If you're truly ambitious, burn your resume. >> You have all these amazing contrarian perspectives on how to build amazing products. >> Your instincts
are right 95% of the time. Your ideas are wrong 75% of the time. We've seen so many founders who just stoically, heroically stick with a losing idea.
How do you know if this is just the wrong path you're following? >> If you're asking whether or
not your product is an A, it's not [music] an A. When you have lightning in a bottle, when you have true signal, everything works. >> Most products
are better versions of things that existed before. Talk about how you get over that hump of copying. >> It's almost a moral arbitrage. You became a
founder, an entrepreneur because you wanted to go be an innovator, but you're trying to win the hearts
and minds of nurses in Indiana like for Farmville. You're not trying to win awards and respect from your peers. Define your ambition in the eyes of
your consumer. >> Building a consumer social app, very few people have successfully done it and built something durable. >> We have beyond a latent
demand for social. It's lost the adrenaline. People are proud to tell you they're not on Instagram.
[music] They're not missing the party. If you want to reinvent social, look for where the cocktail is. We know it when we see a great cocktail party.
You feel you're like, "Oh, I'm so glad I'm here." Today, we're all hanging out on our Claude on our GPT, but there's no cocktail [music] party. My
challenge to your listeners is figure out how to make it rowdy. Today my guest is Mark Pinkinis,
founder of Zingga, [music] who has arguably created more successful consumer products than anyone else in history, over a dozen both within Zinga and
before Zinga. And over the past 5 years, [music] he has been working on a book that synthesizes all of the things that he's learned about building
successful consumer products. It's called Life at the Speed of Play. It's coming out in a few weeks,
and it is so good, and it's also a really quick read. In a quote for the book, Sam Alman, the co-founder of OpenAI, said that today the only
bottleneck to building great products is knowing what to create. Mark [music] is an expert at this. And after reading this book and having this
conversation, I could not agree more. In his book and in this conversation, Mark shares a really clever [music] and
counterintuitive framework that he's developed for coming up with successful product ideas. Why being less ambitious is often the path to coming up
with the most ambitious ideas. why you need to kill your hope before your hope kills you. [music] Why your instincts are usually right, but your ideas
are usually wrong. Also, what he's learned about raising kids. He's got five. [music] And so, so, so
much more. This episode is for anybody who is building a product or thinking about starting a company. Before we get into it, don't forget to check
out lennisprod.com for a free year of the hottest and most well-crafted AI products in the world, available exclusively to Lenny's newsletter
subscribers. With that, I bring you Mark Pinkis. >> Mark, thank you so much for being here and welcome to the
podcast. >> I've been a [music] big listener. >> Oh, wow. >> And I'm excited to I'm excited to finally be on. So, >> I'm excited to finally have you
on. You just put out a book. It's coming out around the same time that this podcast is coming out. It's called Life at the Speed of Play. There's uh
so much here I want to talk about. I want to start with this framework that you developed uh called
proven better new and the framework is basically designed to help you come up with and refine your product ideas and your startup ideas to basically
increase the odds that your idea is a good idea and that it will work. Uh it is such a clever idea, such a simple idea with so much depth. Um I want
to spend a bunch of time on this. Um, so first of all, just give us kind of the overview on this
framework, what it is, how people might use it in coming up with ideas. >> Sure. Well, this is a framework that we got to early on at Zingga and it
became like a religion and the fundamental the core principles and engine behind how we did product management at Zinga. And it's was so fundamental
to the book that for three of the four years writing the book we called it proven better new but then I
was like oh that's too dry a name and I I love this concept of life at the speed of play which we can talk about but is the bigger gestalt to the
book. So, but proven better new is this core um philosophy that I've had around products since I started Zingga, which is that we have these the we
have these instincts like in our gut, these human level instincts that are pretty much always right. And
then we put these ideas on top of the instincts that are usually wrong. And my rule of thumb is your instincts are right 95% of the time. Your ideas
are wrong 75% or at best right 25% of the time. The framework of proven better new takes that philosophy and says okay what do we do with that? Okay
let's let's isolate your innovation zone. Let's isolate that thing you have in your gut and let's just
test many ideas around that and let's fail for the right reason not the wrong reason. It might be I mean at Zingga we'd see new game launches. Sid
Meyers like the you know godfather of game design who's the most revered game designer. He came out, I think, a a social civilization on Facebook and
we thought, "Oh god, here comes like the ultimate game designer." And 10 minutes after the game came
out, the Zinga PM's emailed around their analysis and they said, "It's dead on arrival because his Fatoule, his first time user experience, was so
many clicks and so bad that no one was ever going to see his great game design." Even Sid Myers tripped over what were understood by the most junior
product managers at Zingga was the best of breed approach to onboarding a new user to the first-time
user experience on the Facebook platform. But because he didn't perfectly copy that, he didn't do the proven right, his innovation never got seen by
anybody. This episode is brought to you by our season's presenting sponsor, Work OS. What do OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, Versell, Replet, Sierra, Clay,
and hundreds of other winning companies all have in common? They are [music] all powered by work OS.
If you're building a product for the enterprise, you've felt the pain of integrating single signon, skim, arbback, audit, logs, and other features
required by large companies. work OS turns those deal blockers [music] into drop-in APIs with a modern developer platform built specifically for B2B
SAS. Literally every startup that I'm an investor in that starts to expand up market ends up working
with Work OS. And that's because they are the best. Whether you are a seedstage startup trying to land your first enterprise customer or a unicorn
expanding globally, work OS is the fastest path to becoming enterprise ready and unblocking growth. It's essentially Stripe for enterprise features.
Visit works.com to get started or just hit up their Slack [music] where they have actual engineers
waiting to answer your questions. Workos allows you to build faster with delightful APIs, comprehensive docs, and a smooth developer experience. Go to
work os.com to make your app enterprise ready today. And so the con the point of proven better new is to say let's take all the proven off the table.
If you want to build the AI Snapchat or the AI camera, there's so many of those I see now, AI
cameras. Fine. Let's start with what you're not innovating on. You're the icon. Um the maybe just the way a camera works. look for where that's the
best of breed proven, whether it's Apple or Snapchat or Instagram, and copy those legally and with hopefully some taste. We can get into like great
copies and bad copies, but be a master of the proven first. Get your PhD in proven first. And I like to
say we don't we haven't earned the right to innovate on the camera until we are the world's leading PhD on the best mobile cameras that already exist.
And then better is usually we can't find better. Better is usually very small increments and innovations. And better is something that 10 out of 10 of
your existing the existing users of that product would say [ __ ] yeah. 10 out of 10 not you. What
you think is better is called new, right? What we think is better is new. We usually are too ambitious on the new and so better could be it's now
free. There's no download. there's something that you can both statistically show works, you know, is better and every user would say yes to. And and
usually it's it's very small and it's polish and it's it's things that intense users, power users will
notice the most. And in our game, Words with Friends, you know, it was Scrabble, but if it was just Scrabble, why was it a massive hit with 14 million
DAUs and Scrabble itself wasn't right? There must have been something, you know, better and novel about it. But it had such a polish for mobile was
the better and the new. What's the novel new idea, the back of the box idea that's going to get
people to download and try it? And in the case of words with friends, it was social. It was your friends are just is attached to the Facebook graph
and your friends are just already there to play with you, which was a new idea. You know, even that which you'd think of course I want, you might not
get 10 out of 10 people saying yes. And we have to accept that new idea is probably going to fail.
