Principles

When sales do not grow, the sales copy is revised.

When customers do not use the product, features are added.

When marketing does not work, a new campaign is launched.

When the team does not reach its goal, processes, metrics, or the division of work are changed.

Sometimes this is exactly the right approach. A working model may need better execution, the removal of a minor bottleneck, or improvements to a process.

But optimisation becomes a problem when a company keeps making something more efficient that the market does not actually need.

If the direction is wrong, moving faster does not help.

It simply takes the company to the wrong place faster.

Optimisation assumes that the underlying logic works

You can optimise something only when there is at least some evidence that it works.

The company has a customer who genuinely experiences the problem. The customer understands the value being offered. They are willing to pay for it. The solution delivers the promised outcome. It is possible to find more similar customers. The company can deliver the value in a way that is at least potentially profitable.

When these conditions are met, it makes sense to improve sales, marketing, the product, pricing, processes, and ways of working.

When these conditions are not met, optimisation can give the company a false sense of progress.

The website improves. The product gains new features. Processes become more thorough. The team works faster. Marketing visibility increases.

But customers still do not buy enough.

In that case, the company may not have an execution problem.

It may have a direction problem.

Companies often optimise what is easier to change

The hardest thing is to question the company’s core assumption.

Have we chosen the right customer? Is their problem important enough? Does our solution genuinely create value for them? Is the market moving in the direction we have bet on? Does our company have a credible chance of winning in this competitive environment?

These questions affect the company’s identity, its past decisions, and sometimes the founder’s self-esteem.

It is much easier to change a button on the website, rewrite a sales email, add a feature, or replace a marketing partner.

This leads the company to address the part it can control even when the problem lies elsewhere.

The sales team can be given a new target. Marketing can be told to generate more leads. Product development can be asked to create a new version. Employees can be trained.

The market cannot be ordered around.

If the customer does not have a sufficiently strong need, no amount of internal optimisation will automatically turn them into a buyer.

Persistence and stubbornness are not the same thing

There is much talk in business about consistency.

Rightly so. Most important outcomes require time, repeated attempts, and the ability to keep going even when success is not immediate.

But consistency does not mean endlessly repeating the same activity.

A persistent entrepreneur remains committed to a problem worth solving but changes the solution when necessary.

A stubborn entrepreneur remains committed to the solution even when the evidence shows that the market does not want it.

Persistence means a willingness to learn.

Stubbornness means a willingness to suffer without learning.

Why do companies wait so long to change direction?

The previous investment feels too large

Years of work have gone into the product. The brand has been built. The software is complete. People have been hired. Promises have been made to investors.

The more that has been invested, the harder it feels to admit that the chosen direction does not work.

But past expenditure does not become valuable simply because the company keeps spending.

The decision must be based on which choice will create the most value in the future, not on how much was already spent in the past.

The idea has become part of the founder’s identity

The founder is no longer simply building a product. They have begun to define themselves through the idea.

Changing direction then feels like a personal failure.

In reality, the greater failure may be ignoring the evidence and keeping the entire company on a path with no realistic future.

Isolated positive signals keep hope alive

One customer offers praise. One pilot succeeds. One investor shows interest. Website traffic grows. A social media post attracts considerable attention.

These may be valuable signals.

But attention is not demand. Praise is not a purchase. A pilot is not a repeatable business model. One good customer does not prove that similar customers can be profitably acquired.

The company must distinguish an encouraging exception from a repeatable pattern.

The problem is repeatedly blamed on execution

“The product is not ready yet.” “Our marketing has not been strong enough.” “We have not found the right salesperson.” “Customers do not understand it well enough yet.” “We simply need more money.”

All of these may be true.

But if the same explanation recurs year after year, the company must examine whether it is using an execution problem to conceal a strategic one.

Four situations that must not be confused

Before changing direction, the company must understand the level at which the problem actually lies.

1. The direction is right, but execution is weak

The customer needs the solution and is willing to pay. Some customers already achieve good outcomes. The problem is that sales, delivery, quality, or the way of working is not sufficiently repeatable.

There is not necessarily any need to overturn the strategy.

