Vincent Song

I've been meaning to post this for quite a while but finally got around to it. 

Working at Umba last summer leading the growth team was incredibly insightful. Here are my main takeaways:

1. Brainstorming. Build out a robust brainstorming and ideation pipeline. It’s critical that you have a collection of ideas to draw from during backlog grooming.
2. Iceboxing. Iceboxing is a good way to groom growth experiments and to gauge the scope and efficacy to decide on what growth experiments to conduct over the next sprint. After brainstorming, you prioritize what ideas to actually try out by analyzing them on 3 different axis: Impact, Cost and Effectiveness.
3. What is growth? Define what "Growth" means and looks like for your company. Is it more business? Is it more users?
4. Instrumentation. Instrumentation is key. A product is not done until you've built out your instrumentation. You need to be able to accurately measure progress and improvement.
5. Organization mentality. Growth mentality throughout the entire org. Everyone should be building with growth in mind - this means engineers should be building instrumentation as a part of their development process.
6. Low hanging fruit. Prioritize for things that compound and have low implementation cost.
7. Compounding growth. Focus on growth loops (onboarding funnel and referrals) instead of one time boosts (raffles or giveaways).
8. Focused KPIs. Have 1-2 key metrics per quarter (onboarding churn, daily downloads,etc) . This keeps things focused and allows you to quantitatively measure and prioritize growth tasks.

Thank you to Toni Gemayel, Charley Ma and Alex Mann for their guidance and support last summer! The above is an amalgamation of things I learned from them. If you have any questions or suggestions, my inbox is always open at vincentjtsong@gmail.com.

Came across this XKCD comic strip a couple days ago. 

Its pretty funny and also illustrates something interesting - things can be arranged on a ladder of complexity. What do I mean by this? Essentially, most things (from atoms to TikTok) can be arranged on a ladder from a low level abstraction to a high level of abstraction. This axis also extends infinitely in both directions as abstractions can become infinitely complex and infinitely simple.

As illustrated by XKCD, at a relatively base level things are made of atoms. The study of the rules that govern these atoms is defined by the field of physics. If we go up the ladder, we can find chemistry which is the study of the interactions of clusters of atoms and biology is yet another step up as it is the study of clusters of chemicals interacting in a organic space. This ladder climbing continues ad infinivum with each rung a composite of the complex interactions of the rungs below it. The story of Red Riding Hood is simply an abstraced idea enabled by sociological phenomenon built upon the interactions of billions of chemical markers, which themselves are governed by physics. However, the higher we climb, the harder and more esoteric it becomes to understand. Red Riding Hood is certainly more understandable than a rhetorical analysis of Gaelic Poetry.

The same rule applies in the other direction. Starting with atoms, we can go down in layers of complexity. Atoms are made of quarks, which themselves are comprised of quantum behaviors. The further down we go, the harder it is to conceptualize - lower complexity does not mean it is easier to understand. 

There seems to be a sweet spot on this ladder of abstractions in which humans are able to function best. A "Goldilocks Zone" if you will. Things like superhero stories are easy to understand. Philosophical conjuntures or quantum entanglement is not. Increasing the bounds of this Goldilocks Zone is something that takes both time and effort.

Abstraction can also apply both physically and conceptually. A painting itself is made up of the composite complexity of its parts: the chemistry of the paint and atomic structure of the carbon in the wood frame. However, the image it depicts may be made up of sociological components themselves subject to a different axis of complexity.

There may be certain things that exist outside of this axis. Concepts like Mathamatics exist somewhere on this continuum but I'm not sure where. Instinct tells me it belongs below atoms but it doesn't seem quite right. I wonder what other examples there are...

The two steps to building a successful organization seem to be: (1) Create Value then (2) Capture a percentage of the created value. Companies that can create a lot of value and capture a large percentage of that value end up becoming extremely successful. 

However, capturing the created value is dependent on being able to quantitatively measure and price the value being created. This is easier in some industries and harder in others. 

