<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: What is Product Market Fit?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.willegan.com/product-market-fit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.willegan.com/product-market-fit/</link>
	<description>Melbourne-based growth marketer specialising in activation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:55:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Will Egan		</title>
		<link>https://www.willegan.com/product-market-fit/#comment-13</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Will Egan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 02:55:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.willegan.com/?p=236#comment-13</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.willegan.com/product-market-fit/#comment-12&quot;&gt;Luke Fitzpatrick&lt;/a&gt;.

Hey Luke,

Awesome question, thanks for asking. Certainly, products evolve, but my contention would be that they should avoid straying from their core. Furthermore, that one shouldn&#039;t delay the growth piece in lieu of lacking a certain feature.

Those mini PMFs you allude to, I like to call them supporting value props. For example, Google&#039;s product market fit is the idea that someone would like to search something. The core value prop is &#039;a search bar and a results page&#039;. Adding instant search, image search and everything else weren&#039;t new core value props, they supported the core. Hence, supporting value prop.

Hope that helps, =)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.willegan.com/product-market-fit/#comment-12">Luke Fitzpatrick</a>.</p>
<p>Hey Luke,</p>
<p>Awesome question, thanks for asking. Certainly, products evolve, but my contention would be that they should avoid straying from their core. Furthermore, that one shouldn&#8217;t delay the growth piece in lieu of lacking a certain feature.</p>
<p>Those mini PMFs you allude to, I like to call them supporting value props. For example, Google&#8217;s product market fit is the idea that someone would like to search something. The core value prop is &#8216;a search bar and a results page&#8217;. Adding instant search, image search and everything else weren&#8217;t new core value props, they supported the core. Hence, supporting value prop.</p>
<p>Hope that helps, =)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Luke Fitzpatrick		</title>
		<link>https://www.willegan.com/product-market-fit/#comment-12</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Luke Fitzpatrick]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.willegan.com/?p=236#comment-12</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Your article got me thinking ... 

What about if there is like a special &#039;Product Market Fit life-cycle.&#039; 

Products evolve (what works for early adopters, may not be exactly what the mainstream wants). 

Is it possible to have mini PMF&#039;s?

Thoughts?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your article got me thinking &#8230; </p>
<p>What about if there is like a special &#8216;Product Market Fit life-cycle.&#8217; </p>
<p>Products evolve (what works for early adopters, may not be exactly what the mainstream wants). </p>
<p>Is it possible to have mini PMF&#8217;s?</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
