business / narrowing-as-strategy · article
business/ · 1,267 w · 6 min · ✎ dialogue

Narrowing as Strategy

Jason's answer to the "build something 10x better" startup mandate: you don't do it by being 10x better at everything. You do it by ruthlessly constraining scope — one problem, one narrow user set, sustained for much longer than feels comfortable. Amazon sold only books for four years. Stripe perfected one API for three. Canva focused on drag-and-drop social graphics for four. Facebook stayed Harvard-only before expanding. The pattern is consistent, and it's the foundation of everything Jason teaches about early-stage product building.

Developed in newsletter #228 "Building 10x Better" (2024-11-23) and anchored in his book The Path to Pivot.

The "10x Better" Mandate

A common startup refrain: to win, you need a product 10x better than alternatives. The reasoning is that people are comfortable with what they have, and most won't switch unless the improvement is dramatic. Small improvements lose to the inertia of the incumbent.

Jason admits he found this hard to swallow as a young founder. 10x better sounded like hyperbole. What does it even mean to be 10x better? And isn't there a contradiction with Reid Hoffman's famous line that you should be embarrassed by your first version?

The resolution he arrived at over years of studying the startup game: you can't be 10x better at everything for everyone. But you can be 10x better at one thing for one kind of user — if you stay narrow long enough to actually get there.

Narrow Down

From The Path to Pivot:

The next step of your pivot journey is figuring out what direction to take the company in. Your beautifully, wonderfully dissatisfied users have ranted to you about many problems. Pick one. Then do a really, really good job of solving it.

The advice was originally for founders in the middle of a pivot. Jason's broader claim is that it applies to every founder, not just ones pivoting. There are three concrete reasons narrowness wins:

  1. Easier to build. A contained problem has a less complex solution. Small teams can't build complex; narrowing matches the problem to the team's actual capacity.
  2. Better results. A tailored solution for a precise need outperforms an all-inclusive answer for an expansive problem. The narrowing is the quality.
  3. Greater word of mouth. With fewer, more similar customers, you have the bandwidth to understand and serve them deeply. A loyal, well-fit customer base becomes your marketing. A broad, badly-fit customer base becomes your support burden.

As a small team, you don't have the luxury of dividing attention across multiple non-compounding directions. Staying narrow makes your marketing, product, and operations multiplicative rather than additive.

The Case Studies

Jason anchors the argument in four companies that stayed narrow for years before expanding — and became category-defining as a direct result:

Amazon (1994–1998): 4 years of just books. Bezos didn't use the early years to sell books. He used them to master online retail fundamentals, build robust logistics networks, and earn consumer trust. Books were the vehicle. The blueprint for everything-else-commerce was what he was actually building.

Stripe (2010–2013): 3 years of one API. Making it dead simple for developers to integrate payment processing. Only after nearly three years of perfecting that single thing did they launch their second product, Stripe Connect.

Canva (2013–2017): 4 years of social graphics. Drag-and-drop design tools for bloggers and social media creators. The comprehensive design platform we know today came only after four years of mastering the narrow wedge.

Facebook (Jan 2004–Sept 2006): 2.5 years of college-only. Harvard first, then other colleges, then high schools. Even with explosive growth, the platform stayed constrained for nearly three years before opening to everyone.

The pattern: years, not quarters. Even explosive-growth companies didn't expand on the timeline founders typically imagine.

Compound Quality

Narrowing is necessary but not sufficient. The second half of building 10x better is keeping at it for longer than you'd like to believe.

Jason's argument: the democratization of software development — no-code tools, AI, a flood of apps for every niche — has raised the bar for what counts as exceptional. Users are tech-savvy, they have dozens of alternatives at their fingertips, and they're rightfully skeptical of switching. "Just good enough" is no longer good enough. You need to keep sharpening the product inside the narrow scope until it becomes genuinely irreplaceable for that use case.

This is where his own founder history becomes the counter-example. As a young founder with ADHD, he was impatient. He wanted results immediately; when they didn't come, he changed course. In retrospect, he didn't give directions enough time to compound. The conviction he teaches now — built progressively through evidence — includes the patience to keep grinding on a narrow wedge while it looks like nothing is happening.

Why Founders Resist Narrowing

The resistance is predictable, and Jason has seen it repeatedly:

  • "Why limit ourselves? The market is huge." This was the question asked of Bezos in 1995. It's the wrong question. The market being huge is the long-term prize; the short-term path to it runs through being exceptional at one thing.
  • "Our product is for everyone." The death sentence of positioning. If it's for everyone, it's for no one, and word of mouth can't get started.
  • "We need to expand to justify the funding." The inverse: you need to earn the right to expand by dominating the narrow wedge first.
  • Investor pressure for TAM. Investors ask about total addressable market because they want to know where the ceiling is. Answering that question honestly doesn't require you to address all of it on day one.

The counter-move in all four cases is the same: the narrow wedge is the foundation for the big market, not a retreat from it. Amazon isn't small because it started with books; it's large because it started with books.

Connection to Pivots

In startup-pivots, narrowing is one of the recurring mechanics of successful pivots. When a team pivots, they've usually been trying to serve too many users with too broad a product. The pivot's real job is usually not changing direction — it's shrinking direction. The path to the new product is through a narrower initial scope than the old one.

Jason's Path to Pivot framework treats "narrow down" as a foundational step regardless of whether you're pre-pivot, mid-pivot, or just starting out. Same principle, different phase.

What This Means for the Founder

Three operational takeaways:

  1. Pick one problem for one user. Not a market. A specific, named kind of person with a specific, describable pain.
  2. Plan for years, not quarters. If you expect to expand in 6 months, you're not committed to the narrow wedge. Budget 2–4 years before the expansion conversation is even appropriate.
  3. Say no to distractions — especially promising ones. The dangerous distractions aren't bad opportunities. They're adjacent opportunities that feel smart to pursue. Those are the ones that break the narrowing discipline.
Thread · 0 replies+ add reply
no replies yet — be the first to write back to this article.