> We [snip] ended up with 11,000 downloads and 6000 sign-ups for our first day. Not exactly the day we expected.
It's hard to have sympathy for this. Admittedly they had lots of resources put behind them leading up to their big launch, but convincing 6,000 people to convert on day one of product availability isn't something to scoff at. What am I missing here?
By the sound of it, they didn't convince 6k to convert, they convinced 6k to have a look.
"“Launching” screws with your metrics – and you need clean metrics to evaluate and iterate on your business. If you see 6000 signups on day one and 2000 on day two, you can be mislead about the strength of your vision. It clouds your ability to single out the passionate users and understand their usage patterns."
[...]
"You can demonstrate growth by finding one passionate user, and then ten, and then 100 instead of taking in 6000 sign-ups to find 111 passionate ones."
That was the main thing I got from it anyway. They launched and missed and then... :/
Yeah, I should've used a different word; I considered making an edit. I feel bad for them as well, but more out of sympathy for the experience of having the wind taken out of your sails.
I don't necessarily agree that it's bad data either, just that it needs to be weighted appropriately. He's right though that it would be better to have gained this knowledge slowly instead of as one big bang. That would give them more chances to course correct without so much external attention.
> We [snip] ended up with 11,000 downloads and 6000 sign-ups for our first day. Not exactly the day we expected.
It's hard to have sympathy for this. Admittedly they had lots of resources put behind them leading up to their big launch, but convincing 6,000 people to convert on day one of product availability isn't something to scoff at. What am I missing here?