475 lines
14 KiB
Markdown
475 lines
14 KiB
Markdown
# Metrics Tree Methodology
|
||
|
||
**When to use this methodology:** You've used [template.md](template.md) and need advanced techniques for:
|
||
- Multi-sided marketplaces or platforms
|
||
- Complex metric interdependencies and feedback loops
|
||
- Counter-metrics and guardrail systems
|
||
- Network effects and viral growth
|
||
- Preventing metric gaming
|
||
- Seasonal adjustment and cohort aging effects
|
||
- Portfolio approach for different business stages
|
||
|
||
**If your metrics tree is straightforward:** Use [template.md](template.md) directly. This methodology is for complex metric systems.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Table of Contents
|
||
1. [Multi-Sided Marketplace Metrics](#1-multi-sided-marketplace-metrics)
|
||
2. [Counter-Metrics & Guardrails](#2-counter-metrics--guardrails)
|
||
3. [Network Effects & Viral Loops](#3-network-effects--viral-loops)
|
||
4. [Preventing Metric Gaming](#4-preventing-metric-gaming)
|
||
5. [Advanced Leading Indicators](#5-advanced-leading-indicators)
|
||
6. [Metric Interdependencies](#6-metric-interdependencies)
|
||
7. [Business Stage Metrics](#7-business-stage-metrics)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. Multi-Sided Marketplace Metrics
|
||
|
||
### Challenge
|
||
Marketplaces have supply-side and demand-side that must be balanced. Optimizing one side can hurt the other.
|
||
|
||
### Solution: Dual Tree Approach
|
||
|
||
**Step 1: Identify constraint**
|
||
- **Supply-constrained**: More demand than supply → Focus on supply-side metrics
|
||
- **Demand-constrained**: More supply than demand → Focus on demand-side metrics
|
||
- **Balanced**: Need both → Monitor ratio/balance metrics
|
||
|
||
**Step 2: Create separate trees**
|
||
|
||
**Supply-Side Tree:**
|
||
```
|
||
North Star: Active Suppliers (providing inventory)
|
||
├─ New supplier activation
|
||
├─ Retained suppliers (ongoing activity)
|
||
└─ Supplier quality/performance
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Demand-Side Tree:**
|
||
```
|
||
North Star: Successful Transactions
|
||
├─ New customer acquisition
|
||
├─ Repeat customer rate
|
||
└─ Customer satisfaction
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Step 3: Define balance metrics**
|
||
- **Liquidity ratio**: Supply utilization rate (% of inventory sold)
|
||
- **Match rate**: % of searches resulting in transaction
|
||
- **Wait time**: Time from demand signal to fulfillment
|
||
|
||
**Example (Uber):**
|
||
- Supply NS: Active drivers with >10 hours/week
|
||
- Demand NS: Completed rides
|
||
- Balance metric: Average wait time <5 minutes, driver utilization >60%
|
||
|
||
### Multi-Sided Decomposition Template
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Marketplace GMV = (Supply × Utilization) × (Demand × Conversion) × Average Transaction
|
||
|
||
Where:
|
||
- Supply: Available inventory/capacity
|
||
- Utilization: % of supply that gets used
|
||
- Demand: Potential buyers/searches
|
||
- Conversion: % of demand that transacts
|
||
- Average Transaction: $ per transaction
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2. Counter-Metrics & Guardrails
|
||
|
||
### Problem
|
||
Optimizing primary metrics can create negative externalities (quality drops, trust declines, user experience suffers).
|
||
|
||
### Solution: Balanced Scorecard with Guardrails
|
||
|
||
**Framework:**
|
||
1. **Primary metric** (North Star): What you're optimizing
|
||
2. **Counter-metrics**: What could be harmed
|
||
3. **Guardrail thresholds**: Minimum acceptable levels
|
||
|
||
**Example (Content Platform):**
|
||
```
|
||
Primary: Content Views (maximize)
|
||
|
||
Counter-metrics with guardrails:
|
||
- Content quality score: Must stay ≥7/10 (current: 7.8)
|
||
- User satisfaction (NPS): Must stay ≥40 (current: 52)
|
||
- Creator retention: Must stay ≥70% (current: 75%)
|
||
- Time to harmful content takedown: Must be ≤2 hours (current: 1.5h)
|
||
|
||
Rule: If any guardrail is breached, pause optimization of primary metric
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Common Counter-Metric Patterns
|
||
|
||
| Primary Metric | Potential Harm | Counter-Metric |
|
||
|----------------|----------------|----------------|
|
||
| Pageviews | Clickbait, low quality | Time on page, bounce rate |
|
||
| Engagement time | Addictive dark patterns | User-reported wellbeing, voluntary sessions |
|
||
| Viral growth | Spam | Unsubscribe rate, report rate |
|
||
| Conversion rate | Aggressive upsells | Customer satisfaction, refund rate |
|
||
| Speed to market | Technical debt | Bug rate, system reliability |
|
||
|
||
### How to Set Guardrails
|
||
|
||
1. **Historical baseline**: Look at metric over past 6-12 months, set floor at 10th percentile
|
||
2. **Competitive benchmark**: Set floor at industry average
|
||
3. **User feedback**: Survey users on acceptable minimum
|
||
4. **Regulatory**: Compliance thresholds
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 3. Network Effects & Viral Loops
