April 2, 2023

Michael Kravshik, Founder of LumiQ | How to Pivot to Product Market Fit

When you launch a product and no one buys it, the decision is rather simple. You kill the product. At the very least, you make some serious changes to it.

What happens when you do real customer discovery, launch a product that solves a pain point, and get some traction, but can't really seem to take off? What happens when your product is generating revenue, but true product-market-fit still seems unattainable?

Michael, the CEO of LumiQ, shares the story of two products. The Luminari recruiting marketplace, which generated close to $1M in sales but couldn't scale. And LumiQ, his current product and the result of a major pivot, which is on a path to 8 figures in ARR.

If you want to understand how to identify the need to pivot, how to conduct proper research to find the right pain points, and how to execute the change, this is the episode for you.

Send me a message to let me know what you think!

01:57 - V1: Origin Story of Luminary

05:31 - 500 One-On-One Discussions

12:20 - Don't Skip Research Mode

15:26 - The Devil is in the Details

20:28 - Luminary's Failure to Take-Off

25:38 - V2: Insights That Led to LumiQ

29:42 - The First Step: Identifying Pain Points

35:52 - The Launch of LumiQ

38:45 - The Product Market Fit Spectrum

40:17 - Recap

WEBVTT

00:00:00.299 --> 00:00:09.830
I look at product-market fit as a spectrum, but there is some line of cutoff that goes between this is sustainable and real versus this isn't.

00:00:10.189 --> 00:00:14.949
Welcome to The Product Fit Show, brought to you by Mistral, a seed-stage firm based in Canada.

00:00:15.109 --> 00:00:17.190
I'm Pablo, I'm a founder, turned VC.

00:00:17.190 --> 00:00:20.989
My goal is to help early stage founders like you find product-market fit.

00:00:20.989 --> 00:00:34.189
Today we have Michael, the CEO and Founder of LumiQ, which is a platform that provides professional education for finance and accounting professionals through podcasts.

00:00:34.191 --> 00:00:37.390
They're based in Toronto, and they have about 60 employees.

00:00:37.390 --> 00:00:40.429
Michael, it's a pleasure to have you here on the show.

00:00:41.310 --> 00:00:42.789
Yeah, great to have– sorry.

00:00:42.790 --> 00:00:45.228
See, look it, I'm falling into my own trap.

00:00:45.229 --> 00:00:46.590
I'm usually in the other seat.

00:00:47.509 --> 00:00:47.630
That’s right.

00:00:48.189 --> 00:00:50.829
It’s great to be here, Pablo, and actually, you've been on our podcast.

00:00:51.750 --> 00:00:52.070
That’s right, so it’s full circle.

00:00:52.070 --> 00:00:54.310
This really is a– where the tables are turned.

00:00:56.100 --> 00:00:58.509
Me and Michael, we were founders at the same time.

00:00:58.511 --> 00:01:01.710
I had GymTrack before, which is in the wearable tech space.

00:01:01.710 --> 00:01:06.349
He was working at a company called GestureLogic, which was also in the wearable tech space so going full circle many different ways.

00:01:06.510 --> 00:01:08.230
Today, what we're really talking about is how to pivot.

00:01:08.430 --> 00:01:22.870
One of the things I always admire about Michael because this is– even back to the GestureLogic days was this– I think, once you landed on this product-market fit concept, you just latched onto that as the essence of early stage and that– everything on early stage about getting to product-market fit.

00:01:23.290 --> 00:01:29.430
Then, when you moved off and started what is now LumiQ, which was Luminari early on, that was always top of mind.

00:01:29.629 --> 00:01:36.510
Ultimately, as we'll find out, Luminari worked but didn't work to that level, and you ended up finding something else, which is LumiQ, which really has taken off.

00:01:36.510 --> 00:01:38.549
That's really what we'll be talking about today.

00:01:38.551 --> 00:01:44.349
Maybe just as the first question to set context is take us back to those early days when you were starting Luminari and what that was like.

00:01:44.510 --> 00:01:45.790
What is the origin story there?

00:01:56.819 --> 00:01:57.629
Yeah, sure.

00:01:57.631 --> 00:01:59.790
My co-founder, Adam, is my best friend.

00:01:59.790 --> 00:02:04.310
We decided we wanted to start a business together, but we didn't know what that business should be.

00:02:04.510 --> 00:02:08.750
We came up with a bunch of kooky ideas, and we just tried to validate them.

00:02:08.751 --> 00:02:14.909
As you said, going through the previous startup experience, I recognized just how, really, everything else actually doesn't matter.

00:02:14.911 --> 00:02:23.830
If you don't have product market fit, all the rest of the stuff, every business plan, every investor meeting, every– anything else you can think of is just irrelevant.

00:02:23.830 --> 00:02:35.669
When we came up with a bunch of these ideas, the first thing that we did was we started talking to people about them, and very quickly, we devalidated a whole bunch of them because they were in retrospect really silly and wouldn't have worked.

00:02:35.669 --> 00:02:45.830
What we first landed on– because I think this is—it's taking a little bit of a tangent, but I think it's really related to what we're talking about was it was like a mentorship kind of platform.

00:02:49.710 --> 00:02:53.750
We spent about four months trying to validate this thing, so we spent a good chunk of time on it.

00:02:53.751 --> 00:02:56.789
What was interesting there was that we had this perception.

00:02:56.790 --> 00:02:58.789
It was a two-sided marketplace, right?

00:02:58.960 --> 00:03:07.080
You had the mentors and the mentees, and we had the perception that if we could get the mentors on board then the mentees would be easy.

00:03:07.080 --> 00:03:09.719
Who wouldn't want to have mentorship from these great professionals?