Processes, accountability, metrics, software, or people’s fit with their roles need to be improved.

This is where optimisation belongs.

2. The problem and solution are right, but the customer or channel is wrong

The product may create genuine value, but the company is trying to sell it to people for whom the problem is not important enough or who do not control the necessary budget.

Alternatively, the target customer may be right, but the company may be trying to reach them through a channel that lacks trust or buying intent.

In this case, the targeting, wording of the value proposition, pricing, or go-to-market approach must change.

The company’s fundamental direction may remain the same.

3. The problem is right, but the solution is wrong

The customer faces a serious and costly problem, but the proposed solution is too complex, expensive, slow, or risky.

Perhaps the customer does not want new software. They want the existing system to start working.

Perhaps they do not want a report. They want the problem solved.

Perhaps they do not want every feature. They want one outcome as quickly as possible and with minimal disruption.

In that case, the product or service must be rethought.

There is no need to change the problem. What must change is the way value is delivered to the customer.

4. The core assumption is wrong

The most difficult situation arises when the problem is not important enough to the customer, the suitable market is too small, willingness to buy is absent, or the company has no credible chance of winning against the competition.

Better marketing, a stronger salesperson, and more features will not help.

The company must change direction.

This may mean a new customer, a new problem, a new value proposition, a different business model, or a complete shift in the company’s focus.

When should a company continue optimising?

Optimisation is worth continuing when there is evidence that the underlying logic works.

For example:

- customers buy without extraordinary persuasion; - some customers buy repeatedly or expand their usage; - customers recommend the solution to others; - the problem is clearly a priority for the customer; - customers are willing to pay for the value offered; - outcomes recur across several similar customers; - the sales or delivery process improves through learning; - the value earned per unit improves; - the company sees a realistic path to profitable growth; - the problem lies in a clearly identifiable process, role, or capability.

In that case, patience may be the right decision.

Building a working model takes time. Not every delay means the direction is wrong.

When should a change in direction be seriously considered?

1. Years of work have failed to create repeatable demand

Isolated sales may come from relationships, the founder’s personal effort, or a highly customised solution.

The question is whether the company can repeatedly find and serve similar customers with the same value proposition.

If every sale starts from scratch, the model is not yet repeatable.

2. Every customer buys something different

One customer is sold software. Another, consulting. A third, a custom solution. A fourth, an inexpensive pilot.

Flexibility can help the company learn about the market at first. Over the longer term, it may indicate that the company has no clear offer or target customer.

If the offer cannot be repeated, the company cannot be grown efficiently either.

3. The product is praised, but no one pays for it

Users may say that the solution is interesting, necessary, or even very good.

The purchase decision shows whether the value outweighs the price, the risk of change, and all the existing alternatives.

If praise does not turn into payment, pay attention to behaviour, not words.

4. Every new optimisation improves an intermediate metric but not the business outcome

Website traffic grows, but sales do not.

More leads are generated, but not more qualified buyers.

Features are used, but customers do not stay.

The team completes more tasks, but project profitability does not improve.

When the intermediate metrics move but the primary outcome does not, the company is probably optimising the wrong thing.

5. Sales depend entirely on the founder’s personal powers of persuasion

The founder can sell because they know the full context, change the offer during the conversation, and promise the customer exactly what they need.

This may generate revenue, but it does not yet prove that the company has a scalable offer.

If no one else can sell the same solution without reinventing it, the problem may be a lack of clarity in the offer.

6. The market has changed in the meantime

The customer’s need may have diminished. New technology may have made the existing solution unnecessary. Competitors may offer the same value far more cheaply or quickly. Purchasing budgets may have shifted to another area.

A strategy that was right three years ago may not be right today.

Loyalty to an old plan is not strategic consistency.

7. The company’s capabilities do not fit the chosen direction

The market may be attractive and the problem real, but the company may lack the necessary relationships, capital, technology, sales capabilities, or people.

In principle, all of these can be built. The question is whether doing so is realistically worthwhile and whether the company has enough time.

A good market opportunity is not automatically a good opportunity for a particular company.

Changing direction does not mean destroying everything

Changing direction does not require throwing all the work to date in the bin.

