90 minutes of unfiltered product advice from Snap and Discord’s product chief | Peter Sellis

Transcript

I asked you, what are some counterintuitive lessons that you've learned that go against common startup wisdom? I'm no longer beholden to any corporate comms team right now, so I can let it rip a little bit. Do you like to design teams like a terrorist organization? A good terrorist organization essentially has two things. One is it has this ideological culture that everyone understands why they are doing what they're doing. And then it has a very, very clear organizational structure of who can be trusted with which decision. You like to spend time riding your best people into the ground versus improving the average people. If you see somebody drowning, you want to save them. I did the absolute opposite. If somebody is strong and crushing it, I'm just handing them more and more rope to hang themselves with. Something that I know you believe: most product managers are bad and are often net negative to the company. The great product managers are exiting the system. They're becoming founders. They're becoming executives. It's set up to be this profession where the median product manager is actually probably pretty bad. Snap is quite famous for not hiring PMs for a long time. The baseline: we should just be able to operate this product without any product manager. So this person has to provide value over nobody. Feels like an interesting new skill for PMs is pushing back on things AI is adding to your products. I think I saw Evan personally say no to better ideas than I've seen almost any other consumer startup launch. Exercising that kind of muscle of saying no, of restraint, is probably one of the few muscles of taste you can exercise. If a museum has all of their collection on the walls, then the curator hasn't done anything. Today, my guest is Peter Sellis. Peter is a legend in the PM community. He was the first PM at Snapchat, where he spent seven years building one of the most delightful and popular consumer products in history. More recently, he was head of product at Discord, which he helped grow significantly. And now he's between gigs, which means he was finally able to come on the podcast without a comms team, without a PR team, which means that he's able to be especially honest and real about everything that he's seen and learned and has been excited to share. We cover so much ground: from how the best teams are organized like terrorist organizations, what it's like to manage Nikita Beer, why most PMs are really bad, why Snapchat has struggled to build a truly massive business in spite of having a billion monthly active users, and it's not what you think, and so much more. This episode is full of so much gold, and that's why it went so long. I couldn't stop digging into stuff that Peter kept bringing up. A huge thank you to Jack Brody and Sriram Krishnan for suggesting topics and questions for this conversation. Before we get into it, don't forget to check out LennysProductPass.com for a free year of the hottest and most beautifully crafted AI and non-AI products in the world, available exclusively to Lenny's newsletter subscribers. With that, I bring you Peter Sellis. Peter, thank you so much for being here. Welcome to the podcast. [SPEAKER_01] Thank you, Lenny. It feels like it's been a long time coming that you and I have known each other, but I'm really excited to be here. [SPEAKER_00] You've never done a podcast before. You've been in product. You've been out there for so long. I'm very honored you chose to do this. Why have you avoided podcasts? Why have you decided to finally do this podcast? [SPEAKER_01] You know, it's not avoiding podcasts. I've really just been avoiding you. No, I'm kidding. It's been—you know, I think there are two things. To be totally frank with you, a lot of times when I saw, especially early on, because you have such wonderful distribution among so many influential people and teams, when I saw somebody going on Lenny's podcast, I was like, "Oh, that person's probably about to get fired. They're going on and they're pimping themselves out for their next role," which was maybe one view of it. I was like, why aren't they just grinding? Now, I think when I kind of take a step back, a lot of the people I've worked with, a lot of teams I've had the opportunity to lead, I think one of the things that I generally do is show up pretty authentically every day at work. There's, you can call it no filter, you can call it whatever you want. And a lot of the stuff that I say and do, I think it's probably better suited for behind closed doors. But as you and I have chatted about now, I'm between different roles. So I'm no longer beholden to any corporate comms team right now. So yeah, I guess I can let it rip a little bit. [SPEAKER_00] Okay, amazing. These are the best conversations. No PR people involved, no comms people. [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, nothing to promote either. I have no book coming, no other podcasts, no collaboration. [SPEAKER_00] Yeah. Wow, just pure alpha. [SPEAKER_01] Just pure, yes. About to drop some pure alpha, baby. This episode is brought to you by our season's presenting sponsor, WorkOS. What do OpenAI, Anthropic, Cursor, Replit, Sierra, Clay, and hundreds of other winning companies all have in common? They are all powered by WorkOS. If you're building a product for the enterprise, you've felt the pain of integrating single sign-on, SCIM, RBAC, audit logs, and other features required by large companies. WorkOS turns those deal blockers into drop-in APIs with a modern developer platform built specifically for B2B SaaS. Literally every startup that I'm an investor in that starts to expand upmarket ends up working with WorkOS. And that's because they are the best. Whether you are a seed stage startup trying to land your first enterprise customer, or a unicorn expanding globally, WorkOS is the fastest path to becoming enterprise ready and unblocking growth. It's essentially Stripe for enterprise features. Visit WorkOS.com to get started or just hit up their Slack 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 WorkOS.com to make your app enterprise ready today. The first thing I want to talk about, something that stood out in our jamming on what to talk about, is the way you think about designing teams—the way you described it to me is you like to design teams like a terrorist organization. [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, yeah. I should probably workshop this one a little bit. Like, this is probably an example of the one that's better for behind closed doors. But yeah, when I actually talked to the chief people officer at Discord about this, and I think she was simultaneously horrified and intrigued in a way, which credit to her for not judging me right off the bat. But yeah, I think it comes from essentially two primary beliefs from me. Well, one is that there's actually a hidden cost to collaborating that no one really internalizes extremely well. Meaning, you'll never hear really any executive at any company be, "Stop collaborating." And to me, that's a warning sign. Collaboration comes with incredible coordination costs. And coordination costs essentially assure that you're moving as slow as the slowest node in the system. And so I try and aggressively internalize the cost of collaboration sometimes. And then I think the second thing, separately from this, is that at high-growth companies especially, and so many of the people that listen to your podcast aspire to be at these types of companies, product managers should be in a position where they're making decisions that the founders would have made—like, sometimes six months ago, definitely like a year or two ago. These are decisions that the founders themselves would have made. And so set aside violence for a moment. I'm not saying that I design my teams for violence. But a good terrorist organization essentially has two things. One is it has this ideological culture that everyone understands why they are doing what they're doing. And then it has a very, very clear organizational structure of who can be trusted with which decision. And I think creating a culture where there's a very clear, almost religious level goal, essentially that the strategy is almost like a religion to the entire team, and an organizational structure where people understand who are the directly responsible individuals, who's single-threaded on something, who's the throat to choke—we use whatever MBA terminology you want. I think the combination of those two things can be leveraged in a way such that you don't need to overcollaborate. And you can be assured of achieving the results that you wanted as if you had collaborated. And so I think the components of what is this great ideological setup—a lot of things I focus on, for example, because I think oftentimes I had a product at high-growth companies where the founders are still in charge. The head of product is really kind of a vessel for their vision. And I think creating a culture where there's a very clear, almost religious level goal, essentially that the strategy is a religion to the entire team, and an organizational structure where people understand who are the directly responsible individuals, who's single-threaded on something, who's the throat to choke. We use whatever MBA terminology you want. I think the combination of those two things can be leveraged in a way such that you don't need to overcollaborate. And you can be assured of achieving the results that you wanted as if you had collaborated. I think the components of what this kind of great ideological setup is, a lot of things I focus on. For example, because I think oftentimes I had a product at high-growth companies where the founders are still in charge. The head of product is really a vessel for their vision. Both with Snap and at Discord, where I had the privilege of working with the founders in both cases, I tried to absorb and internalize their vision and then create small phrases and language that could be used and repeated that were essentially shortcuts or synecdoches of the whole strategy. Yeah, I could go more into that, but that's how I think of it. And obviously giving it branding that I'm designing it like a terrorist organization at least gets people's attention. But maybe I need to workshop that a little bit. No, you don't. This is perfect. This is exactly what I was hoping this conversation would be. So just to be very clear about the elements of the terrorist organization that we want to keep: one is this idea of autonomy, essentially trusting people further down in case the leaders get caught or are uncommunicative. So giving more autonomy to folks further down the chain. And then two is having a very clear mission ideology, you might say, so that everyone's very aligned and decisions are quick. Yeah, yeah. And to be clear, I didn't start with, I'm going to build a terrorist organization. I bet you built a great one, by the way. But when I thought about the elements of what I wanted from the organizations I was building, I couldn't help but notice that there were organizations out there operating this way and they just so happened to be terrorist organizations. So that led to a lot of interesting reading lists. I think the Peter Salas product reading list is almost a banned book list at this point. It's interesting because I've heard many people describe you want to build a cult. And this is not that different because cults are very effective at getting stuff done. Yeah, you can't spell culture without cult. I think there are elements of a cult that are more about the person leading the cult, whereas terrorist organizations are more about a higher power or ideology. So that's why I tended more towards that. But I think you could read up on a couple of cults and then just take it all the way to the penultimate moment, like before they do the thing that makes them well known as a cult. And you probably could learn a lot, honestly. There's a lot of alpha in that. Speaking of a higher power, a fun fact about you is you managed Nikita Beer, who came on the podcast—one of the most popular episodes. Quite a character. Was head of product for X recently for, I think, a year. Very few people have worked with Nikita. I'm curious what it was like to manage or work with Nikita. Yeah, Nikita was on my team at Discord. We acquired his startup and he was on the team at Discord for almost over a year with some phenomenal engineers that came along with him. I think managing Nikita, that's a very loose use of the word manage. I think much like, yeah, you don't manage Nikita. You only seek to control him or direct him. I liken it to, I mean, Nikita is an awesome personality and actual operator in the product space, pretty much one of one. And I have a ton of respect for a lot of the stuff that he does. I think of him a lot like Liam Neeson in the Taken movie series. If your daughter gets kidnapped, he has a very special set of skills. And he's going to employ those skills. And those skills are very hard to come by and very useful in certain situations. But then when you need him to raise the daughter or buy some groceries, all he knows how to do is kill everybody in the grocery store or something like that. So yeah, he's an incredible person to work with when you have him on areas that he is an expert in and truly one of one from that perspective. How do you feel about having folks like that in your team? I mean, a lot of people talk about having very distinct roles for different people. And sometimes you need someone like that to drive some momentum. I think it's essential to be able to create an organization that can adopt that type of talent. I wouldn't view it as a failure state if you have product orgs that can't essentially handle really spiky talent. Nikita took it to extremes. You remember when he was on Intro doing that thing? At one point I was trying to get a one-on-one with him. He reported up into me and I couldn't get him. So I was like, dude, if you don't answer my DMs, I'm going to go on Intro and book you so I can just have a one-on-one with you right now. Luckily, we didn't get to that. He answered. I think I hit him up on four different messaging apps before I got a hold of him. Yeah, I think this ability to handle spikiness, to build teams that can essentially adopt talent that isn't necessarily the perfect nine-to-five employee from a product perspective, I look up to a lot from a management style to Phil Jackson, the coach of the Bulls and Lakers. His ability to mesh talent of very different types that literally does not get along otherwise to create these winning teams, to have done it both as a player and as a coach in two different places, to use philosophies from different Eastern and Western philosophies to combine all this stuff. He's one of the most meaningful leaders from a leadership style perspective of the last half century. I think with product, especially when it comes to consumer and anything that involves more creativity and taste, I think of a lot of product leaders more like bands putting out albums. You can love a band, but sometimes they have a dud album. And what you do with the band as a fan during that time, do you stay a fan? Do you still listen to the album? Do you ride it through? Do you just listen to the old stuff? That's how I think of a lot of the spikier product managers that I've worked with. Sometimes they whiff on an album, but if I still believe in them as an artist, I'll stick with them. Something coming back to Nikita, but going in a different direction, when he came on the podcast, he said, I'm honored to be on a podcast of product management as someone that doesn't believe product management is real. It's funny that he went on to be head of Product at X. But this connects to something I know you believe, which is that most product managers are bad and are often negative to the company. Talk about that. Why do you think the median PM is not actually good? I feel like this might have been a contrarian take during the Zerp era, but now I think it's bleeding into the mainstream of holding a higher bar for product management. And it is funny because you had Tom, the CPO of Whatnot, say something similar. And I think I agreed with a lot of the stuff he said. And I think some of his most senior PMs are actually former Snap PMs from my team, which is great because it verifies a lot of this. But yeah, now we're a bunch of self-hating PMs who've made a bunch of money being PMs and now say, oh, PMs are bad. But no, I think there's actually a mathematical explanation for this. First of all, I think any craft that is, especially when you're at the top end. but now it's bleeding into the mainstream of holding a higher bar for product management. And it is funny, because you had Tom, the CPO of Whatnot as well, say something similar. And I think I agreed with a lot of the stuff he said. And I think some of his most senior PMs are actually former Snap PMs from my team, which is great. Because I think it verifies a lot of this, but yeah, now we're a bunch of self-hating PMs who've made a bunch of money being PMs are now saying, oh, PMs are bad. But no, I think there's actually a mathematical explanation for this. First of all, I think any craft, especially when you're at the top end of any skill that is normally distributed, you're at the tail end of the distribution. And so for product management, if the skill of product management is normally distributed across the population, the ones who are actually product managers are all the way on the right-hand side of the distribution. So you lop that off and it becomes a power distribution. And for any power distribution, the median is going to be far below the average. Most people are on the left side of it. And I think this actually gets excessively emphasized within product management for two reasons. One, especially during the Zirp era, it became essentially the most lucrative career in tech for non-technical people. So once, it has a very subjective definition, right? Which is part of the reason why your podcast has been so valuable to people over the years because they're asking, what do I need to do to be one? And so once you're in it, you're being compensated essentially as if you're on a technical ladder. So you have a very high incentive to remain part of it. If you're very good at it, the skills you develop as a product leader are almost perfect for either other executive roles or overall leadership roles, or starting your own company. So the great product managers are exiting the system. They're becoming founders, they're becoming executives, et cetera. And on the other side of the distribution, anybody who's in is doing anything possible to stay in. So the distribution just becomes more weighted. And I think during Zirp, you saw this and there were memes about it. And maybe there's been some correction. But yeah, I think mathematically, it's set up to be this profession where the median product manager is actually probably pretty bad. Do you feel like it's getting better? And do you think there's something I think about a lot that a lot of people say, that PMs suck, they're useless. And I find that's usually the case because they've just not worked with a great PM. And a lot of people haven't worked with great PMs. And so it makes the whole profession look bad and sound bad when a lot of people are working with these mediocre PMs. Thoughts there? Yeah, I think you're exactly right. I've also noticed this. I feel like so much in the world right now is explained by some form of the midwit meme in some way or another. But yeah, I think you're exactly right. That is a second order effect of this distribution that governs the whole profession. I do think it's getting better because when a lot of people reference the Zirp era, but I truly feel like when interest rates go down, that means opportunity costs are lower. And so when opportunity costs are lower, people are doing things like just hiring that extra person. But these opportunity costs, I think are higher than what's internalized because of some of the stuff we started talking about that a lot of these costs are not internalized. And so I've been really focused on developing a system for evaluating product managers, not just the person, but the person and the place that they are at that time to make sure that the team is actually net positive. And in my experience, we can talk about what some of those methods are, but in my experience, the way this ends up is that I really don't hear great engineers complain about product managers that much because great engineers, A, they know how to bend product managers to their will. They get the use out of them that they want. And B, they just don't put up with bad ones. So they don't get assigned or they don't get to work with bad product managers. I think ironically, in a midwit meme or horseshoe theory of things, really bad engineers also don't complain about product managers because they know they can just hide behind their decisions. So it's really just the ones in the middle that are complaining. I do want to ask about Snap. I feel like it's a company that doesn't feel like it lived up to the potential of what I think Evan and everyone imagined it could be. I imagine the main reason, and I had Evan on the podcast, is just the users that it's going after are hard to monetize. Is that the core of what has kept Snap from becoming a bigger success or is there more to it? I'll try to be as objective as possible, Lenny, because this is a little bit of my life's work and maybe I do have some level of chip on my shoulder. I'll try to be as objective as possible. So I'll say two things, maybe three things about Snap from a monetization perspective. And then we can talk about how they've had a lot of success with Snapchat Plus and subscription products in general are doing well, but ads are truly the magical product market fit of consumer monetization on the internet. And there are mathematical reasons why that's true. And there are three things that hold back Snap from an ads perspective that I think the company still kind of talks about and we deserve a little bit more credit maybe than we get, but I understand why we don't. The first is yes, the user base is extremely young. Snap appealed to Gen Z at an excessive rate early on. Now even Gen Alpha as they graduate from Roblox and stuff like that. And there is a step change, a suspicious discontinuity in advertising CPMs between 17 and 18 and between 18 and 21 in the United States and abroad. If you're under 17, the rules around how you can track and measure and target ads are extremely constraining and justifiably so, right? To protect teenagers. That means it's essentially much harder to drive ROI from this group of people versus an 18-year-old versus a 21-year-old and 24-year-old. And you can say all you want