It's a reason to try it for people, but it's probably going to fail. And if we do proven better new right, the product has much better odds of
succeeding in the market, not failing for the wrong reasons. And if we start with the premise that the new is probably not right, and we've got four
other new ideas ready to test, then we just prosecute it in a different way. And and we really it's I like
to think if you do proven better, new, right? It's it's like a time machine because what if I could go back to Mark, you know, 2003 and four and say,
"Dude, you don't even realize how right you are." Like, one of your instincts is going to be a $1.6 trillion company once, and you are a year ahead of
them, right? You're a year ahead of a $ 1.6 trillion company. That's, you know, I'm not going to
tell you which. I'm not going to totally cheat, but I'm just going to tell you there's something there's another answer in this that you could pursue
that would be worth 1.6 trillion. Oh, by the way, your Tribes idea that's Reddit that becomes a whole company industry, you know, listings. So, there
was a point in Tribe where I knew my metrics weren't working. Our D30 retention was terrible. We
were sinking speedboat. And if I had this attitude of I'm going to try a lot more ideas. I'm going to look around me like if you're doing proven
better, you're also looking around you for what's what are you finding heat that's proven in the market that you can also go test and you know I would
have massively changed my odds of success. Okay, there's so much here. So just to summarize how I think
about this framework which is so good like if you start to really think through all the products that have succeeded and how many of them actually
follow this whether they are conscious or not it's wild so kind of the steps that I hear is so proven better new proven is make a list of the things
that are proven to be working already in the market things people love about this sort of space better
is make something that is not just better but that 10 out of 10 people will say f yeah I would switch at this is better and then add something new
that nobody's tried before that adds a little wrinkle and I think a little bit like you have a bunch of examples in the book Slack and threads there's
also like if you think about the iPhone and the iPod like you don't think you don't think about them
that way but basically the iPod there was a music player they made it better and they added some new stuff and it >> yeah in the world >> I was there
at the TED conference when this team from MIT was demoing their touchscreen and they did it on a gigant gigantic whiteboard and Steve Jobs was
obsessed with it. They had a whiteboard and they had a table with it and I watched him and he spent the
whole time there with this team obsessing over their touch. I don't know if that's the first time he saw it, but I know he was obsessed with it. Like,
okay, there's his new idea is a touch screen. It's [snorts] only new idea. Um, and I want to say proven gets so misused and that what I've found over
the years with founders is that they start to use proven better new to justify a wrong idea and
they're like, "Look, Mark, I'm doing Proven. Proven is this game that was popular in the 90s. Proven is and they pick something that and it's to their
own detriment. They're they're not using proven. You we have to be precise. We have to think at the pixel level of this experience. Proven is on this
platform for this audience for this experience. And you can look to what's been proven before as
great sources of new ideas, but it's not if it's not on this platform, it's you know, it doesn't count as proven. And and yet the masters at this
product craft do proven better new whether they call it that or not and they do it at such a a a beautiful level that nobody even thinks no one
realizes what it's derivative of and Slack was a great example because I think Slack might have just been
proven and better and no new and that's even better if you can get a if you can have a successful product and I don't want to sound anti-inovation but
you know people don't like change. So if you take a behavior they like but you make it much more accessible or something much more fun about it like
in the case of Slack um people love that even more. There's this thread of uh of copying that comes
through this framework that will turn a lot of people off. uh talk about what you think people are missing and how you get over that hump of like this
is actually the right approach in most cases >> in the Peter Teal sense it's almost a moral arbitrage because there's something in our gut as a
product you became a founder an entrepreneur because you wanted to go be an innovator and so it can feel
like a beatdown that your path to innovation starts with copying other people's work and we were taught in school copying is cheating. So there's
there's a lot of good uh reasons why we've built this kind of moral resistance to copying. But but that also makes that opportunity in some ways, you
know, more available for people who have less ego involved. And I like to say, and I said this to my
product makers at Zingga, if you're truly ambitious, burn your resume. If you and if you define your ambition in the eyes of your consumer, not your
peers, you're not trying to win awards and respect from your peers. You're trying to win the hearts and minds of nurses in Indiana like for Farmville.
You're going to define innovation differently and you're you're not going to worry about whether
you're going to take the best ideas wherever you can find them if they are in service of giving her an experience that she loves more. And so if you
know so and if you if all you did was copy, there's no reason for her to choose your product, right? But if you took something that she loves and you
make it one inch better, she might love that more than if you showed her something she's never seen
before and didn't wake up knowing that she wanted. And so and I think that the art of this is you do it in a way that she doesn't even realize it
because I think consumer taste also resists just a copy. I think that consu if movies, TV shows, you know, books, if they feel too derivative and
they're not adding something important and new, um, then it could go against, you know, our consumer taste.
But the best product makers, and I love referencing someone like Craig Newark on Craigslist, who took two years to add photos to Craigslist listings.
And I was like, and he lived in my neighborhood, and he was friends with my dog, Zingga, more than he was friends with me. He was a little awkward
socially, and he connected more with the dog. And I tried to be friends with him through the dog. And
so he would sit and talk to me and he was working on I was like, "What are you working?" And I said, "I've been working for two years on adding photos
to listings." I'm like, "What do you mean two years?" He's like, "Well, I really want to make sure that people like it and that the photos come up in
the right ways. I don't know. I honestly don't even understand what he did for two years, but if
you're driving across San Francisco to buy someone's couch, why wouldn't you want to? Why isn't that better? In his mind, it was new." And I'm like,
that's a world-class product maker because he what he gets is that his there's we feel this sense of ownership of products that we rely on every day.
And we're angry when they change. Even if they change for the better, we're like angry because we go
through life faster because of pattern recognition. And we don't want to think about these things. And what if by adding photos to his listings, he
moved where the text was? And what if you rifle through listings and now the text is below the fold, you know, and a junior product maker might make
the whole thing a picture and not realize that what people liked most was being able to see the text
real quick and they were trying to compare prices on the couch they already knew that I don't know. >> Yeah. I'm thinking like as you're talking I'm
just thinking what are all the best products and are they all just kind of uh one word are they copies and evolutions of existing products or how many
are just completely brand new and I'm looking around like the iPhone that was you know there's
phones before and they kind of took the elements of what was great made them awesome uh my Aala I don't know water bottle like there was water bottles
that worked and then they added things to make it better uh chrome I don't know I'm just like looking around like it's so interesting how once you
start to think about it through this lens Most products are better versions of things that existed
before. And then I'm thinking about as a product team, what you what do you often do? You go look at the competitors, look at all their flows, here's
what they're doing, here's what's working, look at all these great ideas, and then you build on that. So I think there's like it's easy to get turned
off to this idea of like the word copy. But like as you think about it, this is mostly how products
end up getting built anyway. Well, there's so much on this that we could we could literally spend the whole podcast on it, which I'd be fine with,
too, or do a whole episode just on this because so much comes up for me. On the one hand, I think about Nikita, who I think you've had on, and I I
love his story on TBH. It's a perfect example of he found something proven in someone else's product. I
That was my first company, Freeloader. What I found was in the Netscape browser and in the Internet Explorer browser, they had buried in there a
feature of offline browsing. And my entire product was offline browsing, but they had it as this buried power user feature. And I saw the genius in
that for that moment because bandwidth was so slow that I was like, "Oh, we can make an entire product just
around that one feature." Nikita saw his perfect product buried inside an Arabic only version, right, of his product and he said, "Oh my god, they
nailed it." So I think the when we can see something that is proven already in someone else's product but they have you know the wrong idea around it
that's that's gold you know that's that's one and then to your question of is every product derivative
is every product from proven better my answer is no and I and I talked about this a little bit in the book and in my course. But the question is at
the outset for all of us, which path do you want to be on? And I argue that if you go down this path of just innovate, start with a blank whiteboard.
Don't look at any other products that is kind of roio getting to Angry Birds. They made 45 games.
Every single game was totally different. not as far as I could tell learning from the previous failures or the market and their 45th shot on goal was
Angry Birds and it was a hit and it was innovative but the odds that's wildcat drilling and do you want to have those odds or do you want to be do
what OMG Pop did which is very similar story but opposite path which is OMG Pop created uh the hit game
draw something and Zingga bought them. They were the number one game and app in the app store for 60 days in, you know, 2012. But OMG Pop was on their
last dollar. They had tried something totally innovative. No one ever seen her tried it before. It failed completely. And now they were ruthlessly,
desperately in need of a hit. And now they did Proven Better Newly. They said, "We're going to take
this proven game and do everything about it that in as perfect students of what is already working and viral on mobile and they perfectly copied our
turn-based system from Words with Friends and they made a massive hit. >> I uh I love this idea of moral arbitrage. That's such a [laughter] way
thinking about this >> Peter Tian, you know, um Very. Yeah. So, there's there's so many fun threads that
kind of connect to all this. One is and you have all these amazing contrarian perspectives on how to build amazing products. One is be less ambitious.