Over the years, a company usually accumulates assets:

- knowledge of the customer and market; - relationships; - trust; - technology; - data; - processes; - strong people; - parts of the offer that work; - an understanding of what does not work.

A good change in direction preserves what is valuable and changes the part that constrains the outcome.

Sometimes the target customer changes, but the technology remains.

Sometimes the customer remains, but the solution offered changes.

Sometimes the problem and solution remain, but the business model changes.

Sometimes the market direction is right, but the existing team cannot execute it.

Sometimes the product must be abandoned, but the knowledge of the problem and customer relationships should be retained.

A change in direction is not always a U-turn. Often, it is the deliberate replacement of one core assumption with another that is better supported by evidence.

A new direction also requires new people and processes

Strategy cannot be changed in a presentation alone.

When a company moves towards a new customer, offer, or business model, the work the organisation must perform also changes.

Existing processes may become redundant. Some roles lose their importance. A new capability may become critical. A person who was perfectly suited to the previous model may not be suited to executing the new direction.

This is not a judgement of the person’s value.

It is a question of alignment between strategy and capability.

If the direction changes but people continue doing the old work against the old metrics, the strategic change remains theoretical.

A new direction requires a new operating model.

AI accelerates both optimisation and changes in direction

AI makes it possible to create new messages, prototypes, campaigns, analyses, features, and automations quickly.

This makes experimentation cheaper and allows more hypotheses to be tested in less time.

At the same time, AI can also help optimise the wrong direction very quickly.

A company can produce more content, send more emails, develop more features, and automate more processes without answering the fundamental question:

Does the right customer want this badly enough?

AI does not decide which problem is worth solving. It helps the company move faster in the chosen direction.

Choosing the direction remains a management responsibility.

Set criteria for changing direction before an emotional crisis

The worst time to make a strategic decision is when the money is gone, the team is exhausted, and the leader has run out of patience.

Checkpoints for important assumptions should be set earlier.

For example:

- how soon the first paying customer must be acquired; - how many similar customers must validate the same problem; - what level of usage shows that the solution creates real value; - what price level must be acceptable; - how long the sales cycle may be; - at what cost a customer must be acquirable; - what share of sales must become repeatable; - what outcome shows that continued investment in the product is worthwhile; - what outcome, or lack of one, will trigger a review of the direction.

When the conditions for change are agreed in advance, the decision does not depend only on the founder’s current optimism or exhaustion.

Changing strategy becomes a management decision rather than an emotional reaction.

Eight questions before the next round of optimisation

Before commissioning a new campaign, hiring another person, adding features to the product, or developing a process further, ask:

1. Which business outcome do we want to improve?
2. What evidence shows that the problem lies specifically here?
3. Does the right customer consider the problem we solve important enough?
4. Are they willing to pay to have it solved?
5. Which part of our model has already been proven to work?
6. Will the next change address the underlying cause or only the visible symptom?
7. What outcome will show that the optimisation worked?
8. In the absence of which outcome are we prepared to change direction?

If there is no answer to the final question, the company is no longer being managed according to evidence.

It is hoping that the next round of improvements will finally work a miracle.

Optimisation must increase the capacity of a working model

Good optimisation removes a constraint from a system whose underlying logic is sound.

It makes sales more repeatable, delivery faster, quality more consistent, roles clearer, decisions faster, or people’s work more valuable.

Poor optimisation shields the company from having to admit that the underlying logic does not work.

It adds features, campaigns, people, and activities but does not improve the customer’s willingness to buy or the company’s results.

Choosing the wrong direction is not always the most expensive mistake.

Professionally and consistently optimising the wrong direction for several years can be far more expensive.

Challeng.ist helps distinguish whether a company’s growth is being constrained by execution, a process, a person, or its strategic direction. We do not stop at an audit, report, or recommendations. We typically deliver a working solution within 48 hours.

If you have repeatedly improved the same product, service, or sales model but the primary outcome does not change, send me that one specific problem.

The next step may not be another optimisation.

It may be time to choose a new direction.

Mikk OrglaanChalleng.ist