Launch a product, believe it, industrialize it … to finally see that it does not meet any real expectations. It is a test that many French companies have been faced, sometimes after several months of development, substantial investments and a strong commitment from the teams. However, these commercial failures have not always been fatal. In some cases, they have proven to be more instructive than rapid successes, opening the way to a strategic repositioning, a change in culture or a complete overhaul of the economic model.
A technically successful product … but useless
In 2018, the Lyon Startup Tilkee, which specializes in monitoring commercial documents, invests almost six months in the development of an additional module dedicated to electronic signature. The tool is efficient, ergonomic, in accordance with regulatory requirements. But once launched, he does not find a taker. Existing users do not change their habits, and the prospects targeted do not perceive added value compared to existing solutions. Result: barely a few dozen activations in several weeks.
What the founders retain is not so much technological error as collective blindness. Too focused on the quality of the tool, the team has neglected more rigorous field validation. Following this episode, the company incorporates a new systematic step into its projects: qualitative interviews with users from the model phase, and paid tests in real conditions. Since then, Tilkee has no longer launched a single product without upstream user engagement.
The logic of missed “Painkiller”
Same observation at Brigad, platform for connecting freelancers and catering establishments. In 2019, the company launched an annex functionality for administrative management of missions: an interface allowing establishments to follow their mission history and automatically generate reports. The project mobilizes a complete team for several months. But when it comes, the functionality remains largely underused. Users do not consider it a priority. Some people completely ignore it.
The return of experience reveals a classic bias: creating a solution to an internal perceived problem, but which is not real pain for users. The company then decides to reposition its R&D process: now, only projects responding to a recurring problem expressed by at least 60 % of active customers are validated for development. This new analysis grid influences the product roadmap directly, reducing unnecessary cycles and refocusing the team on the functionalities actually requested.
The mirror effect trap
In the field of personal finance, Cashbee, savings application, launched a heritage simulation functionality at the end of 2020. The technically robust tool is based on sophisticated algorithms to project yields over several years. However, the use rate remains derisory. Users do not use it, or abandon it quickly. The team produced wonders, tests different variants, adds explanations … without success.
It is an external UX audit that identifies the problem: the product reflects the expectations of its designers, not those of its users. Too complex, too long -term oriented, it fails to capture the attention of an audience that is looking for simple, immediate responses. The module is suspended, and a new interface is developed with an inverted objective: radical simplicity, a single projected data, zero jargon. Adoption climbs immediately. This turnaround pushes the company to adopt a strict rule: no more products will be launched without user tests carried out in pairs with non-expert profiles.
Learn to destroy to start again
At Ornikar, a highway training platform, a “premium” module is launched in 2021, with enriched content and long videos. On paper, the offer seems consistent: upmarket, differentiating content, higher margins. But after three months, the failure is obvious: the hearing stagnates, the conversion rates fall. Users always favor the simple, fast and inexpensive formula. Ornikar then decides to completely withdraw the offer, to publicly assume the error, and to use it as an internal case study.
This posture gives birth to a new ritual: the “Product Kill Meeting”, a monthly meeting dedicated to the analysis of unprocessed projects. Far from looking for a culprit, the objective is to identify the conditions of success or failure, to capitalize on design or communication errors. Several abandoned projects have thus served as a basis for new features, better calibrated, and now central in the offer. This process of assumed destruction has become a key step in the product maturity of the company.
When the pivot becomes inevitable
For other structures, the failure of a product reveals a fault in the overall positioning. At Cubyn, specialist in e-commerce logistics, one of the first services offered in 2017-the collection and delivery of objects between individuals-is a dead end. Few customers, too high logistical costs, a fuzzy promise. After several recovery attempts, the decision is made: abandonment of the initial model, total refocusing on logistics for e-merchants.
This pivot, initiated from an obvious observation of failure, completely reposition the company. The teams, first disoriented, gradually understand that this decision opens up a clearer, more profitable, more sustainable market. Two years later, Cubyn became one of the major French actors in outsourced logistics for e-commerce. The failure of the first product was not erased: it remained as a founding benchmark of the strategic rocking.
The right product is never enough
In several of these cases, the teams continued development to the end, convinced that technical quality would be enough to create use. The interface worked, the performances were there, the internal tests validated. But once on the market, the commitment did not come. This discrepancy between the solidity of the product and the weakness of the adoption has prompted certain managers to further document the disinterest signals: time spent on the page, activation rate, hot feedback. Gradually, these data have gained more weight than development plans.
In several publishers, it is now real use – even limited – which triggers or not the continuation of a project. This approach, more radical in its temporality, has changed the way the teams design MVP: fewer style effects, more direct confrontation if necessary. This movement of the center of gravity – from the product to its use – has settled in routines, often without being formalized, but with a visible impact on investment choices.
