Is it better for Wix to focus on expanding third-party app integrations or developing more native features?

Introduction

The trade-off between expanding third-party app integrations or developing more native features for Wix is a critical decision that will shape the platform's future. This scenario involves balancing the benefits of a robust ecosystem against the control and optimization of native functionality. I'll analyze this trade-off by examining the product context, potential impacts, key metrics, and experimental approaches to inform a strategic recommendation.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (3 minutes)

• Context: I'm thinking about Wix's current market position. Could you share insights on our market share and primary competitors in the website building space?

Why it matters: Helps gauge the urgency of feature expansion vs. integration Expected answer: Wix has a significant market share but faces competition from platforms like Squarespace and WordPress Impact on approach: Strong market position might allow for a more balanced approach, while high competition could push for rapid feature development

• Business Context: Based on Wix's business model, I assume subscription revenue is key. How do third-party integrations and native features currently contribute to our revenue streams?

Why it matters: Aligns solution with revenue generation and retention strategies Expected answer: Subscription is primary, with some revenue share from premium integrations Impact on approach: High integration revenue might favor that direction, while subscription focus could lean towards native features

• User Impact: Considering our user base, I'm curious about the adoption rates of third-party apps versus native features. Can you provide insights on user engagement with each?

Why it matters: Indicates user preferences and potential impact on satisfaction Expected answer: Varied adoption, with power users leveraging integrations more Impact on approach: High integration usage might suggest focusing there, while low adoption could indicate a need for better native features

• Technical: Regarding our platform architecture, how easily can we scale third-party integrations compared to developing new native features?

Why it matters: Assesses feasibility and long-term maintainability of each approach Expected answer: Integration framework in place, but native development more controllable Impact on approach: Ease of integration might favor that path, while better control could push towards native development

• Resource: Thinking about our current team structure, how are our engineering resources allocated between integration support and native feature development?

Why it matters: Determines capacity for each approach and potential need for team restructuring Expected answer: Balanced team with slightly more focus on native development Impact on approach: Resource allocation might influence which direction is more immediately feasible