by timjones on 11/16/20, 5:15 PM with 97 comments
by dvt on 11/16/20, 7:59 PM
I don't like this new startup trend[1][2], nor do I think it actually works.
Literally all of those examples are the opposite of what the blog post is claiming. They did have a product: Hotmail had the service built out, Eventbrite had the service built out, and there was a Dropbox before you could refer your friends to it. There are examples of what the author is claiming, but most are gimmicky Kickstarter-style (and often derivative) products.
I mean, think about Dropbox or Slack or Instagram: how could you possibly sell (or even validate the idea of) those products without actually giving some sort of demo? Without people actually using that thing? It might work for something like the product in the post (people understand what "video chat" is), but I don't really see it working for any kind of particularly novel or value-generating product.
Followup: grabbed a coffee, and this post got a bit of attention. To be clear, I think that an MVP should be just that: a minimum viable product. By definition, you shouldn't be able to go leaner. I also think that sometimes people conflate "fake it 'til you make it" with PG's "do things that don't scale" -- these two are not the same.
[1] https://tommorkes.com/lean-launch-how-to-sell-an-idea-before...
[2] https://hbr.org/2013/12/sell-your-product-before-it-exists
by b20000 on 11/16/20, 7:19 PM
by awillen on 11/16/20, 6:16 PM
by justiceforsaas on 11/16/20, 8:48 PM
Take this from a guy who spent 2 years studying distribution channels [1]. There's nothing wrong about spending a week or two developing a MVP before focusing on distribution.
I think the key is to start with 1) The minimum thing you can do and call a 'product' 2) Try to promote/distribute it to see the response. So far you've done:
a) A web page explaining what your product is about
Some steps to (progressively) get to a "better" MVP may be:
b) Make a video showcasing your product (which can be a simple Figma design with static screens that show once you click on them)
c) Build a feature that's high on the ICE Scoring model [2], and distribute that
d) Build a meaningfully different feature than c) and promote it as a SEPARATE product. Let your features be like split tests you promote on the same/different distribution channels and see how they perform.
[1] https://firstpayingusers.com
[2] https://university.hygger.io/en/articles/2288376-ice-scoring
by dmarlow on 11/16/20, 6:44 PM
I agree with the premise of validation, then building. While this is a good rule of thumb, it's not always possible. I like the focus and thinking behind getting users. It can't be "built it and they will come". Having a good, sound plan and sticking with it is the key.
by Closi on 11/16/20, 6:36 PM
* One interesting thing I have noticed from being on HN is that lots of start-ups that focus on the tech industry / IT / helping developers. I think it makes sense to pick a niche you understand, but possibly not if it is a 'niche' which is filled with developers.
* Workplace collaboration in a 'knowledge work' environment = red ocean. Application of workplace collaboration tools to new/unexplored industry segments I suspect has lots of blue ocean areas however. I think you have picked something in the red ocean.
* As a small note, you started with a solution (always on video room, inspired by a twitter post) and worked backwards to a problem to solve (teammates not being fully engaged). The usual process would be to start with a problem and then work out how you are going to solve it. I know it sounds like semantics, but there are lots of potential solutions to "teammates feel disconnected" and an always on video room is just one of them! (e.g. coffee roulette, remote pizza parties).
by mac_was on 11/16/20, 6:45 PM
I followed a similar pattern and created https://sayoname.com, an app for remotely located workers so they can record names and call each other directly from the browser. A tool so people can easily find how to say someone's name, sneak on what someone does in the company etc.
I almost got a big school hooked up to start paying subscription (it is an international school) but they decided on creating their own solution due to privacy concerns. Extremely disappointing and lowers morale straight away.
