Why your product idea sounds too complicated

The "simple" to "WTF" scale of product complexity

Above: The horseless carriage (known here as a motor carriage) as the ultimate example of the adjective+noun product description. Positioned against horses!

The Simple to WTF scale
There's a complexity scale for how people describe products. Here it is, from simplest to wtf:

• SIMPLE (and easiest to understand): The product can be described in 2 words as [adjective] + [noun] like "electric car" or "smart phone" or similar. It's something you understand, but with one major change that's emphasized. If the category gets big, then eventually something like "horseless carriage" just turns into "car." (which then invites a new adjective-led category later)

• OK GOT IT: It's also easy to understand something like, "an [kind of app] for [well-understood behavior]," like an app for making a restaurant reservation or a VR app for playing basketball. The more understandable the behavior (and the more obvious why someone would want to do this) the better. If there's a clear commercial value, that will make it very easy to understand.

• HUH: Famously a lot of startups go with the "[product] for [category]" description. This can work well for products that are easily segmented, like "online dating for international students" or "voice notes for doctors." If the product is obviously useful while the segment seems valuable and big enough, then it works great. It works less well when things are too niche, or there's no real market intersection for the "X for Y" idea, like a social network for cats. (No, this isn't a good idea, don't even get started).

• UH.... WHAT: There's a close cousin to the above, which is "a [kind of app] for [literal/weird/bizarre behavior] or "it's [weird product idea] for [niche segment]". Obv if it's an app for a weird/strange behavior, like "an app for visualizing wikipedia links as geometric diagrams" then one might understand literally what the app does, but still not get the why. Or saying something is Roblox for cats. What would that even mean? This is particularly tempting for nerds who want to describe in detail what their product does, but not why, or to just make word salad because it's fun.

• WTF (like seriously what?): One more step towards descriptive would be to lead with a lot of detail about the inner mechanics of the product as the starting point. Perhaps starting with a history of an esoteric set of technologies involved as the 20 min preamble, before finally describing the product. Or talk about a complicated product strategy based on the structure of your market, and after analyzing everything, finally get to a complex family of somewhat unrelated products, followed by a super product that encompasses all of them. These pitches all follow the same pattern: 10-minute intro, question, another 10-minute spiel, more rambling, more questions, even more rambling... more confused questions. And on and on. WTF.

• DOUBLE WTF: And don't get me started if you begin your presentation with the "jobs to be done" framework, describe that, then describe your weird product, then describe how it fills some bizarre psychological need. Then 2x2s and then a weird super product with a bunch of features to be built over the next 5 years. We get it, you just got your MBA :) Just tell us what you're building now.

If you’re building a product, maybe this is starting to scare you. Maybe you’re at the WTF level and no wonder your idea has sounded so confusing over time.

How to fix your WTF description
If you're at a higher WTF level than desired, here's the easiest fix. But I warn you, it's a painful one, because it requires you to ask questions and listen.

• Show your product to target customers

• Ask them: "How would you describe this to someone else?"

• Bite your tongue and listen - you'll soon learn some simple truths

Their words that follow this question are gold. Simplicity is key. They will toss out your complicated description, and replace it with something easier and more truthful. Often times, you will dislike what you hear. Because it strips out all of your strategic differentiation, and just describes what is in front of them. Or perhaps because it doesn't capture the technical "wow" of what's under the hood. Sorry, this is the unvarnished truth of your product even if it's painful.

To dislodge this ugly but truthful idea, you have to replace it with a better idea that's prettier but also equivalently truthful. You may need to shift towards familiar product categories or behaviors and position against them in an attractive way. Your customers can only understand things through the context of what already exists in the world -- they can't talk or ask for new/innovative things. The classic quote by Henry Ford says, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses" Of course it's your job to deliver these innovations, but you must learn to describe them. And cars were originally called horseless carriages for a reason -- to bridge the gap between what customers understand and what they actually want.

As a result, the simplest product pitches are often counterpositions on existing categories. Take something that's well understood, whether that's product in market, or a behavior that's commonplace, and describe your product relative to that one. If you can describe it as adjective+noun, then great, or "noun for segment" or "app for behavior." These are all attempts to use pre-existing categories.

What if your idea sounds too bland
The main downside to positioning against something pre-existing is that it'll feel too similar and bland. It'll seem to lack differentiation. Sometimes that's fine, particularly if you are early in the product cycle where having the "it works" feature is enough, or if you at the end and "it has better design" is enough. But sometimes you do need to have a strong counterpositioning.

A few things to try.

• First, try to be the anti-something. If there's a pre-existing product in the market try to differentiate by positioning against it. "We're a new kind of X" or "We're the anti-X" and follow this line of thought to what this might be. Perhaps it's mostly branding, as Pepsi and Coke are, or maybe it's something more substantial like a consumer versus enterprise focus (like Box and Dropbox). There’s a good book called Different by Youngme Moon that I sometimes recommend, which discusses this antagonistic positioning.

• Or, make a fundamental choice in UX, one that's immediately visible. Perhaps another product opens to an AI text box, and you should open to a grid of templates. Or you use animated GIFs when others use videos or lists of text. Sometimes a big "out of the box" difference in UI goes a long way, particularly if that UI helps you target a different audience.

• Go really premium and target a smaller audience. Or go towards free (or as close as you can) and go broader. Sell via partners, or go direct. Go for a younger audience, or try for an older one. Grow internationally rather than domestically. There's a lot of choices like these. These dichotomies help define the product description and oftentimes it's choices like these that can help win, not just features.

There are may other strategies of course, but these are some common approaches.

Simple is a competitive advantage
When it's easier to describe what you do, it's more memorable. It spreads faster. Your onboarding gets more efficient, and your customer acquisition gets cheaper. Simpler is a competitive advantage unto itself.

The hardest part about this for a lot of product builders is simply that the ego wants to be different. People want credit for the cleverness of their idea. And the line of thinking goes, more complex means more clever, which means they are smarter. Customers don't care about that. They just want to understand how your product fits into their life and when they should use it. That's it.