Talk about why that's a really good lens to actually build more ambitious products. >> I'm in the middle of relearning that lesson myself right now.
And I would say there's there's so many paradoxes in this. And and one that I've had to learn over
and over again is if we're if we're too ambitious and we're at the outset and too ambitious and visionary about the product we want to build, then we
will probably miss product market fit because we won't start at a small enough humble enough place because it's it might usually that the starting
point for these products is embarrassingly mall. So many of these massive hit products or you know
franchises started with such humble um you know non-ambitious places and you know the Facebook was just an app to check out girls and guys you know at
Harvard right and the irony for me that I I've I've found that my career has gone in these waves and And maybe some of your other founders have had
this experience too that I've started in a very humble place of I just want to get to anything any
product market fit. Had bigger success than I imagined I would have in my first two companies freeloader and support.com. They both started with very
small humble premise and then afterwards felt like now I can do anything and I know Elon has is the exception to the rule. Part of it is I think he
can raise magical unlimited amounts of capital which helps but and he does not start in humble places
at all. But for the rest of us mortals, I'd say that we tend to after success be feel the need to do something bigger the next time. That's human
instinct and we want to be more ambitious. And so when I got to Tribe and I saw social networking and LinkedIn was just starting and I saw how big the
opportunity was, I tried to do everything with tribe. It was really ambitious and I didn't pick one use
case and there was multiple inside tribe that worked. The tribes the idea of these urban tribes worked. People loved it. But I was too ambitious and
so we failed. And then I was so humbled and I was in this abyss we can talk about for so long and I was so just desperate to get out of that abyss
that by the time I got to Zingga I did something that was embarrassingly small. I mean to be 41
multi-time successful founder that could go do something important in the world. And what did I do? I made a Facebook app. Like a poker game. Not even
a Facebook app. I mean a poker game. It was people thought I had no dignity. I mean, people were like, "Mark, there's so much you could do in the
world." But I was I'd say my ambition came down to like a a th00and foot altitude, you know, not
100,000 foot. And and that was the key to that being successful. And and I see this with it's just so hard. I see it with so many product founders and
it almost gives a new founder an advantage over a multi-time successful founder because we have too much rope to hang ourselves. It's too easy to
raise money and recruit teams against a big vision before we've gotten to product market fit. But the
world doesn't care about your resume. You know, that's the good news for everyone watching. Like everyone has the same chance. And in a lot of ways,
if you're in a more humble place, you have you have a better opportunity. So I the paradox is the more ambitious you are that the more humble you
should be and the smaller place you should be willing to start. >> One of your uh insights along these
lines is that this is your advantage as a startup is to be less ambitious because a Zuck needs to go really big because the revenue is already so
high. anything they take on needs to be many billion dollar business opportunity and as a startup you don't need to do that and this is how you end up
discovering some of the biggest ideas in the end. >> Yeah. Yeah. Being willing to pursue these little
threads when they're flaky when they're they're not a business when they're so much earlier and so many of the successful companies today you know
started there. >> Yeah. Is there an example that comes to mind when because Yeah. What's like an what's a what's a company or two that started very
unambitious? >> I love the story of Bolt.new that really blew up last year. I loved it so much I coldma
mailed the founder because I was just so impressed with >> Yeah. And you know they toiled in obscurity on something that they were into and then they
open sourced it. I think they were barely able to keep going with commercial development and then they had this realization one day of wait a second
if we take these uh web stacks this virtual machine that we've been making work on the web but we
actually add that to an AI coding co-pilot we now have something that's better than what anybody else has and I I think that was just a great story
that he they were passionate about one thing and you know and they stuck with it. >> Yeah, Eric was on the podcast. We talked about that. >> Oh, he
was so impressed. Um in a lot of ways Slack also, you know, was humbled. Stuart keeps trying to start
game companies and those turn into unexpected bigger hit companies. Um we'll see what he does next. now has probably so much capital he could just
keep doing a game company this time. >> But I think to your point like he might try again to unhumbled go big. >> Yeah. But each time, right? So he
started a a big uh you know idea for like the mass market MMO which I've also loved but really difficult.
And they were humbled in that enough to say, "Okay, wait. There's this little teeny thing that our engineers use. Let's build a product around that."
And it takes it it really takes a a really attuned, curious, humble founder to call the ball on that. I mean, it's I can't imagine I mean, I I can
imagine I guess I've been there. how hard it is when you've got investors and team and everybody going
in one direction and you have to we have to express confidence as founders whether or not we have actual confidence inside we that's part of I think
the dissonance of this how do you express confidence how do you stay in a place of intellectual honesty how do we stay authentic and transparent and
not rattle our team, you know, how do you and I've I'm still learning. I had I had people I heir on
the side of transparency and honesty and you know being authentic to a fault and I burn out people in that process and I I did at Zingga and I have
since because it you know people will say the negative critique I'm working with me is oh working for Mark is like third grade soccer and every Monday
he comes in excited about a different idea and And they're not wrong, but where I can get better at
this maybe is, you know, if we can if we can build a a culture with our team that says, "Okay, we are ambitious. We're so ambitious that we're not
going to hold on to a B+. Even if we could get funding, even if it has some traction, we have a north star that we are going not going to stop until
we find product market fit against our north star. And this isn't it. And and it's going to take courage
on our part. And hey, let's look around the room. Is everyone ambitious enough to do this? or do you want to peel off and go join someone else who's
already a rocket ship, which I that's a fair career choice for you to make. But but I think that's to me the real founder mode is can you have the
courage to to tell your team and your investors that this isn't it? >> That's uh that's exactly where I
wanted to go. uh which is this other piece of advice you give which is kill hope before hope kills you. Talk about just what that is cuz uh so much of
your advice is kill your bad ideas quickly. So just kind of talk about that and then uh I'm really curious to know when you kind of what it takes to
realize an idea is bad. When do you decide okay this is B+ let's move on. >> I don't know if I get
credit for you know making up that quote but I love it. Kill hope before hope kills you. It's there's a difference between belief and hope. Hope is
confidence without basis. Hope is just, you know, it's it's a prayer, but it's but it's it's not it's not founded in anything that your lived
experience. It's not founded in your experience with your product, your experience with people experiencing
your product and the data and and I think that too many founders and teams keep going with the hope that this next release is going to do something
magical. And I think that the best product makers, I like to say they're collecting winnings. They're not making bets. They already know. You know, if
you talk to Brian Chesy about his launches, he already knows that he has a hit. He's not launching it
to find out if people like it. And I talk about the difference between launching an MVP, a minimum viable product, and a maximum launchable product.
Because if we're going off hope, we're getting to this MVP. Minimum viable. that the viable is the word we got to kill along with hope because viable
is where hope comes from, right? If it's viable, it might make it, right? And there's a difference
between get in the market early, learn, you're you're putting a product out that you're going to learn from and you're putting a product out that
you're going to launch, that you think, you believe, not hope, is going to be a hit. And it's really important to be crisp and to make that
distinction. And and AI is a dangerous tool today. It's so powerful that it's dangerous. It's so powerful that it
means we can get to a viable product in much less time and money than it took maybe 3 months instead of three years. And that's a dangerous drug
because it means that I what I thought would happen where we be today is that people would be using AI to build these like incredible testing
machines, failure machines that are testing, I like say more ideas in a week than your industry tests in a year.