about how teenagers influence their parents, but the key thing is those are just harder to measure and it's harder to build performance products around things that are hard to measure. And so yeah, Snap's audience is definitively less valuable from that perspective versus a Pinterest or an Instagram or a Twitter. The second thing is almost every ads business, every ad product that isn't search-based, every display ad product opens to a screen where you put the ads. There are studies around attention and mathematically where you're going to get the impressions you need to maximize that for advertising. Snap opens the camera and that makes it awesome as a product, right? In terms of its ability to be the fastest way to capture a moment and share it with your friends. But in no part of that flow, the core flow of taking a Snap and sending it to your friends, is there a logical place for an advertisement. It is not a feed-based product and it is not a consumption-oriented product. It is a creation-oriented product, a visual creation-oriented product. And there don't really exist a lot of advertising formats that go after this. And we experimented with this a lot at Snap and probably one of my biggest failures was the ability to drive camera monetization. It was literally too hard. I couldn't figure it out or I couldn't greenlight the teams that could figure it out. And so it's a very hostile environment for advertising from that initial thing. And then at its core, it's a messaging app. And there aren't really great ad products for messaging apps right now. I think even the monetization of certain messaging apps via subscription or via business accounts, and people will always cite some of the Asian chat apps as examples. You peel it back and from a dollars per time spent perspective. for an advertisement? It is just not a feed-based product and it is not a consumption-oriented product. It is a creation-oriented product, a visual creation-oriented product. And there don't really exist a lot of advertising formats that go after this. And we experimented with this a lot at Snap and probably one of my biggest failures was the ability to drive camera monetization. It was literally just too hard. I couldn't figure it out or I couldn't greenlight the teams that could figure it out. And yeah, so it's a very hostile environment for advertising from that initial thing. And then at its core, it's a messaging app. And there aren't really great ad products for messaging apps right now. I think even the monetization of certain messaging apps via subscription or via business accounts and people will always cite some of the Asian chat apps as examples. You peel it back and from a dollars per time spent perspective, none of these are doing that well. None of these are exceptionally great at monetizing. Message apps are incredible utilities, incredible to have as part of a portfolio. But Snap was trying to build a multi-billion dollar ads business very quickly on a lower value audience, a very tough format for ads and a service that was more utilitarian than consumption oriented. Wow, that was fascinating. I think it's important to note Snap is doing, it's a multi-billion dollar business. I think a billion monthly active users, all the teens use. It's very successful. It's more just everyone thought it was going to be much bigger, the next Facebook. And I think if you were to peel apart Snap as a product, some of my information is dated and I haven't really looked at it, but it's the number one messaging app among teenagers in almost every Western country, 70 to 100% penetration of people under 21. It's their default app. It's used more than Apple or Google Maps by this group. I think it's the most popular astrology app for most of these people. It's definitely the most common camera. So imagine there's a holding company, a Gen Z Berkshire Hathaway that has the number one camera app, the number one messaging app, the number one maps app, the number one astrology app, the number one content. Cause TikTok would be the number one content consumption one, which is part of the problem with the ad stuff, but you peel it apart and that's an insane consumer product track record. And none of this credit goes to me at all. This is the OG design team that cranked out some of the biggest hits of our generation. But I think from an ads product, maybe the chip on my shoulder is Snap started after Twitter, after Reddit, after Pinterest. It went public before all of them except for Twitter. It was quicker to 4 billion, I think in ads revenue than all of them, despite starting later. And Twitter is a global town hall. All the most valuable people on the planet are talking on Twitter. Pinterest is literally a place where you tell it what you want to buy. These are really great places for ads. What was Snap known for at the time? I don't know, I don't want to make your podcast brand unsafe, but we can talk about what Snapchat was known for at the time. Disappearing spring photos of a certain kind. It was still able to scale this ads business, which I think is pretty fascinating. But it's a fascinating company. And I think just given the dearth of 100 million DAU consumer products that have been started in the United States since then, it still deserves to be studied. Yeah, when Evan was on the podcast, I pointed out that I think it was the last big successful social consumer product to launch, which was 12 years ago. I think other than TikTok, which is not really social, it's more of a content media thing. Yeah, Discord. Discord technically started in 2015. Okay. But very much a niche product, right? The world's biggest niche is gaming. But yeah, quite a different vibe. Just maybe a final thought here. I'm curious to get your take. You could almost argue that this is an example of more PMs would have been helpful because it's such an incredibly, beautifully designed product and experience and so delightful and people love it and are hooked on it, but the monetization and the business was just not solved. And you would think that's where PMs would come in. And so I wonder if that was a hindrance, the low number of PMs involved. I think that Snapchat Plus, the subscription product, if it had launched earlier. Subscription products are tough because the math around them is pretty brutal. Time is your enemy with subscription products. Churn, yeah, anything you do takes a lot of time to matriculate in terms of impact. So I think Snapchat Plus has actually been quite successful and there's a lot of how it's been executed that's really great. But I sometimes wonder if it had been launched four years earlier, where it would be. Just because with messaging utilities and you see this with Discord and Nitro as well, much different than content products like Spotify or Netflix, you first become acclimated to using the product daily and getting a lot of value out of it. And that's when you see the value of the subscription product, not right when you start. You don't open Snapchat the first time and think, oh, I definitely need to pay 20 bucks a month or five bucks a month for something. And so time is the cohorts. Penetration grows slowly over time, but grows quite linearly usually. And so if Snap had had this product out four years ago, there might have been less pressure on the ads business to scale as quickly, allows for more freedom on the content consumption side of things and the experience and allows them maybe to compete more with TikTok. I don't know. It's big brain systems thinking. Okay, Snap needs more PM, but yeah, interesting. Man, systems thinking. I think that's the seventh time in a row that term has been used in this podcast. Was it the Netflix one? Yeah, yeah, that was a big one. Yeah, sometimes you like people say systems thinking, then they go out and buy that book. Yeah, with the slinky. Yeah, I'm a systems thinker now. Yeah, I think actually the most underrated aspect of systems thinking is having a mathematical background to be able to describe the system in mathematical terms, to actually map it out in terms of stocks and flows and different probability, is this bimodal or is this normally distributed, and just being able to understand to mathematically communicate how a system works. Because otherwise, I think it's this famous method. It's a very MBA-ish type thing, but ironically, it kind of works. I think it came out of Toyota or something, the five whys. You're like, oh, what's the five whys? It must be the super amazing systems thinking method. It's apparently just asking why five times and then you get to the bottom of things. And I'm like, that's how the majority of people when they say it's systems thinking, I think they're basically just saying I asked why five times and I got to the first principle. That is awesome. I was going to ask you to help people understand what systems thinking is because it's this broad term that is hard to really know. And so I love this answer. So you're finding basically just ask why is actually a really effective way to develop systems thinking, to actually think about the bigger picture. Yeah, but I would love it if rather than reading the slinky book, there was more Jay Forrester system dynamics from the manufacturing kind of stuff from the 1970s. And then I think Systems thinking method. It's apparently just asking why five times and then you get to the bottom of things. And I'm like, that's how the majority of people when they say it's systems thinking, I think they're basically just saying I asked why five times and I got to the first principle. That is awesome. I was going to ask you to help people understand what systems thinking is because it's this broad term that is hard to really know, and so I love this answer. So you're finding basically just ask why—why is that actually a really effective way to develop systems thinking, to actually think about the bigger picture? Yeah, but I would love it if maybe rather than reading the Slinky book, there was more like Jay Forrester system dynamics, you know, from the manufacturing kind of stuff from the 1970s. And then I think just a mathematical understanding of how the system works, like if you had to model it. Yeah, I was going to ask you basically just create a spreadsheet model of how. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. This, I think, would be very clarifying. That is actually, okay, so that's a really good way to understand systems thinking: model it out, put it in a spreadsheet. What are all the variables? What comes in, what comes out? What are the levers? Yeah. Yeah. What are the levers? What are the distributions behind those levers? Yeah, I think it can be very clarifying even if the spreadsheet goes nowhere other than your shared drive. It can be very clarifying. Regarding Snapchat Plus, my favorite part of the story is that Instagram launched Instagram Plus. It's just another classic Snapchat story. Yeah. I think there was early on—I remember a Snap—it was so funny to see how aggressively Instagram was copying. They were actually copying some of our worst features, ones that weren't working, just because I think they assumed everything that we were touching was turning to gold. What's an example of that? Yeah. And then there's some features that on Instagram just don't make as much sense. The map and things like that—that will take time. But when it comes to stories, which was obviously extremely effective from a copying perspective, you'd be hard pressed to say anything but that the version of it on Instagram is now much better. Like what Instagram has done with that format—it really suits the product well. And that team is powered by a bunch of great designers. And when they start thinking from first principles with the taste that Adam, who was also on the pod—yeah, it has—like it's a product that is well architected from a human computer interaction standpoint in a way that I think is actually really admirable on many levels. I keep trying to move away from Snapchat, but I have so many new questions come up as you share more. Something that came up in my chat with Evan about this is seeing everybody copying Snapchat for fifteen years or however long it's been. His takeaway basically is software is no longer a moat. You have to focus on other things. He described—that's why he's spending so much time on hardware. It was his answer. And also just the ecosystem and the network effects of a product. Thoughts on that? I have tremendous respect for Evan and I think he's essentially been right on almost everything, just early on some stuff. Maybe early on everything actually. Even stuff like avatars—AI, essentially all of the on-device AR that we were doing was at the time more just called machine learning, but employed some form of machine intelligence that was super avant-garde at the time. So I think when he says something like this, there's probably some truth to it. I think a lot of people are frustrated with Snap because it doesn't have the financial profile to be able to support the type of hardware development that he wants to do, it seems. And like there still isn't a great answer on the monetization front, for which obviously I bear a lot of responsibility. But from that moat perspective, like what he said—I watched the pod—yeah, I kind of think he's right, but that maybe investors or the world doesn't want to give him the space to be right in some ways. Which has, yeah, it has rejected artist vibes or on the outskirts artist vibes, which I think—there's still so many things. Like it actually reminds me, like there's so much talk these days about taste and things like that. And it's so hard to describe things like that. But one of the things that I learned at Snap is I think I saw Evan personally say no to better ideas than I've seen almost any other consumer startup launch. And it kind of made me think of this: like my goal as a product leader for founders at these high-growth companies was always to turn them into almost the best museum, the richest museum curators in the world, where whatever's in the product at any one time is just a small slice of the whole raw collection. It's whatever that curator thinks is right for this time and place in society. And I think one way you can kind of get at somebody's taste is when you're interviewing them: just ask them about some of the things they built that they never shipped. Not that they tested and got bad results for, but that literally they held in their hands the prototype and they're like, the world's not ready for this, or this thing is not ready. And if they have a lot of high-quality ideas that are on the shelf, exercising that kind of muscle of saying no, of restraint, is probably one of the few muscles of taste you can exercise. If a museum has all of their collection on the walls, then the curator hasn't done anything. And so yeah, I think about this a lot. Because Evan is probably the best at it. That is such an interesting insight, especially these days, because AI is very bad at removing things from designs and from products. It always adds. It doesn't say, hey, maybe we should cut this piece. And so it's interesting how this connects now to—there's this talk about taste all the time with AI. And this is an interesting element of that: being good at understanding what to remove as AI becomes a bigger part of the building process and designing process. Yes. Yeah. This will be hard. I think to—this is a hard skill for AI to replicate. I think in general it seems like right now it's at the code level, it's getting to the design level. It's in some cases at the video and photo level. It'll eventually maybe even get to physical level as well. But it's really going to empower anybody to be a creator. And we've seen this in the past, right? Lowering the threshold for creativity not just enables the existing creators to do more, but enables people who were otherwise bounded out or restricted from entering the arena to enter it. But this will put a lot of pressure on essentially creating stuff that deserves human attention in a way that I wonder if there are some analogs to this in the past. We'll have to think about it. And it just feels like an interesting new skill for PMs: pushing back on things AI and engineers are like, what if we had this, so it's not even on AI right now. It's on the product teams basically to cut stuff. Anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe they can. Well, it'd be pretty funny if the conclusion of every landing podcast is basically yeah, the world might just need more PMs. Yeah. Yeah. Crazy. Oh man. This episode is brought to you by Mercury: radically different banking. Now with spend. I've been a Mercury customer for so many years now. I switched all my business banking to Mercury and honestly, I could not be happier. It's what online banking feels like. some analogs to this in the past, we'll have to think about it. And it just feels like an interesting new skill for PMs is pushing back on things. AI, start adding to your products. Engineers are like, what if we had this, so it's not even on AI right now. It's on the product teams to cut stuff. Anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe they can, well, it'd be pretty funny if the conclusion of every landing podcast is basically, yeah, the world might just need more PMs. Yeah. Yeah. Crazy. Oh man. This episode is brought to you by Mercury, radically different banking. Now with spend. I've been a Mercury customer for so many years now. I switched all my business banking to Mercury and honestly, I could not be happier. It's what online banking feels like when it's built by product people, not by bankers. And now with spend, you can give your team individual cards, set spending limits per person or per team and have expense receipts automatically pulled in from Gmail or over text. You can even give your AI agents their own cards with their own limits and policies. Most founders start out the same way. One card used by everybody at the company. It works until it stops working. Someone goes over, a receipt disappears. You spend two days trying to figure out who spent what and why. Spend is expense management built directly into Mercury. All your team's cards, budgets and reimbursements all live in the same place as your business banking. No chasing, no manual reviews, no end of month scramble. The result is a team that can move fast and a founder who is no longer the bottleneck. Learn more and get signed up at mercury.com. Mercury is a fintech company, not an FDIC-insured bank. Banking services provided by Choice Financial Group and column NA members FDIC. The IO card is issued by Patriot Bank and a member FDIC pursuant to a license for MasterCard International Incorporated. There's a couple elements here that I think connect Snapchat and AI. Having seen the ads experience of Snap and where that has gone and not become as big as people may have thought, ChatGPT in particular is exploring ads. I imagine other AI tools will. Thoughts on that opportunity? Do you think that's actually a massive business opportunity for these companies or do you think they're not understanding the actual business there? I still subscribe to the kind of Eric Seifert side of the world of ads are the product market fit for the internet and I still think that from a monetization standpoint, there's a number of reasons, again mathematical, for why that is true and why I think subscription products and things like that are kind of overrated versus ads from a consumer side of things. When I look at what OpenAI is doing from an advertising perspective, they are speed running all of the ads infra that is exactly what you would want and do. At Discord, I call this last mover advantage because we've learned so much and we're at a certain place with online advertising and really meta and the team there from 2010 through 2020 really deserves, I think, most of the credit for this. What drives a modern ads marketplace and auction is essentially a solved problem and OpenAI is speed running all of the components of that. And I do think that the mechanism, the mathematical mechanism, which is essentially a modified VCG, Vickery Clarke Groves, kind of auction mechanism, this mathematical mechanism is the correct way to build an ads auction in even a chat environment in ChatGPT. And what I mean by that is I think where the innovation came from meta was not just the highest bidder, and I'm oversimplifying crazy, but not just that the highest bidder wins, but that the organic value of an advertisement and an advertiser to that user should be factored into their bid such that you essentially have to pay more as an advertiser to reach people who may not want to be reached or maybe harder to reach or may not necessarily be as relevant to you. And this also is great because it allows you to mux both content, organic content and advertising content on a similar and a unified auction with dollars as essentially the ultimate denominator. And the reason that I say that this is good for chat is not necessarily that organic value is what's important here, like how much you like an ad or not in a content feed. But in chat, it probably feels like this could be replaced or augmented with essentially trust. If you boil this down to something very simple, it's just like, hey, what X should I buy? What mic should I buy? And in that moment, we have to decide, should I give you the objective answer? Should I give you a set of answers? And how influenced should I be by a set of advertisers that want to get in front of you? And I think the mechanism by which how influenced I should be should essentially be how much trust I'm trading off. And you kind of see us failing at this a little bit, probably, and I don't like to pick on anybody because I know how hard it is to build these types of things. But a little bit on Amazon search in terms of the ads, the sponsored experience there. It's not threatening the product. Amazon is such a great product, but what is the great product of Amazon? It's the selection and the next day shipping or whatever. It's getting a little crazy when you search for something and you have 16 ads before you get to the first thing and you're like, oh shoot, is that subtly influencing my trust in the system? And so that's why I actually think OpenAI is speed running all the right stuff and where the push is going to come to shove is how they instantiate it mathematically in their auction mechanism to maximize trust over the long term. Because trust maximization will probably be correlated with user retention, if not causal, and with advertiser value. And then on the other side of it, it's probably a format question. What does this format look like in chat? Are we still going to be, what if it's voice? We don't know. So I think one of the coolest jobs right now for a PM and designer would probably be ad formats at OpenAI. That's a societal level job in advertising right now. And so, yeah, I