How can product managers effectively balance the desire to innovate and introduce new features with the need to address buyer resistance? What strategies can they employ?
Innovative features and buyer resistance are not mutually exclusive – or at least not always. In an ideal world, the most innovative features would ALSO serve to reduce buyer resistance, motivating more incumbent clients to convert. However, I acknowledge this is not always the case. This balance becomes much trickier when the most innovative features, as defined by the current mission of the company and the vision of the product, do not fully overlap with the known reasons for buyer resistance.
Because company resources are finite, resources allocated to innovation and addressing buyer resistance are zero-sum (ie. more to one means less to the other). Assuming they do not fully overlap, the question becomes how do we effectively allocate resources?
The most obvious answer is – again – the intersection. If there is any overlap at all, focus on the innovative feature that ALSO addresses buyer resistance. However, there are times when there is zero overlap, or when the most problematic buyer resistance problem only overlaps with the lowest priority innovative feature. For these issues, we need a more robust framework for understanding resource allocation.
Therefore, if we treat this allocation like a function, where the inputs are: company mission, product vision, product resources, market understanding (ie. buyer resistance), and time, and the outputs are: resources allocated to innovation and resources allocated to buyer resistance, then we can craft a reusable logic path to map the inputs to the outputs. Thankfully, the ‘calculus’ for this specific ‘function’ seems fairly straightforward: what is the company optimizing for? If the company is optimizing for upselling current users, then focus on innovative features! If the company is optimizing for growing as fast as possible, then focus on lowering buyer resistance.
Obviously, sometimes companies are focused on too many verticals, or their vision is so nebulous you could defensibly argue they are optimizing for both. Therefore, the natural extension of our function is to calculate the tradeoff for each atomic decision – which we can do because our company only has finite resources. More simply, every time we say ‘yes’ to something, we say ‘no’ to something else. Concretely, calculate the expected tradeoff of implementing x innovative feature over y buyer resistance enhancement. What is the expected gain from each single action? Does either have a tangible impact on the company’s revenue? Does one fulfill a contract and unlock additional compensation? Does one close a contract and cause a big market player to switch products?
Lastly, the ability to ‘show your work’ and communicate this decision from a position of humble authority is essential. For example, all individuals may feel like you are hanging them out to dry by selecting innovative features over buyer resistance. Vice versa, customer success may feel like you are neglecting the most loyal customers by focusing on hyper-growth. Being able to effectively communicate the decision, and why you made it, while still being open to feedback and iteration, allows everyone to align on the path forward.
