The Nicest Mean Thing Anyone Ever Said to Me
They say if you don’t have anything nice to say, come to New England—they’ll find a way to make the truth sound like a compliment while it’s hitting you square in the face.
A few years ago, I was in Massachusetts talking shop with a company about our product. We were deep in the weeds of technical specs, complex workflows, and "robust" capabilities. At the end of the demo, the lead stakeholder looked at me and delivered a line that has haunted me ever since.
He smiled and called our platform "Expert Friendly."
At the time, I almost took it as a win. It sounded like a nod to our power and sophistication. But that phrase stuck in my craw for years, and it finally came back to me recently after hearing an advertisement for a simple, single-purpose product. It hit me: "Expert Friendly" is just polite corporate-speak for "This is a nightmare to use."
The reality check was in the documentation. At the time, our product manual clocked in at 400+ pages. Our leanest competitor? 50 pages.
The High Cost of "More"
We’ve been conditioned to believe that "more" equals "value." We think that if we can cram every possible use case into a single interface, we’re making life easier for the customer. We call it "All-in-One," but usually, it’s just "All-in-the-Way."
That 350-page gap between us and the competition wasn’t a list of "extra features"—it was a Simplicity Tax. When you try to be everything to everyone, you end up with a UI that looks like a 1970s cockpit. You force your users to become "experts" just to survive the onboarding process.
More isn’t better; better is better. I’ve come to realize that I would much rather have a Best of Breed stack—a collection of "A-grade" tools that do one thing perfectly—than one giant, bloated ecosystem that does ten things poorly.
Why I’m Reclaiming "Vendor Lock-in"
Whenever I talk about choosing specialized, best-of-breed vendors over generic "all-in-one" suites, someone inevitably brings up the fear of "Vendor Lock-in."
I’ve grown to hate that term. It’s a fear-based way of looking at a partnership.
I don’t believe in "lock-in"—I believe in Strategic Vendors.
Vendor Lock-in is a prison. It’s when you’re stuck because your data is held hostage or the migration is a technical suicide mission.
A Strategic Vendor is a partnership. It’s when you stay because the company is so deeply aligned with your goals, and their product is so intuitive, that replacing them would be a step backward for your business.
A strategic vendor doesn’t need a 400-page manual to keep you around. They keep you because they’ve mastered the art of abstraction—they’ve hidden the complexity under the hood so you can focus on your actual job.
Lessons from the 350-Page Gap
Hearing that advertisement the other day made me realize that the "Expert Friendly" comment wasn’t a critique of our code—it was a critique of our philosophy.
If a competitor can solve the same problem in 50 pages that takes you 400, they aren’t "missing features." They have a better understanding of the user’s time. In the modern market, the "Expert" is a myth. Even the most brilliant engineers and data scientists want tools that are intuitive. No one wants to spend their Saturday reading a manual.
Our goal shouldn’t be to build products for experts. Our goal should be to build products that make people experts without them even realizing it.
I’m taking those extra 350 pages and putting them where they belong. We’re focusing on being the strategic partner that does one thing better than anyone else, with a manual so short you might actually read it.
Because at the end of the day, simplicity isn’t just a design choice—it’s a sign of respect for your customer.
Comments
Post a Comment