think it'll be really interesting to see how they work on that. Yeah, maybe one thing I'll say is I was kind of disappointed that they jumped right to an ad-free experience for the top tier. Because I feel like ads could actually be really additive to every part of the OpenAI, not like coding and things like that, but actual chat, and lopping off your most valuable users so early. I was a little disappointed, but I understand why people do that. It is so fun to listen to you talk about this as you take a swig of your vodka right there. I don't know if people, it's actually really fancy douchey water. So, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Replace with vodka so nobody can tell. This is the key. If you keep me on for another 30 or so minutes, it'll really get, yeah. So what I was saying, it's so fun to hear you talk about the ads ecosystem and it shows how much you know and how deep this goes. I feel like we could do a whole episode on this. Probably don't need to do that right now. But it's amazing. Clearly, you've spent a lot of time thinking about ads. What I'm also feeling now is OpenAI needs to hire you immediately to help them with this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I guess free agents. So, you know, that's maybe my ulterior motive of the podcast interview, you know. Well, I think you fast. Okay. I want to go to something else. So we were talking and chatting about what to spend time on. And I asked you, what are some counterintuitive lessons that you've learned over the course of your career that go against common startup wisdom, common leadership wisdom, and there's four you shared and I want to just go through them and get your take because they're awesome. Okay. So the first is you like to spend time writing your best people into the ground versus improving the average people. Share more. I'm realizing you wrote this out. It's like you're building terrorist organizations and all he does is write his best people into the ground. This is going to be the title of the episode. Yeah. You're going to need to a recovery group. I think you're fast. Okay. I want to go to something else. So we were talking and chatting about what to spend time on. And I asked you, what are some counterintuitive lessons that you've learned over the course of your career that go against common startup wisdom, common leadership wisdom, and there's four you shared and I want to just go through them and get your take because they're awesome. Okay. So the first is you like to spend time writing your best people into the ground versus improving the average people. Share more. I'm realizing you write this out. It's like you really, he's building terrorist organizations and all he does is write his best people into the ground. This is going to be the title of the episode. Yeah. You're going to need to like, there's going to be like a recovery group, like a therapy group of PMs that worked for Peter Sellis. But no, you're about to say that probably should be. I'll read about that. They're all sitting in Discord. Yeah. Oh God forbid it's a Discord group. Oh Jesus. Yeah. The, yeah, I think this actually kind of flows from the whole vorp thing. Is that like once you have somebody in a position and there are a lot of tropes around this too, right? Like if you want something done quickly, give it to the busiest person. But I think it's very, it's not necessarily counterintuitive. It's counter to human nature, right? Like if you see somebody drowning, you want to save them. And like I did the opposite, absolutely opposite. I just kind of, and maybe it's, you know, we were right before we started the podcast where I was talking about nominative determinism where like your name kind of creates who you are and like joking that maybe I need to be a salesperson because my last name is Sellis. But there's also like the Peter principle where you're like people are promoted to the level of their incompetence, which definitely could describe my career. But like, that's like what I seek to do is like if somebody is strong and crushing it, I'm just handing them more and more rope to hang themselves with. And I'm pushing them as hard as possible, you know, like to the point of breaking. Because like at the end of the day, like one of the biggest leadership principles for me is that like, I will, the people on my team, I will always defend in public, like in front of execs and stuff like that. I never criticize them in front of others. And so like people who are making consistently good decisions, I just want to load them up with more decisions until I start to see them make bad ones. I think there's so much self reinforcement or self fulfilling prophecy of like when you have confidence and when things are going well, like you're able to do more. And so yeah, I think I try and really show that I believe in people. And when I don't, yeah, maybe this is just a personal thing. I just don't have a really good mechanism for helping people improve. So I essentially let them fail on their own, which could be, I think probably pretty frustrating for me as a leader to work for, and somewhat sad. I think the thing you need to control for when you adopt this type of management philosophy is that not paying attention to somebody doesn't mean they're failing. There are a lot of people that I've hired over the years, especially if I've worked with them multiple times where I'm like, I know you're, I know you know what to do, so go do it. And I just let them execute. But yeah, it's spend time with your winners, ride your race horses, give a busy person something to do if you want it done quick. Whatever the trope is, yeah, I try to pursue it pretty aggressively. Makes sense to me. And there's many ways to say it. Some are kinder than others. Another contrarian take you have is that collaboration is a pretty bad use of time. You talked about this earlier, but is there anything more to add there? I think when you're building a team and you talk about the team's principles or tenets or whatever, if you find yourself saying things that no one can disagree with, either those aren't good principles or tenets or maybe they need to be challenged. And yeah, I think collaboration kind of falls under this umbrella a lot of the time. But yeah, I think we talked about my reasoning there. Okay. Another contrarian take you have is that growth typically comes from the core of the business. Yeah. I mean, this one was learned a couple times, both at Snap and at Discord. And this isn't to say that there aren't these wonderful growth strategies about expansion into new markets or things like that. But I think the nature of network effect oriented businesses is that they want to grow implicitly. And so what you can do to drive growth much more effectively is focus on people who are already using or wanting to use the product for what it's for, or some kind of derivative nearby of that and just making it much easier, much more performant, much more relevant, et cetera. I think the way you could think about this, we're using eighth grade math where if you want to, I think almost every consumer product, maybe it's also a controversial take, needs to be optimizing for daily active use. There are very few things where eventually you need to tie everything to people's natural lives and cycles and days are real, right? Weeks, they can be real, but they're not necessarily real. There aren't a lot of things you do on a weekly regimen regularly, really effectively. But you wake up, there's the circadian rhythm is real. Very few things are done on a monthly basis. A lot of B2B stuff, like paying bills, et cetera. There's some biological things that happen monthly. We could get into that, but there's something about the daily active use or even hourly active use that I think is essential for almost every consumer product. And the idea, like if you're thinking about a daily active user, if you're going for somebody who uses a product once a month, you're going to need 30 of those to equal somebody who uses it daily. That's very, very basic math. And so that's why I think a lot of the most effective consumer products have extremely high DAU, MAU ratios. And so a lot of growth can come from essentially moving that ratio just a few basis points versus trying to go acquire a bunch of new monthly active users and seeing if they retain. And by the way, DAU, MAU is just a form of retention. Retention can be any period. It's just the next day. Given you use it today, what's the probability you're going to use it tomorrow? And so at Snap, the lesson there came from that disastrous redesign in 2018, which was the only time I think that Snap's overall DAU actually flattened out quarter over quarter. And what we laser focused on after that was performance, particularly on Android. Existing people who are already using the app, just making it much faster and more performant for them. And that led to almost a growth renaissance that went on for multiple years. At Discord, I think it was even more controversial because at the time, Discord has been something for a lot of people during the pandemic, during crypto, during AI, et cetera. So at the time you had Midjourney being built on Discord and Midjourney was phenomenal. Such a cool company, product, everything. And a lot of people What's the probability you're going to use it tomorrow? And so at Snap, the lesson there came from that disastrous redesign in 2018, which was the only time I think that Snap's overall DAU actually flattened out quarter over quarter. And what we laser focused on after that was performance, particularly on Android. Existing people who are already using the app, just making it much, much faster and more performant for them. And that led to almost a growth renaissance that went on for multiple years. At Discord, I think it was even more controversial because at the time, Discord has been something for a lot of people during the pandemic, during crypto, during AI, et cetera. So at the time you had Midjourney being built on Discord and Midjourney was phenomenal. Just such a cool company, product, everything. And a lot of people on the outside were just like, wow, this is a moment. Midjourney must be huge for Discord. From a user perspective or daily active use, like a metrics perspective, if I were to show you a Discord's use over time, you wouldn't be able to pick out Midjourney. The reason people use Discord is to connect with their friends while playing, before, during, and after playing games. And what we did in 2024 was completely focus the team around this idea of how can we be the best place for you and your friends to play intentional multiplayer games together. And it turns out, even though Discord is technically phenomenal and it's near perfect in some ways when it comes to voice and things like that, there were still things we could do to make it better before and after playing games with your friends. And when we focused on gaming, which at the time everybody was like, everybody who plays multiplayer games, especially on PC, they already have Discord, right? They already use it. It's only 100% penetration, right? No. And there were a lot of reasons that you were just on the edge and you decided not to join voice. You decided to use the in-game voice. You decided to call your friend on FaceTime instead, whatever it was. As we made Discord better, as we focused on performance, we were actually able to drive some of the fastest growth, and I'm not sharing anything that's not public, since the pandemic. Obviously, Discord exploded during the pandemic. And this was by focusing on the thing that everybody already said we had 100% penetration of, which was intentional multiplayer gamers. Now, from there, you have a lot of options, right? There are a lot of things that look like multiplayer gaming. Crypto looks like multiplayer gaming, right? Intense coordination costs, time sensitive, et cetera. Honestly, software development looks like multiplayer gaming. Like there are a lot of things that you could build off of that core. But by focusing on people who play games with their friends, we were actually able to identify a lot of things that brought somebody from using Discord, let's say 10 days out of the 30 to 11 to 12, to 13. That's actually monster growth when you think about those pockets and moving up people's usage. Last seven out of seven days, I think I took that from Meta, who wrote a great playbook on growth. And so focusing on that usage of the core consumer base, I think it ended up being so positive in both the Snap and Discord examples. This is a really important lesson for people trying to grow a product. The title to me is there's always money in the banana stand. We were talking earlier about building something. That's a great example of a phrase that if you could ascribe in a strategy document, you could ascribe value. There's always money in the banana stand, right? Return to your core users, make sure it's perfect for them. There was always money in the banana stand. I think at Discord, it had exceptionally positive externalities because the most vocal, critical, intelligent, high IQ user base in the world are gamers, honestly. You think you've built for people who are critical about your product, who are detail oriented, unless you've built for gamers, you haven't. And to be able to turn around and say, we are focused, here's a bug thread on Reddit, show us what's messing up. We don't care how small it is, how big it is, we will fix it. It had this unbelievable positive externality of we are delivering for this community. And I honestly think this is why Discord is so great and without peer in this specific niche is because it's so laser focused on if you play games with your friends and you care about it, this product is going to make it perfect for you forever. So this begs the question, when does it make sense to bet on something new and try new things? Because it doesn't always make sense to just continue refining and refining the one piece of product market fit that's worked. Any guidance to folks, and this is for consumer in particular, any guidance for when it makes sense to still make bets outside that core? Yeah, I think there are two really incremental ways to think about it. One is if you boil down the core things about your product that are really great that people come to it for. So for Snap, maybe it's the camera. For Discord, it's voice. And then you look to other niches, other cohorts for which that could be useful. That's a very MBA style, two by two type of thing. I think one method to do that. And you should honestly always be assessing that because that's an easy one. And then I think the second thing is one of the greatest gifts is when people use your product in a way that you didn't expect or didn't ordain because they're going through extra hoops to do what they want to do with the product. So whatever you're offering is so good that they're going through hoops to do that. And it's for Discord, for example, a lot of it centered around communities and how people were using it to organize larger and larger communities as opposed to the 20 person gaming friend group. And when people are doing that, they're essentially voting with their feet. They're telling you, I want to use this product for this. What can you do to make it a little bit easier for me? So it's a version of that, but it's expanding to the next thing. And that's more like thinking about concentric circles. It's like, okay, we got it at the core. How do we expand, expand? We got it. But I think then the other, the more innovative way to think about it is to look at your company's philosophy around why it was built and then think about the future totally unencumbered by the present, no incrementality from the present, more like future casting, back casting instead of forecasting, and be like, okay, right now, the best way to share a moment is to pull out your phone and aim the camera at it and record. That's very constrained by the existing technology. If we were to envision a future of what's the future look like to be the best way? Like something just happened or my child just took its first steps. I'm at a concert. I just saw something really funny on the street. What's the best way to share that moment with my friends? I think that's what leads you to something like, oh, probably glasses or things like that. So this back casting method, I think is what everybody wants to do. In my experience, there are very few people that have this type of blank sheet creativity to think about the future totally unencumbered from the present. Most people like to remix versions of the present or I think these days most product managers go on an ayahuasca journey or travel to Japan or something and then come back and they're like, I've solved it. But very few people I think are very good at this version of it. And I think a big part of this is you found product market fit. Something's working. You almost take for granted how lucky you are that you found something that works. And it may be easy to think, oh, we'll find the next thing now. And very few people do. Airbnb is actually to something like, oh, probably glasses or things like that. So this back casting method, I think is what everybody wants to do. In my experience, there are very few people that have this type of blank sheet creativity to think about the future totally unencumbered from the present. Most people even really creative people remix versions of the present or I think these days most product managers go on an ayahuasca journey or travel to Japan or something and then come back and they're like, I've solved it. But very few people I think are very good at this version of it. And I think a big part of this is you found product market fit. Something's working. You almost take for granted how lucky you are that you found something that works. And it may be easy to think, oh, we'll find the next thing now. And very few people do. Airbnb is actually a really good example of this. Nothing beyond the original idea has worked in a big way. It's still basically the same core idea. And I've worked there for a long time and nothing has significantly impacted the growth trajectory other than just exactly what you just described, continuing to make the core experience better, more supply, more demand. So I think this is a really profound point for people to take in. It's also you can keep teams leaner this way, things like that. The biggest risk is it's a Nassim Taleb meme of a thousand and one days in the life of a Thanksgiving turkey. Yeah. Where it's just everything's getting better and better and better until something comes along that's literally 10x better than what you're doing and it takes you to zero overnight. And guarding against that, I don't have any. If I knew how to guard against black swan events like that, yeah, I think. You'd be in finance. Yeah, definitely be in finance. I actually think this, we were talking a little bit, SpaceX is probably a good example actually of a company that guards itself against this in some ways. Okay, say more. I know your wife works at SpaceX so you have a really unique insight into what, how SpaceX works and what has worked there. Yeah, yeah. No, no, no, like no inside information. I'm a second party, not first party but I sleep next to a SpaceX engineer every night so that helps. Yeah, that's all you have to do. But no, I think SpaceX is a SpaceX is the greatest American company right now, greatest company in the world. Truly phenomenal on every single level and I'm talking more about SpaceX, like XAI and also doing insane stuff but I think the best example of what I mean by guarding us a future, I don't think any company does anything close to what SpaceX does here and there's a recent example, literally I think in the last week of this perfectly where they essentially announced some version of they are taking the Falcon 9 which is their primary launch system, the greatest launch system in the world ever by far, reusable, most cost effective, kilograms to low earth orbit, to geostationary orbit. Every country on the planet would give up their GDP to have this technology to be able to launch and reuse their systems and they're sunsetting the Falcon 9. And this is Cortez level burn the ships upon arriving because they're essentially saying in order to reach our vision in the future we need a heavier lift launch vehicle, that is Starship. So starting in a few years because they have customers and things like that, you'll no longer be able to buy rides on the Falcon 9. I don't think this is for everything but they're gradually basically telegraphing that the Falcon 9 is the past. By the way, the Falcon 9 would be the future for literally every other country, nation state, on the planet. It's the incredible machine. And yeah, I think this is the Elon has built this culture that Clayton Christensen is dead but he probably would shed a tear over how happy it would make him about avoiding the innovator's dilemma versus just because we have the thing that is the best, we're completely willing to build the thing that will compete against ourselves and make the thing that we built irrelevant. And I wish I had more insight into what drives that beyond maybe just Elon or that whole organization but what I've witnessed top to bottom is everybody you talk to there is like, yeah, it's going to be awesome. Yeah, we're going to do this. It's definitely part of the culture, maybe the cult, that they can do this even though on paper and now as a public company it looks insane. And so yeah, I think that's actually a really underrated part about SpaceX is their ability to essentially burn the ships and focus on what's next. This to me comes well back to the original beginning of this conversation building an org like a terrorist organization in particular, the mission clearly the mission of SpaceX make humanity multi-planetary get to Mars. And with that mission I can totally see how they may be working backwards from in order to do this we need this larger rocket. It makes no sense to keep investing here. So to me it feels very clear how they go about making these decisions. Yeah, I think there's another thing about both of Elon's major SpaceX and Tesla I know less about Neuralink boring company, et cetera. But you look on the website I mean now I don't know where it is but they publish essentially 10 year plans. Nothing SpaceX is doing is not something that they didn't talk about 10 years ago. Tesla talked about exactly what they wanted to do with the initial roadster to fund the S to fund the three like in some ways the product roadmap is published. Right. And that's as a product leader I aspire to that level of swag where it's just like, yo, we're going to do something that's so aggressive and so ambitious that we can just tell you exactly what you're going to do because if you think you can do it better than us you're welcome