Take for example when a bank such as Citibank or Morgan Stanley grants a loan. In exchange for the value they provide to the borrower (access to the lended capital), the bank captures a percentage of the value by charging interest. In this case, it is easy to quantitatively measure the value provided - via a dollar amount - and price for services rendered - interest is paid in exchange for the bank’s services. 

This is much more difficult in an industry like climate tech. Unlike loans and mortgages, the idea of environmental impact is still an abstract concept, and thus has no standardized measure of value.

Take for example the fictional carbon capture company CarbonBad. Their technology allows them to remove one million tons of CO2 from the air. How much value have they created? How should the value be priced? 

Maybe by removing excess CO2 from the air, they have decreased area air pollution, therefore saving the local municipality millions in public health spending. How much of that value should CarbonBad be paid in return for their services? What about CarbonBad’s potential impact on decreasing wildfires? Should CarbonBad be rewarded a percentage of the area’s home insurance premiums?

Without a standardized way of measuring value, there is an inability to create consensus on how to price the services rendered.

The proposed carbon tax and carbon credit programs are promising steps in what I hope to be a wider trend of monetarily quantifying abstract value. By creating statewide, nationwide or even worldwide consensus on the price of carbon, we can more accurately value and create economic incentives among green tech companies. 

In the very long term, we could see a set monetary value assigned to things like wellness, happiness or quality of life. While I can't judge on the good or bad of this, I do believe that it would allow for the sustainable creation of more social enterprises.

This is an article I wrote a little while back while reading David Goldhill's book "Catastrophic Care". I thought I would share it here. It's probably one of the longest pieces I will post on my blog.

It’s no secret that the cost of healthcare has become the subject of widespread public vitriol and contempt. Americans spend twice as much on healthcare compared to other OECD countries but rank lowest in numerous quality of care rankings. Affordable healthcare remains out of reach for more than 30 million Americans, with around 66% of personal bankruptcies being due to medical costs. It’s one of the largest consumer spending segments (18% of the GDP and rising) yet still has one of the worst customer experiences. So despite the trillions of dollars poured into the market, why, in 2021, is medical care so shitty?

The fundamental problem is that in its current state,  the US healthcare market is the least consumer centric of any customer service industry. While other consumer-facing industries (think restaurants, hotels, airlines) rely on a “customer comes first” or “user-centric” mindset to succeed, the US healthcare system rarely thinks of patients as customers. Incentives for patients and practitioners for high quality treatment are fundamentally misaligned. The US healthcare market, while far from a single payer system, is not a true free market. Ironically, we’ll need to solve high prices and poor quality with more capitalism.[1]

Wait but why breaks this down pretty well. This is how a true free market is supposed to look like.

The modern healthcare system however, looks more like this. 

The consumer is often not the one paying for care. They also have no way to evaluate prices or look for better deals. The system essentially has the worst of both worlds. It has the illusion of a regulated market and a free market without the benefits of either.

Think about the things that you associate with going to the doctor’s office for an appointment. What comes to mind? Probably long wait times, stark fluorescent lighting and passive aggressive administrative staff. Not very pleasant. [2]

Now think about the last time you went to a local restaurant. You probably have much happier memories. This is because a restaurant operates on the principles of a basic free-market interaction. The incentives of the customer (you) and the business (restaurant) are aligned. If the restaurant wants to get what it wants (revenue), it has to make sure it’s customers (you) get what they want - good food at a reasonable price.

The US healthcare system ignores this idea completely. Patients aren’t treated like customers because they aren’t. While healthcare providers are paid each time you visit, a majority of the provider’s payments come from insurance companies, who get most of their payments from employers. In fact, about half of all Americans receive health insurance through their employer. (Hancock, 2018) This means that for most healthcare providers and doctors, a higher quality of care for a specific patient does not guarantee a proportional financial benefit. This also leads to poor transparency of prices and restriction on optionality for patients as they are not the real customers and decision makers. Instead, prices are often negotiated directly between insurance providers and clinics without patient input.