00:03:09.721 --> 00:03:14.479
As we started to try to validate it, we kept on hearing that the mentors were down.

00:03:14.480 --> 00:03:19.960
I’ll save the long explanation of why our business model was unique in all of that, but we found that the mentors were down.

00:03:19.961 --> 00:03:25.120
Then what we did was we’re like, great, this is going to work, and we did all of those things that I mentioned that don't matter.

00:03:25.121 --> 00:03:31.840
We started building business plans, and we started navel gazing about 20 years down the line what this business was going to look like.

00:03:33.539 --> 00:03:33.960
Then, finally, we decided, well, we really should confirm our belief that the mentees are going to be down with this, and we were wrong.

00:03:33.539 --> 00:03:33.960
Full silence, yes.

00:03:33.539 --> 00:03:42.520
That was definitely, for us, kind of– when we recognized that we were so wrong on that assumption, it was the valley of sorrows for us.

00:03:43.210 --> 00:03:50.080
We had spent four months full-time working on this, and we realized that we didn't have anything.

00:03:50.080 --> 00:03:55.280
We just decided, okay, well, we're going to take one more kick at this can.

00:03:55.520 --> 00:04:03.919
It actually came out of those discussions with the mentees where we talked to them, and they'd say, well, we don't really care about what job we get.

00:04:03.920 --> 00:04:05.599
We just want to get a job.

00:04:05.600 --> 00:04:14.639
Now, looking back on that as an experienced professional, that's a really silly way to look at it, but that's probably how I thought about it when I was a kid in university or whatever as well.

00:04:24.449 --> 00:04:29.480
That got us on to jobs, and we started going out.

00:04:29.480 --> 00:04:31.600
My co-founder was a marketer by background.

00:04:31.680 --> 00:04:32.920
I'm an accountant by background, a CPA.

00:04:32.920 --> 00:04:42.838
We started looking at these two industries and tried to understand if there was an opportunity in helping people get jobs, and we thought that there was from the early validation work that we did.

00:04:42.839 --> 00:04:53.720
We really started to feel like in accounting there was this great opportunity, and the unique approach to it was that it was more about targeting passive candidates, people that weren't actively looking for a job.

00:04:53.721 --> 00:04:55.000
Again, I'll spare the long explanation.

00:05:00.560 --> 00:05:00.759
I'm curious.

00:05:00.920 --> 00:05:01.838
What does that look like?

00:05:02.040 --> 00:05:11.278
When you talk about you looking at jobs and you're validating, is this– how much of it is market research and how much is it is just one-on-one discussions with accountants and firms that might hire accountants, those sort of things?

00:05:14.610 --> 00:05:17.278
Almost entirely the latter rather than the former.

00:05:17.279 --> 00:05:23.079
Market research, I don't even really know how valuable that is in the early days.

00:05:23.081 --> 00:05:26.079
Of course, that depends on how you use that word.

00:05:26.081 --> 00:05:31.920
I mean, you could put the other category of things into that definition as well, but for us, it was going and talking to CPAs.

00:05:31.920 --> 00:05:36.360
At the end of it, we ended up having over 500 one-on-one conversations with 500 different CPAs.

00:05:37.028 --> 00:05:44.959
Then we'd also talk to the other side as well, the hiring managers, about what was broken with the hiring process?

00:05:44.961 --> 00:05:46.920
What did they like?

00:05:46.920 --> 00:05:48.278
What did they not like?

00:05:48.870 --> 00:05:56.800
What we landed on was this idea of passive candidacy, that for a long time you're in a job and you don't really know what you want.

00:05:56.800 --> 00:06:00.240
You'd be open to window shopping, if I could use that word.

00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:07.600
You're not going to spend a huge amount of time on it because looking for a job is a very time-consuming thing.

00:06:07.600 --> 00:06:26.120
We figured, well, if we can figure out a way to just kind of poke people with very relevant job opportunities on an ongoing basis, then we could create a really valuable tool because this would reach candidates that a LinkedIn job board or an Indeed job board wouldn't reach.

00:06:26.120 --> 00:06:28.480
Those are only the people that are actively looking.

00:06:28.480 --> 00:06:43.759
At the same time, it could actually lead to better outcomes because these candidates would see– jump at a job that they were really excited about rather than when they get fired or they hate their job and they just need to get out of it, and you just kind of take the first thing that you see.

00:06:43.761 --> 00:06:50.160
This is what we found– I mean, all of what I'm saying now, this is some of the conclusions that we drew from talking to all of these people.

00:06:53.278 --> 00:07:07.160
I'd say the biggest insight that we came to in accounting through this process of interviewing tons and tons of CPAs was that most of them didn't know what they wanted, but they did know what they didn't want.

00:07:07.480 --> 00:07:25.519
We actually set up our system that way where you'd go– there's only a certain world of jobs that exist within accounting and finance, so if you can tell us the things that you don't want, we can probably get pretty good at telling you what you do want or at least putting something in front of you that might be interesting.

00:07:25.521 --> 00:07:28.800
I think we succeeded to an extent in, in that case.

00:07:28.800 --> 00:07:37.759
I think that, when you look at that process of interviewing people, it's not really about the specific answer that they're telling you.

00:07:38.199 --> 00:07:40.240
Do you like this, yes or no?

00:07:42.240 --> 00:07:50.800
It's about understanding why they feel that way, and that'll help you make better decisions about your product as a whole.

00:07:50.930 --> 00:07:55.120
The analogy that I like to use here is my wife hates the rain, absolutely hates it.

00:07:55.120 --> 00:08:00.370
Even if it's just like sprinkling a little bit, if she's outside, she will just be sad.

00:08:00.370 --> 00:08:02.529
You can see the misery on her face.