to try. but this, yeah, that, that's like yeah, that, that's a mission, right? That you can publish and turn into a product roadmap. Say you're going to do it, do what you're going to say and then say yeah, copy us. And in the Tesla case, oh, and here are the patents too. Right. I was just going to say they released their yeah, all the patents for the Tesla electric stuff. Yeah. So next level. It's so interesting. So one meme across this podcast over the past couple months has been systems thinking. The other has actually been ambition and how much that matters now with companies and startups because AI is making it so much easier to build. You just tell it, build this thing, it does it. And what that means is the level of ambition has to keep going up and that's a new habit people have to build because we're not naturally that ambitious. We haven't evolved to try things that seem impossible and it feels like we need to learn that skill now as builders. Yeah. I think there's the status quo is the status quo for a reason. Whatever framework you're using, local versus global optima, opportunity cost. It's all basically just trying to build a muscle to help you gain the courage to just make tomorrow not look like today. And that's actually not natural for most human beings. And there are a lot of systems in the world designed to stop you from doing that. The world doesn't necessarily want to change. And so yeah, it takes a powerful nudge to beat that kind of static friction of where you are today. And it's not just the position, it's the vector, right? The Falcon 9 is up and to the right like this. But it's like, okay, I don't want the actual position. I don't even want the speed. I don't want the velocity. I want the acceleration. And I need impulse, right? I need the third derivative, I guess, I need to push it. And yeah, this is not natural. And people who can do that regularly and repeatedly, but not just disruptively all the time. from doing that. The world doesn't necessarily just want to change. And so, yeah, it takes a powerful nudge to beat that kind of static friction of where you are today. And it's not just the position, it's the vector, right? Like, the Falcon 9 is up and to the right. But it's like, okay, I don't want the actual position. I don't even want the speed. I don't want the velocity. I want the acceleration. And in order to get that acceleration, I need impulse, right? I need the third derivative, I guess. I need to push it. And yeah, this is just not natural. And people who can do that regularly and repeatedly, but not just disruptively all the time, like just always asking for more. I think it became very trendy as Steve Jobs' ethos grew. But yeah, the type of people who can do that within an organization, especially a large organization, are pretty rare. I just had Tara Session on the podcast. She's worked on product for ChatGPT, although they're always shifting people around. I don't know what her role is these days. And she pointed out the job of PMs now is more and more to elevate the ambition of the team, to remind them we can go bigger. What would it take to think bigger? What would a thousand X of this idea be? Yeah. I mean, it's again, like if you can do that credibly, repeatedly, you know, not just by showing up to meetings and being like, "What if we did more?" Exactly. What if we did it faster? Yeah, exactly. Like, I got yeah, I've got white male, gray hair, fancy degrees. I can just come to any meeting and be like, "Have you thought about doing this quicker?" Like, okay, have you thought about punching yourself in the face? Like, yeah, maybe. Oh man. So that's the skill of saying that, but in a way that doesn't get you punched in the face. Yeah, to be fair, I've been punched in the face a couple of times. You don't get a nose like this naturally. You get punched in the face a couple of times. Is this for real? Is that a real thing that you get punched in the face? I have gotten the shit kicked out of me a couple of times because I run my mouth nonstop. But I haven't read it. Is there a story there you can share? Or is that off? That's more ancient history. We like to move past these things. Come on. I feel like there's trauma there we need to get into. Okay. Final topic. When we were starting this podcast, you told me there's some celicisms out there. Things that you, how do you put it, what's the word you use? What's the phrase? Celicisms. Celicisms. Things that you often share with folks that kind of become a thing that people who work with you know. Are there any that we haven't covered? Things that you think are recurring pieces of advice or frameworks or even lessons you've learned that you think are important for people to hear that might be helpful. I don't think there's too many. I mean, I think a few of them came up. I think when we were talking about ads, one that I've used quite a bit is this idea that ads is such a cutthroat, hand to hand combat, very revenue, gold driven product area that it's very easy to become very short term oriented. And one of the things, and this harkens back to the kind of ideological stuff from building the type of organization you want that we really focused on over the years, both at Snap and Discord and even some of the companies I've advised on the ad stuff, is like with ads, you really want to be long-term greedy. And that was a phrase we used. And long-term greedy is a funny phrase, but it was actually backed by essentially the mathematical realization that, which again, it's not rocket science, but long-term revenue tomorrow for advertising is essentially causally related to the ROI you drive for advertisers today. So your focus should be on driving advertiser ROI. The issue is that the easiest way to drive ROI is actually to decrease the denominator, the I. So you could lower prices, right? Now, in modern auctions, price is an output, not an input, but the powerful learning there is that the way I will grow this business long-term, the way I will hit my goals long-term, the way I will see compounding growth because of retention and increasing budgets, like net revenue retention for some of these SaaS products, is essentially by delivering ROI for people today, even at the cost of potentially short-term revenue. And so this type of thinking, this type of phrase allowed for space for a type of thinking that was otherwise pretty tough. And people say like, "Oh yeah, it's thinking long-term." Again, I'll take it back to there are times in your career where thinking long-term is actually really, really tough. And a lot of these times will be when you are a public company, when you are missing numbers, when you may have to do a layoff if certain things don't happen. And to be able to have an ideological setup for which you can use it as cover to think long-term. And that was what long-term greedy was, is like we're not a charity. We're not giving this stuff away because we want to make people happy. We're giving this away. We're making this happen today because we know they'll come back tomorrow even bigger. And yeah, that one was really, really, really effective. I think the other thing was like at both Snap and Discord, we created this concept of core product value. And this was related to my DAO comment. You need to define both from a theoretical or conceptual level as well as a metrics level what it means for somebody to come back to your product every single day. So like Snap at the time was like, "Snap is the fastest way to share a moment with the people you care about." So it's fast, share a moment, people you care about. And you could actually break down what does fast mean? Like time to load. What does share mean? It's like, okay, you're opening to the camera with sharing quickly. What does people you care about mean? Focus on best friends. You could actually break this thing down. And so you had fastest way to share a moment with your best friends. So if you're building a product roadmap on the consumer side and you're like, "Should we work on this?" It's like, "Well, does it help us be the fastest way to share a moment with your best friends?" Kind of tenuous link to that. Maybe that's not what we should prioritize. I think Discord was like, "The best way to talk and hang out with your friends before, during, after playing games." So it's talk, hang out, games, before, during, after. You can break this thing down. And we actually had metrics definitions, which I think are kind of proprietary internal, but we had metrics definitions that we were looking for. Those metrics definitions made their way into the growth books, into the different, you know, into the hacks. Like, "Does this impact CPV?" And this whole ideological language that everybody shared, you could onboard new data scientists to. I think it just got people on the program really, really fast. These are awesome. This idea of core product value is such a nice way to frame. It's like it combines mission with the levers, essentially, of the business. And basically the idea here has come up with a phrase that describes the mission that happens to also connect to the metrics. Talk, hang out, games, before, during, after. You can break this thing down. And we actually had metrics definitions, which I think are proprietary internal, but we had metrics definitions that we were looking for. Those metrics definitions made their way into the growth books, into the different hacks. Like, does this impact CPV? And this whole ideological language that everybody shared, you could onboard new data scientists to, I think got people on the program really, really fast. These are awesome. This idea of core product value is such a nice way to frame. It combines mission with the levers, essentially, of the business. And the idea here has come up with a phrase that describes the mission that happens to also connect with how we grow this business. And it feels like three components is a consistent pattern here. Yeah, three minutes, yeah, maybe it's just a rule of threes. Yeah, that's exactly right. And you can't over rely on one or the other, right? If it's just metrics, it's kind of meaningless to people. If it's just a phrase, it doesn't get actioned day-to-day by data scientists, product managers, and engineers. So having both and building a story around that and telling that story repeatedly, for core product value at Snap, we actually had an onboarding presentation, which I delivered to every single new hire for seven years straight every week or every other week later that was about this because that was part of the cult, right? Like, this is how we deliver core product value. This is why people choose Snapchat every single day in the face of tons of alternatives and a bunch of savage competitors. And I think the same goes for Discord. And the work is coming up with that phrase that actually is clear, simple, connects to all these things. Not easy, I imagine. And the metrics that are causally demonstrated with retention. That's tough, too. I think no data scientist likes working with me because I'm like, hey, guys, we got to figure this out. Interesting. Okay, one other take that you mentioned when we were chatting into this is this idea of how a great PM is an oxymoron. Yeah, I can't help but think this is maybe why it's so hard to come by some of them because you see an overexpression. There are basically these three, and yeah, I would love, I bet you could actually come up with this from a synthesis of so many of the amazing product leaders you've had on here, but there are these three oxymorons, I think. Like, there are two wolves inside of the PM three times. One is, I think to be a really good PM, you kind of have to be really confident, and that borders on arrogance a lot of the time, especially at certain levels, and so that has to be balanced with some form of humility, like really serious humility where you kind of, again, are so confident that what we're doing is the right thing to do and that we have conviction on this path, and also, personally, that I will be recognized for my contribution, I can go out there and give credit to exactly who deserves it. The designer who made that last second change that made a huge difference, the engineer that stayed up all night to get out the thing on time for the partner event. I think that ties to being a great leader, but having the humility and the attention to detail to know who to give credit to actually comes from this sense of confidence that you kind of know the PMs are going to get too much credit no matter what. And so I think that's the first one. The second one, which I really like and really try and test for in interviews, and I'm not the best interviewer, is you want these people who are extremely organized and very process-driven, like they understand the value of good process and not too much, not too little, and then are just super comfortable with ambiguity almost to the point of despising authority, like almost pathological demand avoidance. And so it's just I have a checklist for everything, but I'm also comfortable if I have to throw it out and redo it all the time or something like that. And I think these two wolves are, if you can demonstrate that through some stories or through some examples, that's so attractive to me in a candidate. It's yeah, I'm really comfortable with ambiguity, but that doesn't mean I'm not organized or I hate process. Another one of those things where it's really trendy to just say all process is useless, but it's I like somebody who has both those wolves. And then I think the last one is a little more obvious, but you really, a lot of the great PMs that I've worked with really just always have some form of long-term thinking in their mind. Like they just know how they want the world to look six months, a year, two years from now. And they're patient and they know what building blocks need to come into place for the system to work. But yet, on a day-to-day basis, their bias for action is just borderline annoying. You know, they're just such good people at setting the pace of the entire company. Like when they wake up in the morning, the company wakes up, the group wakes up, the team wakes up, whatever it is. And yeah, I think that combination of urgency and bias for action with long-term thinking, yeah, those are my three oxymorons, the three pairs of wolves inside every great PM. Amazing description of what makes a great PM. Such a cool way to think about it. Nikhil Singhal was on the podcast a couple times and he talks about the shadow. You have a superpower, but then there's the shadow and what the downside of that is. It's a different thing, but I love this. It's a really interesting way to think about what is a great PM. Okay, one final thing before we get to a very exciting lightning round. I want to take us to Contrarian Corner, which is a recurring podcast segment where I feel like you're going to have some good stuff here. The question is what's something you believe that most other people don't? Being contrarian is tough. It's very trendy to be contrarian, which is ironic. So maybe I should just be conformist. Can I break this into a light spicy, medium spicy, heavy spicy? Love that. Let's do it. Okay. So my light spicy, I don't think everyone would disagree with this, but I think as a product manager in particular, I don't think we have time to go into everything, but I think the most important career decision you make is who your partner is, like who you marry, who you spend your time with personally. I think this has both growth and knock-on effects that are really hard to quantify. And yeah, you'd be surprised there's no amount of Lenny podcasts you can listen to and internalize that will match finding a great partner who will help you, support you and help you grow, and be kind of like intellectually a sounding board for you. So I think that's probably my light take because I think a lot of people would kind of agree to that in some degree. I know my super spicy one. So on the medium spicy, like this is kind of related to my museum curator comment. I think a lot of people who I look up to in terms of taste, and maybe it's just being in Los Angeles, but I care a lot about stuff like art, like art behind me and stuff like that. I've noticed that, you know, the difference, especially in wealthy people between those who have taste and those who are seen as gauch or something like that is the ones with taste like kind of stop one step before everybody else does. so I think that's probably my light take because I think a lot of people would agree to that in some degree. I know my super spicy one. So that one I don't think of on the medium spicy, this is kind of related to my museum curator comment. I think a lot of people who I look up to in terms of taste and I, maybe it's just being in Los Angeles, but I care a lot about stuff like art, like art behind me and stuff like that. I've noticed that, you know, the difference, especially in wealthy people between those who have taste and those who are seen as gauch or something like that is, the ones with taste kind of stop one step before everybody else does. Like, you know, maybe they're collecting art in a certain trend, but then they realize when things are, whatever the old phrase is jumping the shark or when things are hitting a certain level where it's okay, now's the time to kind of stop and look for something new. And I think that what you haven't shipped, what you've built and tried and held in your hands and loved but haven't brought to the world I think is a test for that in some ways. And so, yeah, I don't know if that's, yeah, that's a super contrarian take, but I think you can measure a lot is like people with great taste seem to just know when they take something and get passionate about something and then kind of when it gets cringe. Yeah, let it go. My spiciest one and this is like, this, we'll bring it back here to the start of the podcast. Like why am I doing this podcast now? Like, you and I have known each other, been in group chats, chatted all the time for a long time. This one's probably a take where I don't even know if I'd be super comfortable saying it depending on my employer. I think that to truly create great consumer products for certain cohorts of humans, of users, the product managers and designers that you put on some of those products, there are certain inalienable traits about those product managers that cannot be learned, cannot be acquired that are essential to creating truly great consumer products. And by that, I mean literally gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background. And what I mean by this is not like, oh, if you want to create a product for young black men, you need to hire young black men. I don't mean stuff like that. I just mean, and I don't think I know how comfortable I am giving examples, but I do think that we are not comfortable as a society admitting this, but there are certain things about how people are brought up, who they are biologically, things like that, that suit them to better working on certain consumer products because at their core, like, most consumer products are, and Nikita talks about this too, like, hitting against certain parts of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and in order to understand those needs really well, I think there are certain people with backgrounds, upbringings, et cetera, that make them better at that. That doesn't mean you can hire for it, that doesn't mean you can judge a book by its cover, things like that, and that's why it's such a spicy take, is like, it's not necessarily even actionable in many situations, but yeah, maybe I'll leave it at that before I get myself. Yeah, the real spicy version would be like, the grid of, here's who you need for this type of product, but we're not gonna go there. Before we get to our very exciting lightning round, is there anything else that we haven't touched on, anything else you wanted to share, anything you want to double down on before we get to our exciting lightning round? We covered a lot of ground, so there might not be. No, I think we covered a ton of ground. It's really great. Well, Peter, with that, we reached our very exciting lightning round. I've got five questions for you. Are you ready? All right. I will admit to our viewers and listeners that I have not prepared for these, which I guess is the point of the lightning round. That is the point, except there are the same questions to everybody except the last one. Oh, okay, cool. So there's no, it's not too much of a surprise. Then I know these questions. All right. Okay. And I love it when people aren't prepared. Okay. Two or three books that you find yourself recommending most to other people. I'm going to butcher the title a bit. How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia and When Genius Failed. Oh, haven't heard of these. Amazing. And then the third one, so How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia, When Genius Failed is about the rise and fall of long-term capital management in late 1998. It caused one of the crashes or nearly averted crashes. And then my third one, which I actually give to a lot of consumer PMs is Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman, the physicist from MIT. Very unique. I haven't heard these on the podcast before. Favorite recent movie or TV show you've really enjoyed? So I do not consume TV. And I rarely, I haven't watched as many movies as I used to. I used to be a big movie buff. So if I could flip this to something I was closer to my heart, gaming, I think if you haven't, if you don't play games, video games, you should give last year's game of the year, Clair Obscure Expedition 33, a shot. Just a wonderful indie studio out of France that constructed a story with music and sound that is like Louvre level beauty. And it really reminds you that games are a form of art that maybe we still as a society haven't yet realized how to appreciate. And I think the people behind it are phenomenal. I think what they produce is amazing. Wow. I want to watch a Twitch stream of you playing it. How fun would that be? That could be your followup. Is that on desktop or is that like a console thing? It's available on console as well, but I think best, probably best experience on desktop. I think it works on Mac and PC. So cool. I think that's the first game recommended. I like how different this round is than most. Favorite interesting AI product right now. In general, a lot of the AI products still feel like we're throwing spaghetti at the wall. I'll take a more, and I've heard a couple of people actually mention references on the pod. The one that I found that changed my workflow the most at work was Hex. It was the first time that I just markedly found myself doing something differently immediately. And it was one of the only multiplayer AI experiences that worked like literally me and the co-founder of Discord stand in a