Wondering how people with almost no distribution channel manage to validate their ideas!
I've built and published many apps throughout school without validating the idea, but they received 20K+ installs in a short span.
After reading tons of books and articles, I realized people validate their ideas before spending too much time on them.
So I decided to build a landing page with a waitlist for my product and posted it on Twitter and Instagram.
Though a lot of people I spoke to sounded "excited", I got very few signups. (They're not my target audience, so I didn't ask them if they'd pay for such a product)
Now I'm wondering if my idea is bad or if my distribution is awful.
What am I doing wrong?
(P.S I'm working on a creator SaaS product)
Here's a good example:
> Though a lot of people I spoke to sounded "excited", I got very few signups. (They're not my target audience, so I didn't ask them if they'd pay for such a product)
Those people weren't in your target audience, and you didn't ask them to pay, but I presume you take it as a positive sign that this particular audience was "excited." But it's not. It's not anything since they're not even potential customers. That's how we subtly deceive ourselves.
Talk directly to people in your target audience (contact on social, then move convo to email, then move convo to telephone) and try to get them to put some skin in the game. One popular tactic is to offer a free feature request for a refundable prepayment.
There's three types of innovation.. 1. What you think people want 2. What they tell you they want 3. What they actually need
Most startups die because their product strategy is #1, the chances your view of the world is going to be adopted by people with many different circumstances is very low. The few think, lets go talk to people, but then die due to misdirection.. customers aren't PM's, they dont know how to solve problems but they know what their problems are.
so you must figure out what do people actually need..
You have two ways (well technically 3) to validate your idea 1. Quantitative 2. Qualitative 3. Resegment an existing market (questionable if you can skip traditional validation but your chances are better here than 1 or 2 above)
If you have funding, you can do quantitative. Build stuff and get it in front of your audience with paid acquisition/marketing.
#2 is the best if you want to be a scientist about things. Learn Jobs to be Done, start conducting interviews, find the problem folks have.. figure out if its a priority and a pattern.. there's lots of good JTBD literature out there, read it all.
#3 - segment an existing category. Take form building for example, you can build a form builder with limited features for a niche audience.. higher ed? (Qualtrics anyone?)
--
Hopefully this just scratched the tip of the iceberg for you and gives you some direction!
Just to clarify, qualitative research is less costly per dollar but does cost time. Check out the book "Nail it then scale it".
Recipe to spend $1000s marketing dollars vs $10,000s of development hours to validate ->
(1) Think hard about exactly who your target customer is and how your product would be received.
(2) Use google ad planner or FB's audience tool to see how accessible that audience is online, along with projected CPC costs
(3) If you are super budget constrained scour the internet for free adwords / fb advertising credits eg - https://www.diydigitalstrategy.com/150-google-ads-coupon/ - many online marketing classes will come with a $100 - 150 coupon
(4) Build a landing page framework WITH pricing on the landing page (or a pricing range eg $XX a seat with team discounts). Both FB & Goog are anti "waiting lists" so you need to think about how to get around this. Consultative sales, eg a "Somebody from our sales team will be in touch" doesn't break their TOS as long as you do a good job following up with the customers
(5) Spend the money on the validation and get the added bonus of talking to some very early preliminary customers that are NOT in your orbit
Have you read The Mom Test? Here's a summary: https://www.slideshare.net/xamde/summary-of-the-mom-test
I recommend reading the book.
Distribution IS part of a startup idea. It’s an essential ingredient. Don’t think about idea and distribution as separate things. If you can’t find your target audience to validate your idea with, you have an incomplete startup idea, by definition!
If you are unsure how to find your target audience today, building your product will not fix this problem. Speaking to real users should be a higher priority than building or planning features.
For advice on speaking to users I only recommend one short book - “The Mom Test”. In that book you will learn why “excitement” is a very misleading signal. There is a good reason why YC partners constantly recommend it.
Figure out who your target audience is first. You might have to talk to a lot of people. Get good at listening and asking open ended questions ( see book Mom Test )
Once you have a rough idea who your audience is, try to find about 30 people in that audience to talk to face to face. You can use a script like in the book Running Lean. You want to keep good notes on each conversation. Build a table/matrix of all things you uncover across these 30 or so conversations. If you can see a clear pattern in the problems a majority of the people have, that could be the idea you build a product for.
Customers are often irrational, especially with the current heavily manipulated monetary system. I only want to work on products that are beneficial for users (in a meaningful, long term way), even if people might not understand the benefits today (and it might not sell at all).
Bootstrapping (unlike VC funding) allows you to wait out the insanity instead of forcing you to profit from it. If you have a good product, people will come to their senses sooner or later - You will get steady, linear growth but it will be solid growth.
Most of the time, exponential growth is fickle. Users got overexcited, they made an impulsive decision; the next phase is disillusionment.
If you answered yes then you just need to leap and iterate on the user feedback loop.
My first mvp compared to what I'm selling today is completely different. I pivoted 20 times at least.
So the name of the game is to just start building and not be overly concerned with making mistakes. Find what doesn't work and move toward what does. Mimic nature by constant evolution.
Once you do this, the creators will spread the product for you if it's good. Being a creator is all about collaboration so they are used to this in terms of the products they use and sharing those products with their peers (and communities)
In terms of distribution, this is a relatively easy one to solve. The classic: Figure out who your customer is and talk to them, you have it easy in that your customers are TRYING to be visible.
source: I'm an athlete with > 100k IG followers
This is a false dichotomy, I think. Trying to grow is an essential part of how you evolve the idea and discover what the "growable idea" really is. This is one of the core things I took away from this PG classic: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html
Most of the replies here seem applicable only to products offering new capabilities, as opposed to products intending to be better implementations in existing categories.
The problem I see is I can say, "My product is like X except it's more usable/efficient, less buggy, and looks nicer," —but they'd have to take each of those claims purely on faith, so it's not very useful.
Thinking about it more, maybe it's impossible by definition to pre-validate this kind of product: your offering is strictly in the implementation (not some abstract new feature concept), so the validation has to take place with respect to concrete details of the product's realized form.
Maybe the best you can do is take this into account when devising strategy around the ordering of features to develop: e.g. if your claims are on usability or performance, focus on that first.
(Then again, seems dubious since most all of the example qualities I mentioned are sort of emergent from the entire product being in place, can't really develop them in isolation...)
Any thoughts?
The problem with landing pages, waitlists, etc is that they'll give you very little - until people are using your product everything they say is suspect. They need to be using your product, be vested in it, care about it, have opinions about it, etc. Landing pages will only get you a "huh, that's interesting, I might try it out"
To validate it, find several dozen people that will use and love it and give you real feedback. This is a highly manual process and it should be.
Once I get rudimentary version, I can then put it out there in public to validate it. Maybe do a Show HN or do a 'low budget' Ad on Facebook/Twitter. This is what I did for my current project, https://nocommandline.com (I did a Show HN).
I feel that software needs a 'trial' version to be able to gauge whether people will actually use it or not.
I launch them on appsumo marketplace which helps me get in front of active buyers
i have done this with blurweb.app(https://blurweb.app) click2contact.app(https://click2contact.app) sendsimple.app(https://www.sendsimple.app)
and will be doing the same for the others which you can see here https://twitter.com/indianappguy/status/1429157263353126912
I think in general if you're honest with yourself, you have a decent chance of evaluating your idea's desirability. Go with the YC mantra of "Make something people want". If you are scratching your own itch, that could be a good way to start.
"Creators" are a fickle bunch so not always the best audience.
For full disclosure: I’m trying to build a better way to validate ideas, and I think I too can learn a tremendous amount from talking to you.