00:08:02.531 --> 00:08:12.889
If I want to develop a product experience for that target market and I go, well, let's have a walk on the beach, that sounds great, but if it's spitting a little bit outside, no-go, right?

00:08:12.891 --> 00:08:20.139
For other people, that might not be the case, but for my market, that is the case, in this case my wife.

00:08:20.141 --> 00:08:32.019
I try to understand the underlying– if I just know– if I put a, hey, let's go on a hike and she sees a picture of somebody hiking in the rain and goes, no, I don't want to do that, I might go she doesn't like hikes.

00:08:32.020 --> 00:08:35.980
It's like, no, that's the wrong insight to glean from that experience, so it's really about digging deeper.

00:08:35.980 --> 00:08:37.058
It's asking that why question.

00:08:37.110 --> 00:08:43.460
It's like being that annoying kid on Looney Tunes that would just always ask why, why, why, why?

00:08:43.461 --> 00:08:51.460
You really want to dig into why they feel that way, and through that process of talking to so many CPAs, that really helped us build what became Luminari.

00:08:51.461 --> 00:08:52.980
Maybe I'll stop there.

00:09:00.840 --> 00:09:01.480
Just one question there.

00:09:01.600 --> 00:09:01.600
Yeah.

00:09:01.759 --> 00:09:03.080
One question is just why so many?

00:09:03.360 --> 00:09:07.480
You wouldn't be the first person to talk about customer discovery, obviously, on the show because it's so important, and I'll flag it.

00:09:07.759 --> 00:09:15.600
If I think back, actually, to the successful companies, the most common thing is just how much customer discovery they did.

00:09:15.960 --> 00:09:25.080
That doesn't carry through the non-successful companies that I may not have put on the show, but I would've talked to as an investor who just skipped through or just glean over that phase.

00:09:25.200 --> 00:09:30.960
Now, in your case 500– maybe it was 300 or 600, whatever, but hundreds of these interviews, that's a big number.

00:09:31.080 --> 00:09:36.360
Don't you just at some point– like after 30, you kind of know, okay, this is the thing.

00:09:36.919 --> 00:09:39.120
What are you learning at the hundredth interview sort of thing?

00:09:43.029 --> 00:09:43.519
Yeah.

00:09:43.610 --> 00:09:55.960
If you think about it this way, for each one of these interviews, we'd go in with a questionnaire or like a– not a script so much because you want to let the conversation go the way that it goes, and you want to be able to dig in and ask those deeper why questions.

00:09:55.961 --> 00:10:07.200
We'd have a number of things that we want to cover, and what happens is, after you talk to, let's say, the first 10 people, you get the same answer 9 out of 10 times.

00:10:07.201 --> 00:10:11.600
You can probably be pretty sure that you have a pretty good sense of what that is.

00:10:11.600 --> 00:10:20.720
Now, there are a bunch of questions where you're going to get answers all over the place, and then you don't feel very confident that you have an understanding of what people feel about that.

00:10:22.399 --> 00:10:23.639
Leave that aside for a second.

00:10:23.640 --> 00:10:35.159
The ones that you do, 9 out of 10 or 10 out of 10 say exactly the same thing to you, you go, okay, I can confirm my understanding here, and now I'm going to move on to the next question, the next deeper question.

00:10:35.440 --> 00:10:38.279
When we started the process, it was really high level.

00:10:38.280 --> 00:10:46.320
It was like what are your pain points around looking for jobs, or on the other side, when it comes to the hiring managers, what are your pain points in hiring?

00:10:46.321 --> 00:10:51.960
As we got a sense of those things at a high level, then we started testing our ideas for solving that problem.

00:10:51.961 --> 00:10:56.080
Then it was like, okay, well, how about this concept or that concept?

00:10:56.081 --> 00:10:57.639
We’d go through this iterative process.

00:10:57.690 --> 00:11:00.480
It’s kind of like build, measure, learn from Lean Startup.

00:11:05.200 --> 00:11:11.720
I guess, instead of build, measure, learn, it's like ask, understand, and then learn.

00:11:11.721 --> 00:11:14.759
Then you go in that same cycle over and over again.

00:11:14.760 --> 00:11:18.200
If you think about it this way, you're starting really broad.

00:11:18.210 --> 00:11:20.200
Nobody can see my hands right now, but they're wide out.

00:11:20.201 --> 00:11:24.000
Then you get narrow and narrower and narrower with each new set of questions.

00:11:24.000 --> 00:11:34.279
Literally, it was over 500 people we counted because we were doing these things 9 or 10 a day in a row, like a half an hour, boom, boom, boom, the next one after the next one.

00:11:34.280 --> 00:11:35.639
It was a brutal couple of months.

00:11:41.549 --> 00:11:43.558
Let me ask you just on that on that piece.

00:11:43.559 --> 00:11:45.159
This is the thing, right?

00:11:45.160 --> 00:11:51.639
You have to ask yourself why do so many people skip this step, even though they're– generally speaking, most founders are just pretty smart people and the idea of research makes sense.

00:11:51.640 --> 00:11:54.200
What I have to ask you is how painful is this point?

00:11:54.201 --> 00:11:55.678
Here's the thing, people love to build.

00:11:55.679 --> 00:11:56.558
I mean, it's much better.

00:11:56.559 --> 00:12:06.340
I think there's some– as a founder, I think it was Mike[inaudible] that said the thing about it is you want to be in a position where, if somebody says, hey, what are you working on– people ask, what do you do for a job?

00:12:06.341 --> 00:12:07.058
Where do you work?

00:12:07.139 --> 00:12:07.820
You could tell them, oh, I'm building this product.

00:12:07.860 --> 00:12:08.419
I've got this thing.