meeting, in a Hex thread, interacting with Hex as we were having discussions in the meeting and getting data back and things like that. Obviously latency and inference time and stuff like that is still an issue, but I find that product to be really great. And it really just enabled me to feel like a super human. I love how every one of these answers, I don't think anyone's ever said. Two final questions. Do you have a favorite life motto that you often find useful in work or in life? Like there's this quote that I'm going to butcher cause I don't have it in front of me. That is from John Steinbeck in East of Eden, I think about the passage of time. And I'm just generally obsessed with the passage of time because the people in my life, whether it's been personal or professional, who I've just always been literally infatuated by, Obviously latency and inference time and stuff like that is still an issue, but I find that product to be really great. And really changed, really just enabled me to feel like a superhuman. I love how every one of these answers, I don't think anyone's ever said. Two final questions. Do you have a favorite life motto that you often find useful in work or in life? There's this quote that I'm going to butcher because I don't have it in front of me. That is from John Steinbeck in East of Eden, I think, about the passage of time. And I just think generally obsessed with the passage of time because the people in my life, whether it's been personal or professional, who I've always been infatuated by—I've just wanted to spend more time. I've fallen in love with these people. They often seem to float through time and perceive time very differently than normal people. And this quote from Steinbeck, it's about how time passes differently when you experience more or less. And essentially, the quote is that duration has no signposts. Time has no signposts upon which to drape duration. From nothing to nothing is no time at all. And I really want to get the full quote for you because it's literally one of those things where you're like, how could a human write this? It's so beautiful. But yeah, from nothing to nothing is no time at all. And so a life that is even scarred with tragedy or essentially just do it right. Just get out there, meet new people, experience things because the best way to slow the passage of time is essentially to do something with it. And so I'm pretty generous, I think, with my time and how I spend it with people and just trying to do things that I want to do as soon as possible because yeah, you just never know. And those time periods that really seem to pass slowly in a good way are the ones where you've just experienced a lot. And so this idea that from nothing to nothing is no time at all is so scary and motivating to me. That is beautiful. A quote nobody has shared before. Final question. I was looking at your LinkedIn, looking at your career history. Funny enough, you were head of product immediately. That was your first product role at a company. I was a product manager for a little bit, but— You've overlooked that in your LinkedIn. So it was a company called Ustream and you described your role as product leader for the Shiba Inu puppy cam. We need to hear more. Yeah, Ustream is a funny company. It was one of the first live streaming companies. Long before Livestream, the company actually called Livestream, and Justin TV with Justin Kan, and kind of a golden age of live streaming that was first enabled by essentially higher bandwidth and things like that. Sometimes we talk about failures. Ustream was essentially a failure because we should have focused on gaming. Justin TV focused on gaming, became Twitch, et cetera. But one thing about Ustream, I'll tell you really quick. I know it's lightning round. The number one product advisor to Ustream was Josh Elvin in 2009, which was my come up in product seventeen years ago. Having a mentor who was Josh Elvin was really phenomenal to learn product. And then the actual first product manager at Ustream was this guy, Matt Schlicht, who had dropped out of high school, I think, to work on the product in 2008, 2009. Matt just sold Moltbook to Meta, a social network for agents. And so he is one of the OG social hackers. So it was really awesome to see him realize that. But yeah, Ustream became really popular from the Shiba Inu puppy cam, which was somebody taking a Logitech camera and aiming it at a litter of new Shiba Inu puppies and 24/7 just streaming these puppies growing up, acting crazy, et cetera. And we should have learned. There were actually three 24/7 cams at the time. I think there was the Shiba Inu puppy cam. Then there was the Eagle cam that showed the birth of baby eagles in Decorah, Iowa. And then there was Jason Calacanis on just 24/7 broadcast because he was the only person who could afford a broadcasting. His "This Week in Startups." Two beautiful things in one hideous thing. No, I'm just kidding. But yeah, the Shiba Inu puppy cam. There was a lot to learn about that. People used it as their background, just to have it in the background while they worked, with headphones, just listening to these puppies was very soothing. And we got so many emails of people being like, this saved my life. So yeah, it was really fun. Live streaming is still an uncracked product category. Still technically challenging, quite expensive, et cetera. But I learned a lot from a consumer standpoint from that. Incredible. There's also on your LinkedIn you worked at a company that incubated Dollar Shave Club and Liquid Death. We're not going to get into that. Peter, you mentioned briefly a second ago how generous you are with your time. I really appreciate you making time to be here. We got through so much, and this is one of the longer episodes I've done, which says a lot about just how much there is to talk about and how much you have to share. So thank you for being here. I think it's great to talk about some of this stuff. I haven't expressed it externally in a lot of ways. And really, I think it says a lot about you and your podcast and your readership and viewership. I think you probably have done more than any person to really shape what this career looks like and how it's improved over the years. So I'm really grateful for the time. I'm grateful for everybody who listened. Final question. How can listeners be useful to you? I think people, if they listen through this podcast, probably got an idea of not necessarily the contrarian takes, but just some of the aspects of how I think about product that are maybe a little bit different than the typical product leader that came up in Silicon Valley or something like that. And yeah, if they feel something resonates with them or they disagree with something and want to correct it or they have beef with it or they just find something fascinating about it, I would love to hear about it. I'm not—yeah, I would just love to hear. I love disagreeing with stuff. I love hearing about stuff like that. Sweet. And we'll point you to your socials if folks want to disagree with you. Peter, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having me, Lenny. Really appreciate it. 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 LennysPodcast.com. See you in the next episode. like you have this like kind of, because you had Tom, Tom, the CPO of whatnot as well, to say something similar. And I think I agreed with a lot of the stuff he said. And I think, by the way, I think some of his most senior PMs are actually former Snap PMs from my team, which is great. Because it kind of like, I think verifies a lot of this, but yeah, now we're a bunch of self-hating PMs who've like made a bunch of money being PMs are now like, oh, PMs are bad. But no, I think there's, there's actually like kind of a mathematical explanation for this. First of all, I think any, any craft that is, especially when you're at the top end of any like kind of skill that is normally distributed, you're at the tail end of the distribution. And so for product management, if product management is normally, the skill of product management is normally distributed across the population, the ones who are actually product managers are all the way on the right-hand side of the distribution. So you lop that off and it becomes a power distribution. And for any power distribution, the median is going to be far below the average. Most people are on the left side of it. And I think this actually gets excessively emphasized within product management for two reasons. One, especially during the Zerp era, it became essentially the most lucrative career in tech for non-technical people. So once, it has a very subjective definition, right? Which is part of the reason why your podcast has been so valuable to people over the years because they're like, what do I need to do to be one? And so once you're in it, you're being compensated essentially as if you're on a technical ladder. So you have kind of a very high incentive to remain part of it. If you're very good at it, the skills you develop as a product leader are almost perfect for either other executive roles, just like overall leadership roles, or starting your own company. So you're on the right-hand side of the distribution, like the great product managers are exiting the system. They're becoming founders, they're becoming executives, et cetera. And on the other side of the distribution, anybody who's in is doing anything possible to stay in. So the distribution just becomes more weighted, weighted, weighted like this. And I think during Zurp, like this, you saw this and there were memes about it and stuff like that. And maybe there's been some correction. But yeah, I think mathematically, it's kind of like set up to be this profession where the media and product manager is actually probably pretty bad. Do you feel like it's getting better? And do you think, there's something I think about a lot that a lot of people say that like PMs suck, they're useless. And I find that that's usually the case because they've just not worked with a great PM. And a lot of people haven't worked with great PMs. And so it kind of like makes the whole profession feel look bad and sound bad when a lot of people have like as you described are working with these kind of mediocre PMs. Thoughts there? Yeah, I think you're exactly you're exactly right. I've also like kind of noticed this. I feel like so much in the world right now is explained by like some form of like the midwip meme in some way or another. But yeah, I think you're exactly right. Like that is a that is a second order effect of this kind of distribution that I think governs the whole profession. I do think it's getting better better because I think again, like when a lot of people reference like the ZERP era, but I truly feel like when when interest rates go down, that means opportunity costs are lower. And so when opportunity costs are lower, people are doing things like just hiring that extra person, like doing stuff like that. But these opportunity costs, I think are are are higher than are internalized because of some of the stuff we started talking about that a lot of these costs are not are not internalized. And so like I've been and we can talk about this, but like I've been really focused on developing a system for evaluating product managers, not just the person, but the person and the place that they are at that time to make sure that the team is actually just like net positive. And in my experience, and we can talk about what some of those methods are, but like in my experience, like the way this kind of ends up is that I really don't hear great engineers complain about product managers that much because great engineers, A, they know how to bend product managers to their will. They get the use out of them that they want. And B, they just like don't put up with bad ones. So they're like, they don't get assigned or they don't get to work with bad product managers. I think ironically, in kind of a midwit weem or the horseshoe theory of things, really bad engineers also don't complain about product managers because they know they can just like hide behind their decisions and stuff like that. So it's really just the ones in the middle that are complaining. I do want to ask about Snap. I feel like it's a company that hadn't, doesn't feel like it lived up to the potential of what I think Evan and everyone imagined it could be. I imagine the main reason from, and I had Evan on the podcast, is just the users that it's going after are just hard to monetize. Is that kind of the core of what has kept Snap from becoming a bigger success or is there more to it? I'll try and be as objective as possible Lenny because like this is like a little bit of my life's work and maybe I do have some, some level of like chip on my shoulder or, or yeah, I'll try and be as objective as possible. So I'll say, I'll say two things, maybe three things about Snap from a monetization perspective, at least it adds monetization perspective. And then we can talk about like, they've had a lot of success with Snapchat plus and subscription products in general are doing well, but ads are truly the magical kind of like product market fit of consumer monetization on the internet. And there's a lot of mathematical reasons why that's true. And there are three things that hold back Snap from an ads perspective that I think the company, like we still kind of talk about is we deserve a little bit more credit maybe than we get, but I understand why we don't. The first is yes, the user base is extremely young. Like Snap appealed to Gen Z at an excessive rate early on. Now even I think Gen Alpha as they like kind of graduate from like Roblox and stuff like that. And there is a step change, like literally a suspicious discontinuity in advertising CPNs between 17 and 18 and between 18 and 21 in the United States and abroad. If you're under 17, the rules around how you can track and measure and target ads are extremely, extremely constraining and justifiably so, right? To protect teenagers. That means that it's essentially much harder to drive ROI from this group of people versus an 18-year-old versus a 21-year-old and 24-year-old. And you can say all you want about like, oh, the teenagers influence their parents, blah, blah, blah. The key thing to think about is like those are just harder to measure and it's harder to build performance products around things that are hard to measure. And so, yeah, the Snaps audience is definitively like less valuable from that perspective versus like a Pinterest or an Instagram or a Twitter. The second thing is almost every ads business, every ad product you'll see that isn't search-based, every display ad product opens to the screen where you put the ads. There's a lot of studies around attention and just mathematically where you're going to get the impressions where you need to kind of like maximize that for advertising and Snap opens the camera and that makes it awesome as a product, right? Like in terms of its ability to be the fastest way to capture a moment and share it with your friends. But in no part of that flow, the core flow of taking a Snap and sending it to your friends, is there like a logical place for an advertisement? It is just not a feed-based product and it is not a consumption-oriented product. It is a creation-oriented product, a visual creation-oriented product. And there don't really exist a lot of advertising kind of formats that go after this. And we experimented with this a lot at Snap and probably one of my biggest failures was the ability to drive camera monetization. It was literally just too hard. Like I couldn't figure it out or I couldn't greenlight the teams that could figure it out. And yeah, so it's a very hostile environment for advertising from like that initial thing. And then at its core, it's a messaging app. And like there aren't really great ad products for messaging apps right now. I think even the monetization of certain messaging apps via subscription or via business accounts and people will always cite like some of the Asian chat apps as examples. You peel it back and from a like dollars per time spent perspective, none of these are doing that well. Like none of these are like exceptionally great at monetizing. Message apps are incredible utilities are incredible to have as part of a portfolio. But Snap was trying to build a multi-billion dollar ads business very quickly on a lower value audience, a very tough format for ads and a service that was more utilitarian than consumption oriented. Wow, that was fascinating. Like I think it's important to note Snap is doing, it's like a many multi-billion dollar business. I think a billion monthly active users, you know, like all the teens use. It's like, like in the scheme of things, it's very successful. It's more just everyone thought it was going to be much, much bigger like the next Facebook. And I think it, yeah, it really, if you were to peel apart Snap as a product, it's, it's, again, some of my information is dated and I haven't really like looked at, but like it's the number one messaging app among teenagers in almost every Western country, like 70 to 100% penetration of, you know, people under 21. It's their, it's their default map. It's used more than Apple or Google Maps by, by this group. I think it's their, the most popular astrology app for, for most of these people. It's definitely the most common camera. So like imagine if you're like, hey, there's a holding company. There's a, there's a, a Gen Z Berkshire Hathaway that has the number one camera app, the number one messaging app, the number one maps app, the number one astrology app, the number one content. Cause like, I guess TikTok would be the number one content consumption one, which is part of the problem with the ad stuff, but you peel it apart and you're like, that's an insane consumer product track record. And none of this credit goes to like me at all, right? This is like the, that OG design team that cranked out some of the biggest hits of like our generation. But I think from an ads product, like maybe, yeah, the chip on my shoulder is like Snap started after Twitter, after Reddit, after Pinterest. It went public before all of them except for Twitter. It, it was quicker to 4 billion, I think in ads revenue than all of them, despite starting later. And like, what is, like Twitter is a global town hall. Like all the most valuable people on the planet are talking on Twitter. Pinterest is literally a place where you tell it what you want to buy, right? Like these are really great places for, for ads. What was Snap known for at the time? I don't know, like, I don't want to make your podcast brand unsafe, but you know, we can, we can talk, we can talk about what Snapchat was known for at the time. Disappearing, the spring photos of certain kind. It was still able to scale this ads business, which I think is like, yeah, it's pretty fascinating. But yeah, it's a fascinating company. And I think just given the dearth of like 100 million Dow consumer products that have been started in the United States since then, it still kind of like deserves to be studied. Yeah. When, when Evan, when Evan was on the podcast, I pointed out that I think it was the last big successful social consumer product to launch, which was 12 years ago. I think other than TikTok, which is not like social really, it's more of a, like content media sort of thing. Yeah. Discord, Discord technically started in 2015. Okay. Okay. But very, very, very like a, a niche product, right? Like the world's biggest niche is gaming. But yeah, quite a, quite a different, vibe. Just like maybe a final thought here. I'm curious to get your take. You could almost argue that this is a example of more PMs would have been helpful because, uh, it's such an incredibly, beautifully designed product and experience and so delightful and people love it and are hooked on it, but it's just the monetization and the business basically was not solved. And you would think that's where PMs would come in. And so I wonder if that was, uh, a hindrance is the low, low number of PMs involved. I think that Snapchat plus, the subscription product, if it had launched, subscription products are tough because the math around them is pretty brutal. Like, essentially like time is, is your, your enemy with subscription products. Like, churn. Yeah. Anything you do takes a lot of time to, to matriculate in terms of impact. So, it, I think Snapchat plus has actually been quite successful and there's a lot of how it's been executed that's really, really, really great. But, I, I sometimes wonder if it had been launched four years earlier, um, like where it would be. Um, just because like with, with messaging utilities and you see this with, with Discord and Nitro, uh, as well, much different than content products like Spotify or, or Netflix, um, you first kind of like become acclimated to using the product daily and getting a lot of value out of it. And that's when you see the value of the subscription product, um, not like right when you start, right? You're not like, you don't open Snapchat the first time. You're like, oh, I definitely need to pay, you know, 20 bucks a month or five bucks a month for something. Um, and so time is like, kind of like the, the cohorts essentially penetration grows slowly over time, but, um, you know, grows, grows quite linearly usually. And so, yeah, if, if Snap had had this product out four years ago, there might've been less pressure on the ads business to scale as quickly as it does, less pressure on the ads business to scale as quickly as it does, allows for more freedom on the content consumption side of things and the experience and allows them maybe to compete more with TikTok. I don't know. It's a, yeah, it's a, it's a big brain, uh, system thinking, uh, like, okay, Snap needs more PM, but, yeah, interesting. Man, systems thinking, that's like, I think the seventh time in a row that term has been used in this podcast. One of the, um, was it, was it the Netflix? