PM Interview Question Bank

Sample Answer Approach:

AI strategy in 2026 should be pragmatic and value-focused: (1) Start with problems, not technology — Where does AI create meaningful user value? (2) Build vs. buy AI capabilities — Use foundation model APIs for commodity tasks, invest in proprietary models only where you have unique data advantages, (3) Data moat — Your competitive advantage comes from proprietary data and feedback loops, (4) Responsible AI — Build trust through transparency, safety, and bias mitigation, (5) Organizational readiness — Do you have the talent, infrastructure, and culture? (6) Portfolio approach — Mix quick wins (features using LLMs) with long-term bets (novel AI applications).

Key Points:

• AI is a capability, not a strategy — it must serve user needs
• Proprietary data is the strongest AI moat
• Responsible AI is a competitive advantage, not just compliance
• Start with high-value, low-risk use cases to build organizational capability

Tips:

• •Be specific about which AI capabilities (LLMs, computer vision, recommendations) apply to which use cases
• •Discuss the build vs. buy decision for AI — when to use foundation model APIs vs. training proprietary models
• •Show awareness of responsible AI concerns including bias, hallucination, and privacy as strategic considerations

Sample Answer Approach:

Chicago population: ~2.7M people. Average household size: ~2.5, so ~1.1M households. Assume ~5% of households own a piano = ~55,000 pianos. Add institutions (churches, schools, concert halls) = ~10,000 more, totaling ~65,000 pianos. Each piano is tuned ~1-2 times/year = ~100,000 tunings/year. A tuner does ~4 tunings/day, works ~250 days/year = ~1,000 tunings/year per tuner. So ~100,000 / 1,000 = ~100 piano tuners in Chicago.

Key Points:

• Start with a known anchor (Chicago population)
• Break into logical steps: households → piano ownership → tuning frequency
• Estimate supply capacity per tuner
• Cross-check: does ~100 tuners seem reasonable for a city of 2.7M?

Tips:

• •State assumptions explicitly at each step
• •Round numbers for easier mental math
• •Sanity check your final answer

Common Mistakes:

• •Not stating assumptions clearly
• •Making the math too complex
• •Forgetting to sanity check the final number

Sample Answer Approach:

I would use a structured framework: (1) Market attractiveness — TAM/SAM/SOM, growth rate, competitive intensity, and regulatory landscape. (2) Strategic fit — Does this align with the company's core competencies, mission, and existing assets? (3) Right to win — Do we have distribution, technology, or brand advantages? (4) Financial viability — What is the investment required vs. expected ROI? (5) Risks — What are the downside scenarios and how reversible is the investment?

Key Points:

• Start with market sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM)
• Assess strategic alignment with company strengths
• Evaluate competitive dynamics and barriers to entry
• Consider financial implications and timeline to profitability
• Identify key risks and mitigation strategies

Tips:

• •Use real examples of companies that entered new markets successfully and unsuccessfully
• •Show awareness of opportunity cost — what are you NOT doing by pursuing this?
• •Consider second-order effects on existing business

Common Mistakes:

• •Only looking at market size without considering competition
• •Ignoring the company's existing strategic priorities
• •Not discussing the execution plan

Sample Answer Approach:

I would: (1) Analyze trends — technology shifts, market dynamics, customer behavior changes, regulatory environment, (2) Understand company positioning — current strengths, assets, competitive advantages, (3) Define the north star — What world do we want to create for our users? (4) Identify strategic pillars — 3-4 major bets that support the vision, (5) Roadmap in horizons — H1 (optimize core), H2 (expand adjacencies), H3 (transformative bets), (6) Define success metrics for each horizon, (7) Identify key risks and dependencies.

Key Points:

• Start with customer and market trends, not internal capabilities
• A vision should be inspiring but grounded in reality
• Use the three horizons model for balanced investment
• Include both offensive (growth) and defensive (moat) strategies

Tips:

• •Show you can think long-term while being practical about execution
• •Reference frameworks like McKinsey's Three Horizons

Sample Answer Approach:

US population: ~330M. Adults (18+): ~260M. Smartphone users: ~240M. Uber users (ride-hailing penetration ~30% of smartphone users): ~72M. Active monthly users (~40% of total): ~29M. Average rides per active user per month: ~3. Average ride value: ~$25. Monthly GMV: 29M × 3 × $25 = ~$2.2B. Uber take rate: ~25%. Monthly ride-hailing revenue: ~$550M. Annual: ~$6.6B. Add Uber Eats (roughly equal to rides): ~$6-7B. Total US revenue estimate: ~$13B/year.