How are you testing a 100red ideas a day instead of one in three months? I think AI is being used more to build one idea in three months than a
hundred ideas, you know, in a day. And what would it look like? I like to say we should build it completely wrong before we know it's the right
product. So build it wrong before you know it's right. And if you could build it right, great. But don't be
slowed down by that. Because if we start off if we say, okay, what can I believe today? I believe this is the wrong product. What are you going to do
differently because you believe it's the wrong product? You are not going to waste three months building the wrong product. Oh, I'd rather waste a day
or a week building the wrong product. But the point of what I'm building is to learn. So, is it
good enough to get signal and to test my idea? And I think we can usually pull that apart and test those pieces in the wrong way. It's so often it
could be an ad. I cannot believe how many times a team hasn't even tested the ads for their product before they go and put in the market. It's an
afterthought and it was so often at Zinga it blew my mind. I mean give one story from Zinga when we were
launching our first expansion pack for Farmville which became a mass these became massive business drivers for us. Um it was I think it was Farmville
um English countryside or something. The team came to me and they said, "Okay, we have a $10 million ad budget and we're going to start running ads
before the launch." I'm like, "Wait, you have 2530 million people a day using your product, but you're
going to put ads somewhere else for coming soon. You have these people engaged What if you just put something on the game board? And and what if you
don't just start your product marketing, you're still doing product testing to see what gets the most heat. What if you start putting different art
forms of your English countryside locked on the game board and you just see how many clicks you get and
you just start testing the look, the feel, the marketing message. And at the same time, when people click on it, it says coming soon. Click here to be
a a preuser. You know, click here to get access two weeks before anybody else. And it turned out everybody clicked on it, right? Because it's a change
on your game board. And it both gave us direction on what was the right marketing and the right
variant of the product. But the unintended consequences was we started selling keys to people for you and a friend and we ended up selling $19 million
worth of keys to get early access to, you know, the new expansion pack. And so we took something that was going to be afterthought advertising, try to
drum up interest in this product and turn it into something that gave us signal and direction on
the product and revenues. And and so often, you know, you can have, you know, this is an existing product, but you can turn something you could turn
something that was going to be marketing into a kind of scarcity and, you know, heat driving feature, something that could drive revenues or something
else that matters. So the way we should be using AI is as a testing machine, a failure machine, and
a way to vibe code, cloud code, but build the, you know, the lowest possible cycled version of your product that you can get signal back on. >>
Awesome. I want to ask about something that I think might be on people's minds as they hear you talk. For a lot of product builders, when they think
Zingga, they're not like this is the product I want to build, you know, and there's a spectrum of products
you guys have built. There's like uh farmville and city and all these things that I think pe turn some people off. Then there's like poker, words with
friends, mafia wars that I think people are like, "Oh, that's amazing. I love that." Can you just speak to that? >> Sure. I I think if I'm unpacking
that when you say that the products turn people off, it's it's funny you say that because Farmville
and Cityville were our biggest hits in terms of installs, engagement, retention, revenues. Um, now Words with Friends and Poker were more enduring
because they made the transition to mobile and the other games didn't. is a whole other story. But but I think the part you're getting to is that
Zingga was in a lot of ways a victim of its own success that it was our games were so viral and took over
the feeds on Facebook so much that the your friend who was playing it started to bug you as a person not playing it. And and that's that's fair. But
what I would say, I think what's misunderstood about Zingga from the beginning and why we succeeded and we created uh eight massive hits out of 10
mass large game launches. We had a very high hit rate. It wasn't that we were good at virality. It was
that we were focused on two things that I think we did better than anybody else. And we had lots of competitors, lots and copying and we still managed
to keep winning. And so it couldn't be that we were just spammier or better at virality. First, we had this core mission and focus around connecting
the world through games. and being Gordon and I kept coming back to this idea that I love and I and
I want your founders, product makers watching this to join me in thinking about which is how can we add more dimensionality. I love this idea of it's
it's what I call a bold beat. It's it's how do I take this thing that's kind of gotten boring and wrote poker or whatever. How do I add a whole new
dimension to it? And by adding social, by adding real identities, by giving you this, you're doing
social networking, you're in this cocktail party, and now we're giving you a way to actually meet new people or improve your relationships in a game.
Well, the reason why people, so many, especially middle-aged women, love Farmville and these games was because they had this kind of hobby, but they
weren't doing it alone. and they were doing it with their good friends, making new friends. And in
the game, our most successful features were co-op play. There there were things that let you do gifting and do things of, you know, value to your for
your friends. And so we called the games invest, express, and connect. You could do something that was you were being seen as creative. I like to say
people don't want to be creative, they want to feel creative. So we were letting you feel creative,
look creative to people. It's what midjourney does for me today. And then we were letting you so you were expressing yourself and then you were
connecting with people around it. So that was the first thing and then at if you think at a mechanical metric level our core metric was retention not
virality. We grew. We outlasted everybody because we had the best retention. I think we were the only
consumer company in the world that tracked day 365 retention. I don't think anyone tracks it today. I talk about in the book. I think it's a gift to
your founders. I believe that the most valuable companies in the world, well, statistically this is true. They have the highest day 365 retention. You
know, can you build against day 365 retention? Yes. you we can't wait till day 365. We can find
early indicators of a positive day 365 and a negative day 365 retention. If you have low D1, low D30, you will probably not have, you know, high day
- So those track, you know, those are correlated. But you can have the opposite. You can have very high day 30 and a zero day 365, which is most
products. And if you don't think about why someone would use this in a year, if you don't have that
mentality, it turns out when someone tries our product, they think that way too. They kind of think, is this worth investing in? Whether it's a game
or a camera, it's am I going to use this in a year? Should I tell my friends about this or, you know, is this should I bother investing? Should I
bother giving it information about me or whatever? And I think there's a mentality to that. And I like to
say viral-based companies, and there's been many, you know, be real, there's, right, we've seen these, they're sinking speedboats. They're trying to
drive faster than they're sinking, right? They're trying to get more people in. You can either go faster, bail water out faster, you know, which is
try to get people back, or plug the hole in the boat. and you know or build a better boat that doesn't
have a hole. But but yeah, so we were tracking both in our games in our network what was the retention and we were we were really constantly thinking
about you know about that and I think the two things to take away from Zinga success in my opinion that I hold is to have a strong innovation vision
that translates to what your teams are doing every week that and we even built a metric that's still
not used by anyone. This is an Easter egg if anyone if this doesn't get cut and anyone's still listening. We built a metric called ASN and it stood
for what we measured what was your active social network. So we looked at how many round trips you had with a friend or another player. Meaning you
took a turn and they took a turn back. You gifted them and they gifted you back. And we found that if
you went from zero ASN to one, there was an 80% chance we saw you again in the next month. And if we got you to a four, there was an 80% chance we'd
see you 22 out of the next 30 days. And so we could actually, you know, build and innovate against that metric. And and it made sense, right? Because
if you saw positive feedback loops, it's like someone likes your photos, comments, you know that's
probably the biggest dopamine hit we get. I am so excited to tell you about this season's supporting sponsor, Vanta. Vanta helps over 15,000 companies
like Cursor, Ramp, Dualingo, Snowflake, and Atlassian earn and prove trust with their customers. Teams are building and shipping products faster than
ever thanks to AI. But as a result, the amount of risk being introduced into your product and your
business is higher than it's ever been. Every security leader that I talk to is feeling the increasing weight of protecting their organization, their
business, and not to mention their customer data. Because things are moving so fast, they are constantly reacting, [music] having to guess at
priorities, and having to make do with outdated solutions. Vanta automates compliance and risk management
with over 35 security and privacy frameworks including SOCK 2, ISO 27,0001 and HIPPA. This helps companies get compliant fast and stay compliant. More
than ever before, Trust has the power to make or break your business. Learn more at vanta.com/lenny. And as a listener of this podcast, you get $1,000
off Vanta. That's vanta.com/lenny. Let's talk about building a consumer social app. Very hard.
