đ´ââ ď¸ Pirates vs. đ§đ˝ââď¸ the Navy
Most growth strategies take either too many risks or none at all. A simple framework can help you get the balance right
Recently, I was asked to put together a growth strategy for a new B2B SaaS tool starting in a very competitive niche (email tracking software).
My approach in similar cases is always to focus on establishing a few channels/programs that present a good mix of short- and longer-term potential. Usually it would look something like this:
Messaging & positioning: To understand who the customer is, what theyâre looking for in a product, and where they hang out. Also to guide other parts of the strategy â such as what keywords to go after, etc.
Content/SEO:Â To start building a sustainable machine that compounds over time (but takes a while to kick in).
Performance:Â To jumpstart the short-term acquisition engine and go after low-hanging fruit.
Lifecycle:Â To prioritize activation of new users/customers (i.e. fix holes in the leaky bucket).
However, this approach often gets pushback from operators â Iâve heard on more than one occasion that the approach is too ordinary and is lacking a differentiator, which can deliver outsized returns.
Or said another way... many founders looks for hacky ways to grow.
To me, this dichotomy between slow (and boring) tactics and hacks resembles the popular concept of Pirates vs. the Navy. However, I find each extreme it an extremely short-sighted and even dangerous way to plan for the growth of your company.
Hereâs why and what you should do instead.
Running an experiment with my friends from Knock. Click on the banner below to ask any question or chat about anything growth-related:
Pirates? Navy?
Pirates vs. the Navy is a popular concept of how startups should evolve their approach and processes as they scale.
Pirates move quickly, are not afraid of breaking things, or retreating and trying again when they make a mistake.
The Navy moves much slower, build processes, and tries to make things repeatable and to avoid (costly) mistakes.
When it comes to marketing/growth, Iâve noticed that many founders look for shortcuts and hacks when it comes to growth â they want to focus primarily (or even only) on channels and tactics that can produce outsized returns.
At the same time they deprioritize important channels (content/SEO is often first to walk the plank) because they think thereâs no point going all in on it so late in the game.
And even if they do decide to invest in content marketing, this thinking still shows up as chasing viral hits rather than a measured SEO/keyword-based strategy that can produce compounding results over time.
The pirate tactics work...until they donât.
The problem is, pirates donât stand a chance against the better-equipped and trained Navy in a face-off. So they have to keep going for hits hoping they donât get in a direct fight.
Unfortunately, this often looks like a game of Russian roulette (sorry, ran out of pirate-themed metaphorsâŚ) â over time your chances of avoiding the painful outcome become slimmer and slimmer.Â
What does the Navy do differently?
It moves slowly, relies on proven methods, and spends time putting processes together. This allows it to understand what works and what needs to be improved, remain productive as it grows, and take on bigger tasks and enemies.
Instead of looking for a quick strike, the Navy creates a stable system which generates results over a much longer period of time. Less Treasure Island, more Civilization.
That doesnât mean the Navy cannot (and should not) act as pirates sometimes. In fact, getting stuck in your (proven but slow) methods is a sure-fire way to lose a battle against pirates.
What does this have to do with Growth?
Letâs get back to growth strategy.
Instead of focussing 100% on being either a pirate or an admiral, the best growth operators understand the need to balance the 2 approaches.
When you combine the structured navy thinking with an experimental approach towards growth (i.e. pirate tactics), you maximize the potential of having a productive growth strategy.
Hereâs a great example coming from the industry weâre discussing in this very article.
Apollo is well-known for itâs content:
Obviously, this is working well for them. But that doesnât prevent them from experimenting with edgier tactics. Consider this email I got from them recently:
Apollo is experimenting with its own awards. While I donât have insider info on what the goal of this play is, itâs pretty easy to hypothesize that they are going for brand visibility and awareness.
(For the record, Iâm not in love with this because it seems too product-centric, but the point about doing moonshot experiments stands.)
How to pick the right đ§đ˝ââď¸/đ´ââ ď¸ mix?
The whole question here is how to invest your resources (time, money, people) between channels and tactics that:
compound over time, but take much longer to start delivering results and at a lower ROI,
vs. those that bear a high risk of not working out, but a much bigger and quicker upside.
Should you use another mental shortcut and do something like 80/20? (Or even 80/15/5, which Iâm starting to see, where the 15 is new but essentially established tactics and the 5 is wild experiments like Apolloâs MVP awards above.)
I donât believe this is a sound approach because it is not based on a solid growth framework. If you use a mental shortcut like 80/20, you can easily engage in experimentation for the sake of experimentation.Â
So what framework should you use to make this sort of decisions?
Enter the Racecar Growth Framework.
The Racecar Growth Framework
The Racecar Framework seems to be making a comeback and Iâve very happy for it because itâs one of the most useful ways to think about growth.
Developed by Dan Hockenmaier and Lenny Rachitsky, it gives us a very useful schematic to think about growth:
Instead of experimenting with eyepatches (always a bad decision) and being edgy for the sake of being edgy, you think about everything you do on the growth front through 4 categories:
âď¸Â Growth engine: These are the actual (repeatable) loops that generate growth. The most common types are performance (as in paid ads), content (user- or company-generated), and virality engines.
đ§Â Lubricants: These are optimizations that improve the operations of your main engine(s). Examples include improving the conversion rate of your homepage or adding an email onboarding flow to get people to start using your product.
đĽÂ Turbo boosts: These are one-off activities that start or add additional fuel to an engine. Think an event or an expensive (one-off) ad played during the Super Bowl break.
â˝Â Fuel: This is the main thing that makes your car work â capital, content, or users. Itâs important to understand and optimize your business model for it.
Iâm not going to go deep on the Racecar framework because Dan and Lenny have already done a great job of explaining it (start here) in multiple posts.
How is this relevant to the đ´ââ ď¸/đ§đ˝ââď¸ debate?
Pirates want to focus on Turbo boosts all the time. The Navy builds its Growth engine(s) first and foremost.
In this context, hacks can be re-framed as Turbo boosts. Thereâs nothing wrong with them â you need them, especially in the beginning, while youâre still figuring out your main engine and looking for ways to jumpstart it.Â
But they donât compound. One week after the Super Bowl, no one remembers your ad and the effect is gone.
And unfortunately, even though the example looks almost cartoonish, there are teams who bet only on one-off tactics, hoping the sustainable loops will somehow happen on their own.
Final words: How do you become a pirate?
So, youâre saying, just be the navy?
Not really. You canât afford it.
The market is too competitive. Youâll never make it through the noise.
Youâll never have a good story for LinkedIn... [/SARCASM]
You need to experiment with new tactics and new channels â but they should be part of your overall process and thinking.
In my 10+ years of operating in the trenches, Iâve never stumbled upon a great new thing.
Discovering new ways to grow has always been the result of finding inspiration and ideas in the course of doing the mundane.
And this is where having a strong process to follow pays its weight in gold. It helps you get focussed and avoid chasing too many ideas.
Are you facing challenges with your growth process? Iâm always happy to connect with founders and fellow growth practitioners.