One of the most frustrating things about growth is that the symptom and the cause are usually far apart.
CAC goes up, so it must be the ads.
Conversion drops, so it must be the landing page.
Pipeline slows, so it must be the channel.
Those are reasonable conclusions, they're just usually late ones.
By the time a problem shows up in metrics, the real issue has often been baked into the system much earlier (in how different parts of the business were designed to work together).
That's why teams can work incredibly hard and still feel like nothing compounds.
The mistake most founders make
When something isn't working, founders usually ask:
"What should we change?"
A better question is:
"Where is this system breaking?"
Because different breaks require very different fixes.
If you misdiagnose the break, you end up fixing the wrong thing, and no amount of testing makes that better.
A simpler way to diagnose growth issues
Instead of starting with channels or metrics, start with where alignment tends to fail.
Most growth problems show up in a small number of predictable places. If you understand what each break looks like and why it happens, you can narrow the problem quickly.
Here are three of the most common ones.
1. Market ↔ Product breaks
(You built something, but it's not tightly matched to a real job.)
What this break actually means
Your product exists, people can use it, but it doesn't map cleanly to a problem the market feels urgently enough.
This isn't about product quality.
It's about relevance and intensity.
How it shows up
People sign up, but don't stick around.
Feedback is positive but vague.
Retention never really flattens.
You hear things like:
- "It's interesting, but…"
- "I can see who this is for, just not us."
- "We'd use it occasionally."
Example
A SaaS tool for async team updates.
The idea is solid. People like the concept. But the market already has workarounds (Slack, Notion, docs). The pain isn't sharp enough to change behavior.
The product works, but the job isn't urgent.
That's a Market–Product break.
2. Model ↔ Market breaks
(People like the product, but the way you charge doesn't match how they buy.)
What this break actually means
The value might be real, but the pricing, packaging, or payment structure doesn't fit the buyer's expectations or constraints.
This is often mistaken for a "sales problem."
How it shows up
Deals stall late.
Discounts keep creeping in.
People ask for pilots, smaller plans, or exceptions.
You hear:
- "Can we start cheaper?"
- "We need approval for this."
- "Can we pay annually instead?"
Example
A $20/month per-seat tool sold to finance teams at large companies.
The price is low. The friction is high.
Procurement doesn't want to deal with per-seat SaaS for a small line item. Buyers would rather pay a larger annual contract or bundle it.
The problem isn't price sensitivity. It's a mismatch between the model and how the market buys.
3. Product ↔ Channel breaks
(You're reaching people in the wrong context for what your product requires.)
What this break actually means
Channels come with built-in assumptions about attention, intent, and patience.
If your product experience doesn't match that context, the channel will look broken (even if it's delivering the "right" people).
How it shows up
Traffic comes in, but activation is weak.
Funnels leak early.
Channels work at small scale and fall apart when pushed.
Teams usually respond by rewriting copy or changing creatives.
But the deeper issue is often friction.
Example
A complex B2B analytics product advertised on Meta.
The ads drive clicks. People are curious. But once they land, they're asked to connect data sources, configure dashboards, and wait for insights.
Meta delivers low-intent, low-patience users.
The product requires time and focus.
That mismatch always kills performance.
A pattern we see all the time
Founders often tell us:
"We've tested every channel. Nothing scales."
When we slow things down, we usually find they've been rotating channels while keeping the same underlying misalignment intact.
Same assumptions.
Same pricing logic.
Same product friction.
So naturally, when they try a different channel, they get the same result.
Once the alignment is fixed, a channel they already wrote off often starts working.
Why we approach growth this way
This alignment-first mindset is core to how we think about growth at Demand Curve.
Inside the Growth Program, we use it to help teams stop chasing tactics and start engineering systems that compound.
But you don't need a framework to start benefiting from it.
The next time growth feels stuck, don't ask what to try next.
Ask where the system is breaking.
You might already have all the right pieces in play, you just need to shuffle them around on the board.
Devon Reynolds
Demand Curve Creative Strategist
No comments:
Post a Comment