Poor transparency and time is not the only inconvenience. Healthcare is also absent of many modern conveniences that are common in many other industries like online booking, flexible operating hours and direct communication through email or text.

So what should be done? In his book, Catastrophic Care, David Goldhill offers a potential solution: [3]

“…a guiding principle of any reform should be to put the consumer, not the insurer or the government, at the center of the system. I believe if the government took on the goal of better supporting consumers-by bringing greater transparency and competition to the health-care industry, and by directly subsidizing those who can’t afford care-we’d find that consumers could buy much more of their care directly than we might initially think, and that over time we’d see better care and better service, at lower cost, as a result.”

Goldhill is claiming that placing patients at the forefront of care and truly valuing them what they are - customers - will lead to happier, healthier patients and lower costs. The good news is that we are already heading in this direction. Advancements in technology, increasing digitization, information transparency, regulatory changes and increasing consumer frustration are pushing forward an exciting transformation in American healthcare.

Service providers that adopt this “customer first” mantra will be able to offer unmatched convenience, informational transparency, and patient satisfaction. Adopting this mentality will allow them to provide higher quality care at lower and lower costs. Providers that are unwilling to acclimate to this new normal will lose customers to the more nimble and responsive providers.

Take for example health insurer startups Oscar Health, Bright Health and Devoted Health. Each has raised huge rounds (Oscar:IPO, Devoted Health: $300MM Series B, Bright: $635MM Series D) and are primed to battle with incumbent providers. They differ with traditional providers on a couple important points.

All three companies sell directly to consumers instead of to employers. Due to this, they have an intense focus on customer experience. Instead of making money through scale, they make money by providing top notch care only when patients need it. 

All three companies also offer concierge services which help patients with things like booking rides, following up on appointments or answering questions about care options. This white glove service is intended to build loyalty (keep customers coming back each year) and reduce costs (healthier patients mean less hospital visits).

I will note however, that this system is still not perfect. Not just a consumer-centric model, but a capitalistic model as a whole. Most would consider healthcare as a fundamental human right, and the idea that we would charge people for access to health and happiness as horribly cruel and cold. I don’t disagree completely with the notion. It will leave certain groups behind and disadvantage others. However, I believe that change takes time.

With the current social and economic structures in the US,transitioning instantly to a single payer healthcare system is simply not affordable. Countries with true single payer systems are only able to maintain lower costs than the US by limiting access and coverage for intensive and high technology medicines. (Blank, 2012) Instead, a transition to consumer centric healthcare is a necessary step to single payer care. Even in countries such as Canada, two-thirds of the population hold private insurance (Glied, 2019). Good private healthcare is an essential part of a single payer system. While we wait for the government to reform legislation, we need to make sure that private healthcare is the best it can be. Both parts will need to work together to ensure higher quality care for all.

While it’s still yet to be seen if this model’s unit economics will hold out in the long run, it is an enticing look at the future of cheaper, higher quality care. When patient and provider incentives are aligned, everyone benefits. These startups are signs that for the first time, the US healthcare consumer is emerging as a “true shopper” and a system in which patients and providers win. This is a future that I’m willing to bet on.

Footnotes:

[1] As a Canadian, I feel this statement automatically qualifies me for a green card.

[2] I firmly believe that crappy doctors appointments is the singular reason for WebMD’s entire success. People would rather be told that they have every type of cancer than go see their family doctor.

[3] Is it funny for anyone else that a guy called Goldhill wrote a piece in favour of more free-market capitalism in a notoriously profit driven industry? Just me? Okay.

I find myself trying very hard to glean non-obvious hidden lessons about the world. But I think that being able to articulate very obvious, very simple learnings about the world probably has an immense amount of value as well. This is an exercise to combat "schlep blindness" in which the obviousness of certain things overwhelms our ability to perceive their importance. This is not an exhaustive list by any means and is probably something I will continually add to over time.

