jdilla.xyz

Shoe Dog is the story of Phil Knight and the founding of Nike through the first 12 years of its existence. It’s a great entrepreneurial story, one that I would recommend to anyone starting a business, because of how honest it is about the journey.

Another thing I appreciated about this book was getting to know Nike before it was dominant. All my life, Nike has been the premier sportswear brand. I had no idea that it began life as Blue Ribbon. Or that it started out importing another company’s shoes, basically taking advantage of outsourced production. Or that it only launched the Nike brand when its production partner tried to go around it to distribute in the United States.

One final story from the book: the name almost wasn’t Nike. Knight’s most trusted lieutenant had observed “that seemingly all iconic brands—Clorox, Kleenex, Xerox—have short names. Two syllables or less. And they always have a strong sound in the name, a letter like “K” or “X,” that sticks in the mind.” Despite this insight, he very nearly named the company Dimension Six.

1: A benefit of having an executive team of distance runners: they have a high tolerance for pushing through pain towards a goal.

Often when I find myself stuck, it’s because I don’t have conviction about how to move forward. One option gives me part of what I think is important, another option gives me another part, but no option gives me everything I want. I can spend a lot of time churning with indecision, looking for an additional option that doesn’t exist.

Oddly, I find these situations harder to deal with in my personal life than in my professional life. It seems that at work I expect to be faced with choices where there is no ideal outcome, but running into this situation in my personal life is more distressing.

Recently I’ve been struck by the power of laying out the options that exist and “simply” choosing the least bad one. In practice, this looks more like:

1. Lay out the options

2. Make sure no other options exist

3. Identify the least bad one

4. Is there anything I can do to make this option even less bad?

5. Pick the least bad option

6. Decide to revisit the decision and/or how to move towards the ideal option in the future

So here’s to the least bad option: humbler and less satisfying than the best option, but powerful nonetheless.

1: I think of this Jon Gruber column about how Apple rolls, which I revisit about once a year.

I’m really excited to finally show the world Stripe Apps.

Stripe apps lets developers customize a user’s Stripe experience. They can make workflows simpler, like the Intercom app, that makes it easier for a support agent to see who they’re refunding a payment for and reply inline. They can make collaboration easier, like the Render app, that makes it easier for a company that uses Stripe to process payments to make that data accessible to PMs or Analysts on the team. Or they can make it easier for businesses to get financing based on their Stripe financial data, like FounderPath, that helps SaaS founder access capital more easily.

This has easily been the most ambitious launch that I’ve ever worked on. Recruiting 35 launch partners seemed impossible when we started and yet here we are with more than 50. I’ll probably write more about what I learned while doing this in the future, but for now I’ll just say that ecosystem product management reminds me of the way I felt when I first started being a platform PM.

There’s a fair amount of terror, that comes from not having direct control over people’s roadmaps and decisions. There’s a sense of accomplishment that comes with understanding how to use a focus on the user and attention to detail to get people to move in the same direction. There’s a thrill that comes with making something much higher impact than any one team or individual could make on their own.

You can see the entire list of amazing launch apps here or start building an app here. You can find coverage of Stripe Apps in the Stripe Newsroom, Hacker News, Tech Crunch, and Venture Beat.

Update: Stripe Apps covered by Ben Thompson in Stratechery.

The last major thing I worked on at YouTube has finally shipped: a way for Creators to find inspiration for videos using YouTube data on what people have been searching for.

This feature is particularly useful if you’re trying to find your niche on the platform. You can brainstorm topic areas and then use those to find search terms where there isn’t enough good content today, allowing you to get started.

I’m proud to have played a small part in bringing this into the world.

From the Conversations with Tyler podcast:

COWEN: If I visit every major country in Europe, what I observe is the highest living standard is arguably in Switzerland — Norway and Luxembourg aside. Switzerland has one of the smallest governments, and they attempt relatively little redistribution. What is your understanding of Switzerland? What if someone said, “Well, Europe should try to be more like Switzerland. They’re doing great.” Why is that wrong?