Very few people have successfully done it and built something durable. Uh we talk about this on the podcast a bunch. It's like nothing works in
consumer. Like it works for a little bit and then dies. And you've you maybe built more social consumer products than anyone. Like there's like a
dozen that have worked. Uh AI obviously changes the game in theory. What do you think needs to be true for
someone for something to work again in today's world? >> It's probably equally surprising to you how little we're seeing in social and and consumer in
general. It seems like people have kind of given up on the idea that a social app could take off or be viral. And I see them every so often. and
they've given up for good reason because nothing's proven and nothing's working. So I I like to think
first is there latent demand? So if just because a category doesn't exist today, it doesn't mean that we don't want it as consumers. In fact, the best
opportunities are usually the opposite. And in 2007 when I started Zingga, video gaming was a $23 billion business. But I had stopped playing games. I
didn't know anyone who played games. It was like not even a top 10 activity on the web. And I
thought there's a latent demand. I love games. I love playing my family, but I can't get people to play games with me. And it's too much investment.
It's too hard. It was crawling across broken glass to get someone to play a game with you. Literally, I I got my nephews who are intense gamers to
play Rise of Nations with me and we set up two machines for them and two for me and we had FaceTime
going on a machine and then the game and we were on a game server and we did that one time and I was like that is a lot of effort and it was fun but
we did it once and I said my premise was okay. I believe this could be and should be a mass market activity. I believe adults want to give themselves
permission to play, but I got to make it so accessible, so cheap in terms of what it asks for them.
Free. Not just free even, which it wasn't. It was $60 to go buy a game. So, I made it free and I said, I'm going to make it a game you already know.
Three clicks and you're in. And I'm going to ask five to 15 minutes of you, you know, to do this and you're going to trip over it. It's a breadcrumb
somewhere. You're not going to, like I say, we don't go to the comic book store, but if the comics
were in the newspaper, we'd read them. So, I believed there was a latent demand. And in fact, today, you know, gaming is a $280 billion industry. And
I actually think there's latent demand. Again, I don't play games. No one I know plays games other than my nieces and nephews. And yet it's this big a
business. So I actually think there's another massive growth waiting in games because they're this
big and it's this boring and adults aren't doing it or they must be some it's very big but none I know. So so okay so social um and consumer I believe
that we have beyond a latent demand for social we are being social right online. We are on Snapchat and Instagram and Tik Tok, but I believe it's it's
lost the adrenaline. I think a lot about adrenaline. Like, is there a heat in it? Like, are you
excited to go get on Instagram or do you feel a little bit like you're eating potato chips? Like, are these positive calories or negative calories um
or empty calories in the middle? And I think one interesting thing I we looked at NPS, net promoter scores, and we saw that when people quit Facebook
and quit Instagram, they went from a plus 35 to a negative 35. There's people have a feeling like
they just quit smoking. People are proud to tell you they're not on Instagram, right? They're not missing the party. They're like, "Whoa, I got off
that." So, I think so. So I think all that to say I think it's the biggest unexplored opportunity there is on the internet. I mean I think I feel very
confident that someone is going to reinvent this social experience for the agentic AI age. They're
but how are they going to do it? You know, I would guess that they're going to give us productivity again. That they're going part of what we got.
People forget Facebook gave us massive social productivity. We were able to stay in the loop with 300 or a thousand friends. LinkedIn gave us massive
productivity. They still do, but they started to move away from that productivity into a realm of
wasting time because they wanted to engage more and have more ads and less LinkedIn, but they might have ads now, but definitely, you know, Instagram
had Tik Tok envy. So, you know, they started doing that. And so I think there is a new step function of productivity that we could be getting in that
experience that our agents are letting us stay even more in the loop with the people we care about
or you know but not wasting our time as much. So and I'll also say this there's a side of this I call this social thing the cocktail party. Okay,
that's that's the big uh instinct vein for me. And I think about that cocktail party and I think where is that happening or where does it want to
happen and how do we add things to the [ __ ] We'd love to host the cocktail party and if we're not, we'd
love to be at it. We know it when we see a great cocktail party. You know it. You feel it. You're like, "Oh, I'm so glad I'm here." And it's moves
from like obligatory. I'm at this party, it's the birthday party to almost like greed, like I love this party, I'm love the people I'm meeting. And
what do you get at a great cocktail party? You often get great leads. And so that cocktail party that for
me it started with Napster when all of a sudden all of us were connected to each other and the great lead was a music file. But then Fster, Facebook,
LinkedIn, what we were getting was better lead generation. That was better productivity for our time. Before that, we would go to Google for a lead or
Craigslist. And it was a lot of noise to signal. And now we're like, "Oh my god, I could get on
Fster and find a date." And it's actually a good lead. I had a good date on Fster. Um so what I would say to people is like look if you want to
reinvent social look for where the cocktail is or you could host and then think about how is lead generation happening. It might sound weird when I
say lead genen, but what is LinkedIn? LinkedIn start with lead genen. All the productivity, the value
started in the a utility in being in this cocktail party today. And and by the way, with Zingga, I said, I'm going to go to the cocktail party.
Everyone's hanging out on social networks. I'm going to drop games in the middle and give them a new dimension to network in the games because they
want to be on Facebook. I want to give them more to do. Today, we're all hanging out on our Claude, on our
GPT, but there's no cocktail party. So, my Easter egg to people is it is it's a it's a quiet, lonely cocktail party like the web was before social
networking. And my challenge to your listeners is figure out how to make it rowdy. figure out how to make that cocktail party social and socially
productive and you will probably, you know, find gold there. I want to come back to your thread on your
question was how do you how do you know when an idea is a B+, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I love the question on well, how do you know if it's a B+? And
what I would say to you is how do you know if you're with the right person? Like you're dating. What was your experience dating? And my experience has
been that when I'm with the right person, I know it. I'm not asking, is this the right person? I'm
like [ __ ] yeah. I I love this person. This is my person. And that's the best feeling ever. And I hope everyone can experience that. When you're with
the A minus person, you're with the B+. You're asking, could this be the one? You're like, you're and you know, Osho said if you're torn between two
paths, they're both wrong. You know, you have feet in two canoes. If you're asking whether or not
your product is an A, it's not an A. And you're you're full of hope. You hope it's an A. It doesn't mean you might not have the chance to turn that
into an A, but the first point of intellectual honesty is to say, okay, it's not. And then, well, how do you know how are you getting validation that
it's not? You don't have the validation that it is. When you have lightning in a bottle, when you have
true signal, everything works. It's anecdotally, you love your product. You're addicted to it. You show it to friends and they love it. your metrics
show that it works. I mean, did we have to ask if GPT was it? Did we say, "Oh, is GPT it? I'm not sure." You know, we're like, "No, I'm [ __ ] living
on that and it's making me dream of new things to do." Right? So, I'd say the the hard part about
this is, you know, what do you what do you do with a B+? First, can we be intellectually honest that it is a B+? And then what do we do with a B+? Do
we just kill it and start all over again? Do we use it to learn? The power is knowing it's a B+. That that's the first point is okay, this is not it.
Now, what do I do with that? Is it a way to learn? Did do I can I do I see examples that are near
this that are it? Can I find anything proven or near proven when we realize it's not it? We we look for more things to do and it's such a hard lesson.
Two weeks ago, I pulled the plug on my Earth project for like the fourth time. Okay, I've been building my version of the metaverse for 20 years. It's
what led me to Zingga. I call the metaverse that I want life at the speed of play. We're getting
closer and closer to that anyway with AI. And by the way, I define the metaverse, I give Reed Hoffman credit for this definition, as blurring the
lines between the virtual and the real. And that is where our lives are going anyway. So we're getting more and more metaversian. It's not being in
this other escape to immersive world. It's it's that the virtual and the real completely blur together.
And but I kept coming at it from the game side and I went native, not in the good way. You know, I got so into wanting to prove I could build this
experience that I was building this game engine, web browserbased game engine. And I was not getting a product market fit. I was being too ambitious.