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That was a big one. Yeah. Sometimes you, like people say systems thinking, then they go out and buy that book. Yeah. With the, with the slinky. Yeah. Like I'm a systems thinker now. Uh, like, uh, yeah, I think it actually the most underrated aspect like of, of systems thinking is, is, is having a mathematical background to be able to describe the, the system in mathematical terms, um, like to actually map it out in terms of like stocks and flows and, and, you know, different probability, like, is this bimodal or is this normally distributed and just being able to understand, like to be able to mathematically communicate how a system works because otherwise, like, I think it's this famous method. It's a very like MBA-ish type bullshit thing, but ironically, it kind of works. I think it came out of like Toyota or something like the five whys and you're like, oh, what's the five whys? It must be the super amazing systems thinking method. It's apparently just asking why five times and like, then you get to the bottom of things and I'm like, that's like, that's how the majority of people when they say it's systems thinking, I think they're basically just saying, like, I asked why five times and I got to the first principle. That is awesome. I, I was going to ask you to help people understand what a system's thinking because it's this broad term that is hard to really know and so I love this answer. So you're finding, basically just ask why why is that is actually a really effective way to, uh, develop systems thinking to actually think about the bigger picture. Yeah, but I would, I would love it if like, maybe rather than reading the Slinky book, there was more like Jay Forrester system dynamics, you know, from the like manufacturing, uh, kind of stuff from the 1970s and then I think just like a mathematical, like understanding of, of how the system works, like if you had to model it. Um, yeah, I was going to ask you basically just create like a spreadsheet model of how. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. This, I think it'd be very clarifying from a, that is actually, okay. So that's a really good way to understand systems thinking, model it out, put in a spreadsheet. What are all the variables? What, what comes in, what comes out? What can, what are the levers? Yeah. Yeah. What are the levers? What are the distributions behind those levers? Um, yeah, I think it can, it can be very clarifying even if you, even if the spreadsheet goes nowhere other than, you know, your, your shared drive, like it can be very clarifying. Feature agent. Um, I was going to say real quick on Snapchat plus the, my favorite part of the story is that Instagram launched Instagram plus. It's just like another classic Snapchat story. Yeah. I think the, there was early on, I remember a snap. It was like, so, so funny to see how aggressively Instagram was, was copying that they were actually copying like some of our worst features, like ones that weren't working just because I think they just like assumed everything that we were touching was turning to gold. What's that example of that? Yeah. And then there's some features that on Instagram just don't make as much, like the map and things like that, that will take time. But when it comes to stories, which was obviously extremely effective from a copying perspective, you'd be hard pressed to, to say anything, but like the version of it on Instagram is now much better. Um, like what Instagram has done with that format, like it really suits the product super well. Um, and that team is powered by a bunch of great designers. And, uh, when they start thinking from, from first principles and with the taste that Adam, who was also on the pod, yeah, it has, uh, it, like it's a, that product is well architected from a human computer interaction standpoint in a way that I think is actually like really admirable on many levels. I keep trying to move away from Snapchat, but I have so many, I have new questions come up as you share more. Uh, something that came up in my chat with Evan about this is like seeing everybody copying Snapchat for 15 years or however long it's been. His takeaway basically is software is no longer remote. You have to focus on other things. Uh, he described, that's why he's spending so much time on hardware. It was his answer. And also just like the ecosystem and the network effects of a product. Thoughts on that? Uh, I have tremendous respect for Evan and I think he's essentially been right on almost everything just early on some stuff. Um, maybe early on everything actually too. Um, even, even stuff like avatars, like, uh, um, AI, like essentially all of the like on device AR that we were doing was at the time it was more just called machine learning, but like employed some form of machine intelligence that was like super avant-garde at the time. So I think when he says something like this, there, there's probably some truth to it. I think a lot of people are, are, are frustrated with Snap because it doesn't have the financial profile to be able to support the type of hardware development that he wants to do, it seems. Um, and that like, there still isn't like a great answer on the monetization front for which like, obviously like I bear like a lot of responsibility, but from that kind of like moat perspective, like what he said, I watched the pod. Um, yeah, I, I, I kind of think like he's right, but that the, like maybe investors or the, the, the world doesn't want to give him the space to, to be right in some ways. Um, which has like, yeah, yeah. It has like, uh, like artist vibes, you know, like rejected artist vibes, uh, or, um, on the outskirts artist vibes, which like, I think there, there's still so many things like it actually reminds me, like there's so much talk these days about taste and, and things like that. And so hard to describe things like that. But one of the things that I learned at Snap is, um, like, I, I think I saw Evan personally, uh, say no to better ideas than I've seen almost any other consumer startup launch. And it kind of made me think of like this, like my goal is like a product leader for, for founders, like at these high growth companies was always to like, turn them into almost like the best museum, the richest museum curators in the world, where like whatever's in the product at any one time is just a small slice of the whole raw collection. It's whatever that curator thinks is right for this time and place in society. And I think if like one way you can kind of like get at somebody's tastes is, uh, when you're interviewing them is just ask them about some of the things they built that they never shipped. Um, not that they tested and got bad results for, but like that literally they, they held it in their hands, the prototype, and they're like, the world's not ready for this. Or like this thing is not ready. And if they have a lot of high quality ideas that are on the shelf, exercising that kind of muscle of like saying no, uh, of restraint is probably one of the easiest, like one of the few, like muscles of taste you can exercise. If, if a museum has all of their collection on the walls, then the curator hasn't done anything. And so, uh, yeah, I think about this a lot. Um, because Evan is, yeah, probably the best at it. That is such an interesting insight, especially these days, because AI is very bad at removing things from designs and from products. It always adds, it doesn't say, Hey, maybe we should cut this piece. And so it's so interesting how this connects now to the, there's like the, we talk about taste all the time with AI. And this is like an interesting element of that, of being good at understanding what to remove as AI becomes a bigger part of the building process and designing process. Yes. Yeah. This will be, this will be hard. I think to, this is a hard skill for, for AI to replicate. I, I think like in general, it, it, it seems like at, right now it's obviously at the code level, it's getting to the design level. It's, it's in some cases at the video and the, the, the photo level. Um, it'll eventually maybe even get to physical level as well, but, uh, it's really going to empower anybody to, to be a creator. Uh, and we, we've seen this in the past, right? Like lowering the threshold for creativity, not just, um, kind of like enables the existing creators to do more, uh, but enables people who were otherwise, uh, kind of like, um, bounded out or, or restricted from entering the, the arena, uh, to enter it. Um, but, uh, this will put a lot of pressure on, uh, essentially creating stuff that deserves human attention, um, in a way that, I, I wonder if there are some analogs to this in the past, uh, we'll, we'll have to think about it. And it just feels like an interesting new skill for PMs is pushing back on things. AI, start adding to your products. Engineers are like, what if we had this sort of, so it's like, it's not even on AI right now. It's on the, on the product teams basically to, to cut stuff. Anyway. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe they can, well, it'd be pretty funny if the conclusion of every, every landing podcast is basically, yeah, the world might just need more PMs. Yeah. Yeah. Crazy. Oh man. This episode is brought to you by Mercury, radically different banking. Now with spend. I've been a Mercury customer for so many years now. I switched all my business banking to Mercury and honestly, I could not be happier. It's what online banking feels like when it's built by product people, not by bankers. And now with spend, you can give your team individual cards, set spending limits per person or per team and have expense receipts automatically pulled in from Gmail or over text. You can even give your AI agents their own cards with their own limits and policies. Most founders start out the same way. One card used by everybody at the company. It works until it stops working. Someone goes over, a receipt disappears. You spend two days trying to figure out who spent what and why. Spend is expense management built directly into Mercury. All your team's cards, budgets and reimbursements all live in the same place as your business banking. No chasing, no manual reviews, no end of month scramble. The result is a team that can move fast and a founder who is no longer the bottleneck. Learn more and get signed up at mercury.com. Mercury is a fintech company, not an FDIC-insured bank. Banking services provided the Choice Financial Group and column NA members FDIC. The IO card is issued by Patriot Bank and a member FDIC pursuant to a license for MasterCard International Incorporated. There's a couple elements here that I think connect Snapchat and AI. Having seen the ads experience of Snap and where that has gone and not become as big as people may have thought, ChatGPT in particular is exploring ads. I imagine other AI tools will. Thoughts on that opportunity? Do you think that's actually a massive business opportunity for these companies or do you think they're not understanding the actual business there? I still, I subscribe to like the kind of like Eric Soifert side of the world of like ads are, ads are the product market fit for the internet and I still think that from a monetization standpoint, there's a number of reasons, again, mathematical for why that is true and why I think like like subscription products and things like that are kind of overrated versus ads from a consumer side of things. When I look at what OpenAI is doing from an advertising perspective, they are, they are speed running all of the like ads infra that is exactly what you would want and do. At Discord, I call this like last mover advantage because like we've, we've learned so much and we're at like a certain place with online advertising and really meta and the team there from like 2010 through 2020 really deserves, I think, most of the credit for this. Like, like what drives a modern ads marketplace and auction is essentially like a solved problem and OpenAI is speed running all of the components of that. And I do think that the mechanism, the mathematical mechanism, which is essentially like a modified VCG, I think Vickery, Clarks Grove, kind of like auction mechanism, this mathematical mechanism is the correct way to build an ads auction in even like a chat environment, in chat GPT. And what I mean by that is I think where the innovation came from, from meta was not just like the highest bidder and I'm oversimplifying like crazy, but like not just that the highest bidder wins, but that the organic value of an advertisement and an advertiser to that user should be factored into their bid such that you essentially have to pay more as an advertiser to reach people who may not want to be reached or maybe harder to reach or may not necessarily be as relevant to you. And this also is great because it allows you to mux both content, organic content and advertising content on a similar and a unified auction with dollars as essentially the ultimate denominator. And the reason that I say that this is good for chat is not necessarily that organic value is what's important here, like how much you like an ad or not in a content feed. But in chat, it probably feels like this could be replaced or augmented with essentially trust. Like, if you boil this down to something very simple, it's just like, hey, what X should I buy? What mic should I buy? And in that moment, we have to decide, like, should I give you the objective answer? Should I give you a set of answers? And how influenced should I be by a set of advertisers that want to get in front of you? And I think the mechanism by which how influenced I should be should essentially be how much trust I'm trading off. And you kind of see us failing at this a little bit, probably, and I don't want to, I don't like, I really don't want to pick on anybody because I know how hard it is to build these types of things. But like, a little bit on Amazon search in terms of like the ads, the sponsored experience there. It's not like, it's not, it's not threatening the product. Amazon is such a great product, but what is the great product of Amazon? It's like the selection and the next day shipping or whatever. Like, it is getting a little crazy when you search for something and you have 16 ads before you get to the first thing and you're like, oh shoot, is that like subtly influencing my, my trust in the system? And so that's why I actually think like OpenAI is speed running all the right stuff and where the, the push is going to come to shove is how they instantiate it mathematically in their auction mechanism to maximize trust over the long term. Because trust maximization will probably be correlated with user retention, if not causal and with advertiser value. And then on the other side of it, it's probably a format question. Like, what does this format look like in, in chat? Are we still going to be, what if, what if it's voice? Like, we don't know. So I think like one of the coolest jobs right now for a PM and designer would probably be like ad formats at OpenAI. That'd be a, that's like a, that's like a societal level job in advertising right now. And so, yeah, I think, I think it'll be really interesting to see how they, how they work on that. Yeah, maybe one thing, one other thing I'll say is like, I was kind of disappointed that they jumped right to an ad-free experience for the top tier. Because I feel like ads could actually be really additive to every part of the, the OpenAI, you know, not like coding and things like that, but like actual chat, like, let's set aside work and coding. And like, lopping off your most valuable users so early. I was, I was a little disappointed, but I understand why people do that. It is so fun to listen to you talk about this as you take a swig of your vodka right there. I don't know if people, it's actually really, really fancy douchey water. So, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Replace with vodka so nobody can tell. This is the key. If you keep me on for another 30 or so, so minutes, it'll really get, yeah. So what I was saying, it's so, it's so fun to hear you talk about the ads ecosystem and it, it shows how much, you know, and how deep this goes. Like, I feel like we could do a whole episode on this. Probably don't need to do that right now. Uh, but it's amazing. Uh, clearly, you've spent a lot of time thinking about ads. Uh, what I'm also feeling now is opening, I needs to hire you immediately to help them with this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I guess like free agents. So, you know, this is maybe that's my, my ulterior motive of the pot, you know, the interview. Well, I think you fast. Okay. Um, I want to go to something else. I, so we were talking and chatting about what to spend time on. And, uh, I asked you, what are some counterintuitive lessons that you've learned over the course of your career that go against kind of common startup wisdom, common leadership wisdom. and there's four you shared and I want to just go through them and get your take because they're awesome. Okay. So the first is, uh, you like to spend time writing your best people into the ground versus improving the average people. Share, share more. I'm realizing you write this out. It's like, uh, you really, he's building terrorist organizations and all he does is write his best people into the ground. This is going to be the title of the episode. Yeah. You're going to need to like, uh, there's going to be like a, uh, like a recovery group, like a therapy group of PMs that worked for, for Peter Sellis. But, um, no, you're about to say that probably should be. I'll read about that. They're all sitting in discord. Yeah. Oh God forbid it's a discord group. Oh Jesus. Uh, yeah. The, um, yeah, I think, I think this, this actually kind of flows from the, the, the whole, um, the kind of like vorp thing. Um, is that like once you have somebody in a position and there, there are a lot of tropes around this too, right? Like if you want something done quickly, give it to the busiest person, uh, kind of thing. Um, but I think it's, it's very, it's not necessarily counterintuitive. It's counter to like human nature, right? Like if you see somebody drowning, um, you, like you want to save them. And, uh, like I, I did the opposite, absolutely opposite. I, I just like kind of, um, and maybe it's, you know, we were right before we started, we started the podcast where I was talking about nominative to terminalism where like your name kind of like creates who you are and like joking that maybe I need to be a salesperson because of my last name is Sellis. But there's also like a, this, uh, you know, MBA Peter principle where you're like people are promoted to the level of their incompetence, which definitely could describe my career. But like, that's like kind of what I seek to do is like if somebody is, is strong and, and, and crushing it, I'm just like, I'm just like handing them more and more rope to hang themselves with. Um, and I'm, I'm, I'm pushing them as hard as possible. Um, you know, like to the, to the point of, of, of breaking. Um, because like at the end of the day, like one of the biggest leadership like principles for me is that like, I, I will, the people on my team, I will always defend in, in public, like in front of exacts and stuff like that. I never, never criticize them in front of others. And so like people who are making consistently good decisions, I just want to load them up with more decisions until I start to see them make bad ones. Um, I think like there's so much kind of like self, self reinforcement or, or self fulfilling prophecy of like when you have confidence and when things are going well, like you're, you're able to do more. And so, um, yeah, I think I like try and really show that I believe in people. Um, and when I don't, um, yeah, maybe this is just a personal thing. I just don't have a really good mechanism for, for helping people improve. So I, I, I essentially like let them fail on their own. Um, which could be, I think probably pretty frustrating, uh, for me as a leader to work for, um, and, and some somewhat sad. Um, I think the thing you need to control for when you adopt this type of management philosophy is that not paying attention to somebody doesn't mean they're failing. Um, like there, there are a lot of people that I've hired over the years, especially if I've worked with them multiple times where I'm like, I know you're, you, I know, you know what to do, so go do it. And I, I just like let them execute. But, um, yeah, it's, uh, you know, spend time with your winners, ride your race horses, give a busy person something to do if you want it done quick. Whatever the, whatever the stupid trope is, um, yeah, I, I try to pursue it pretty aggressively. Makes sense to me. And, uh, there's many ways to say it. The ones, some are, some are kinder than others. Uh, another, uh, contrarian take you have is that collaboration is a pretty bad use of time. A lot of times, you talked about this earlier, but is there anything more to add there? I, I think when you're building a team and you talk about like the team's principles or tenets or whatever, if, if you find yourself saying things that like no one can disagree with, either those aren't good principles or tenets or maybe they need to be challenged. Um, and, um, and yeah, I think collaboration like kind of falls under, under this, uh, this umbrella a lot of the time. Um, but yeah, I think, I think we talked about kind of my reasoning there. Okay. Uh, another contrarian take you have is that growth typically comes from, the core of the business. Yeah. I mean, this one was learned like a couple times, uh, both, both at, at, at Snap and at Discord. And, and this isn't to say that like there aren't these like wonderful growth strategies about expansion into new markets or, um, things like that. But I think the, the nature of like network effect oriented businesses is that they, they want to grow implicitly. And so what you can do to, to, to drive growth much more effectively is focus on people who are like essentially already using or wanting to use the product for what it's for, uh, or some kind of derivative like nearby of that and just making it much easier, much more performant, much more relevant, et cetera. I think the way you could think about this, like we're using very like, you know, eighth grade math where like, if you want to, like, I think almost every consumer product, maybe it's also a controversial take, like needs to be optimizing for daily active use. Uh, like there are very few things in, in, eventually you need to tie everything to people's natural lives and cycles and like days are real, right? Weeks, they can be real, but they're not necessarily real for like, like, you don't think about, there aren't a lot of things you do on a weekly regimen regularly, really, really effectively, but like you wake up, you know, like there are, there's the circadian rhythm is real. Very few things are done on a monthly basis, like a lot of B2B stuff, like paying bills, et cetera. I guess we could, there's some biological things that happen monthly. We could get into that, but like there's, there's something about like the daily active use or even hourly active use that I think is, is, is essential for almost every consumer product. And the idea, like if you're thinking about like, a daily active user, if you're going for somebody who uses a product once a month, you know, you're going to need 30 of those to equal somebody who uses it daily. That's like very, very, very, very basic math. And so that's why I think a lot of the most effective consumer products have extremely how DAU, MAU ratios. And so a lot of growth can come from essentially moving that ratio just a few basis points