00:12:08.421 --> 00:12:11.500
When you're in that mode, you're in this weird research like I'm not doing anything.

00:12:11.740 --> 00:12:12.940
I'm just asking you a question.

00:12:12.941 --> 00:12:17.178
How painful is that process, and how do you get yourself to stay in it for as long as you need to?

00:12:20.700 --> 00:12:21.580
That’s a hard question.

00:12:21.581 --> 00:12:30.539
I mean, it is very painful, and I think the reason that I put such an emphasis on it was my experience at the previous company where we didn't do that enough.

00:12:30.700 --> 00:12:34.058
When we actually did build a product, nobody cared.

00:12:34.299 --> 00:12:38.940
Then I started doing this in– this was in cycling.

00:12:39.139 --> 00:12:43.700
As you know, Pablo, we were focusing on cyclists, and we were doing a wearable tech product.

00:12:43.980 --> 00:12:55.419
What we found was that the output that we were giving them– I mean, these were scientists and engineers that are like you know what would be really interesting to know is this random number, and then you put that in front of a cyclist.

00:12:56.019 --> 00:13:00.700
They're like this is useless for me, but as you started talking to them more and more– I'll give you an interesting example.

00:13:04.919 --> 00:13:14.058
The engineers came and said, well, we can tell you exactly when you’re applying the most pressure on your pedal stroke, for a cyclist.

00:13:14.059 --> 00:13:15.940
I'd go and I'd show them this.

00:13:16.139 --> 00:13:30.740
They'd say, this is totally useless, but as I continue to talk to them, what I learned about cyclists is that something that's really important is what they call the dead zone, which is the place in the pedal stroke where they aren't applying any muscular strength, either quads or hams.

00:13:30.740 --> 00:13:40.019
What they try to do is reduce that to as close to zero as possible because you want consistent pedal stroke so that it's very efficient from an energy perspective.

00:13:40.020 --> 00:13:44.178
These are guys that are going on six, seven hour cycling rides up and down mountains.

00:13:44.179 --> 00:13:44.779
Conserving energy is incredibly important.

00:13:52.399 --> 00:13:57.379
We had all the inputs to do that, but the output that we were showing them was useless.

00:13:57.380 --> 00:14:16.460
By just changing the UI, all of a sudden that became the killer feature of this company that didn't end up– we didn't end up being successful in that case for– mainly because the technology wasn't reliable enough, but that feature, every cyclist, you could see it on their face once I'd show them that.

00:14:16.461 --> 00:14:18.940
Here's where you're pressing the hardest, and they'd go, meh.

00:14:18.941 --> 00:14:26.539
Then I'd say, here, I can show you where you're– not only how much you have of a dead zone but where it is in your pedal stroke, and their face just lit up.

00:14:26.541 --> 00:14:38.220
That experience of seeing the palpable reaction from the users made me recognize just how important that is to the success of a product.

00:14:38.221 --> 00:14:58.159
Even though that company didn't succeed for other reasons, that experience stuck with me so intensely that I recognize I need to be able to create that face on people when I show them my product, and in the case of Luminari, we actually did have that from one side of the marketplace.

00:14:58.160 --> 00:15:05.720
The problem with Luminari ultimately, I know I'm skipping ahead on the story a little bit, is that we didn't have it as much on the other side of the marketplace.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
It’s a good segue.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
Let's go to that.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
You're having interviews, obviously, on one side, the applicants.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
You're having interview on the firm side.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
What's that like?

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
You talked about some of the learnings being that people don't really know what they want and they want to be passive.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
They don't want to spend a lot of time.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
That's on the applicant's side.

00:15:07.879 --> 00:15:08.240
What were some of the learnings on the other side of that marketplace?

00:15:26.059 --> 00:15:33.629
I mean, you know, some of the things that we didn't figure out until a little bit later were just how important integrating with their current tech stack is.

00:15:33.630 --> 00:15:39.389
When you go and you talk to a big company that's hiring a lot of accountants or anybody, they've got an LMS, a learning management system in place.

00:15:39.390 --> 00:15:44.710
They have their standard process for screening hundreds or thousands of candidates.

00:15:44.711 --> 00:15:56.470
By being something that was outside of that ecosystem, it made it incredibly difficult to convince them to use us, and so we started going after smaller companies, SMBs that didn't have processes in place.

00:15:57.070 --> 00:16:00.029
That was where we got some success.

00:16:00.200 --> 00:16:08.509
I mean, the thing that I would talk about or I would like to say about Luminari is that we were in probably the worst place when it comes to product market fit.

00:16:14.259 --> 00:16:17.070
When you have no product market fit, it's obvious.

00:16:17.419 --> 00:16:21.549
When you have real product market fit, it's obvious.

00:16:22.029 --> 00:16:32.870
Where we were was kind of in this gray area where we had just enough product market fit to fool ourselves into feeling like it was enough and feeling like if only we iterate a little bit more.

00:16:32.870 --> 00:16:39.590
If we just tweak this, or change that, or do this, we're going to get all the way there, but it wasn't ever enough.

00:16:39.591 --> 00:16:47.149
We built an okay business doing that, but it wasn't scaling or growing in the way that we wanted it to be a real startup.

00:16:51.570 --> 00:16:56.899
That's the million-dollar question I get often is how do you know when you should keep doing this?

00:16:56.900 --> 00:17:04.259
Maybe the next feature will cure it and get us there versus the let's just start over and look at something else, especially when you have some traction.

00:17:04.260 --> 00:17:05.460
Again, it's easy on the extremes.

00:17:05.470 --> 00:17:11.460
As you were going through that, what were some of the signals you started seeing that told you, you know what?

00:17:11.461 --> 00:17:13.380
It's not about this next feature, this next thing?