I was not going for a small idea. I was going for a really big idea. And it was really hard and I
pulled the plug on it after four years in and $25 million in just this one version of it. And in the last two weeks since then, I've been more
inspired around ideas than I have been in four years. So there is power in pulling the plug on a B+ and even more, you know, on a D. There's a whole
uh discussion I want to have about the abyss, which you talk a lot about in the book of how that's such a
source of good ideas. But I want to touch on distribution just as we're on this thread. Something that's come up a lot on this podcast is just how
with AI making it so easy to build stuff, one of the biggest challenges becomes distribution. Always been a challenge, always been hard, harder than
ever because there's so much happening in the market constantly. There's so much trying to get your
attention. All the channels are full paid and SEO. What's your just like advice to founders? What do you think needs to be true for a com for a
startup to break out because it's so hard now? >> Let's start with talking about consumer distribution which >> I understand better. >> Yes. >> Um >>
there's a one question we got to back up and really explore which is AI a new platform and I would argue
that it is not yet a new platform. It is an important technology. We have a new kind of portal to that in GPT or whatever chat we use AI chat. But
it's not in my mind a platform. A platform in the traditional sense of it was a hardware platform. Well, it's definitely not a hardware platform at
the consumer side yet. People are trying to explore that, but it is not yet. And then it became at least
a an interface platform whether it was a Windows interface or a browser interface or a social network that opened up. And and in the case of mobile,
it was both hardware and an interface. We we're not at that point yet. I believe we will get there. I don't know how. I have ideas, but we're not
there yet. And it's important to acknowledge that and say we're still in the mobile and web era. We still
use a browser. Uh and even though we're in this chat app, it is not a platform for other apps and experiences and developers. It could be. I hope it
becomes one, but it's not yet. And that we're kind of like halfway to a platform. I we are in a point of discovery. New technologies that break
through at the consumer level unlock discovery. That's really important. Discovery means we're when we
first got our phones, we were installing new apps all the time. Now we don't ever install new apps. You know, the average app installs per user per
month is zero. So, it's really important to think about that not only are we not in discovery, but even when we are, we don't it doesn't stick. You
know, there were something like 40,000 new games launched last year in the app store and zero, you know,
became top 10 hits and zero even sustained top 25 or 50. So, your odds are bad. Okay. So it's not it's it's not an ideal, you know, moment to be, you
know, you can't launch consumer right now with high confidence. And that's just something that we have to acknowledge. And it makes consumer and
consumer categories like social and games almost not investable. They're still getting investment, but
it's very hard. uh it's much easier, you know, to be proumer or enterprise now. Um but for good reason because we're seeing those companies scale
revenue ARRs um very quickly. So I do think it's a great time to be working on consumer ideas and you asked about distribution. Distribution is just
so crucial and core to any consumer any business idea, but any consumer idea. And it can't be an
afterthought. It's not I'm going to build the best mousetrap and they're going to come. Distribution has to be part of your product and part of baked
into the strategy deeply and proven from the beginning. And if you're just building this product and hoping they will come, hoping it'll spread
virally or word of mouth, you know, that's hope strategy, you know, not a belief strategy. And it doesn't
mean you shouldn't keep experimenting. And now is a great time to experiment. And in fact, it'll be a hundred times more expensive to try to get the
same things in the market in a year because it'll there'll be 100 times more noise. And once there is distribution, there'll be a flood of
competition. But but when distribution is this broken, it is even more core to your product and your strategy.
And I I think we're seeing many more successful companies that find a proumer approach that find that go after their power users, their whales, the
people who care enough to find it, care enough to spend money on it upfront to sustain a business, you know, long before we can get out to consumer.
And there is a great idea that um I got to that Gary Tan had that I'll repeat here because I loved it
so much this week that if we get in the mindset of basically uh intelligence on tap free tokens and if we think that the amount of tokens that we're
buying today you know that will basically be free in a year or two that that the token, you know, supply is going to go up so much. Our demand will
too, but if today we start building re-imagining consumer services based on free tokens, I think that's
such an interesting innovation zone and it could sound like a dot business plan. And I remember ordering pig ears for my dog Zingga and wanting to
send thank you notes to the VCs because they were cheaper than at Petco, right? That's not a good business plan. So, you know, giving away tokens at a
loss isn't a good business plan, but it might be in a phenomenal business because what the dot thing
had wrong was the price of pig ears wasn't going to come down or delivery wasn't going to come down, but the price of tokens will. And so I think
that's another kind of Easter egg of an insight that I'm intrigued by and I think I think founders are going to do something really interesting with
it that because games don't work premium games and premium apps that have to go and hit the AI that even
if you wanted to spend on it you're hitting token limits right so getting around that today might unlock really interesting innovation. And I also
just another Easter egg thought on the social cocktail party. I love the idea of the agent being in the middle and brokering our social relationships.
And getting back to that lead genen, dating, jobs, you know, general listings, but I love the idea
that the agent has our context and knows my context and your context. And we have this membrane. I call it the social membrane. This intelligent
membrane of trust. And it gets smarter and smarter at knowing when to change dynamically change that trust or change that attention level that it's
going to take from us like a great chief of staff. And and it could share less information with both of us
than it knows. It could be you're in Marin and I'm like, "Lenny, let's hang out. You're like, "Mark, I'd love that." So, okay, let's have our social
secretaries work on that. There's going to be an asymmetry in your interest and my interest in any given weekend and hanging out. And how do we broker
that without hurting, you know, one of our feelings or, you know, going into there's some really
interesting spaces that the that the AI and the agent can broker between us in ways that start to give us both productivity. They they find ways for
us to get together without going without getting in a bad place of, you know, you see me on your calendar for Saturday and you want to be with your
kids. >> I love all these ideas you're sharing. Like what I'm hearing there, there's this always this
idea of why can't we just here's my calendar, here's your calendar, let's just find time. And like the issue there is you don't want to ever feel like
you don't want to look like you're you got nothing going on and you're like the most boring person. Like you don't want the other person to know. >>
It's totally open available to you. >> Yeah. [laughter] Exactly. Um, >> and even worse, you don't
want it to you don't want it to >> schedule you for a meeting, you know, that was not >> Yeah, that's right. Just to close the loop on the
distribution part, what I'm hearing is like we might be on the verge of a new distribution platform, a way to get out and for people to discover you.
Uh, it's not there yet. >> I I'm somewhere between belief and hope in this because I don't have enough evidence
to believe it and I'm it's a little more likely to me than just hope. I think right now there's a obvious race and competition around coding between
the major LLMs. I think they're going to get back to consumer and proumer and developers hearts and minds. And I think they are interested in
developers hopes and minds, but first they're competing on this coding front. But I think where we will get
to in one way or another is that there will be some kind of there will be some kind of consumerf facing platform for AI apps and agents. I I can see
so many I can see so many consumerf facing agentic services that make so much sense to me that I think consumers will want but they're not going to
get it because it's if it's just buried in I doubt they're going to get it buried in the mobile app
store and I think it's going to be in OpenAI's interest claude gro um to see these apps, consumerf facing agentic service apps happen and see them be
successful with their LLM baked in. And the more it's uniquely instantiated to OpenAI, the more it drives their consumer value proposition. One
example that is my number one is my Easter egg on this is I think there should be an agentic travel agent.
So, perfect example to me of a place where I think there is latent demand and the only reason we don't have it is because it doesn't make economic
sense to offer it to us because we won't pay enough for it is a travel agent. I believe if I offered you a free 247 travel agent that was always there
for you, knows your travel context, knows you, and will actually book, not just book travel, but I
think the most valuable part is when you're in the middle of a travel a trip, be ready to rebook your flight and be on top of, you know, your travel
logistics as they're happening. and often failing. And I think that's valuable to all of us, but not available to all of us because travel agents
couldn't make a living. They they weren't getting enough commissions and we weren't ready to pay enough.