versus trying to go acquire a bunch of new monthly active users and seeing if they, if they retain. And, and by the way, like DAU, MAU is just a form of retention. Like retention can be any, any period. It's just the next day. Like given you use it today, what's the probability you're going to use it tomorrow? And so at, at Snap, the lesson there came from that disastrous redesign in 2018, which was the only time I think that Snap's overall DAU actually flattened out quarter over quarter. And what we like laser focused on after that was performance, particularly on Android. Existing people who are already using the app just making it much, much faster and more performant for them. And that led to almost like a growth renaissance that, you know, went on for multiple years. At Discord, I think it was even more controversial because at the time, Discord has, Discord has been something for a lot of people during the pandemic, during crypto, during AI, et cetera. So at the time you had Midjourney being built on Discord and Midjourney was phenomenal. Just like such a cool company, product, everything. And a lot of people on the outside were just like, wow, this is a moment. Midjourney must be huge for Discord. From a, from a user perspective or daily active use, like a metrics perspective, if I were to show you like a, you know, you can even look at this or online, right? Like Discord's use over time, you wouldn't be able to pick out Midjourney. Like the, the, the reason people use Discord is to connect with their friends while playing, before, during, and after playing games. And what we did in 2024 was completely focus the team around this idea of how can we be the best place for you and your friends to play intentional multiplayer games together. together. And it turns out, like, even though Discord is technically, it's, A, that technical team is phenomenal and B, it's, it's, it's like near perfect in some ways when it comes to like voice and things like that. There were still things we could do to make it better before and after playing games with your friends. And when we focused on gaming, which at the time everybody was like, everybody who plays multiplayer games, especially on PC, they already have Discord, right? They already use it. It's only 100% penetration, right? No. And there were a lot of reasons that you were just on the edge and you decided not to join voice. You decided to use the in-game voice. You decided to call your friend on FaceTime instead, whatever it was. As we made Discord better, as we focused on performance, we were actually able to drive some of the fastest, I think it's not the fastest growth, and I'm not sharing anything that's not public, like since the pandemic. Obviously, Discord exploded during the pandemic. And this was by focusing on the thing that everybody already said we had 100% penetration of, which was like intentional multiplayer gamers. Now, from there, you have a lot of options, right? There are a lot of things that look like multiplayer gaming. Crypto looks like multiplayer gaming, right? Intense coordination costs, you know, time sensitive, et cetera. Honestly, software development looks like multiplayer gaming. Like there are a lot of things that you could build off of that core. But by focusing on people who play games with their friends, we were actually able to like identify a lot of things that brought somebody from using Discord, you know, 20 or let's say 10 days out of the 30 to 11 to 12, to 13. That's actually monster growth when you think about those pockets and moving up people's illness. Like last seven out of seven days. I think I stole that from Meta, who once again wrote like a great playbook on growth. And so focusing on that illness of the core consumer base, I think it just like ended up being so, so positive in both the Snap and Discord examples. This is a really important lesson for people trying to grow a product. The tilde art to me is there's always money in the banana stand. Like we were talking earlier about building a terrorist organization. Like that's a great example of a phrase that if you could ascribe in a strategy document, you could ascribe value. Like there's always money in the banana stand, right? Return to your core users, make sure it's perfect for them. Like a hundred, there was always money in the banana stand. I think at Discord, it had exceptionally positive externalities because the most vocal, critical, honestly like intelligent or like high IQ user base in the world are gamers, honestly. Like you, you think you've built for people who are critical about your product, who are detail oriented, unless you've built for gamers, you haven't. And to, be able to turn around and say, we are focused, like here's a bug thread on Reddit, show us what's messing up. We don't care how small it is, how big it is, we will fix it. It had this like unbelievable pause of externality of like we are delivering for this community. And I honestly think this is why like Discord is, is so, so great. And so without peer in this specific niche is because it's so laser focused on like if you play games with your friends and you care about it, like this product is going to, like there are people who sit in that office who will make it perfect for you forever. So this begs the question, when does it make sense to bet on something new and try new things? Because, you know, it doesn't always make sense to just continue refining and refining the one piece of product market fit that's worked. Any guidance to folks, and this is for consumer in particular, any guidance for when it makes sense to still make bets outside that core? Yeah, I think there are two really like incremental ways to think about it. One is, if you boil down the core things about your product that are really, really great that people come to it for. So for Snap, maybe it's the camera, for Discord, it's voice. And then you look to other niches, other cohorts for which that could be useful. that's like a, it's a very like MBA style, like, you know, two by two type of thing. That's, I think, one method to do that. And you should honestly always be assessing that because, you know, that's an easy one. And then I think the second thing is like one of the greatest gifts is when people use your product in a way that you didn't expect or like didn't, you know, like, you know, didn't ordain because they're going through extra hoops to do what they want to do with the product. So whatever you're offering is so good that they're going through hoops to do that. And it's like for like, for Discord, for example, a lot of it centered around communities and like how people were using it to organize like larger and larger communities as opposed to the 20 person gaming friend group. And when people are doing that, they're essentially voting with their feet. They're telling you like, I want to use this product for this. What can you do to make it a little bit easier for me? So it kind of is a version of that, but it's like expanding to the next thing. And that's more like thinking about concentric circles. It's like, okay, we got it at the core. How do we expand, expand? I feel like I'm doing something with my hands here that's going to be memed. But I can make it work. We got it. Sorry, okay, I'll stop. But the, I think then the other, the kind of like more, the more Snapchat, like a more innovative way to think about it is like more to look at your company's philosophy around like why it was built and then think about the future totally unencumbered by the present, like no incrementality from the present, more like future casting, like back casting instead of forecasting and be like, okay, right now, like the best way to share a moment is to pull out your phone and aim the camera at it and record. Like that's very constrained by the existing technology. If we were to envision a future of like, what's the future look like to be the best way? Like something just happened or my child just took its first steps. I'm at a concert. I just saw something really funny on the street. Like what's the best way to share that moment with my friends? Like I think that's what leads to you to something like, oh, probably glasses or, you know, things like that. So this like back casting method, I think is what everybody wants to do. In my experience, there are very few people that have this type of like blank sheet creativity to think about the future totally unencumbered from the present. Most people like to like, even really creative people like remix versions of the present or like I think these days most product managers like go on like an ayahuasca journey or travel to Japan or something and then come back and they're like, I've solved it. But like very few people I think are very good at this version of it. And I think a big part of this is you found product market fit. Something's working. You almost take for granted how lucky you are that you found something that works. And it may be easy to think, oh, we'll find the next thing now. And very few people do. Airbnb is actually a really good example of this. Like nothing beyond the original idea has worked in a big way. It's still basically the same core idea. And, you know, I've worked there for a long time and nothing has significantly impacted the growth trajectory other than just exactly what you just described, continuing to make the core experience better, more supply, more demand. So I think this is a really profound point for people to take in. It's also like you can keep teams leaner this way, things like that. The biggest risk is it's kind of like that, I think it's a Nassim Talib meme of like a thousand and one days in the life of a Thanksgiving turkey. Yeah. Where it's just like, yeah, everything's getting better and better and better until something comes along that's literally 10x better than what you're doing and it takes you to zero overnight. And guarding against that, I don't have any, if I knew how to guard against black swan events like that, yeah, I think. You'd be in finance. Yeah, definitely be in finance. I actually think like this, you know, we were talking a little bit, like SpaceX is probably a good example actually of a company that like guards itself against this in some ways. Okay, say more. I know your wife works at SpaceX so you have a really unique insight into the, into what, how SpaceX works and what has worked there. Yeah, yeah. No, no, no, like no inside information. I'm like a second party, you know, I'm not first party but you know, I, yeah, I, I sleep next to a SpaceX engineer every night so that, that helps. Yeah, that's all you have to do. Uh, but no, I think like SpaceX is a, SpaceX is the greatest American company right now, greatest company in the world. Uh, like truly phenomenal on every single level and I'm talking more about SpaceX, like XAI and so all, also doing insane stuff but like just that and I think the best example, what I mean by like guarding us a future, I, I don't think any company does anything close to what SpaceX does here and there's a recent example, literally I think in the last week of this perfectly where they essentially announced some version of, um, they are taking the Falcon 9 which is their primary launch system, the greatest launch system in the world ever by far, uh, reusable, most cost effective, kilograms to low earth orbit, to, to geostationary orbit. Um, every country on the planet would, would give up their GDP to have this technology to be able to launch and reuse their eyes and they're sunsetting the Falcon 9. And, this is like Cortez level burn the ships upon arriving because they're essentially saying like in order to reach our vision in the future we need, uh, like a heavier lift launch vehicle, that is Starship. Uh, so, you know, starting in a few years because, you know, they have customers and things like that, uh, you'll no longer be able to buy rides on the Falcon 9. I don't think this is for everything but, you know, they're gradually basically telegraphing that like the Falcon 9 is the past. By the way, the Falcon 9 would be the future for literally every other country, nation state, on the planet. It's the, it's the, it's, it's incredible machine. And, yeah, I think this is the, like Elon has built this culture that like, you know, Clayton Christensen is dead but like he probably would, would shed a tear over how happy it would make him about avoiding the innovator's dilemma versus like just because we have the thing that is the best, we're completely willing to build the, the thing that will compete against ourselves and make the thing that we built irrelevant. And, I wish I had more insight into what drives that beyond maybe just Elon or, or that whole organization but like what, what I've witnessed top to bottom is like everybody you talk to there is like, yeah, it's going to be awesome. Like, yeah, we're going to do this. Like, it's, it's definitely part of the culture, maybe the cult, that they can do this even though on paper and now as a public company it like kind of looks insane. And so, yeah, I think that's like actually a really underrated part about SpaceX is their ability to essentially burn the ships and, and focus on what's next. this to me comes well back to the original beginning of this conversation building an org like a terrorist organization in particular, the mission like clearly the mission of SpaceX make humanity multi-planetary get to Mars. And, with that mission I can totally see how they may be working backwards from in order to do this we need this larger rocket. It makes no sense to keep investing here. So to me it feels very clear how they go about making these decisions. Yeah, I think there's another thing about both of Elon's like major like SpaceX and Tesla I know less about like Neuralink boring company, et cetera. But like you look in like on the website I mean now I don't know where it is but like they publish essentially like 10 year plans. Like nothing SpaceX is doing is, is not something that they didn't talk about 10 years ago. Like Tesla talked about exactly what they wanted to do with the, with the initial roadster to fund the S to fund the three like the, in some ways like the product roadmap is, is published. Right. And that's like as a product leader like I aspire to that level of swag where it's just like yo, we're going to do something that's so aggressive and so ambitious that we can just tell you exactly what you're going to do because if you think you can do it better than us like you're welcome to try. but like this, yeah, that, that's like, yeah, that, that's a mission, right? That you can publish and, and turn into a product roadmap. Say you're going to do it, do what you're going to say and then say like, yeah, copy us. And in the Tesla case, like, oh, and here are the patents too. Right. I was just going to say they released their, yeah, all the patents for the Tesla electric stuff. Yeah. So next level. It's so interesting. So one meme across this podcast over the past couple months has been systems thinking. The other has actually been ambition and how much that matters now with companies and startups because AI is making it so much easier to build. You just tell it, build this thing, it does it. And what that means is the level of ambition has to keep going up and that's like a new habit people have to build because we're not naturally that ambitious. We haven't evolved to try things that seem impossible and it feels like we need to learn that skill now as builders. Yeah. I think there's like the status quo is the status quo for a reason. Like the, like whatever, again, whatever framework you're using, local versus, local optima versus, you know, global optima, like, you know, opportunity cost. Like, it's all basically just trying to build a muscle to help you gain the courage to just like make tomorrow not look like today. And that's actually just not natural for most human beings. And there are a lot of systems in the world designed to stop you from doing that. Like, like the world doesn't necessarily just like want to change. And so, yeah, it takes like a powerful nudge to beat that kind of like static friction of where you are today. And it's not, it's not just, it's not like, it's not just the position, it's the vector, right? Like, like again, the Falcon 9 is up and to the right like this. But it's like, okay, I don't want the, I don't want the actual position. I don't even want the speed. I don't want the velocity. I want the acceleration. And like, in order to get that acceleration, I need impulse, right? I need the third derivative, I guess, like I need to push it. And yeah, this is just not natural. And people who can do that regularly and repeatedly, but not just like disruptively all the time. Like, you know, just always asking for more, blah, blah, blah. I think it became very trendy as like Steve, Steve Jobs is kind of like, um, ethos grew. But like, yeah, the type of people who can do that within an organization, especially a large organization are pretty rare. I just had Tara Session on the podcast. She's had a product for ChatGPT work, although they're always shifting people around. I don't know what her role is these days. And she pointed out the job of PMs now actually more and more is to elevate the ambition of the team to remind them we can go bigger. What would it take to think bigger? What would a thousand X of this idea be? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's again, like if you can do that credibly, repeatedly, you know, not just by like showing up to meetings and be like, what if we did more? Exactly. What if we did it faster? Yeah, exactly. Like, no, I got, yeah, I have, yeah, I've got white male, gray hair, uh, you know, fancy degrees. I can just come at any meeting and be like, have you thought about doing this quicker? Like, okay, like, why do I just, have you thought about punching yourself in the face? Like, yeah, maybe. Oh man. So that's the skill of saying that, but in a way that doesn't get you punched in the face. Yeah, yeah, to be fair, I've been punched in the face a couple of times. You know, you don't get a nose like this naturally. You get, you get punched in the face a couple of times. Is this for real? Is that a real thing that you get punched in the face? I have gotten this shit kicked out of me a couple of times because I run my mouth nonstop, but, uh, I haven't read it. Is there a story there? Is there a story there you can share? Or is that off? That's, that's more ancient history. We like to move past these things. Come on. I feel like there's trauma there we need to get in. We need to uncover. Okay. Um, final topic. You, when we were starting this podcast, you told me there's some uh, celicisms, uh, out there. Things that you, how do you put, what's the word you use? What's the phrase? Celisms? Celicisms. Celicisms. Things that you often share with folks that kind of become a thing that people that work with you know. Uh, are there any that we haven't covered? Things that you think are kind of recurring pieces of advice or frameworks or even lessons you've learned that you think are important for people to, to hear that might be helpful. I don't, I don't think there's like too, too many. I mean, I think a few of them came up. I think when we were talking about ads, um, like one that I, and I think I, I might've, uh, like, I don't know if I deserve original credit for this, but I've, I've used it quite a bit is like this idea that, um, ads is such a, such a cutthroat, like hand to hand combat, very revenue, gold driven product area that it's, it's very easy to become very short term oriented. And one of the things, and this harkens back to the kind of like the ideological stuff from, you know, building the type of organization you want that we really focused on, um, over the years, both snap discord and even some of the companies I've advised on the ad stuff is like, with ads, you really want to be long-term greedy. And that was a phrase we used. And, uh, long-term greedy is a, is a, is a, is a funny phrase, but it was actually backed by essentially the, the kind of like mathematical realization that, um, which again, it's not, it's not rocket science, but like, uh, long-term revenue tomorrow for advertising is essentially causally related to the ROI you drive for advertisers today. So, you need to focus, your, your focus should be on driving advertiser ROI. The, the issue is that the, the easiest way to drive ROI is actually to, to, to decrease the denominator, the, the I. So you can, you, you could lower prices, right? Now, in modern auctions, price is an output, not an input, but the, the kind of like powerful learning there is that like the way I will grow this business long-term, the way I will hit my goals long-term, the way I will see compounding growth because of retention and increasing budgets, um, like net revenue retention for, for some of these like SaaS products is essentially by delivering ROI for people today, even at the cost of potentially short-term revenue. And so this type of thinking, this type of phrase allowed for, gave space for a type of thinking that was otherwise like, can get pretty tough. And people say like, oh yeah, it's thinking long-term. Again, I'll take it back to like, there are, there are, you are going to encounter times in your career where thinking long-term is actually like really, really fucking tough. And a lot of this time will be when you are a public company, like when you are missing numbers, when like, you may have to do a layoff if certain things don't happen. And to be able to have an ideological setup, uh, for which you can like use it as cover to think long-term. And that was, that was what long-term greedy was, is like, we're not a charity. Like we're not giving this stuff away because we want to make people happy. We're giving this, uh, we're giving this away. We're making this happen today because we know they'll come back tomorrow even bigger. And, um, yeah, that one was, was, was really, really, really effective. I think the other thing was like, at both Snap and Discord, we created this concept of core product value. And this was, and this was related to my, my DAO comment was like, you need to define both from a theoretical or like a conceptual, conceptual, uh, level as well as a, uh, metrics level, like what it means for somebody to come back to your product every single day. And so like Snap, I think at the time was like Snap is the fastest way to share a moment with the people you care about. So it's like fast, share a moment, people you care about. And you could actually like break down what does fast mean? Like time to load. What does share mean? It's like, okay, you're opening to the camera with sharing quickly. What does, people you care about mean? Focus on best friends. Like you could, you could actually break this thing down. And so you had fastest way to share a moment with your best