[HN Gopher] I got 400 signups with a video of a product that did...
___________________________________________________________________
I got 400 signups with a video of a product that didn't exist
Author : semy
Score : 27 points
Date : 2020-07-07 21:09 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.lunadio.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.lunadio.com)
| satvikpendem wrote:
| This is something I mentioned before as well
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18858703):
|
| I'm creating an open source todo list + calendar webapp
| (https://getartemis.app, source at
| https://github.com/satvikpendem/artemis) made by just me, and I
| can tell you how I approached the problem. The video you see on
| the front page does not exist in code, it is simply a prototype
| designed with Figma (https://figma.com) and animated with
| Principle (https://principleformac.com). I created the landing
| page and video, added a Mailchimp form, and I posted on Twitter,
| Reddit, and here on Hacker News, the communities in which it made
| sense. For me, it's a productivity / task management tool, so I
| would post on reddit.com/r/getdisciplined or
| reddit.com/r/productivity.
|
| It's all about creating a minimum viable product, as you might
| well be aware, but what you may not know is that an MVP need not
| have code. Indeed, it could be a video as I did, and I think for
| software, a video works best as people can actually see what it
| looks and feels like, without you necessarily creating the
| product architecture (full frontend and backend plus devops etc).
| Now I have over 150 subscribers in only a month due to rapid
| creation of this type of MVP, and based on this feedback, I
| changed my designs, and only now I am beginning to really create
| the heart of the product.
|
| Using non-code MVPs is the best way in my opinion to sell quickly
| before building.
| [deleted]
| MereInterest wrote:
| I think I'd make a huge distinction between a reasonable
| demonstration, which may be a video, and a minimum viable
| product, which must have code associated with it. If it isn't
| functional, and could not be sold in its current state, then it
| isn't a viable product.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Sure, I made clear they were just signing up for the mailing
| list, not the product itself. They're not paying customers
| but they're an audience I can sell to later. I expect only 10
| percent will convert to the paid product, but that's better
| than 0%, when you have no audience.
| MereInterest wrote:
| Got it, and that sounds perfectly reasonable. I'd describe
| it entirely differently from an MVP, but it is reasonable
| to make a demo to judge reactions and see where points of
| confusion are in how the product will work.
| IanCal wrote:
| I've had the same argument but the origins don't support this
| as far as I can tell. A landing page can be a MVP. Dropbox is
| I think the classic example.
|
| It feels wrong to me, but I think it puts me on the same side
| as those that reply "but there's a server still" on
| serverless discussions. As much as I may dislike the naming,
| that's what it means.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| An MVP has to be able to satisfy some user demand with a
| feature. A signup can't do this (but it can facilitate
| market validation, which you may be thinking of.)
|
| Here's the definition of an MVP:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product
| IanCal wrote:
| Read that Wikipedia page with a different mindset and
| look up the origins of Dropbox.
|
| > , the term MVP is commonly used, either deliberately or
| unwittingly, to refer to a much broader notion ranging
| from a rather prototype-like product to a fully-fledged
| and marketable product.[9]
| yummypaint wrote:
| I can see the appeal of doing this, and for things like UI design
| it makes alot of sense, but it seems too easy to cross ethical
| lines. Theranos basically did this, though of course on a vastly
| larger scale and over a longer time period. In the beginning,
| it's easy to tell ones self that filling in the gaps will come
| naturally once funding and interest are available. when there are
| difficulties executing on promises, it creates a choice between
| perpetuating the dishonesty for a low cost, or coming clean for a
| much higher cost. As time goes on, the feedback continues until
| there is some kind of breaking point. If you're going to do this,
| you had better be damn sure you can deliver, and have some sort
| of pre-determined go/no-go points to prevent things from getting
| out of hand.
| ryanmccullagh wrote:
| Depending on your business model, a sign up can be considered a
| conversion, or not. If you're selling a subscription service, a
| sign up would not be considered a conversion, in my view.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I'm sure that if your product is "hot" enough, and checks all the
| trendy boxes, a fake video / pitchbook will not only yield
| signups, but actual investor money.
| xwdv wrote:
| Ok Dropbox.
|
| I get tired of these startups thinking they can just throw up
| videos of non-existent products and get signups as some kind of
| validation.
|
| Consumers patience will wear thin when they find pretty much
| every new startup pulls the same crap, until interest in new
| startups reaches all time lows and this strategy doesn't work
| anymore.
|
| Then the only way to validate things will be the old fashioned
| way: take a risk and build shit up front. If it doesn't sell
| that's your problem, the consumer doesn't care. Not everyone is
| entitled to cheap and easy validation.
|
| Don't fake, just make.
| IanCal wrote:
| > Consumers patience will wear thin
|
| Feels a little odd using a massively successful example from a
| decade ago, with it still being used as a technique with
| success to say patience will wear thin.
| Permit wrote:
| > I get tired of these startups thinking they can just throw up
| videos of non-existent products and get signups as some kind of
| validation.
|
| Why? I'd suggest they take it one step further: Offer
| discounted pre-orders and use that to measure if people are
| interested. The only way to be sure that someone is willing to
| pay for what you're building is to ask them to pay for it.
|
| > Then the only way to validate things will be the old
| fashioned way: take a risk and build shit up front.
|
| This is bad advice. You should never take on risk that you
| don't have to. A startup is full of anticipated and
| unanticipated risks, there is no reason to expose yourself to
| even more.
|
| For reference, we tried your approach at my first startup. We
| built something people found really cool but that no one wanted
| to pay for. We wasted eight months doing this.
|
| Our next product was launched with minimal tech investment (1-2
| weeks of development) and accepted pre-orders. We made $x,xxx
| this way and things went very well. If we hadn't sold enough we
| would have refunded all of our pre-orders and chose to work on
| something that people actually wanted.
| serf wrote:
| >I get tired of these startups thinking they can just throw up
| videos of non-existent products and get signups as some kind of
| validation.
|
| me too.
|
| It triggered myself into pondering whether or not humanity will
| ever actually become less responsive to advertising as a whole
| simply because of previous experience -- but then I brushed the
| notion aside, figuring that advertisement psychology is more-
| or-less all-powerful.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-07 23:00 UTC)