So, they we're we're the internet has grown through us getting a better deal. But I think the next area of growth probably will include deals, but I
think it's going to be about getting amazing services and that's my prime example. But if someone built the best travel agent today, you know, maybe
we'd find out about it, but it's it's a it's a tough road. But if it was specifically baked into open
AI or claude and was a gave me a a a real clear reason that I'm getting value from my GPT beyond, you know, there's there's a lot of generic value I
get through AI chat today that I'm having more and more trouble differentiating and it's just I don't even know anymore if I'm asking a question to
Claude or to GPT and so they at some point and that's why they're differentiating themselves right now
on coding and there's real value and they're that's an amazing business but they're not differentiating themselves very much at the consumer level. >>
Yeah. To me like the question is are they just going to do it or why do they need anyone to do it if they are building this AGI they could just do all
the things. So I think it's going to be interesting to see if they just want to eat the entire
market of everything or they play nice with other startups. >> Yeah, that is going to be interesting. And and look, we there's we can see past
examples with Microsoft, you know, Microsoft was a brutal monopoly. They were a brutal platform. You know, they ate everything around them. And and
then, you know, with us, you know, we saw it on Facebook, you know, they the two areas that they just didn't
care about going into was music cuz it was really painful with IP rights and games because they didn't want to like hire artists. Uh, but everything
else they did absorb. I want to go in a different direction and touch on you have all these really amazing nuggets of advice for scaling company,
managing people, hiring people, working with people. I want to just kind of touch on a bunch of these.
Um, one is this idea of making everybody a CEO at your company. Talk about that lesson. >> All my management principles I got to through desperation.
I don't like managing people. I say every day you're managing people is a day of work. And it's a necessary evil for us as product makers because we
can't abdicate and just have someone else be CEO because all a sudden the priorities get messed up
and you know teams don't have to listen to us and we're now feedback not direction. So that's a failing path. So we have to be a CEO. But then the
question is how do we get to spend the most time doing what we love and the least time doing what we don't? that the bigger principle to me that I
started to get to was that oh I'm like all of management is just how do we get people to do the right
thing we're not when we're not in the room. So I was like, okay, if I give them a hill to take, and if I make them a CEO, make them a real CEO. I
mean, they have operating control, degrees of freedom to take that hill however they want, and they can give me a plan, a budget, and then do whatever
they want within that. What I found was I didn't have to manage them. So they're not coming back to me
with questions. And certain kinds of people really want to be a CEO. What I also found was it was incredibly motivating for people. It's motivating to
me. You know, I always say, uh, I'm a team player as long as I'm running the team. Um, so can I hire other people like that? And and I I like to say I
was a frustrated expert witness when I worked for other people. And those are the best people to
turn into a CEO. They're kind of a little bit of a know-it-all. they think they have the right answers and they're we're gonna find out if they do and
so we let them actually be a CEO and they have all this pent up demand to actually go and prove that they were right and that's a beautiful thing. So,
so yeah, this I love this principle of make everyone a CEO and we're kind of going there in
Silicon Valley with this idea of get rid of middle management. You know, Brian Armstrong was saying everyone should be an individual contributor.
Everyone should be managing a lot of other people. That's really kind of to me the best CEO is like the best player at the position and is doing the
thing they're great at and they're not wasting their time on management. >> You mentioned this idea of an
expert witness and you also have this uh nugget of advice of staying close to the metal. I love this general advice. Talk about what you mean there,
why that's important for someone in their career. >> They go together. We start our careers, you know, in our 20s very close to the metal, meaning we
are individual contributors and we are working on getting the primary data and building the actual
product. Usually we're in the trenches and the people in the trenches are usually closest to the data, closest to probably the right answer, but
they're also usually furthest from making the decision. And that's what I call the expert witness syndrome because you're called to the stand by the
adults and you plead for what you passionately believe is the right answer and then you're excused and
then they make a decision and then you have to deal with the consequences and you know disagree and commit. What if what if I'm disagreeing because
I'm [ __ ] right and now I'm committing to clean up your mess because you're wrong. And that's why many of us become founders cuz we just are sick of
being in that position. You're also closer to the metal. And when you go become a CEO, when you become
a founder, part of the paradox of it that I believe we have to be careful about is that we stay close to the metal. And I believe the best product
CEOs are in the minutia of the details. you know, all the stories about Steve Jobs. I was so impressed when I heard that he insisted on picking out
the carpeting in the conference rooms, you know, and I tried to have that same mentality of micromanaging
the really small pixel level details that matter. And I had a great conversation with the founders of Discord and they came to this conclusion too
that they needed to actually be an inverted pyramid. And they said, "We realized that we outsource, we delegate the most important product decisions,
the UX to our least experienced people, and they're doing this every day." And we decided to turn that
upside down and say, "We as founders need to be kind of the first and last mile for the product." And we have to be the ones who bless our best use of
our time is making these minute decisions that change the product user experience. And so to me that's being close to the metal. Brian Chesy believes
in, you know, in doing things in non-scalable ways and doing it himself with the team by hand. You
know that there's so many stories about Jeff Bezos and Zuck of the thing that mattered most. they would go and work, you know, two days a week deeply
with the team on it. And and it makes sense. If you were the best product maker in the company, we want you on the field, you know, we want to put you
on the ice. We don't want you to spend your time talking to investors and managing and scaling. >>
Yeah. Uh Elon famous for this too. You have this uh line in the book along these lines. Micromanagement is beautiful. You should micromanage as long
as you can. I believe that and I I did that building zinga to a fault. I mean, we got to a point that I had all the way to 50 employees, we had a
standup call that would go on for two hours and I I had everyone's name in a spreadsheet and I had what
they were supposed to do yesterday and what they're going to do today and I go through name by name and say, "Okay, did you get that done? Can
everyone else verify they got that done? Okay, what are you going to do today?" and I completely micromanaged, but we were much more effective. And
then I I you know I kept micromanaging things as I'm like if you can be in the room, be in the room assuming
that you are the best player. So yeah, I I I think it's less contrarian saying it now than it was 20 years ago. But but when I was building Zingo, we
had to apologize for things like micromanaging or you know expecting uh you know massive results from our teams and I think I'm happy to see that's
becoming kind of accepted as more it's closer to best practices today I think. But >> um but my point
about like that management is get people to do the right thing when you're not in the room. The first principle is be in the room if you can be as
much as you can be and then only delegate when you get to the point that you can't possibly be in all these rooms at the same time. And then all these
management principles are just different strategies to try to get people to do the right thing when
you're not there. And I love these non-scalable ideas that actually scale your scale what you're trying to do as a product maker in the right way. And
one of the ones I love is this idea of tech assistance and this idea of a teaching hospital. How do you pass the vampire blood of you to other people?
Like you have this burning mission and passion around your product. How do you spread that to
other people and have them spread in the organization? The first thing is put them in the room with you. Like so the idea of this teaching hospital
was okay I'm just going to put as many people as I can in the room while I'm doing these product management meetings and have my passion and ideas and
approach you know spread to all of them too and that worked. And then grab someone from the ranks and
make them your tech assistant. have them just follow you around for six months or 12 months and make it the mini me, the person who is you in your 20s
who was the expert witness, a little bit of a know-it-all. um and start having them follow you around to pick up learn absorb everything you do and
give them projects to test them and then hopefully you've created a mini me that you can now put in
at in a much bigger role somewhere else and in fact Andy Jasse at Amazon everyone on the sea staff used to be someone who had been the tech assistant
to Bezos so it act that idea actually scales and you kind of get it for free. >> I love this phrase of transferring your vampire blood. Oh man. Um
maybe one last uh nugget from the book along these lines is you have this line of just the number one
job of a CEO is to be right. Talk about that. >> Well, that's another one that I stole from Bezos. Um but if I got to pick one if I get to pick one
thing that you do as CEO, I'm going to pick that you're right. So even if you don't, you know, even if you don't operate the ship or the factory that
well, I'd rather that you picked the right product, the right strategy than you were phenomenal at
execution or inspiring people or managing because, you know, being in the right body of water matters more than the right boat. And a a great boat in,
you know, a dead lake bed, you know, isn't going anywhere. And so I I look for that in people like are they right? Like that's the best resume. I
could see that you were right about something and I look for that in the team and it's less do I like
your style or approach or you your you know personality fit. I'm like I'll take I'll take misfits who are right. I'm like, I want I want those really
smart expert witnesses who are intellectually honest and you know, the more people you have around you who are right, you know, that's they're they're
putting balls in the net. >> I want to maybe end with a question about your kids and parenting. I
talked to a bunch of people that know you well in preparation for this conversation and every single person commented on just how wonderful a dad you
are >> and how much time you put into that part of your life. And a question I've been trying to ask folks that are parents and great parents in this
AI era. Uh and there's a lot of stuff I want to ask about, but let me start here is just what's
something that you are teaching them or helping them to develop that you think is going to be important to them in this crazy world we're we're
entering of AI? Thank you for asking about this. I It's I think my greatest role and job and service to the world is trying to grow good humans. So I
really put a lot into it and take it seriously and I get so much out of it. I I like to say I'm growing my
best friends. Um >> and so far it's true. So, so there's a couple principles that have come in philosophies that have uh been important to me as a
parent that I've just seen. I do them naturally and I see that they work over time. The the first one for me is I have five kids there. Every one of
them is just such a different version of a human. and I have a special needs son uh who's fairly extreme
special needs. Um our new one-year-old baby uh has a gene mutation and she actually may also end up being very neurode divergent. Um so you have this
wide range and my 15-year-old girls are they're twins and they're completely divergent from each other. This first principle that I've found is
meeting them where they are and and it's with kids I find we can kind of talk down to them. We could talk
to them as kids um and or we can kind of treat them like adults and neither of those are right. It's like we got to like find engage with them at the
altitude that they're at but as human to human and find the way to do that. And then once we do that and meet them where they are, I think we can
bring them to surprisingly sophisticated places that may be way beyond what where they're supposed to
be, you know, in that moment. like my twins, I started playing with math with them when they were really, really little. And then during the pandemic,
I taught daddy math because I saw that their school was not equipped to do online homeschooling. So, I taught them and their friends daddy math. And I
just tried to teach them a math brain. Like I and I didn't know where they were supposed to be.
