Map your product's network effects flywheel

Network Effects Are Specific Loops, Not a Marketing Claim

Product leaders love claiming network effects; few can draw the loop. Reforge's growth loop research argues that most products have at best one weak network effect and often mistake retention curves for flywheel dynamics. Andreessen Horowitz's analysis of network effects distinguishes asymptotic effects (which plateau) from compounding effects (which don't) — a distinction that matters enormously for long-term defensibility but rarely shows up in quarterly pitches.

How the Map your product's network effects flywheel Prompt Works

The prompt forces a 0-3 scorecard across eight archetypes with evidence, then demands a concrete loop description for every archetype scoring 2+ (action, feedback, minimum density, failure mode). The "network effect we claim but don't have" output is the honesty check — public claims about network effects that don't exist are a board-credibility risk.

When to Use It

• A board deck includes "network effects" as a moat and nobody can draw the loop.
• Growth is slowing and the claimed flywheel is not producing compounding gains.
• You need to decide between two features and one strengthens a loop.
• A competitor is claiming stronger network effects and you need an honest comparison.
• A new PM is joining and needs to understand what actually compounds.

Common Pitfalls

• Confusing retention curves with network effects. Good retention is not a network effect. Draw the loop or don't claim it.
• Ignoring local boundaries. Many "network effects" only work within an org or region. Global claims fail when local density is what matters.
• Not naming the density threshold. A loop without a minimum density is a flywheel that won't spin. Name the number.

Sources

• Growth Loops — Reforge
• Andreessen Horowitz AI — Andreessen Horowitz
• Retention, Engagement & Growth: The Silent Killer — Reforge
• The Product Strategy Stack — Reforge