00:17:13.381 --> 00:17:14.460
It's more of a restart.

00:17:16.930 --> 00:17:20.940
Yeah, I mean, this is the million-dollar question or the billion-dollar question because it's incredibly challenging.

00:17:21.140 --> 00:17:26.500
I would say that there are– okay, there are a couple of things.

00:17:26.618 --> 00:17:39.180
Number one and this is the thing– this really pissed us off when we were on the other side of this, but I'm going to say it anyways because we recognized how true it was now that we're on this side of it, which is you know it when you see it.

00:17:39.181 --> 00:17:42.019
We were like, well, we see some of it.

00:17:42.140 --> 00:17:43.858
It feels like we're pretty– that means no.

00:17:43.859 --> 00:17:49.490
That's really hard because you're seeing all these positive indicators that are pushing you towards yes, but it's not a yes.

00:17:49.490 --> 00:17:52.529
Again, I don't think that there's a rule there.

00:18:00.930 --> 00:18:14.250
It’s this feeling that started bubbling up the more and more that we were– I mean we built that business, Luminari, for two and a half years before we really decided to make a big change with the mentorship platform that I mentioned.

00:18:14.250 --> 00:18:15.410
I mean, it was pretty obvious.

00:18:15.411 --> 00:18:25.809
There were probably some entrepreneurs that didn't have the benefit of my experience at the previous company that would've pressed on with it and convinced themselves that it was great.

00:18:25.810 --> 00:18:30.569
I mean, this is one of the big challenges is that you kind of get married to your ideas.

00:18:30.570 --> 00:18:32.170
You fall in love with them.

00:18:32.171 --> 00:18:39.210
You believe that they're amazing, and just because your mom thinks it's really cool, that doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

00:18:40.299 --> 00:18:44.608
To be clear, you got– Luminari got to what, half a million, a million in revenue or so?

00:18:46.490 --> 00:18:47.690
Yeah, we were three-quarters of a million.

00:18:48.380 --> 00:18:50.890
It was a real– I mean it was an ongoing thing.

00:18:51.049 --> 00:18:51.970
You had real customers.

00:18:51.971 --> 00:18:52.970
People were getting true value.

00:18:53.480 --> 00:18:53.970
Yeah.

00:18:55.069 --> 00:19:02.049
Some of those key metrics that you would look for– I mean, the one in Luminari’s case, it was return customers.

00:19:02.050 --> 00:19:06.009
We have customers that even had, literally, the optimal experience.

00:19:06.010 --> 00:19:07.130
They posted on Luminari.

00:19:07.368 --> 00:19:12.569
Within a week, they got a bunch of really great candidates.

00:19:12.570 --> 00:19:19.450
They hired somebody that they love, and the next time they went to go look for a new person, we wouldn't get the call.

00:19:19.451 --> 00:19:26.089
The funny thing is is it wasn't like they were saying, well, we didn't like the experience, and we don't want to return there.

00:19:26.090 --> 00:19:28.849
It's just they just went through the regular process like they always do.

00:19:28.851 --> 00:19:29.690
It's just a habit.

00:19:29.691 --> 00:19:31.368
Oh, we’ll put it on our LMS.

00:19:31.369 --> 00:19:32.490
It'll go onto Indeed.

00:19:32.490 --> 00:19:32.890
It'll go onto LinkedIn.

00:19:32.891 --> 00:19:36.769
We just couldn't really break into the mindset in that way.

00:19:36.770 --> 00:19:41.849
The product experience wasn't wow enough for them to push away their old experience.

00:19:41.851 --> 00:19:44.730
You know what I mean?

00:19:45.420 --> 00:19:49.039
I mean, there's different definitions of product market fit.

00:19:49.040 --> 00:19:51.880
One of them that constantly comes up is is the market pulling for your product?

00:19:51.881 --> 00:19:53.160
We were pushing.

00:19:53.161 --> 00:19:54.160
It wasn't being pulled.

00:20:01.240 --> 00:20:04.368
That's the other thing about Luminari.

00:20:04.369 --> 00:20:06.529
I know the company well enough to kind of think this is.

00:20:06.530 --> 00:20:07.450
It makes so much sense.

00:20:07.451 --> 00:20:11.970
A, looking for passive candidates as a firm just makes tons of sense.

00:20:11.971 --> 00:20:15.250
B, as a passive candidate it makes– I'm still wondering why didn't it work?

00:20:15.250 --> 00:20:18.730
Now, you've been far– you've gone a few years moving onto this new platform.

00:20:18.730 --> 00:20:19.849
You have time to think back.

00:20:19.851 --> 00:20:22.368
What really is the thing that never got it to truly take off?

00:20:28.420 --> 00:21:47.930
There's a lot of different answers to that question, I'm sure, and probably some that I'll never really know the answer to.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
A couple of things that come to mind are, number one, like I said, people get into this process– and the process of hiring, usually what people do is they're not backfilling.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
What they're doing is Susie quits and it's like, shit, I need to replace Susie immediately.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
I'm just going to try everything I can as quickly as I can.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
It's not really a deliberate, thought-out process.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
That's what happens at smaller companies.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
At larger companies, it's this very deliberate, purposefully thought-out process that is very hard to break into.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
For both of those groups of people, it became really challenging for us to sell into them.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
I think, also, it comes down to that pull factor.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
Yes, when they posted on Luminari, they would get good candidates and they might hire somebody and that would work and that was great.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
That experience wasn't 10x better than what they're getting somewhere else.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
It was maybe 2x better.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
That's still better and we still got a lot of people to pay us for it.

00:21:47.930 --> 00:21:47.930
Yeah, I mean, I think those are probably the two main things.

