In the previous lesson, we did a deep-dive on the first dimension of product strategy: target audience.
在前一課中，我們深入探討了產品策略的第一個面向：目標受眾。

We discussed how deeply understanding the difference between your target audience and your total addressable market helps you identify features that better resonate with your core users. 
我們討論了深入理解目標受眾與整體可觸及市場之間的差異，如何幫助你找出更能引起核心用戶共鳴的功能。

In this lesson, we’ll look at how to clearly understand the problem you’re solving.
在本課中，我們將探討如何清楚地理解你所要解決的問題。

As with the target audience, PMs often have at least a surface-level understanding of the problem they’re solving. 
就如同對目標受眾的認識一樣，產品經理往往對他們所要解決的問題，至少有表層的理解。

They can state the explicit challenge they’re creating a solution for, and explain how their product addresses that challenge. 
他們能夠明確說出自己要解決的挑戰，並解釋自家產品如何回應這個挑戰。

However, they often miss an extra layer of deeper understanding on the root problem they’re solving. What most PMs miss is the final outcome they are truly solving for.
然而，他們常常忽略了更深一層的根本問題。多數產品經理所遺漏的，正是真正要解決的最終成果。

As a result, they end up creating incremental products or features, instead of needle-moving ones.
結果，他們最終只創造出些微改進的產品或功能，而非真正能帶來重大突破的創新。

Because you have defined your problem too narrowly, you end up with a less innovative solution set that doesn’t move the needle for your users. 
由於你對問題的定義過於狹隘，最終只會得到一套缺乏創新、無法真正為使用者帶來改變的解決方案。

The canonical example of this is the Henry Ford quote: “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.”
這方面最經典的例子，就是亨利・福特那句名言：「如果我問顧客他們想要什麼，他們大概會說一匹跑得更快的馬。」

If Henry Ford had assumed the problem was getting a faster horse, then he would’ve developed only an incremental faster horse solution. However, because he understood the root problem as transportation, he was able to come up with a needle-moving solution - the car.
如果亨利·福特當初以為問題只是要得到一匹更快的馬，那麼他所能提出的，也僅僅是讓馬跑得更快的漸進式解決方案。然而，正因為他洞悉了問題的根本在於「交通運輸」，他才能夠提出真正帶來突破的解決之道——汽車。

Similarly, take the case of Disney amusement parks. Park executives thought the only way to reduce customer complaints about hour-long wait times was to add in more rides or limit the number of admitted people. In other words, they defined the problem as reducing wait times.
同樣地，以迪士尼樂園為例。樂園的高層原以為，減少顧客對於長達一小時排隊等候的不滿，唯一的方法就是增加遊樂設施或限制入園人數。換句話說，他們將問題定義為縮短等候時間。

However, when they brought in a design firm to solve the problem, the designers framed the problem completely differently. They viewed the problem as not reducing wait times, but reducing the pain of waiting. 
然而，當他們請來一家設計公司解決這個問題時，設計師們卻以全然不同的方式來界定問題。他們認為，問題並非在於縮短等候時間，而是在於減輕等待的痛苦。

As a result, they came up with a completely different, innovative solution. They chose to add impromptu shows with Disney characters visible from waiting queues, and had Disney characters parade through the queue to shake hands and take photos. 
因此，他們想出了一個全然不同且創新的解決方案。他們決定在等候區安排臨時表演，讓迪士尼角色現身於排隊人潮之中，並讓這些角色在隊伍間遊行，與遊客握手並合影留念。

These Disney character interactions were a far easier, more needle-moving solution to implement for the park, and as a result, solved the waiting problem far better. 
這些迪士尼角色的互動，對樂園而言，是一個更容易實施、且更能產生顯著成效的解決方案，因此也更有效地解決了排隊等候的問題。

The same principles apply with software products. Take LinkedIn Sales Navigator, for example.
同樣的原則也適用於軟體產品。以 LinkedIn Sales Navigator 為例。

If they had a surface level understanding of their problem, they might be tempted to think of themselves as just a lead generation solution. Accordingly, the problem they would solve would be to ‘create high lead volume.’
如果他們對自己的問題僅有表層的理解，他們可能會誤以為自己只是一個潛在客戶開發的解決方案。於是，他們所要解決的問題就僅僅是「創造大量潛在客戶」。

As a result, if they thought of themselves as purely a lead generation solution, they might over-index on developing features related to Lead Generation, like advanced filtering and bulk lookups. 
因此，如果他們只將自己視為一個純粹的潛在客戶開發解決方案，他們可能會過度著重於開發與潛在客戶開發相關的功能，例如進階篩選和批次查詢。

