seoSo I have an idea and think there is a good space in the market for it.
I have been told by my Product Manager friend that I need to validate first etc through landing page process and tweaking product info/pricing via A/B etc. I don’t disagree.
I’m kind of at odds though because the time spent creating my product page and setting up analytics is time I could be coding. I’m probably going to use Wordpress and Google Analytics for product page as those landing page services are expensive after one month. I plan on running the product page/validation for a few months and will campaign to drive traffic. The money would be better spent on traffic that a landing page provider. So that’s why there will be a bit of extra work in the website setup. That said it is all new and I will learn loads from it. I have no problem pumping out code and creating the product.
I understand the reason for validating first but i’m not sure if my friend is only saying this as in his professional setting he would have to do this first because he cannot code. So in his case, paying for development before any kind of validation is just silly.
In my case though I can do both myself and time is the only cost. So it costs the same to create the product or do validation. Not completely like for like, but you get the gist right?
Right now I think I will go with validation and roll my own website (templates + GA + WordPress). Over the course of a couple of months I can validate and try and gain requirements. All this stuff will need to be done once the actual product is ready anyway and I can be gaining SEO/Traffic/customer enquires while coding the actual product.
Many thanks
In a study of the post-mortems of over 100 startups, CB Insights found that the number one reason for failure was “no market need.” Nearly half of these startups spent months or even years building a product before they found out that they were wrong in their most central assumption: that someone was interested in that product in the first place.
You may think you have a good idea, but the odds are you don’t. Even more importantly, you don’t build a successful startup by coming up with a single good idea, but by navigating an idea maze. To build a product, you need to repeatedly find new problems, come up with new ideas, validate those ideas, and then build. If you jump straight into building, you are virtually guaranteed to get one or more of those ideas wrong and as a result, instead of saving time by skipping the minimum viable product, you’ll waste far more time building something no one needs.
And remember, since a product isn’t just one idea, a minimum viable product isn’t something you do once. A minimum viable product isn’t a product—it’s a process. Read that post, along with Startup Ideas and Validation for more info.
Let’s start with some definitions.
A “good” idea is one where, for limited effort, you can solve a problem that’s easy to describe, widely shared, such a headache that the people experiencing it would be thrilled to give money to a complete stranger in the hope that would make their life better, and so interesting that the people you helped couldn’t stop themselves telling all their friends.
A “tested” idea is one where people the founder doesn’t know have engaged with the idea and provided meaningful feedback.
A “validated” idea is one where strangers have given money (or a really convertible equivalent) against the promise of getting the benefit of the idea.
Finally, a “built” idea is one where the idea has been translated into a functional system.
The way I’ve experienced the universe, the following relations seem to hold up with remarkable regularity:
There are no good, untested ideas
Any validated idea has greater value than any built, tested idea pre-validation
Every bad idea has the potential to become good through the routine application of testing or/and validation
The cost of improving an idea is directly proportional to its degree of built-ness
You want your idea to be good, so you are trying to reward yourself by indulging in the pleasurable activity of building it.
Your friend would like to work their way to an idea that’s good enough to be worth building, so they are willing to engage in the frustrating and expensive activity of testing and validating, refining and reworking, in order to get there.
Your friend is right.
in his professional setting he would have to do this first because he cannot code
I think it is good guess. Processes within big established organizations usually differ drastically with those who try create something small and new (but nevertheless targeting for big).
Looking into the history I would say innovators were making something small for their own fun, or for limited group of users, and then refine technology and functionality to include wider customer base.
Now let’s consider your situation. You set up validation - what are you going to get from it? You need to know your potential customer base anyway. Some people who look at what you propose, and ask you “do you have anything to try?” and if you will answer “not yet” they will go away. In addition, you may get a lot of (competing) suggestions, which you may not be able to properly implement just from the start.
If you know the business you are going to participate in, you probably have an idea who your potential customer is, and what they potentially need. I propose you to start with coding, make at least some prototype, and then go showing it to people and validate for product’s further extension. At some point in time you may even need to split single product into several ones. You will see.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.