Different customers seem to hire my product for completely different jobs. Do I pick one or serve them all?
The short answer
Pick one to lead with, at least until you have traction, because messaging that speaks to three jobs speaks clearly to none. Multiple jobs is common and not a problem in the product, but it's a killer in your positioning if you try to say everything at once. As a starting point, find the job with the strongest struggle and the fastest willingness to pay, own that, and let the others be quiet secondary benefits.
Go deeper, your way
3 hand-picked resources, 3 link-checked. Pick how you want to dig in.
▶️ Video
✓ Link checkedFreeIntermediate
Why we picked it
If the book is too much to read right now, this talk gives you Dunford walking through the same method live, including how competitive alternatives set the frame customers judge you in. That framing is the key to your question: choosing what you are an alternative to is how you make one job lead without abandoning the others. Use it as a starting point to see the choosing process in motion before you commit.
Customers judge you against the alternative they would otherwise use, so the job you lead with is really a choice about which competitive alternative you frame against.
Setting the frame of reference deliberately is what lets one use case lead while the rest stay available underneath it.
Seeing the method demonstrated end to end makes it easier to apply to your own multi job product than reading the steps cold.
Why we picked it
Dunford's whole method starts with the customers who already love your product, then turns that into positioning the entire team can repeat the same way. Her final step is literally capturing positioning so it can be shared, which is the exact problem you have once new hires start describing your customer in their own words. Read it when you want the ICP and the pitch to stay consistent from the founder down to the newest rep.
Why we picked it
This piece takes on your exact tension: many valid use cases, and the fear that choosing one throws away the rest. It argues the opposite, that sitting on several use cases is an optionality tax that can stall growth for years, and it walks through how to pick the one at the intersection of your edge, a clear persona, and a high priority problem. Treat it as a starting point for how to choose, with a concrete framework rather than just encouragement.
A killer use case is where your differential advantage, a well defined persona, and a high priority problem overlap, so you are choosing on evidence, not preference.
Keeping multiple use cases open is not free optionality, it is a tax: the HubSpot example shows how it stalled growth until they committed to one.
Pick using real signal (product metrics, user interviews, ranking which problems customers care about most), then let the other jobs come later once you have traction.