In other words, they would have played the game of generating and managing high lead quantity. 
換句話說，他們本來會玩那種追求並管理大量潛在客戶的遊戲。

This would have made LinkedIn Sales Navigator an incremental product, instead of a needle-moving one. Since existing lead generation databases already had these features, often with significantly more user data, the best LinkedIn could have offered was a slightly better user interface or a slightly different data set to search into. 
這樣一來，LinkedIn Sales Navigator 充其量只會成為一款漸進式的產品，而非真正帶來突破的創新。因為現有的潛在客戶資料庫早已具備這些功能，且往往擁有更多的用戶資料，LinkedIn 最多也只能提供稍微優化的使用者介面，或是略有不同的資料集供人搜尋罷了。

However, the Sales Navigator team had a deeper understanding of the true issue they were solving. Salespeople were not ultimately looking for lead volume, but rather effective ways to sell. Rather than framing their problem as ‘create high lead volume,’ where they would focus on creating as many cold leads as possible, LinkedIn instead framed their problem as ‘help salespeople do successful social sales.’
然而，Sales Navigator 團隊對於他們所要解決的真正問題有著更深刻的理解。業務人員最終追求的並非僅僅是潛在客戶的數量，而是更有效的銷售方式。與其將問題定義為「創造大量潛在客戶」，專注於產生盡可能多的冷門名單，LinkedIn 反而將問題重新定位為「協助業務人員成功進行社交銷售」。

In this arena, LinkedIn could solve the problem far better, due to its ability to graph social connections and identify warm paths into a company. Although salespeople would not have as much volume to work with, their connection rate with LinkedIn’s data would be much higher, resulting in more sales opportunities. 
在這個領域裡，LinkedIn 憑藉其繪製社交關係圖譜並辨識進入公司的人脈捷徑的能力，能夠更有效地解決這個問題。雖然業務人員可運用的名單數量可能不如以往，但藉由 LinkedIn 的數據，他們的聯繫成功率將大幅提升，從而帶來更多銷售機會。

Because LinkedIn recognized this crucial difference in the problem they were solving, they created a different, but far more resonant, solution for their target audience’s deepest problems. 
正因為 LinkedIn 意識到他們所要解決的問題之間這個關鍵性的差異，他們為目標受眾最深層的困擾，創造出了一個截然不同、卻更加引起共鳴的解決方案。

To get a deep, root-cause understanding of the problem you’re solving, take the outcome-motivation gap approach to defining your problem.
要深入且徹底理解你所要解決的問題，請採用「成果－動機落差」的方法來界定你的問題。

In this approach, you refine your understanding of the true problem you’re solving for.
在這個方法中，你將更加深入地釐清自己真正要解決的問題。

You do this by thinking about the final outcome the user wants, their motivation behind wanting that outcome, and the gaps that they experience with their current solutions that prevent them from fully realizing that outcome. 
你可以這麼做：思考使用者最終渴望達成的結果、他們追求這個結果背後的動機，以及現有解決方案中所存在的落差，這些落差使他們無法完全實現心中的理想成果。

As we did with Target Audience, we’ve translated this process into template form to make it more actionable for you. 
如同我們針對目標受眾所做的，我們已將這個流程轉化為範本形式，讓你能更具體地付諸行動。

First, write out the outcome the customer wants. 
首先，寫下顧客所期望的結果。

By thinking about the ultimate outcome that the customer wants instead of ideating off of their existing solutions, you escape the ‘faster horse’ problem.
當你思考顧客最終渴望達成的成果，而非僅僅從他們現有的解決方案出發構思時，你便能擺脫那種「更快的馬」的困境。

Your outcome is the end benefit your customer wants to experience. It should not be the perceived solution to getting to that benefit. 
你的成果，是顧客渴望親身體驗的最終利益。它不應該只是實現這個利益的表面解決方案。

In the Henry Ford analogy’s terms, the outcome would be quick transportation from point A to point B, not a faster horse. 
以亨利·福特的比喻來說，真正的成果應該是能夠迅速從甲地移動到乙地，而不是一匹跑得更快的馬。

For Substack, this would be earning a living from writing. 
對於 Substack 來說，這將是靠寫作維生。

For LinkedIn Sales Navigator, their audience wants to Increase the quantity, size, and speed of closed deals.
對於 LinkedIn Sales Navigator 而言，他們的目標受眾希望提升成交案件的數量、規模與速度。

