​

A few days ago, I shared some new research about the ‘pivot penalty’, proving the decreased probability of success when straying from your expertise.

User research coach Stephanie Wu wrote in about a recent pivot of her own, asking:

​

I probably should have been more clear — I’m not against pivots.

In fact, if you’re getting crickets from your chosen ICP, some sort of pivot is likely in order.

That might mean pivoting:

• to a new ICP
• to a new vertical
• to a new offer
• to a new revenue model
• to a new marketing strategy

​

What I caution folks about are harsh pivots away from their genius zone.

I still believe that genius zone is where you’ll find your most sustainable and differentiated market position.

​

For example, my own solo journey has had several major pivots — not all of which were great moves:

Starting point: Course ghostwriting for tech execs

Pivot 1: IP development + service design for solo consultants

Pivot 2: Coaching retainers for solo consultants

Pivot 3: Short-form NicheFinder / IP Builder sprints for solo consultants

​

Of all these turns, the broader coaching retainers (Pivot 2) found the least traction, which in retrospect shouldn’t surprise me…

…it’s the one that took me furthest out of my genius zone of done-with-you IP development.

Yes, there are a lot of other factors that could’ve been at play.

Marketing, pricing, offer structure, seasonality.

But likely, those just exacerbated the mismatch in straying from my core.

​

Pivot 3 into short-form hands-on sprints pulled me squarely back into my zone earlier this year and seems to have clicked.

But…

I only got there by triangulation using the pivots before it.

​

So no, I’m no anti-pivot.

I just think the best ones keep one foot planted in what you’re truly great at.

​

Sounds, so obvious, right?

But also so easy to forget.

​

💡

-Wes

​

P.S. Lightbulb #207 from the archive captured my mindset heading into Pivot 2.

I still agree with the sentiment, I was just off with the direction.