|
||
|
||
### Measuring Network Effects
|
||
|
||
**Network effect**: Product value increases as more users join.
|
||
|
||
**Metrics to track:**
|
||
- **Network density**: Connections per user (higher = stronger network)
|
||
- **Cross-side interactions**: User A's action benefits User B
|
||
- **Viral coefficient (K)**: New users generated per existing user
|
||
- K > 1: Exponential growth (viral)
|
||
- K < 1: Sub-viral (need paid acquisition)
|
||
|
||
**Decomposition:**
|
||
```
|
||
New Users = Existing Users × Invitation Rate × Invitation Acceptance Rate
|
||
|
||
Example:
|
||
100,000 users × 2 invites/user × 50% accept = 100,000 new users (K=1.0)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Viral Loop Metrics Tree
|
||
|
||
**North Star:** Viral Coefficient (K)
|
||
|
||
**Decomposition:**
|
||
```
|
||
K = (Invitations Sent / User) × (Acceptance Rate) × (Activation Rate)
|
||
|
||
Input metrics:
|
||
├─ Invitations per user
|
||
│ ├─ % users who send ≥1 invite
|
||
│ ├─ Average invites per sender
|
||
│ └─ Invitation prompts shown
|
||
├─ Invite acceptance rate
|
||
│ ├─ Invite message quality
|
||
│ ├─ Social proof (sender credibility)
|
||
│ └─ Landing page conversion
|
||
└─ New user activation rate
|
||
├─ Onboarding completion
|
||
├─ Value realization time
|
||
└─ Early engagement actions
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Network Density Metrics
|
||
|
||
**Measure connectedness:**
|
||
- Average connections per user
|
||
- % of users with ≥N connections
|
||
- Clustering coefficient (friends-of-friends)
|
||
- Active daily/weekly connections
|
||
|
||
**Threshold effects:**
|
||
- Users with 7+ friends have 10x retention (identify critical mass)
|
||
- Teams with 10+ members have 5x engagement (team size threshold)
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 4. Preventing Metric Gaming
|
||
|
||
### Problem
|
||
Teams optimize for the letter of the metric, not the spirit, creating perverse incentives.
|
||
|
||
### Gaming Detection Framework
|
||
|
||
**Step 1: Anticipate gaming**
|
||
For each metric, ask: "How could someone game this?"
|
||
|
||
**Example metric: Time on site**
|
||
- Gaming: Auto-play videos, infinite scroll, fake engagement
|
||
- Intent: User finds value, willingly spends time
|
||
|
||
**Step 2: Add quality signals**
|
||
Distinguish genuine value from gaming:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Time on site (primary)
|
||
+ Quality signals (guards against gaming):
|
||
- Active engagement (clicks, scrolls, interactions) vs passive
|
||
- Return visits (indicates genuine interest)
|
||
- Completion rate (finished content vs bounced)
|
||
- User satisfaction rating
|
||
- Organic shares (not prompted)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Step 3: Test for gaming**
|
||
- Spot check: Sample user sessions, review for patterns
|
||
- Anomaly detection: Flag outliers (10x normal behavior)
|
||
- User feedback: "Was this session valuable to you?"