PIKETTY: Oh, Switzerland. It’s a very small country, so it’s about the size. . . . Actually, it’s smaller than Île-de-France, which is a Paris region. Now, if you were to make a separate country out of Île-de-France, GDP per capita, I think, would actually be higher than Switzerland. Of course, you can take a wealthy region in your country and say, “Okay, I don’t want to share anything with the rest of the country. I’m going to keep my tax revenue for me. I’m going to be a tax haven based on bank secrecy.” That’s going to make you 10 percent or 20 percent richer. I’m not saying —

COWEN: It’s been a long time since Switzerland relied on bank secrecy, right? Following 9/11, that Swiss advantage largely went away.

PIKETTY: Oh, that’s wrong. Oh, you’re wrong on this.

COWEN: It’s the US that’s the secrecy haven.

PIKETTY: No, it still brings . . . No, no, I can tell you in terms of the banking sector and the status as a tax haven still brings an additional income of at least 10 percent or 20 percent to Switzerland. But I agree with you, Switzerland would still be rich even without this. But they would be a bit poorer, and they will certainly not be richer than if you compare to, say, the Paris region GDP per capita or the London region, if you take the wealthiest region. It’s important to compare countries of comparable size, regions of comparable size….

COWEN: But Switzerland is a real country with a diversified economy.

PIKETTY: Yes, sure.

COWEN: Very little of it is poor.

PIKETTY: The Paris region is a real region.

COWEN: But that’s a clustering effect within France. France is much poorer than Switzerland. Could not France bring Swiss prosperity to —

PIKETTY: This is not comparable in size. I don’t think it makes sense. Again, if you want to compare a region of about 5 million,10 million inhabitants — which is the size of Switzerland — you find many other regions with comparable GDP per capita all across Europe.

There are many good things with Switzerland, by the way. I think the local democratic system has lots of good aspects to it. The education system has . . . I think there’s a lot to learn from each of these experiments.

I feel lame excerpting this part since it’s the same part that Tyler excerpted, but Switzerland is one of my obsessions so here we are.

A couple of observations…

At least as far as I can tell from the internet, Piketty is wrong about GDP per capita. The latest GDP per capita I could find quickly for Île-de-France was $69,423 in 2016 (from Wikipedia). Swiss GDP per capita was $83,073 in 2016 according to the World Bank. The Swiss figure is in 2020 US dollars. I’m not sure what year the Île-de-France figures are in, but if you assume it’s 2016 dollars, then that would put the Île-de-France GDP per capita figure at $74,862 (based on this admittedly less than fully convincing website). Still less.

This doesn’t invalidate Piketty’s point larger point about scale . Before I lived in Switzerland, I had several people who had lived there mention how small of a country it is when comparing it to the US. At the time, I would roll my eyes.

But having lived there, I’ve changed my mind. It is a really small country and this seems to make some problems more tractable. US federalism and Swiss federalism get compared a lot and they are similar in many ways. But Swiss Cantons, which relate to the Federal government the same way that US States do, are closer to US counties in terms of population and land mass. There’s a lot more consensus about how things should work at the US county level than there is at the US state level, which makes choosing a direction easier. (Aside: You could argue that the implication here is that even more US governance should happen locally, but I wonder if at some point that would erode the benefits of scale that the US enjoys.)

Even with the caveat of size, I still think Switzerland is super impressive. The way I describe it to Americans is that the entire country is like the wealthiest US suburbs. Everything just works. The infrastructure is well maintained. It’s clean. The bureaucracy is friendly and easy to navigate. It’s safe enough to leave your door unlocked. There aren’t that many places in the world where 8 million people live that you can say that about.

The last thing I’ll say is that I don’t think the Swiss secret is simply less government and less redistribution, although I do think these are assets for Switzerland. If I had narrow it down, I would say that the political culture of trust and compromise and the high investment in human capital are the driving factors. If anything, I think these are what allows the government to be both small and effective… which I think places me closer to Piketty’s answer than Tyler’s question.