friends. Like, so you're, if you're building a product roadmap on the consumer side and you're like, oh, should we work on this? It's like, well, does it help us be the fastest way to share a moment with your best friends? Kind of tenuous link to that. Like, maybe that's not what we should prioritize. I think Discord was like, the best way to talk and hang out with your friends before, during, after playing games. So it's like, you know, talk, hang out, games, before, during, after, like, you can break this thing down. And we actually had metrics definitions, which I think are like kind of proprietary internal, but like, we had metrics definitions that we were looking for. Those metrics definitions made their way into the growth books, into the different, you know, into the hacks, like, like, okay, does, did this impact CPV? And this whole, like, ideological, like, language that everybody shared, you could onboard new data scientists to, I think, got, just got people on the program really, really fast. These are awesome. This idea of core product value is such a nice way to frame. It's like, combines mission with, like, the levers, essentially, of the business. And, basically, the idea here has come up with just, like, a phrase that describes the mission that happens to also connect with how we grow this business. And it feels like three components is a consistent pattern here. Yeah, three-minute, three-minute, yeah, maybe it's just like a rule of threes. Yeah, yeah, that's, but the way you characterize it is exactly right. And, like, you can't over rely on one or the other, right? Like, if it's just metrics, it's kind of meaningless to people. If it's just a phrase, it doesn't get actioned day-to-day by data scientists, product managers, and engineers. So, having both and building a story around that and telling that story repeatedly, like, for, for, core product value at Snap, we actually had an onboarding presentation, which I delivered to every single new hire for seven years straight every week or every other week later that was about this because, like, that was part of the cult, right? Like, this is how we deliver core product value. This is why people choose Snapchat every single day in the face of tons of alternatives and a bunch of savage competitors. And I think the same, same goes for Discord. And the work is coming up with that phrase that actually is clear, simple, connects to all these things. Not easy, I imagine. And the metrics that are, like, causally demonstrated with retention. That's tough, too. I think, I think no data scientist likes working with me because I'm like, hey, guys, we got to figure this out. Interesting. Okay, one other take that you mentioned when we were chatting into this is this idea of how a great PM is an oxymoron. Yeah, I can't, I can't help but think, like, this is maybe why it's so hard to, like, come by some of them because, like, you see an overexpression, like, there's basically these three, and, yeah, I would love, I bet you could actually come up with this from, like, a synthesis of so many of the amazing product leaders you've had on here, but there are these three kind of, like, oxymorons, I think. Like, there are two wolves inside of the PM three times. One is, like, I think to be a really good, really good PM, you kind of have to be, like, really confident, and that borders on arrogance a lot of the time, especially at certain levels, and so that has to be balanced with, like, some form of humility, like, really serious humility where you kind of, again, are so confident that what we're doing is the right thing to do and that we have conviction on this path, and also, personally, that I will be recognized for my contribution, I can go out there and give credit to exactly who deserves it. The designer who made that last second change that made a huge difference, the engineer that stayed up all night to get out the thing on time for the partner event, like, I think that this also ties to being a great leader, but, like, having the humility and the attention to detail to know who to give credit to actually comes from this sense of confidence that, like, you kind of know the PMs are going to get too much credit no matter what. And so, like, I think that's the first one. The second one, which I, like, really like and really try and test for in interviews, and I'm not, I'm not the best interviewer, is, like, you want these people who are, like, extremely organized and very, like, process-driven, like, they understand the value of good process and not too much, not too little, et cetera, and then are just, like, super comfortable with ambiguity almost to the point of, like, despising authority, like, almost like pathological demand avoidance. And so, it's just, like, I have a checklist for everything, but I'm also comfortable if I have to throw it out and redo it all the time or something like that. And I think, like, these two wolves are, like, if you can demonstrate that through some stories or through some kind of, like, examples, that's, like, so attractive to me in a candidate. It's, like, yeah, I'm really comfortable with ambiguity, but that doesn't mean I just, like, I'm not organized or, like, I hate process. Another one of those things where, like, it's really trendy to just say, like, all process is useless, but it's, like, I like somebody who has both those wolves. And then I think the last one is a little more obvious, but, like, you really, a lot of the great PMs that I've worked with really just always have some form of long-term thinking in their mind. Like, they just, they just know how they want the world to look six months, a year, two years from now. And they're patient and they, they know what building blocks need to come into place for the system to work. But yet, on a day-to-day basis, their, their bias for action is just, like, borderline annoying, you know, you know, they're just like, they're just such good people at setting the pace of the entire company. Like, you know, when they wake up in the morning, like, the company wakes up, the group wakes up, the team wakes up, whatever it is. And, yeah, I think that combination of, like, urgency and bias for action with long-term thinking, yeah, those are my three, my three oxymorons, the three, three pairs of wolves inside every great PM. Amazing description of what makes a great PM. Such a cool way to think about it. Nikhil Singhal was on the podcast a couple times and he talks about the, it's like a different way of thinking about it, but he talks about the shadow. You have a superpower, but then there's the shadow and what the downside of that is. It's a different thing, but, but I love this. It's just, like, a really interesting way to just think about what is a great PM. Okay, one, one final thing before we get to a very exciting lightning round. I want to take us to Contrarian Corner, which is a recurring podcast segment where I feel like you're going to have some good stuff here. The question is just what's something you believe that most other people don't? Being Contrarian is tough. It's very trendy to be Contrarian, which is ironic. So maybe I should just be conformist. The, can I, can I break this into like a, like a light spicy, medium spicy, heavy spicy? Love that. Let's do it. Okay. Okay. Uh, so my light spicy, I don't think everyone would disagree with this, but I think as a product manager in particular, I don't think we have time to go into everything, but like, I think the most important career decision you make is, is who your partner is, like who you marry, uh, who you spend your time with personally. Um, I think this like has both growth and just like knock-on effects that are really hard to quantify. And, um, yeah, you'd be, there's no, there's no amount of Lenny podcasts you can listen to and internalize that will match, um, you know, finding a great partner, uh, who will like help you, support you and, and help you grow, um, and be like, kind of like intellectually a sounding board for you. Um, so I think that, that's probably my light take because I think a lot of people would kind of like agree to that in some degree. I know my, I know my super spicy one. So I, that one I don't think of, uh, on the medium spicy, like, this is kind of related to the, my, my museum curator comment. Um, I think a lot of people who I look up to in terms of taste and like, I, maybe it's just being in Los Angeles, but like, I care a lot about like stuff like art, like art behind me and stuff like that. Um, is I've noticed that, that, uh, you know, like the difference, especially in wealthy people between those who have like taste and those who are seen as like, um, gauch or something like that is, uh, the ones with taste like, kind of like stop one step before everybody else does. Um, like, like, you know, maybe they're collecting like art in a certain trend uh, but then like, they, they realize like when things are, whatever the, the old phrase is jumping the shark or like when things are like hitting a certain level where it's like, okay, now, like, now's the time to kind of like stop and look for something new. and I think that like what you haven't shipped, what you've built and tried and held in your hands like and, and loved but haven't brought to the world I think is like kind of a, like a test for that in, in some ways. Um, and so, yeah, I don't know if that's, yeah, that, that's like a, it's super contrarian but I think you can measure a lot is like people with great taste seem to just like know when it takes something and get passionate about something and then kind of like when it gets cringe. Yeah, let it, yeah, maybe cringe is it, yeah, let it go. My spiciest one and like, this is like, this, we'll bring it back here to the start of the podcast. Like why, why am I doing this podcast now? Like, you know, you and I have known each other, been in group chats, chatted all the time for a long time. This one's probably a take where I don't even know if I'd be super comfortable saying it depending on my employer. Um, I think that to truly create great consumer products for certain cohorts of, of humans, of, of users, um, the product managers and designers that you put on some of those products, um, there are certain, uh, inalienable traits about those product managers that cannot be learned, uh, cannot be acquired that are, that are essential to creating truly great consumer products. And by that, I mean literally gender, um, race, uh, ethnicity, uh, socioeconomic background. Um, and what I mean by this is not like, oh, if you want to create a product for, um, you know, young black men, you need to hire young black men. Like, I don't mean stuff like that. I just mean, um, and I, I don't think, I don't know how comfortable I am giving, like, examples, but I do think that we are not comfortable as a society admitting this, but there are certain things about, um, how people are brought up, uh, who they are biologically, uh, things like that, that, uh, suit them to, to better working on certain consumer products because at their core, like, most consumer products are, and, and Nikita talks about this too, are, like, hitting against certain, like, parts of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and, um, in order to, like, understand those needs really well, I think there are certain people with, with, you know, backgrounds, upbringings, et cetera, that make them better at that. Um, that doesn't mean you can hire for it, uh, that doesn't mean you, you can judge a book by its cover, things like that, and that, that's why it's such a spicy take, is, like, it's not necessarily even actionable in, in many situations, but, um, yeah, maybe I'll leave it at that before I get myself. Yeah, like, the, the real spicy version would be, like, the grid of, here's the, here's who you need for this type of product, but we're not gonna go there. Uh, before we get to our very exciting lightning round, is there anything else that we haven't touched on, anything else you wanted to share, anything you want to double down on before we get to our exciting lightning round? We covered a lot of ground, so there might not be. No, I think, I think we, yeah, we covered a ton of ground. Um, it's, it's really great. Well, Peter, with that, we reached our very exciting lightning round. I've got five questions for you. Are you ready? All right. Um, I will, I will admit to our, our viewers and listeners that I have not prepared for these, which I guess is the point of the lightning round. That is the point, except there are the same questions to everybody except the last one. Oh, okay, cool. So there's no, uh, it's not too much of a surprise. Then I know these questions. All right. Okay. And I love it when people aren't prepared. Uh, okay. Two or three books that you find yourself recommending most to other people. I'm going to butcher the title a bit. Uh, how to get filthy rich in rising Asia and when genius failed. Oh, haven't heard of these. Uh, amazing. And then the third one, uh, so how to get filthy rich rising Asia, when genius failed is about the fall and the rise and fall of long-term capital management in late 1998. It caused like one of the crashes or nearly averted crashes. And then my third one, which I actually give to a lot of consumer PMs is, um, Einstein's dreams by Alan Lightman, the physicist from MIT. Very, uh, unique fix. I haven't heard these on the podcast before. Favorite recent movie or TV show you've really enjoyed? So I do not consume, uh, TV. Uh, and I rarely, I have, I haven't watched as many movies as I used to. I used to be a big movie buff. So if I could flip this, um, the, to something I was closer to my heart, gaming, I think if you haven't, if you, if you don't play games, video games, um, you should, uh, give last year's game of the year, um, Claire Obscure Expedition 33, uh, a shot. Um, just a wonderful indie studio out of France that constructed a story with music and, and sound that is just like, um, like, like Louvre level, like beauty. And really reminds you that games are a form of art that maybe we still as a society haven't yet, like realized how to appreciate. Um, and I, I think the people behind it are phenomenal. I think what they produce is amazing. Wow. Uh, I want to watch a Twitch stream of you playing it. How fun would that be? That could be your followup. Is that, um, is that on desktop or is that like a console thing? Uh, it's, it's available on console as well, but I think best, probably best experience on desktop. I think it works on Mac and PC. So cool. I think that's the first game recommended. I like how, uh, different this round is than most favorite, interesting AI product right now. In general, a lot of the AI products still feel like we're throwing spaghetti at the wall. Um, I'll take a more, and I've heard a couple of people actually mentioned references on the pod. The one that I found that changed my workflow the most in, at work, um, um, was hex. Um, it was the first time that I just like markedly found myself doing something differently immediately. And it was, it was one of the only multiplayer AI experiences that, that worked like literally me and the co-founder of discord stand like in a meeting, in a hex thread, interacting with hex as we were having discussions in the meeting and getting data back and things like that. Obviously like latency and inference time and stuff like that is still an issue, but, um, I find that product to, to be like, um, really, really great. Um, and really changed, like really just enabled me to feel like a super, super human. I love how every one of these answers, I don't think anyone's ever said. Two final questions. Uh, do you have a favorite life motto that you often find useful in work or in life? Like there's this quote that I'm going to butcher cause I don't have it in front of me. Um, that, that is from John Stein back in, um, East of Eden, I think about the passage of time. And I'm just like generally obsessed with the passage of time because the people in my life, whether it's been like personal or, or professional who I've just always been literally like infatuated by, like, like I've just wanted to spend more time. Like I've, I've like fallen in love with these people. They oftentimes like seem to float through time and perceive time, very differently than, than normal people. And this quote from Steinbeck, um, uh, it's, uh, it's about like how time passes differently when you experience more or less. And essentially, uh, the, the quote is that like duration has no signposts, uh, sorry, time has no signposts upon which to drape duration, um, from nothing to nothing is no time at all. Uh, and I really, I really want to get the full, full quote for you. Uh, but, um, cause it's like literally one of those things where you're like, how could a human write this? It's so beautiful. Um, but yeah, from nothing to nothing is no time at all. And so like a time, a life that is even scarred with tragedy or like essentially just do it right. Like just, just get out there, meet new people, experience things because, um, the best way to, to slow the passage of time, uh, is essentially to, to do something with it. Um, and so I'm like, I'm pretty generous, I think with my time, uh, and like, you know, how I spend it with people and just like trying to, to do things that I want to do as soon as possible because, um, yeah, you just, you just never know. And, um, yeah, those time periods that really seem to pass slowly in a good way are the ones where, um, you've just experienced a lot. And so, yeah, this idea that from like, from nothing to nothing is no time at all, uh, like is, is so scary and motivating to me. That is beautiful. Again, uh, a quote, nobody has shared before. Final question. Okay. So I was looking at your LinkedIn, looking at your career history. Uh, funny enough, you were head of product immediately. That was your first product role at a company. I was a product manager for a little bit, but. Okay. Okay. You've overlooked that in your LinkedIn. Uh, so it was a company called you stream and you're described your role as product leader for the Shiba Inu puppy cam. We need to hear more. Yeah. Yeah. You stream, you stream is a funny, funny company. It was like the first live streaming. Uh, it was one of the first live streaming companies, a long strive live stream, the company actually called live stream and Justin TV with Justin con and, and him like kind of a golden age of, of live streaming that was first enabled by essentially like higher bandwidth and things like that. Um, sometimes we talk about failures, like, uh, you stream was essentially a failure because we, we, we should have focused on gaming. Justin TV focused on gaming, became Twitch, et cetera. Uh, but, um, one thing about you stream, uh, or I, I'll tell you really quick. I know it's lightning round. Uh, the number one product advisor to you stream was 2009 was Josh Elvin, uh, which like, that was like my come up in product was 17 years ago. Uh, like having a mentor who was Josh Elvin, uh, which was really, really phenomenal to, to learn product. And then the actual first product manager at Ustream, uh, was this guy, Matt Schlicht, uh, who had dropped out of high school, I think to work on the product, uh, 2008, 2009, uh, Matt just sold, uh, molt book to, uh, to meta, uh, the kind of a social network for, for agents. Uh, and so he is like one of the OG, uh, social hackers. Uh, so it was really, really awesome to see him, uh, realize that, but, um, yeah, uh, Ustream became really popular, uh, from the Shiba Inu puppy cam, which was somebody taking a Logitech camera and aiming it at a litter of new Shiba Inu puppies and 24 seven, just streaming these puppies growing up, acting crazy, et cetera. And we, we should have learned there were, there were actually three 24 seven cams at the time. I think there was, um, there was, uh, the Shiba Inu puppy cam. Then there was the Eagle cam that showed the birth of baby Eagles in Decorah, Iowa. And then there was, uh, Jason Calcanis, uh, on, uh, just like 24 seven broad. Cause he was the only person who could afford like a broadcasting. His this weekend startups. So two beautiful things in one hideous thing. No, I'm just kidding. Uh, but, uh, yeah, the Shiba Inu puppy cam. I, there was a lot to learn about that. Uh, people use it as their background, uh, just to have it in the background while they worked on their, on their headphones, just listening to these puppies was very soothing. And we got so many emails and people being like to save my life, like blah, blah, blah. So, um, yeah, yeah, it was, uh, it was really fun. Live streaming is still kind of like an uncracked product category. Um, still technically challenging, quite expensive, et cetera. But I learned a lot from like a consumer standpoint from that. Incredible. There's also, uh, on your LinkedIn, uh, you worked at a company that incubated dollar shave club and liquid death. We're not going to get into that. Uh, Peter, you mentioned briefly a second ago, how generous you are with your time. Uh, I really appreciate you making time to be here. Uh, we got through so much, uh, and this is one of the longer episodes I've done, which says a lot about just how much there is to talk about and how much you have to share. So thank you for being here. Yeah, I, I, um, it's just so great to talk about some of this stuff and, um, you know, I haven't, uh, uh, expressed it, uh, externally in a lot of ways. And, um, really, I think it says a lot about like you and your, your, uh, your podcast and your, your, your readership and viewership. Um, it's, I think you like probably have done more than any person to really shape, uh, what this career looks like and how it's improved over, over the years. Um, so I'm really grateful for the time. I'm grateful for everybody who listened. final question. How can listeners be useful to you? I think like people, if they listen through this podcast, they probably got an idea of like, not necessarily like the contrarian takes, but just some of the aspects of like how I think about, um, product that are maybe like just like a little bit different than the typical product leader that came up in Silicon Valley or something like that. And, um, yeah, if they feel, if they feel like something resonates to them or that they disagree with something and want to correct it or, or they'd have beef with it or they just like something fascinated them about it. Um, I would love to hear about it. I'm not, uh, yeah, I would, I would just love to hear. Um, I just love, I love hearing when I love disagreeing with stuff. I love hearing about stuff like that. Sweet. And we'll point you to your socials if folks want to disagree with you. Peter, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having me, Lenny. Really appreciate it. 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 Lenny's podcast.com. See you in the next episode.