|
||
|
||
### Gaming Prevention Patterns
|
||
|
||
**Pattern 1: Combination metrics**
|
||
Don't measure single metric; require multiple signals:
|
||
```
|
||
❌ Single: Pageviews
|
||
✓ Combined: Pageviews + Time on page >30s + Low bounce rate
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Pattern 2: User-reported value**
|
||
Add subjective quality check:
|
||
```
|
||
Primary: Feature adoption rate
|
||
+ Counter: "Did this feature help you?" (must be >80% yes)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Pattern 3: Long-term outcome binding**
|
||
Tie short-term to long-term:
|
||
```
|
||
Primary: New user signups
|
||
+ Bound to: 30-day retention (signups only count if user retained)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Pattern 4: Peer comparison**
|
||
Normalize by cohort or segment:
|
||
```
|
||
Primary: Sales closed
|
||
+ Normalized: Sales closed / Sales qualified leads (prevents cherry-picking easy wins)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 5. Advanced Leading Indicators
|
||
|
||
### Technique 1: Propensity Scoring
|
||
|
||
**Predict future behavior from early signals.**
|
||
|
||
**Method:**
|
||
1. Collect historical data: New users + their 30-day outcomes
|
||
2. Identify features: Day 1 behaviors (actions, time spent, features used)
|
||
3. Build model: Logistic regression or decision tree predicting 30-day retention
|
||
4. Score new users: Probability of retention based on day 1 behavior
|
||
5. Threshold: Users with >70% propensity score are "likely retained"
|
||
|
||
**Example (SaaS):**
|
||
```
|
||
30-day retention model (R² = 0.78):
|
||
Retention = 0.1 + 0.35×(invited teammate) + 0.25×(completed 3 workflows) + 0.20×(time in app >20min)
|
||
|
||
Leading indicator: % of users with propensity score >0.7
|
||
Current: 45% → Target: 60% (predicts 15% retention increase)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Technique 2: Cohort Behavior Clustering
|
||
|
||
**Find archetypes that predict outcomes.**
|
||
|
||
**Method:**
|
||
1. Segment users by first-week behavior patterns
|
||
2. Measure long-term outcomes per segment
|
||
3. Identify high-value archetypes
|
||
|
||
**Example:**
|
||
```
|
||
Archetypes (first week):
|
||
- "Power user": 5+ days active, 20+ actions → 85% retain
|
||
- "Social": Invites 2+ people, comments 3+ times → 75% retain
|
||
- "Explorer": Views 10+ pages, low actions → 40% retain
|
||
- "Passive": <3 days active, <5 actions → 15% retain
|
||
|
||
Leading indicator: % of new users becoming "Power" or "Social" archetypes
|
||
Target: Move 30% → 45% into high-value archetypes
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Technique 3: Inflection Point Analysis
|
||
|
||
**Find tipping points where behavior changes sharply.**
|
||
|
||
**Method:**
|
||
1. Plot outcome (retention) vs candidate metric (actions taken)
|
||
2. Find where curve steepens (inflection point)
|
||
3. Set that as leading indicator threshold
|
||
|
||
**Example:**
|
||
```
|
||
Retention by messages sent (first week):
|
||
- 0-2 messages: 20% retention (slow growth)
|
||
- 3-9 messages: 45% retention (moderate growth)
|
||
- 10+ messages: 80% retention (sharp jump)
|
||
|
||
Inflection point: 10 messages
|
||
Leading indicator: % of users hitting 10+ messages in first week
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 6. Metric Interdependencies
|
||
|
||
### Problem
|
||
Metrics aren't independent; changing one affects others in complex ways.
|
||
|
||
### Solution: Causal Diagram
|
||
|
||
**Step 1: Map relationships**
|
||
Draw arrows showing how metrics affect each other:
|
||
```
|
||
[Acquisition] → [Active Users] → [Engagement] → [Retention]
|
||
↓ ↑
|
||
[Activation] ----------------------------------------
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Step 2: Identify feedback loops**
|
||
- **Positive loop** (reinforcing): A → B → A (exponential)
|
||
Example: More users → more network value → more users
|
||
- **Negative loop** (balancing): A → B → ¬A (equilibrium)
|
||
Example: More supply → lower prices → less supply
|
||
|
||
**Step 3: Predict second-order effects**
|
||
If you increase metric X by 10%:
|
||
- Direct effect: Y increases 5%
|
||
- Indirect effect: Y affects Z, which feeds back to X
|
||
- Net effect: May be amplified or dampened
|
||
|
||
**Example (Marketplace):**
|
||
```
|
||
Increase driver supply +10%:
|
||
→ Wait time decreases -15%
|
||
→ Rider satisfaction increases +8%
|
||
→ Rider demand increases +5%
|
||
→ Driver earnings decrease -3% (more competition)
|
||
→ Driver churn increases +2%
|
||
→ Net driver supply increase: +10% -2% = +8%
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### Modeling Tradeoffs
|
||
|
||
**Technique: Regression or experiments**
|
||
```
|
||
Run A/B test increasing X
|
||
Measure all related metrics
|
||
Calculate elasticities:
