Startup. No, today I’m explaining the framework, how & why I build growth teams the way I do, and what the model is.
- And to break the news, it’s a model that aligns Growth marketing teams on sales org structure, with a sales KPI: revenue. A model that prioritizes pace and rewards positive outcomes.
- But hey, who am I to assess such bold statements?
- I’ve been fortunate to join high growth startups just at the right time. Started the Growth team at Segment and Drift, and now I’m a free man. For reference, that kind of growth
- For the last decade, I’ve been very very focused
- I’ve been fortunate to join high growth startups just at the right time. Started the Growth team at Segment and Drift, and now I’m a free man. For reference, that kind of growth
- This is where they are !
- So now I help other companies get on the same growth track
- The main question when you think about a growth team is: how am I going to compete? Founders are most often technical founders. And a company is usually oriented on building a good product. Thus competing through investing on Product is the main strategy, and why we see such huge product teams in SaaS these days.
- The main question when you think about a growth team is: how am I going to compete? Founders are most often technical founders. And a company is usually oriented on building a good product. Thus competing through investing on Product is the main strategy, and why we see such huge product teams in SaaS these days.
- Here's how I compete: - I build engineering heavy Growth Marketing teams. Yes, engineers **dedicated** to solving Marketing challenges. Demand generation problems. Building surface area for customers before they experience the product - I build independant teams, with cross-functionnal reporting. I model the structure after Sales teams, report on pipeline like sales teams, give bonuses like sales teams. In short, i'm a pre-sales team dedicated to generating demand. - I split out traditional marketing (Branding, events ...) which isn't highly measurable, and have someone else run it. - I trash most KPIs for reporting purposes, as they are vanity metrics. I replace them by a forecasted global revenue impact. - I implement & enforce a high-pace experimentation framework, sorted by the aforementioned revenue metric
- What’s the diff between product and growth? Risk taking. → VC model. → lower the cost, increase the pace, find what others haven’t So basically we’re doing shit code fast, because we’re going to trash most of it → what’s the problem? That it quickly becomes a laundry list of ideas
- The typical cycle, wether for SaaS or B2C, is a succession of Hype Cycles
- The typical cycle, wether for SaaS or B2C, is a succession of Hype Cycles
- Doing acquisition the same way than your competitors (aka, same channels, same strategies) will not lead to a moat. The only ones winning are the channels (increase in spend).
- Doing acquisition the same way than your competitors (aka, same channels, same strategies) will not lead to a moat. The only ones winning are the channels (increase in spend).
- Doing acquisition the same way than your competitors (aka, same channels, same strategies) will not lead to a moat. The only ones winning are the channels (increase in spend).
- source: Tomasz Tunguz
- And look at what’s happening: Martech share of spend is increasing, at the detriment of all other categories => Marketing is becoming more technological
- [illustration: poorly personalized email that uses merge tags] Andrew chen’s law of decreasing efficiency or the decay effect. Text based emails nowadays are no longer as efficient as they were a few years ago. As we saw, merging the first name or the company won’t improve things, on the contrary
- The trend is moving toward investing in building a growth team earlier on, with many starting to invest as soon as they have strong product market fit and retention.
- Benefits Better solutions to problems because all functional disciplines are part of problem definition + solution. Better ability to bring the growth mindset to other functional parts of the org. Growth is integrated with the product direction and strategy. Drawbacks A layer between Growth and the CEO which can slow down prioritizing certain initiatives. You end up with multiple growth leaders which means more consensus driving activities and slower decision making. Requires all functional VP’s to understand and embrace growth mindset when they may not have this experience. Requires each function to hire the DNA needed to be successful on a growth initiative.
- Benefits There is a direct line to the CEO. Fast decision making and action since one single growth leader. Distraction from other company initiatives is less likely. Extremely metrics/impact focused. Better air cover for teams to fail a lot. Drawbacks Growth leader needs to manage/mentor multiple disciplines and/or build a larger team underneath him/her. Less integration with core product creates higher likelihood of rifts, cultural clashes, and other conflicts. Requires to staff a large growth team Over time, overlap with core teams is hard to avoid which creates friction.
- That’s the model many startups have, the problem is that we bounce from one division to another depending on the current power forces
- Benefits Growth is represented at the executive table and has direct line to the CEO. Only needs one leader with growth experience. Engineering/Design get direct functional mentorship. Drawbacks Growth team needs to get engineering/design resources from other areas which can end up being a blocker. Less integration of the growth mindset throughout rest of the org. Sometimes conflicts with core product teams.
- I want to talk about failing. Because my ability to fail defines me better than my ability to succeed.
- Growth teams should be focused on revenue. It's a lagging indicator. What leading indicators can we look at? KPIs are vague "Create a lot of Growth” KPIs are not aligned with business impact and/or feel life fluff
- Marketing? Not so much. Who has clawback clauses for Marketing, if the leads don't convert? No one that I know. The problem isn't that bad in B2C, or SMB focused SaaS. Why? Because with short sales cycles, attribution is easy and vanity metrics don't really matter.
- - The ICE score sucks. What does "8 of 10" mean? That good? - If you're good at ideas, you quickly end up with a laundry list of possible things. A huge ice box. Then what?
- - The ICE score sucks. What does "8 of 10" mean? That good? - If you're good at ideas, you quickly end up with a laundry list of possible things. A huge ice box. Then what?
- THIS IS HORRIBLE
- wait what?
- Prioritization: boss comes with great new idea