00:21:48.279 --> 00:21:48.890
That's helpful.

00:21:48.890 --> 00:21:50.569
Again, I'm not sure I even know all the answers.

00:21:50.819 --> 00:21:52.608
Maybe fast-forwarding a little bit, you're getting there.

00:21:52.609 --> 00:21:53.730
You got three-quarters of a million revenue.

00:21:54.049 --> 00:21:56.769
Things are going, but you're starting to feel like you don't have that pull.

00:21:56.770 --> 00:21:57.529
What do you start doing?

00:21:58.039 --> 00:21:58.970
Is it still pre-pivot?

00:21:58.971 --> 00:22:02.049
What do you start doing or what insights are you starting to gather?

00:22:04.920 --> 00:22:07.410
It's going to make you laugh, but 500 again.

00:22:07.608 --> 00:22:09.329
That was literally what we did.

00:22:10.009 --> 00:22:15.490
I don't know why that number ended up being the number, but that was roughly what it took for us to be very confident about Luminari.

00:22:15.490 --> 00:22:22.769
That includes after we started building it and we put early versions of it in front of people and watched them click through it and stuff like that.

00:22:22.770 --> 00:22:25.608
That iterative process really brought us from vague idea all the way to specific solution.

00:22:25.609 --> 00:22:30.170
So we went back out and we started talking to accountants again.

00:22:30.171 --> 00:22:32.250
We started at broad.

00:22:32.250 --> 00:22:37.490
We said,“Well, okay, what are your pain points?” A couple of different things came up.

00:22:37.490 --> 00:22:42.608
The one that ended up sticking was professional education and the pain point around that.

00:22:50.730 --> 00:22:57.289
There were, at the time, I want to say something like eight to ten ideas that we were playing around with.

00:22:57.290 --> 00:23:01.250
We actually started to execute in little ways on some of them.

00:23:01.250 --> 00:23:04.130
Some of those things ended up rolling into what LumiQ became.

00:23:04.131 --> 00:23:11.690
As an example, people wanted to hear from experienced finance professionals, so we started doing a couple of live events.

00:23:11.691 --> 00:23:15.049
We took the Sam Altman, do things that don't scale mentality.

00:23:15.108 --> 00:23:16.450
We said okay, let's try this out.

00:23:16.451 --> 00:23:18.130
It'll, at least, build our community.

00:23:18.131 --> 00:23:21.250
Maybe it'll help our sales on Luminari and we'll learn more.

00:23:21.250 --> 00:23:27.890
That was really successful insofar as live events can be successful.It's really hard to build a big business on live events.

00:23:27.920 --> 00:23:31.608
There's a lot that goes into that.

00:23:40.089 --> 00:23:41.250
It's not a software business.

00:23:41.910 --> 00:23:43.769
There were a number of these things.

00:23:43.770 --> 00:23:44.529
We went out.

00:23:44.530 --> 00:23:47.559
As I said, we did product market fit interviews.

00:23:47.560 --> 00:23:52.079
Internally at LumiQ, we use PMF, product market fit, not just as a noun.

00:23:52.080 --> 00:23:56.680
Is that the right way of saying it?

00:23:56.681 --> 00:23:57.920
We use it as a verb.

00:23:57.921 --> 00:24:06.480
We say we're going to go PMF somebody, which means like we're going to go interview them to try to understand what they think about a product or the feature or whatever it is.

00:24:06.480 --> 00:24:08.039
We PMF'd another 500 people and we went out.

00:24:08.170 --> 00:24:10.440
Some of them were the same people.

00:24:10.441 --> 00:24:14.920
Beauty with our market is that all the CPAs actually put it in their title on LinkedIn.

00:24:15.000 --> 00:24:19.240
So we just go and add thousands of them to LinkedIn and reject them.

00:24:26.559 --> 00:24:29.000
People are very nice and generous with their time.

00:24:29.000 --> 00:24:35.440
Over and over again, as we were going through this, we took those eight or ten ideas that we got from that first round.

00:24:35.441 --> 00:24:36.519
You said well, why 500?

00:24:36.880 --> 00:24:41.400
The first probably 25 to 50 of them were, what are all these eight to ten ideas?

00:24:41.401 --> 00:24:49.170
Then the next probably 50 of them were, let's whittle down these eight ideas or ten ideas to two or three ideas.

00:24:49.171 --> 00:24:53.368
Then the next 50 of them were, let's whittle down that three ideas to one idea.

00:24:53.369 --> 00:25:03.650
Then the next, whatever's left, 350 of them were, okay, now that we know that professional development is what we want to focus on, what should we do in that space that'll actually solve their pain point?

00:25:03.651 --> 00:25:07.099
It's this iterative process of going broad to narrow.

00:25:12.690 --> 00:25:14.259
Here's maybe an annoying question.

00:25:14.539 --> 00:25:15.339
I'm sure you've thought about it.

00:25:15.340 --> 00:25:16.339
I'm curious what the answer is.

00:25:16.340 --> 00:25:19.660
You went through 500 interviews of CPAs in the early days.

00:25:19.661 --> 00:25:20.579
You came out with Luminari.

00:25:20.580 --> 00:25:23.339
Then you did another 500 interviews, and that worked.

00:25:23.460 --> 00:25:26.180
Then you did another 500 interviews and you came out with LumiQ and it really worked.

00:25:26.539 --> 00:25:28.299
Why didn't you come up with LumiQ in the first place?

00:25:28.420 --> 00:25:28.980
I mean, what happened?

00:25:28.980 --> 00:25:29.660
Could that have been skipped?

00:25:29.661 --> 00:25:30.460
Or was that actually a critical part of the discovery process, so to speak, is just to be in the industry?