|
||
- If X increases 1%, Y changes by [elasticity]%
|
||
Build tradeoff matrix
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Tradeoff Matrix Example:**
|
||
| If increase by 10% | Acquisition | Activation | Retention | Revenue |
|
||
|--------------------|-------------|------------|-----------|---------|
|
||
| **Acquisition** | +10% | -2% | -1% | +6% |
|
||
| **Activation** | 0% | +10% | +5% | +12% |
|
||
| **Retention** | 0% | +3% | +10% | +15% |
|
||
|
||
**Interpretation:** Investing in retention has best ROI (15% revenue lift vs 6% from acquisition).
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 7. Business Stage Metrics
|
||
|
||
### Problem
|
||
Optimal metrics change as business matures. Early-stage metrics differ from growth or maturity stages.
|
||
|
||
### Stage-Specific North Stars
|
||
|
||
**Pre-Product/Market Fit (PMF):**
|
||
- **Focus**: Finding PMF, not scaling
|
||
- **North Star**: Retention (evidence of value)
|
||
- **Key metrics**:
|
||
- Week 1 → Week 2 retention (>40% = promising)
|
||
- NPS or "very disappointed" survey (>40% = good signal)
|
||
- Organic usage frequency (weekly+ = habit-forming)
|
||
|
||
**Post-PMF, Pre-Scale:**
|
||
- **Focus**: Unit economics and growth
|
||
- **North Star**: New activated users per week (acquisition + activation)
|
||
- **Key metrics**:
|
||
- LTV/CAC ratio (target >3:1)
|
||
- Payback period (target <12 months)
|
||
- Month-over-month growth rate (target >10%)
|
||
|
||
**Growth Stage:**
|
||
- **Focus**: Efficient scaling
|
||
- **North Star**: Revenue or gross profit
|
||
- **Key metrics**:
|
||
- Net revenue retention (target >100%)
|
||
- Magic number (ARR growth / S&M spend, target >0.75)
|
||
- Burn multiple (cash burned / ARR added, target <1.5)
|
||
|
||
**Maturity Stage:**
|
||
- **Focus**: Profitability and market share
|
||
- **North Star**: Free cash flow or EBITDA
|
||
- **Key metrics**:
|
||
- Operating margin (target >20%)
|
||
- Market share / competitive position
|
||
- Customer lifetime value
|
||
|
||
### Transition Triggers
|
||
|
||
**When to change North Star:**
|
||
```
|
||
PMF → Growth: When retention >40%, NPS >40, organic growth observed
|
||
Growth → Maturity: When growth rate <20% for 2+ quarters, market share >30%
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
**Migration approach:**
|
||
1. Track both old and new North Star for 2 quarters
|
||
2. Align teams on new metric
|
||
3. Deprecate old metric
|
||
4. Update dashboards and incentives
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Quick Decision Trees
|
||
|
||
### "Should I use counter-metrics?"
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Is primary metric easy to game or has quality risk?
|
||
├─ YES → Add counter-metrics with guardrails
|
||
└─ NO → Is metric clearly aligned with user value?
|
||
├─ YES → Primary metric sufficient, monitor only
|
||
└─ NO → Redesign metric to better capture value
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### "Do I have network effects?"
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Does value increase as more users join?
|
||
├─ YES → Track network density, K-factor, measure at different scales
|
||
└─ NO → Does one user's action benefit others?
|
||
├─ YES → Measure cross-user interactions, content creation/consumption
|
||
└─ NO → Standard metrics tree (no network effects)
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
### "Should I segment my metrics tree?"
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
Do different user segments have different behavior patterns?
|
||
├─ YES → Do segments have different value to business?
|
||
├─ YES → Create separate trees per segment, track segment mix
|
||
└─ NO → Single tree, annotate with segment breakdowns
|
||
└─ NO → Are there supply/demand sides?
|
||
├─ YES → Dual trees (Section 1)
|
||
└─ NO → Single unified tree
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Summary: Advanced Technique Selector
|
||
|
||
| Scenario | Use This Technique | Section |
|
||
|----------|-------------------|---------|
|
||
| **Multi-sided marketplace** | Dual tree + balance metrics | 1 |
|
||
| **Risk of negative externalities** | Counter-metrics + guardrails | 2 |
|
||
| **Viral or network product** | K-factor + network density | 3 |
|
||
| **Metric gaming risk** | Quality signals + combination metrics | 4 |
|
||
| **Need better prediction** | Propensity scoring + archetypes | 5 |
|
||
| **Complex interdependencies** | Causal diagram + elasticities | 6 |
|
||
| **Changing business stage** | Stage-appropriate North Star | 7 |
|