1. Focus on the fundamentals. Nothing else works until you get the core processes right.
2. Luck is super important. If you think of it as a multiplier, its anywhere from the range of zero to ten thousand.
3. Magic bullets don't exist.
4. Its really hard to make things happen. Even small things - especially when you are building.
5. Those around you influence who you are.
6. Copying is very effective.
7. Simple is better and faster.
8. There is a lot of bullshit in the world. Get good at detecting it or creating bullshit yourself.
9. Self confidence makes you more ambitious.
10. The more times you can iterate on something, the better it gets.
11. Inertia is hard to stop both when stationary and in motion.
12. Always look for low hanging fruit first. Path of least resistance!
13. Prioritize for things that compound.
14. Thinking long term is hard but important.
15. Don't lie to yourself.
16. Copying what is working for others first. Come up with your own ideas later.
17. Most important things are unsexy.

I want to preface these thoughts by stating that I am in no way an expert on geopolitics, public policy or other other assorted fields. This post is mostly to provide a record of an interesting idea that I've been mulling for a while. This could be completely wrong. I hope so but I think I'm right. 

Natural selection has long dictated that only the most adaptable species survive. Populations with the greatest genetic diversity and fastest reproduction cycle have higher probabilities of developing useful mutations that give them unique advantages or increase their odds of survival in new environments.

Take the common cold (Rhinoviruses) for example. It reproduces so quickly and frequently that it mutates at an incredible pace - hence yearly flu shots. 

I believe that societies work the same way. Societies with the greatest diversity of thought and development cycles are the most likely to develop useful technological and cultural mutations that will help them not just survive but dominate.. 

One of America's greatest strengths is its diversity. Not just diversity of ethnicity, but of views and perspective as well. When brought together, the mutations derived from the mixing of values, ideas and opinions give rise to the social and technological innovations America is known for.

However, not all mutations are good. In nature, bad mutations are destroyed by a forcing function (predators, environment, disease). This prunes the gene pool so that only good mutations are passed on.

America has lacked any significant forcing function since the fall of the Soviet Union. This has allowed cancerous mutations to proliferate. Without a meaningful direction or target to provide purpose, unchecked mutations (polarization, racism, widespread resentment) have turned into a cancer that is slowly killing the host. 

America has historically seen the most growth when faced with a comparable enemy (Axis Powers/Soviet Union). The period following WWII and during the Cold War was when some of the most significant economic and technologic progressed happened (rockets, WIFI, personal computers and more). These enemies were substantial enough threats to generate directed mutations, in which diversity could be directed towards a common goal: defeating the enemy.

In contrast, the US has historically fared terribly when fighting in asymmetrical warfare. The Vietnam War, Korean War, War on Terror and even the War on Drugs have largely been considered failures.

The looming Cold War with China provides a chance for "targeted mutation" in which American diversity can be harnessed towards a common goal. The Cold War will be the forcing mechanism that will help America develop the mutations and adaptations it needs survive in this ever changing ecosystem.

I think there are two types of great builders: craftspeople and businesspeople. These two groups have different strengths and metrics of success but share a common inertia and need to excel. They have the same acceleration, but a wildly different direction.

Craftspeople are people devoted singularly to their respective craft. This includes Olympic athletes, world class artists, football players, blacksmiths, chefs and even truly passionate engineers and designers. These types of people spend their time perfecting their chosen field, and take great joy and pride in becoming true experts. Their passion is their greatest strength.

Businesspeople are experts at resource allocation and strategy, These can be politicians, CEO's, investors, industrialists and even great military generals. They excel at moving people, capital and other resources to where they're needed when they're needed. They have a good eye for seeing connections between disparate topics and the big picture

I've realized that I over-index on spending time and connecting with businesspeople. It can be energizing but also creates an echo chamber. My friends and network often share very similar values and metrics of personal success.

That's why over the past few months, I've made an effort to spend time with more craftspeople. They have a different energy. The intensity and energy is still there, but there is a purity to their passion and focus. Businesspeople are mercenaries - they do what will benefit them most regardless of the cause. Craftspeople are evangelists and apostles, here to spread their faith and love.

