Zig vs Zag (High Conviction, Low Consensus)

You need to be right about something that other people think you're wrong about for a very long time

Dharmesh Shah
Zigging vs. zagging: How HubSpot built a $30B company

Zig vs Zag (High Conviction, Low Consensus)

"High conviction is, 'We really, really believe this,' and low consensus is that most other people don't. You need to be right about something that other people think you're wrong about for a very long time." - Dharmesh Shah

What It Is

Zig vs Zag is a strategic framework for identifying where to place contrarian bets. The number of things you're contrarian on should be greater than zero but not too high. These are "high conviction, low consensus" bets where you deeply believe something most others don't.

The framework comes from the observation that startups need differentiation, but being contrarian on everything is chaotic. The skill is choosing the right dimensions to zig while zagging with convention on others.

How It Works

The Core Formula

  • High conviction: "We really, really believe this"
  • Low consensus: "Most other people don't"
  • Long timeframe: You must maintain conviction through years of pushback

HubSpot's Strategic Zigs

  1. SMB focus when everyone said go enterprise - Maintained for 18 years despite every investor asking "What's the path to enterprise?" on IPO roadshows

  2. All-in-one when everyone said focus - Built SEO, analytics, blogging, content management, and more from year one—the opposite of "be world-class at one thing"

  3. Measuring by NOT being top 3 - In early years, being top 3 in any individual category meant they over-invested there

The Discipline Required

Once you make a low-consensus bet, everyone will disagree—investors, board members, potential investors, conventional wisdom. You need the conviction to persist through this pressure. That's why you can't have too many contrarian bets—you don't have enough conviction to defend them all.

How to Apply It

  1. Know what the zig would be - Even if you choose the conventional path, explicitly identify what the contrarian option was. "At any stage of the company, you should at least know what the zig would have been and have talked it through."

  2. Limit your contrarian dimensions - Pick 1-3 things to be truly contrarian on. Reinventing everything leads to chaos.

  3. Maintain conviction for years - If you can't defend the position for years against intelligent pushback, it's not the right bet.

  4. Distinguish first principles from founding principles:

    • First principles = laws of physics, universally true
    • Founding principles = choices you've made (e.g., transparency at HubSpot)

    Don't confuse your contrarian bets with universal truths.

  5. Be willing to iterate on non-core bets - HubSpot changed their no-titles policy when evidence showed it wasn't working. Not every zig needs to be permanent.

When to Use It

  • Defining company strategy and positioning
  • Evaluating whether to follow industry best practices
  • When facing pressure to conform to conventional wisdom
  • Deciding where to allocate scarce conviction and energy
  • Any strategic planning process

The framework is valuable because it:

  • Legitimizes contrarian thinking while constraining it
  • Provides language for defending unconventional choices
  • Distinguishes between core bets (hold firm) and tactical choices (iterate)
  • Acknowledges the social cost of being contrarian

Source

  • Guest: Dharmesh Shah
  • Episode: "Zigging vs. zagging: How HubSpot built a $30B company"
  • Key Discussion: (00:50:52) - Explains HubSpot's strategic zigs and the philosophy behind them
  • YouTube: Watch on YouTube

Related Frameworks

Back to Product Strategy