They were in fifth grade, but I just started for them and their friends just trying to teach them how to approach math in a way that's fun and
curious. And then I found out I we found out later I taught them all the way through eighth grade math. Um, and I didn't know it and they didn't know
it and that was cool. And in I'd say in the how does this apply in the age of AI and where we are I feel
like we're at the end of this hundredyear cycle of mass produced education which was get the most knowledge in get everyone's averages up to the best
place we can educate 20 million graduates a year or whatever number but it was factory produced it was and it was for a certain kind of work first
factories then knowledge workers you know, knowledge working is going away. It's changing, but we're
still teaching knowledge education. And I feel badly about it with my kids. And what I've tried to do with my older kids is teach them to have
critical thinking more than and I say, "I don't care if you go to college," which is a little hard for them because they're kind of achievers and like
I don't care if you go to college. What I care about is that you develop critical thinking and you find a
way to be useful to people in the world. And my one daughter Carmen uh she's also neurode divergent. She has ADHD and dyslexia and she created she's
created a brand of sweatshirts called Comfy Fancy. Um and she also has created a a gathering a grouping a group for um neurode diversion middle school
kids called neurosparkley and it's taking this thing which should be a problem and a deficit and
it's making it a way that she can connect and help a lot of other kids. So I'm proud to see that. I I've also I what I'm the dissonance that I feel in
this moment as a parent is that my kids are in this educational system that is trying to prep them to get into a good college and to be a knowledge
worker and I know that game is over and I know so what do I want my kids doing? I I try to teach them
to when an look at the deeper the meta of what's going on. When an adult is trying to convince you of something, when a teacher has a point of view
that you don't agree with, try to understand why. What's their agenda? Where are they coming? What's their lived experience? And how has that impacted
it? So, I'm trying to teach them to ask better questions, not know more answers. And and I think
that's, you know, and and I'd say in terms of how that spills into their online use and what I try to promote and discourage, it's I try to promote
how can you be generative in what you're doing and not consumptive. So what can you do online or offline that is generative? that is actually putting
something new out in the world because that's how you're going to get something back and not
consuming, not being a passive consumer of content and experiences and sometimes it works. I see them doing that and then sometimes it doesn't. But,
you know, that's that's how I'm trying to navigate this. I also tried to make it till they were 16 with no phones, no smartphones, and I got to 14.
And I got them flip phones and they had internships at Niantic working on Pokemon Go. They built a
first-time user experience. It's really good with that. They were they I think used, but they had to get smartphones for that and they still have
them. And so even you know I tried to make it and I didn't. >> Oh man, that's hilarious. >> Oh, and I also I'll tell you one more thing. For my older
girls, I keep a running uh Google doc of life philosophies and anything I say to them as like a quote I
say over and over, I'm like, "Okay, I'm going to actually like write that up with stories and I keep it in this document for them and who knows if
they'll use it, but they do start to repeat some of them, so I know they read it." Um, you know, one is nothing's personal. Don't don't ever take
anything personal. And if you assume nothing's personal, you're probably right 19 out of 20 times. And the
20th time, you probably handled it right because of that. So that's one, you know, and don't be a victim. You know, the world doesn't happen to you,
it's happening around you. And you know, you're we're defined how we react to the world, not by the events that happen to us. So, I'm trying to, you
know, give them these and, you know, and it's and I'm and they're teenagers with the older two and,
you know, and I'm in it and learning and I've got two littles that, you know, a one-year-old and a four-year-old who sleep with me every night and >>
Oh, man, you're busy. Uh, I feel like it's clearly what your next book is going to be is these life philosophies. I I feel like these are useful for
people for human for adults I mean. >> Yeah. I wanted to write a book on parenting saying everything
I know about parenting I learned from my dog Zingga because I had her before I had kids and she was like a person and you know I gave her clear
boundaries and freedom and love in between and you know she uh she believed that she was a person. So, >> is there anything else you wanted to share
before we wrap up? >> The thing that I've gotten that's resonated most in writing in my book of life for
the last 30 years, it took me a long, long time. It took me until I started Zing at 41 to finally identify and articulate my why. And I think for all
of us, it's so important to get there. and we might do for a long time before we actually can say the why. But I figured out that mine was I talk
about in the book is I want to create an internet treasure. Like you know when people say Mark how do I
know that you're going to work hard on this next thing or you know you're post economic or you're a board rich guy or whatever. I'm like well I
haven't done my thing yet. I like to like what is what does our soul need to do before we die or at least to be in integrity with it? What do I need
to be working on and know that I gave everything I had against it? And it's to build an internet treasure
which is a service we can't remember life before or imagine life without. And I believe as product makers that's the greatest ambition and the
greatest thing that we can offer the world. And my friend Bing Gordon says, you know, one day those treasures will be in the Smithsonian. [snorts] And
and I think he's right. And you know, I think it is the greatest opportunity that we have as product
makers in this era is to build this digital skyscrapers that the next generation can't believe anyone ever lived without. And so that's that's my
ambition and why I'm still like rubbing sticks together and >> and writing books. >> Uh speaking of that, to help people build their own internet
treasure. Your book is coming out very soon. I think around the time this episode comes out. Uh tell people
where to find it. Uh anything else you want to share about the book? >> It's right here. >> Well, you have a copy. I just got a copy. >> Two copies
somehow. >> Two because you're important. Uh, we hope you read it twice. Um, give it out to a friend. So, uh, I would just say that Life of the Speed
of Play is my it's I'm trying to share my playbook and philosophies and I I'm hopeful that somebody uh
will steal from my ideas and take it further and we're all kind of in a conversation and I love this podcast and you hosting this cocktail party and
we're We're all trying to move the philosophies and the craft of product making ahead and we're we're all learning as we go and I hope that my book uh
can be something referenceable and I hope it's easy and fun to read because I have pain reading a
lot of books. >> It is actually very easy to read. It's like very not that long and it's very uh bite-sized. So, great job with that. >> Oh, good. Um,
Mark, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for sharing all this wisdom with us. >> Thanks. This is this is fun. This is actually I've I've done
some podcast about the book and I didn't want to talk about the content of the book on most of the
podcasts and on this one I did and I'm trying to I'm trying to only go into places, you know, that I want to talk about, you know, which I try to do
in the book, too. So, >> there we go. >> Thank you for inspiring me to want to talk about product. My pleasure. Thanks, Mark. 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 lennispodcast.com. See you in the next episode.