This is not mutually exclusive as there are people who have traits of each. These people are very rare and always I'm willing to bet on them.

This was my first week at Umba. While chatting with other full-time employees, I've come to realize how much of their time is spent on meetings. In fact, their schedule is overpacked and overburdened with them. They are involved in so many teams and projects that I don't think I've seen them sit at their desk and just work for more than 45 minutes. I think this is really bad.

It seems to be movement without progress. Noise without communication. Complicated airflow if you will.

I wonder if this is just a function of being at a startup that is going through growing pains. After all, the office I am working in had just 6 people just weeks ago. Now it has close to 17. 

Even then, I feel as though emails are underutilized at Umba. In an effort to communicate, we end up trying to schedule meetings for everything and using 5+ platforms for everything from standups, to sprint tickets, direct messages, process documentation and more. Well written, well thought out long form thoughts are not present anywhere.

This sheer volume of context switching without the ability to enter a flow state makes it incredibly easy to become distracted by ultimately meaningless and menial work without accomplishing genuinely valuable tasks.

Context switching is valuable yes, but I imagine it is easy for most people. Balancing that with entering flow states is what's difficult. We need less open offices and more us time. We need more time to actually work and less time on slack, less time switching between tabs, less wavering…more doing!

True conviction is rare. It takes an incredible amount of bravery to develop and throw yourself behind an idea or belief. Harder still if it's based on first principles thinking. But as with all things, there's a fine line - absolute conviction can limit breadth and put on blinders but can also be an enormous driver of momentum. This is something I think about and struggle with often.

When I'm asked if I will ever be a founder, my answer is usually a rough arrangement of the following:

• I don't think I'd make a great founder because I'd start a company for the wrong reasons. 
• I'd need to find a problem I really care about first.
• I don't have a good enough understanding of reality or first principles thinking. I need to understand the world better first.

The main thing stopping me from starting a company it seems, is lack of conviction about the problems in the world and my own desire to commit for 10+ years solving that problem. 

But a while back, a founder mentioned something interesting to me.

Their company had raised a 5 million seed round from a Tier-1 VC fund. On the surface, the product is quite mundane - it's in the B2B identity space.  

Interestingly, this was not company or idea they started with. Instead, it was the first thing that worked. Then, over time, as they continued to explore, build and get feedback, they came to love the problem and the product. It is a technically challenging problem, and the startup became an opportunity to build exciting technical solutions with good, talented people. They learned to conviction and passion for their company. Not the other way around.

I see this alot in small business owners too. Take my family's industry (Scrap Metal Recycling) for example. My father and his business partner love what they do. But to an outsider, who would want to go into scrap metal recycling? It's dirty, hard and unforgiving work. My father entered the business because it was the first thing that he was able to make a living off of after immigrating to Canada. His business partner inherited the family business.

But over time, as they grew their companies, their networks and got good through experience, they learned to love their work. They feel like they have no equal in their fields and that brings them great satisfaction.

I wonder if I could do the same. Live through how the work makes me feel, without really caring what exactly it is. Maybe that's all that really matters...

This is the first time I've lived alone in a new city by myself. I have roommates of course, but the experience is still very different than anything I've had before. I couple things I've done recently to make it feel more like home:

• Walking is great. Just wandering around randomly when you are looking for a place to eat is a unique experience. Set time aside for this aimless exploration. You'll find hidden gems or just a really nice place to sit and think.
• Taking public transit - trains are best. You get to see a lot and get a feel for what's where very cheaply.
• People love giving recommendations. Be aggressive about asking for things to do, places to see and food to eat. If you ask nicely enough, you'll quickly find people to do those things with.

Moving to another city has made me much more energized. Perhaps it's novelty but I've noticed that I'm a lot more proactive and productive. I'm much more focused on work and my errands. I have more excitement for seemingly mundane and are much more socially active. I feel in my element. Something worth noting I think. I wonder how long it will take until this "glow" wears off?