Legacy workflow guided marketers and creators through a standardized campaign process; however, the single workflow couldn’t accommodate all unique campaign needs.
Most of my campaigns are pretty straight forward, and I only want to use a portion of the campaign workflow. But I am forced to go through the entire flow.
- SaaS User
Marketers sometimes used different software for specific creator needs but had to recreate entire offers in IZEA for get content analytics, making the process time-consuming.
For about 30% of the campaigns, we're working with creators off the platform to meet their niche needs since the platform doesn't support them.
- Campaign Manager
Continuously adapting to social platform changes required significant engineering resources, often taking months to support new features before they became obsolete.
We are losing deals to competitor platforms because the platform lacks the ability to support new emerging platforms.
- Sales Team Member
The Engineering Team is constantly receiving requests to manually override workflows when marketers needed to skip steps or revert actions as a result of platform inflexibility.
It happens about 10 times a week. I feel bad for always asking the engineering team to help us manually override a step in the workflow.
- Support Team Member
Creators were required to sign up and use the platform to participate in campaigns. If the creators refuse, marketers had to act on behalf of the creators to complete the workflow.
Sometimes clients want to work with creators who are not in our marketplace, but the high profile creators don’t want to sign up and use the platform.
- Campaign Coordinator
The platform lacked integrations with third-party software such as conversion tracking and web traffic. Exporting data from our campaigns to other marketing software was also challenging.
It’s difficult to demonstrate the ROI of influencer marketing to clients when we cannot track end to end conversion.
- Sales Team Manager
The legacy workflow worked 90% of the time, but user complaints about the 10% that failed dominated our focus. We became overly reactive, prioritizing fixes for edge cases while overlooking big-picture improvements. A broader perspective would have helped us balance innovation with solving real pain points.
Buyers prioritize feature checkboxes, while users need intuitive workflows. We overinvested in PR-driven features to appeal to buyers, diverting engineering resources from core usability improvements. As a result, users struggled to fulfill campaign needs, leading to high churn despite strong initial adoption.
We underestimated the risks of building a new platform—switching all users from legacy workflow to Flex CRM. A pre-mortem exercise could have allowed stakeholders to share their concerns transparently and surfaced potential failure points earlier, allowing the team to fully evaluate the risks and opportunity costs.
By trying to accommodate every stakeholder’s needs, we ended up with a product that didn’t have a clear product-market fit. Instead of excelling in one area, Flex CRM attempted to do everything, diluting its impact. Focusing on solving one problem really well would have driven stronger adoption and success.