I have few hundred profiles but the growth is stale atm. I don't really have time to actively look for new users and would love a co-founder as what they say on y-combinator it is REALLY a lot easier if you have someone you can share thought and can both motivate each other. So my advice is add a step and get a co-founder.
by throwawaytemp27 on 11/16/20, 6:02 PM
by legerdemain on 11/16/20, 7:10 PM
> Twitter is full of interesting and influential people sharing
> thoughts and having public conversations. And they’re all
> accessible - just 280 characters away.
by kevsim on 11/16/20, 8:25 PM
But I will also say that I suspect your strategy is possibly a little naive. I hope it's as easy as you've laid out, and I'm envious of the viral aspects of your proposed product. However, I suspect the "top of funnel" portion (hypothesis 1) won't be enough to drive your "land and expand" portion (hypothesis 2). At least in my own experience currently trying to build a B2B SaaS tool [0], it's an absolute grind. And while some of these communities you're mentioning will engage, it's hard to convert that to people entering your funnel in a reliable fashion. You've got to combine it with 19 others things like content marketing, speaking at events, etc.
That being said, we're not engaging in as transparent way as you are so YMMV. I wish you the best of luck!
0: https://kitemaker.co - a crazy fast issue tracker that connects all of your other tools (GitHub, Figma, Slack, Discord) better than anything else out there
by bird_monster on 11/16/20, 9:43 PM
I think that people like me often forget that one of the biggest drivers for working on projects past when they become interesting is the money I receive for working on them. If I'm not being paid, it becomes difficult to fathom struggling for 10 hours on building something past when it's particularly interesting. Once any personal project would require basically any UI work, that's about when I bail (as I have no interest and actively dislike pretty much every UI-based technology I've ever encountered).
Getting paid to work is important to me.
by corytheboyd on 11/16/20, 8:48 PM
If you have something that solves real problems, you should be able to fight for users. Yeah sure, just because you built a great thing doesn’t mean people will flock to it, you need to do SOME marketing.
It might take two years to get ten users, because turns out it’s very hard to run every aspect of a business by yourself. But it’s progress, and if you maintain a high bar of connection with your user base and product quality, as long as you continue to market and improve it will grow.
There are no “get rich quick” schemes here, I don’t believe in that nonsense. There is hard work and there is giving up, that’s it.
by d_burfoot on 11/16/20, 9:09 PM
1. invent a bold new product
2. figure out how to market it
In other words, the "Eureka" moment is in the product ideation step, while the marketing step is basically a schlep. But the inverse approach might actually be better:
1. invent a bold new marketing strategy
2. figure out a product to sell with it
Don't assume that marketing is somehow a lower form of intellectual activity than engineering. It requires a strong aesthetic sense, a deep understanding of human psychology, mastery of technical tools, and the ability to be self-critical.
by satvikpendem on 11/16/20, 9:17 PM
Doing this has allowed me to do so many things, such as figuring out that there is indeed demand for the product, and directly talking to these potential users by setting up a call with them. Having a distribution channel is a powerful thing. It would be even better if I cultivated my Twitter audience, but an email list is a start, and it has some distinct advantages such as owning your distribution channel.
by hyperpallium2 on 11/16/20, 7:19 PM
Thinking of open source development, some of this is implied, by platforms like github, and ideas like "release early, release often". So developers are dependent on this promtion/distribution platform, without even realizing they have one.
by polote on 11/16/20, 8:49 PM
Some succeed more than others, but they never always succeed.
I wish you good luck for your project but changing your approach is not going to ensure you not to fail.
by preommr on 11/16/20, 10:24 PM
Marketing magic by marketing gurus is it's own thing. They can artificially prop up a product using efficient advertising, connections, or lots of cash.
Ironically this is going to work because gathering a following for an interesting project is one way to do marketing. Lots of programmers succeed because they make tutorials, or they participate in a community where they build up a reputation.
by meghido1 on 11/16/20, 9:20 PM
by mifeng on 11/16/20, 11:26 PM
I would iterate until you find a problem that people are willing to pay a lot of money to fix.
by anoncow on 11/16/20, 8:56 PM
by m0llusk on 11/16/20, 9:02 PM
by AHappyCamper on 11/16/20, 10:12 PM
by fourseventy on 11/16/20, 8:58 PM
by Sophistifunk on 11/16/20, 9:49 PM
by markdown on 11/16/20, 7:40 PM