00:25:38.769 --> 00:25:40.180
Yeah, it's a good question.

00:25:40.181 --> 00:25:43.579
Maybe this is me just justifying it to feel better about it all.

00:25:43.580 --> 00:25:53.779
In retrospect, I look at it and I go, one of our key competitive advantages as a company is that we just understand our market better than, I think, pretty much anybody because we spent so much time with them.

00:25:53.780 --> 00:25:58.420
The wife example that I gave you, I know what my wife wants.

00:25:58.421 --> 00:26:11.940
I've spent enough time with her, talked to her enough that even if I don't gauge her opinion on something, I can probably take a pretty good guess as to whether she'll like something or not.

00:26:11.941 --> 00:26:28.140
So if you think about that, how well do you know your significant other, or maybe one of your siblings or your best friend or whatever, and you understand all of those interactions that led to you understanding that I know that Pablo's probably going to enjoy Thai food more than he enjoys, I don't know, hamburgers.

00:26:28.141 --> 00:26:29.700
How do I know that?

00:26:29.701 --> 00:26:32.500
Just from spending all that time with you.

00:26:32.559 --> 00:26:35.099
I probably don't even need to ask you.

00:26:35.299 --> 00:26:41.220
If I say hey, you want to go to that Thai restaurant or that burger shack, you're going to say that Thai restaurant.

00:26:41.221 --> 00:26:42.618
So you can start to actually skip some of those steps.

00:26:51.980 --> 00:26:54.118
Why didn't LumiQ come up in the first place?

00:26:54.119 --> 00:27:01.720
I think primarily because we were– in the Luminari days, we were already focused on solving recruitment.

00:27:01.721 --> 00:27:08.430
So we were trying to solve that problem and all of the questions were very specific to the recruitment process.

00:27:08.431 --> 00:27:12.108
At no point did we say well, what else are your pain points?

00:27:12.109 --> 00:27:15.730
That's probably the biggest mistake we made back then.

00:27:15.730 --> 00:27:20.650
Some founders start with this is the problem I want to solve, and then they go at it.

00:27:20.651 --> 00:27:22.690
We weren't really like that.

00:27:22.691 --> 00:27:27.970
We got ourselves into that trap through the whole mentorship platform and the path that I mentioned.

00:27:33.920 --> 00:27:35.250
Well, that's the question, right?

00:27:35.450 --> 00:27:42.730
It's almost a philosophical question, because if you look at the Steve Blank stuff, it is like you're supposed to have an epiphany and then you go out and you test that against the market.

00:27:42.930 --> 00:27:44.730
If you look at Lean Startup, it's always post-epiphany.

00:27:44.730 --> 00:27:48.289
Before that, there's this research mode element to it that I talk about a lot.

00:27:48.490 --> 00:27:50.529
I guess the question is, how broad can you go?

00:27:50.530 --> 00:27:55.410
Can you really go to 500 CPAs and say, hey, tell me what your day's like; what are your big problems?

00:27:55.411 --> 00:27:57.170
Then you come out with LumiQ?

00:27:57.171 --> 00:28:11.130
Do you have to go with some opinion and test against it and maybe“waste a bunch of time” building something that's not– do you think, knowing what you knew back then, which was very little about– you were a CPA but you weren't in the game selling to them, but you could have just gone super broad and professional education would've just come out?

00:28:22.400 --> 00:28:23.250
I do think so, actually.

00:28:23.569 --> 00:28:39.009
I think had I asked those broader questions right from the start and if I wasn't blinded by my own biases– that's one of the biggest problems with PMF'ing people is that you walk in with your own biases.

00:28:39.010 --> 00:28:47.170
Actually, the cycling product that I mentioned, one of my greatest strengths in that experience doing it was that I knew nothing about cycling.

00:28:47.171 --> 00:28:49.450
I was not a fan of it.

00:28:49.451 --> 00:28:51.410
I know how to ride a bike.

00:28:51.411 --> 00:28:54.049
I like riding a bike, but anybody who cycles will tell you that riding a bike is not cycling.

00:28:54.050 --> 00:28:55.170
Those are two different things.

00:28:55.171 --> 00:28:58.730
I didn't know anything about the sport of it and what these people care about.

00:28:58.730 --> 00:29:00.369
So I was a total blank slate.

00:29:00.371 --> 00:29:01.410
That was actually an advantage.

00:29:08.089 --> 00:29:10.410
Now, there's a different advantage by being an expert.

00:29:10.411 --> 00:29:12.490
I don't know if I'm really an expert in accounting, but I am an accountant.

00:29:12.490 --> 00:29:15.930
I had a personal experience, which made me biased in some ways and not.

00:29:15.931 --> 00:29:18.849
The nice thing was my co-founder isn't a CPA.

00:29:18.851 --> 00:29:20.730
Between our two perspectives, I think we could build that.

00:29:20.730 --> 00:29:28.809
The short answer to your question, yeah, I think had we been more broad, we probably would've come to this faster..

00:29:34.579 --> 00:29:37.730
Now you are where you are and professional development comes up.

00:29:37.730 --> 00:29:41.250
What's your next step after that?

00:29:42.980 --> 00:29:45.279
I think the first step is always what are the pain points?

00:29:45.280 --> 00:29:51.039
I think that's the best place to start, because people don't buy new products because something is slightly better.

00:29:51.040 --> 00:29:53.759
People buy new products because they're pissed off at their current product.

00:29:54.029 --> 00:29:55.400
Why did I switch to Mac?

00:29:55.401 --> 00:29:58.880
Because I had three PCs in a row that broke down and were stupid and annoying.

00:29:58.881 --> 00:30:01.680
I was like, there's got to be a more reliable computer out there.