Second, write out their motivation for solving the problem.
其次，寫下他們解決這個問題的動機。

By ensuring you’ve also thought about ‘why’ the customer wants the outcome, you get better ideas on exactly ‘what’ need you have to solve. 
當你確實思考過顧客「為什麼」想要達成這個結果時，你便能更清楚地掌握究竟需要解決「什麼」需求，從而獲得更好的解決方案。

For Substack, their audience wants to be able to keep writing, because the topics they write about are personally meaningful to them. 
對於 Substack 而言，他們的讀者渴望能夠持續寫作，因為他們所書寫的主題對自己而言具有深刻的意義。

For LinkedIn, their audience earns a living on commissions, so increasing their paycheck requires them to increase their total deal dollars done. 
對於 LinkedIn 來說，他們的受眾是靠佣金維生，因此若要增加薪水，就必須提升他們所完成交易的總金額。

Third, write out the gaps they experience in solving the problem with current solutions. By concretely understanding why existing solutions fail, you get a better understanding of the deeper problem you must solve.
第三，請寫下他們在使用現有解決方案時所經歷的落差。透過具體了解現有方案為何無法解決問題，你將能更深入掌握真正需要解決的核心問題。

For Substack, they have two issues. 


對於 Substack，他們面臨兩個問題。

First, they can’t make a living from doing traditional writing at media publications, because the business model for traditional ad-supported media like newspapers is collapsing. Second, they often don’t have full freedom to write what they want, because their publication ultimately dictates what they work on and write about. 
首先，他們無法靠在媒體出版物上從事傳統寫作維生，因為像報紙這類依賴廣告收入的傳統媒體商業模式正逐漸崩潰。其次，他們往往無法完全自由地書寫自己想寫的內容，因為最終還是由所屬的出版機構決定他們要從事和撰寫的主題。

For LinkedIn, they also have two challenges:
對於 LinkedIn，他們同樣面臨兩項挑戰：


First, their standard approach, cold outreach, is becoming increasingly ineffective (97% of cold outreaches don't convert into sales meetings, and that percentage is only increasing).
首先，他們一貫採用的標準方式——冷不防的主動聯繫——正變得越來越無效（97% 的冷聯繫無法轉化為銷售會議，而且這個比例還在持續上升）。

Second, doing the opposite (finding and conducting warm outreach) is hard. It’s difficult to find the right warm contact, difficult to figure out who's the company decision-maker, and difficult to understand what social context they can personalize the outreach with. 
其次，反其道而行之（尋找並進行溫暖的主動聯繫）同樣困難。要找到合適的溫暖聯繫人並不容易，確定誰才是公司內的決策者也很棘手，更難的是理解他們可以用來個人化聯繫的社交背景。

Finally, armed with the understanding of why your users want an outcome and why current solutions fail, refine your framing of the problem you’re solving. 
最後，當你已經明白使用者為何渴望達成某個結果，以及現有解決方案為何無法滿足他們的需求時，請進一步細緻地重新界定你所要解決的問題。

By factoring in your audience’s desired outcome, why they want it, and what’s missing from current solutions, you get a much more nuanced understanding of the problem. 
將你的受眾所期望的結果、他們渴望這個結果的原因，以及現有解決方案中所缺乏的部分納入考量後，你便能對問題有更細緻入微的理解。

For example, Substack now knows their goal is not just to create a good writing platform, but rather to solve the historical problems around monetization and control faced by professional journalists. Accordingly, Substack’s refined problem statement would be to enable truly independent writing. 

舉例來說，Substack 現在明白，他們的目標不僅僅是打造一個優質的寫作平台，而是要解決專業記者長久以來在獲利與自主權上所面臨的歷史性難題。因此，Substack 更精煉的問題陳述，便是致力於實現真正獨立的寫作。

Since LinkedIn knows they’re really trying to help salespeople get more closed deals via warm selling, they can refine their problem to be “Help sales professionals operationalize social selling best practices.”
由於 LinkedIn 深知他們真正想要協助業務人員透過溫和銷售來促成更多成交，因此他們可以將自身要解決的問題進一步聚焦為：「協助銷售專業人士將社群銷售的最佳實踐付諸行動。」

To recap, developing a deep understanding of the problem you’re solving requires you to think deeply about the end outcome you’re solving for and not just the immediate challenge you’re tackling. 
總結來說，若要真正深入理解你所要解決的問題，必須深思你所追求的最終成果，而不僅僅是眼前所面對的挑戰。

To develop this understanding, we introduced the outcome-motivation gap approach.
為了培養這樣的理解，我們引入了「成果—動機落差」的方法。

In the next lesson, we’ll cover how to get to a deep understanding of your value proposition.
在下一堂課中，我們將探討如何深入理解你的價值主張。