Key Points:

• Segment into ride-hailing and delivery (Uber Eats)
• Use penetration rates and frequency to estimate volume
• Apply take rate to get from GMV to revenue
• Cross-check with publicly available figures if possible

Tips:

• •Show awareness of Uber's multiple business lines
• •Distinguish between GMV and net revenue
• •Mention seasonal variations if relevant

Common Mistakes:

• •Confusing GMV with revenue
• •Forgetting Uber Eats as a major revenue driver
• •Using unrealistic ride frequency assumptions

Sample Answer Approach:

First, I'd assess the threat: How good is their implementation? How much of our user base overlaps? Then I'd consider: (1) Accelerate innovation — double down on our next differentiator, (2) Deepen the moat — improve quality, integrations, or network effects that are hard to copy, (3) Reposition — if the feature is commoditized, shift the value proposition, (4) Communicate — reassure customers about our roadmap and unique strengths.

Key Points:

• Don't panic — assess the real competitive threat first
• Differentiation should be continuous, not one-time
• Consider deepening existing moats vs. creating new ones
• Understand what competitors can't easily copy (network effects, data, ecosystem)

Tips:

• •Reference real examples like Instagram copying Snapchat Stories
• •Show you understand sustainable vs. temporary competitive advantages

Common Mistakes:

• •Immediately copying back without strategic thinking
• •Ignoring the threat entirely
• •Focusing only on features instead of broader moats

Sample Answer Approach:

I'd evaluate across several dimensions: (1) Strategic importance — Is this core to our value proposition? If yes, lean build. (2) Speed to market — How quickly do we need this? If urgent, lean buy or partner. (3) Internal capability — Do we have the talent and infrastructure? (4) Cost — TCO of build vs. acquisition price vs. partnership terms. (5) Control — How much do we need to own the roadmap? (6) Risk — What happens if the partner/acquisition fails?

Key Points:

• Build when it's core and you need full control
• Buy when speed matters and the acquisition target is strong
• Partner when it's non-core and you need flexibility
• Always consider total cost of ownership, not just upfront costs

Tips:

• •Think about long-term strategic implications, not just immediate needs
• •Consider integration complexity for buy scenarios

Sample Answer Approach:

Two-sided marketplaces face the chicken-and-egg problem. My strategy: (1) Identify which side is harder to acquire — usually supply, (2) Subsidize the harder side initially to bootstrap liquidity, (3) Focus on geographic or category density — it's better to be strong in one area than weak everywhere, (4) Build tools and value for each side beyond matching (e.g., Uber giving drivers tax tools), (5) Measure liquidity metrics — match rate, time to match, fill rate, (6) Create network effects that increase value as both sides grow.

Key Points:

• Solve the chicken-and-egg problem by subsidizing one side
• Geographic/category density matters more than total numbers
• Both sides need independent value, not just matching
• Liquidity is the key metric for marketplace health

Tips:

• •Reference real marketplaces and their strategies
• •Discuss how the strategy evolves as the marketplace matures

Sample Answer Approach:

Entering a dominated market requires asymmetric strategy: (1) Find the underserved segment — the incumbent likely over-serves mainstream users, (2) Differentiate on a dimension the incumbent can't easily match — speed, simplicity, price, niche focus, (3) Use a wedge strategy — start narrow and expand, (4) Leverage platform shifts — mobile, AI, new distribution channels, (5) Consider bundling — offer the capability as part of a larger value proposition the incumbent can't match.

Key Points:

• Don't compete head-to-head on the incumbent's strengths
• Look for underserved segments or emerging needs
• Platform shifts create windows of opportunity
• Wedge strategy: start narrow, expand from a position of strength

Tips:

• •Reference disruption theory and real examples (Google Docs vs. Microsoft Office)
• •Discuss what makes the incumbent vulnerable

Sample Answer Approach:

This depends on the company stage and market dynamics: (1) Market maturity — In growing markets, prioritize growth to capture share. In mature markets, optimize for profitability. (2) Competitive landscape — If competitors are investing heavily, under-investing in growth is risky. (3) Unit economics — Growth is only valuable if unit economics are healthy or trending positive. (4) Capital availability — In tight capital markets, profitability matters more. (5) The best answer is usually both — find ways to grow efficiently through product-led growth, improving retention, and expanding existing customers.

Key Points:

• The answer depends heavily on context (market, stage, capital)
• Growth without healthy unit economics is unsustainable
• Retention is the best bridge between growth and profitability
• Product-led growth can achieve both simultaneously

Tips:

• •Show nuance — avoid absolute answers
• •Reference the Rule of 40 for SaaS companies