00:30:01.681 --> 00:30:05.799
I was like, okay, I'll incur the switching costs to go to a Mac.

00:30:05.800 --> 00:30:08.960
Now that I'm on a Mac, I've never gone back.

00:30:08.961 --> 00:30:10.359
I think pain points is the place to start.

00:30:10.361 --> 00:30:13.480
Ask people what pisses them off.

00:30:13.480 --> 00:30:21.799
The nice thing, I tell this to everybody in on our team that's going out and doing these kinds of sessions, is no matter what language anybody speaks, everybody has the same favorite word.

00:30:21.800 --> 00:30:24.680
That favorite word is their own name.

00:30:24.681 --> 00:30:26.960
Everybody likes to hear themselves talk.

00:30:26.961 --> 00:30:28.400
Everybody likes to feel valued.

00:30:28.401 --> 00:30:30.319
Everybody likes that.

00:30:30.320 --> 00:30:36.279
By going to people and just saying, hey, I want to hear what you think.

00:30:36.280 --> 00:30:39.920
Your opinion is incredibly important to me, people are very receptive to that.

00:30:40.170 --> 00:30:51.160
By going there and then doing the second best thing after that, which is asking people what pisses them off, you'll get a lot out of that because people are not shy about what bugs them.

00:31:01.529 --> 00:31:02.720
So you figured that out.

00:31:02.721 --> 00:31:10.839
How do you come to this, getting closer to what LumiQ is today, which is this kind of passive podcast type, fun way of getting professional development?

00:31:15.950 --> 00:31:20.000
Well, when we went and asked those questions, what are your pain points, generally, two things came up.

00:31:21.839 --> 00:31:30.500
It's boring as hell and the way of delivering it was just stuck in the'90s.

00:31:30.500 --> 00:31:37.940
Most professional education is either in a classroom which has different benefits, obviously, of being in person.

00:31:37.941 --> 00:31:43.059
It's kind of old school classroom lecture style stuff, or it's on a'90s-era webinar platform.

00:31:43.060 --> 00:31:50.099
I'm sure anybody who's had to do any of this stuff, this will resonate with them.

00:31:50.101 --> 00:31:59.539
Generally what people would do is they'd bring it up on a screen, they'd press play, they'd forget about it, come back an hour later and try to answer the quiz questions to get their credit for it.

00:31:59.540 --> 00:32:06.700
Now, of course, all of them are coming up with sneakier ways to do it where they ask you questions in between to make sure you're paying attention and stuff like that.

00:32:12.299 --> 00:32:18.900
We figured okay, if we can solve the delivery mechanism point– that's not really innovation.

00:32:18.980 --> 00:32:19.460
We love podcasts.

00:32:20.140 --> 00:32:28.859
We thought podcasts are great because you can do them when you're doing something else and you don't need your eyes or your hands to do it.

00:32:29.460 --> 00:32:40.839
So let's try podcasting as the way to solve that pain point and have a modern mobile platform and all the things that people in our industry just don't have.

00:32:41.079 --> 00:32:49.170
If you look at our app, it's a hundred times better than what you see in our industry, but it's roughly the same as you would expect from Spotify or Apple.

00:32:49.289 --> 00:32:50.289
We haven't reinvented the wheel there.

00:32:51.009 --> 00:33:00.130
On the making it interesting and– I mean, I should say it the other way, which is really what it is: not making it boring, start there.

00:33:00.250 --> 00:33:00.970
That was the baseline.

00:33:01.170 --> 00:33:02.849
Then it's like, can we go even higher than that?

00:33:03.009 --> 00:33:05.960
That was a harder challenge to solve.

00:33:06.240 --> 00:33:09.640
We spent a lot of time trying to understand what would it take to make this not boring?

00:33:18.980 --> 00:33:24.400
The other piece to this is the accountants are the ones that suffer through it, but they're not really the ones that pay.

00:33:24.401 --> 00:33:30.640
What did the discussions look like with the true customer, which I guess is the company that hires these accountants most of the time?

00:33:32.130 --> 00:33:33.440
That is true.

00:33:33.441 --> 00:33:44.779
Now, as we've gone upmarket to more enterprise companies that have L&D, learning and development, full-time people that are responsible for that, that is a bigger challenge.

00:33:44.780 --> 00:33:47.019
When we started, we started going after small/medium businesses.

00:33:47.319 --> 00:33:48.539
Who's making the decision?

00:33:48.990 --> 00:33:58.980
It's the director of finance, or the VP of finance, or the CFO, or somebody even more junior on the team that has been given the responsibility of finding a professional development provider for them.

00:33:58.980 --> 00:34:11.260
What's interesting was that almost every company supports their CPAs or other designated accountants in their professional development, but very few of them have a company-wide solution.

00:34:11.570 --> 00:34:18.699
Mostly it's like, go out, do whatever you want, come back and expense it to the company.

00:34:18.701 --> 00:34:24.179
The budget line item was there, but people weren't used to buying it as a team.

00:34:29.789 --> 00:34:35.170
So that was one of the things that we really pushed for was get it for your team because this is a great team tool.

00:34:35.170 --> 00:34:38.690
That was very successful, as it turned out.

00:34:38.690 --> 00:34:43.050
The basic answer to your question though, was that we made the product awesome.

00:34:43.050 --> 00:34:46.449
Once they tried the product, they were the buyers.

00:34:46.451 --> 00:34:48.769
It was easier selling in that way.

00:34:48.771 --> 00:34:54.570
I think the last thing that I'll say on that is we've always bet on our product.

00:34:54.570 --> 00:34:59.760
The one thing that we have, I think, really internalized is if the product is great, then people will want to get it.

00:35:00.360 --> 00:35:02.519