Product Strategy Explained: It's Just Saying No to Gulab Jamuns
The only concept in product management that took me years to truly understand is product strategy.
I used to think strategy meant having a great plan. Or a detailed roadmap. Or a big vision doc with boxes and arrows showing where the product would be in 3 years.
It's none of those things.
TL;DR: Product strategy is the specific path you choose out of all available options to reach your goal. It's a choice plus all the "definitely yes," "yes," and "no" decisions you make to get there. The hard part isn't saying yes to good things. It's saying no to good things that don't align with your chosen path.
The simplest definition
Strategy is that specific path you choose out of all the available options to reach your goal.
It's basically a choice plus all the "Definitely yes," "Yes," and "No" you say to achieve your goals in the best possible way.
Not a plan. Not a roadmap. Not a vision statement. A choice. And the discipline to stick with it.
The gulab jamun analogy
Let me explain with an oversimplified example that makes the concept stick.
Imagine you want to lose weight. That's your goal.
Out of all the options available (exercise, diet, fasting, surgery, medication), you choose "eating healthy" as your strategy. That's your chosen path.
You're then invited to a buffet. Based on your strategy, you say "Yes" to salads and grilled veggies. You start eating them. You're doing great.
But then the gulab jamuns show up.
They look amazing. They smell incredible. Everyone around you is having them. And honestly, one won't hurt, right?
But you say: "No. That's not in line with my strategy."
That "no" is the hardest part of strategy. Not choosing what to eat. Choosing what not to eat when it looks delicious.
Now replace gulab jamuns with product decisions
In product management, the gulab jamuns show up constantly:
- A big customer demanding a specific feature ("If you build this, we'll sign a 3-year contract")
- A trending AI buzzword that everyone on Twitter is excited about
- A shiny roadmap item demanded by an exec who just read a competitor's blog post
- A "quick win" that doesn't align with your strategy but would make the team feel productive
Each of these is tempting. Each might even be individually valuable. But if they don't align with your chosen strategic path, they dilute your focus. And diluted focus is what kills products slowly.
You should consider only those items that align with your strategy. Everything else, no matter how tempting, is a gulab jamun.
Real-world example: Instagram
Let's look at how this plays out at scale.
Their goal: Become the go-to photo-sharing app.
Their strategy (chosen path): Focus on speed, simplicity, and delight. Target young, mobile-first iPhone users in the US.
That's a very specific path. Not "build a social network." Not "compete with Facebook." Not "create a multimedia platform." A narrow, focused bet on one thing done exceptionally well.
Here's what they said YES to:
- Instant photo capture (speed)
- Built-in filters that made any photo look good (delight)
- One-tap share (simplicity)
- A social feed to see friends' photos (the core loop)
And they deliberately said NO to:
- Web version (not mobile-first)
- Albums (complexity)
- DMs (not about photo sharing)
- Editing tools beyond filters (complexity, dilutes simplicity)
- Localization (not yet, focus on US first)
- Support for poor networks (their ICP has good connections)
Every "no" was painful. Users requested these features. Competitors had them. Investors probably questioned the gaps. But Instagram held the line.
They didn't try to be Facebook or Flickr. They picked a lane and ran fast. That's product strategy in action: clarity, focus, and ruthless prioritization.
Fun fact: The Instagram Android app was released 18 months after the iOS launch. They were perfecting the iOS experience for 1.5 years, serving 30 million users, before expanding to Android. That's strategic patience.
Why "no" is harder than "yes"
Saying yes is easy. It makes people happy. The customer is satisfied. The exec feels heard. The team has something new to work on.
Saying no creates friction:
- The customer pushes back: "But we need this!"
- The exec questions your judgment: "Why aren't we doing this?"
- The team wonders: "Why are we ignoring this obvious opportunity?"
The PM who says yes to everything has no strategy. They have a collection of features. They have a product that tries to be everything and excels at nothing.
The PM who can articulate why they're saying no, connected to a clear strategic choice, is the PM with real strategy.
| Decision type | Easy version | Strategic version |
|---|---|---|
| Feature request from big customer | "Yes, let's build it" | "Does this align with our chosen path? If no, what's the cost of deviating?" |
| Exec wants a new initiative | "Sure, let's explore it" | "How does this fit with what we've committed to? What do we drop?" |
| Competitor launches something | "We need that too" | "Is that on our strategic path? Or is it their strategy, not ours?" |
How to build a product strategy
If strategy is "a choice of path," then building strategy means:
1. Define the goal clearly. Not vague ("grow the business") but specific ("become the default tool for X segment within 18 months").
2. Identify all available paths. What are the different ways you could reach that goal? Different customer segments? Different product approaches? Different distribution channels?
3. Choose one path. Not three. Not "we'll try a bit of everything." One path that you believe has the highest probability of reaching your goal given your constraints (team size, funding, market timing).
4. Define what "yes" looks like on this path. What features, initiatives, and investments support your chosen direction?
5. Define what "no" looks like. What are the gulab jamuns? The things that are good but don't belong on your path? Name them explicitly so the team knows.
6. Commit for a meaningful timeframe. Strategy needs time to work. If you change paths every quarter, you never go deep enough on any single one to see results.
Strategy vs. roadmap vs. vision
These get confused constantly. Let me separate them:
Vision: Where you want to be in 3-5 years. The destination. ("Be the most trusted photo-sharing platform in the world.")
Strategy: The specific path you're taking to get there. The choice. ("Focus on mobile-first simplicity for young users in the US.")
Roadmap: The sequence of steps on that path. The execution plan. ("Q1: improve filters. Q2: launch stories. Q3: expand to Android.")
Vision without strategy is a dream. You know where you want to go but haven't chosen how to get there.
Roadmap without strategy is a feature list. You know what you're building but not why this sequence over any other.
Strategy connects vision to roadmap. It's the reasoning that makes your roadmap coherent instead of random.
When strategy breaks down
You know your product strategy is weak (or absent) when:
- The roadmap changes every quarter based on whoever shouted loudest
- Every customer request gets added to the backlog "for consideration"
- The team can't explain why they're building what they're building
- Features ship but don't compound (each one exists in isolation)
- Competitors set your agenda ("they launched X, so we need X")
All of these are symptoms of the same problem: no clear choice was made about which path to take. So every path looks equally valid. And the product drifts.
The discipline of staying on path
The hardest part of strategy isn't making the initial choice. It's maintaining it over months and quarters as pressure mounts.
Week 1: "Our strategy is to focus on simplicity for mobile users." Week 8: "But this enterprise customer wants a web dashboard..." Week 16: "Our competitor just launched video..." Week 24: "The board thinks we should expand to Android immediately..."
Each of these is a gulab jamun. And each one feels reasonable in isolation. The discipline is zooming out and asking: "Does this serve our chosen path? Or is it pulling us off it?"
Sometimes the answer is "we need to change our strategy." That's valid. Markets shift. New information emerges. But changing strategy should be a deliberate, explicit decision, not a slow drift caused by saying yes to too many gulab jamuns.
The bottom line
Product strategy isn't complicated. It's a choice of path plus the discipline to stay on it.
The hard part isn't understanding the concept. It's having the courage to say no to good things that don't belong on your chosen path. To disappoint a customer. To push back on an exec. To ignore a competitor's shiny feature.
That's strategy. Not the document. The daily discipline of choosing.
How ProductResume helps
Strategic thinking is what hiring managers evaluate under the Leadership & Impact and Domain Expertise dimensions on your PM resume. If your resume shows you can make hard choices (not just ship features), it signals strategic maturity. Score your PM resume to see whether your experience reflects real product strategy or just execution.