A new feature can be live in two weeks. After that, it still needs two days of maintenance and support every month. If it really brings in customers who are ready to pay, those two days may be worth it. The question is: who will do the work?
You've built the product. You've tried promotion. Revenue still isn't where you need it to be. Add features, redo the website, run ads—each option sounds reasonable. You only have the money and the people for one or two.
I've built game and blockchain projects myself, and I've felt how difficult product promotion can be. When several moves all look useful, the hard part isn't making a list. It's deciding where the next dollar goes.
That's when it's easy to compare only the visible cost: how long something takes and what it costs to launch.
Two weeks of development is easy to see. The two days every month don't end at launch. If you keep doing the work, that's six more days over the next three months.
Those days come out of the same calendar where you're already trying to meet potential customers. The feature may ship while the customer-acquisition problem stays exactly where it was.
Those six days belong in the cost. If suitable customers are willing to pay for the feature, and you can staff the ongoing support, it may be a good investment. A higher development cost doesn't automatically make it the worse choice.
But if the reasoning is only, “More features should make it easier to sell,” and you're the only person available to maintain them, “only two weeks” has left out the price. You can reduce the scope and make fewer promises. Or wait until the work has an owner. Whether the money should go to ads is a separate question.
Tom's Planner, a Gantt-chart planning product, offers a useful reminder. In a DemandMaven case study, its founder was looking at several growth opportunities while trying to keep the team small. He said he could put five things in motion at the same time, but then he would be trying to manage them for years to come.
Starting five things and carrying them for years are two very different demands on the same small team.
The same applies to a new channel. Opening an account or putting up a page can be quick. Continuing to write, follow up, and deliver on what you promised is work someone has to keep doing. Maintenance and operations aren't bad. Treating them as a problem for after launch is what makes an investment look cheaper than it is.
So the next time someone says, “It's cheap. We can have it done quickly,” I would ask one more question: what happens after it's done?
List the ongoing work. Decide who will own it and what it will displace. If nobody can carry it right now, shrink the plan or pause it. If someone can carry it and the customer benefit is worth it, ongoing work is not a reason to abandon the idea.
This still won't tell you whether the next dollar belongs in the product or in finding customers. It won't tell you whether the whole direction deserves to continue. It will keep one false bargain out of the comparison: something can be cheap to start and still have no one to carry it.
Top comments (0)