Did that customer meeting really go that well?
I'm really liking the way @robfitz is talking about commitment AND advancement as desirable customer meeting outcomes. I know I've mistaken a customer meeting that "went well" for success, when in reality what I'd experienced was a bunch of stalling that led nowhere in the end. "The Mom Test" has shown me where I've been wasting my time.
Here are Rob's definitions of commitment and advancement. I found them super helpful.
Commitment — they are showing they’re serious by giving up something they value such as time, reputation, or money.
Advancement — They are moving to the next step of your real-world funnel and getting closer [to] purchasing.
Do you agree with this distinction? And have you ever had a time where you've seen commitment come out of a meeting, but not advancement? I'd love to hear more real-world experiences if anyone's willing to share. :)
An example of a "fake" or misleading commitment is when someone gives you something because they like you, and not because it represents intent to buy.
For example, if their day job is boring and talking to you is fun, then they might be happy to take extra meetings (normally a clear time commitment) simply as a way to get a break from work. In some cases this can even happen with money. (I read a postmortem recently where someone had paid "because they appreciated the person's work and just wanted to be supportive" even though they had no intention of actually using the product. This caused the founder to believe they were validated, when in fact all the early orders had basically come from internet friends instead of actual customers.)
To keep myself clear, I basically try to design a commitment which they don't really want to give me, and which they would only agree to give if they were serious about wanting the product. It's something you ask yourself and game plan a little before each important meeting.
Another entrepreneur talked about this too (I forgot whom, it was on Twitter). The cons of having an audience when you launch is that people will buy anyway just to show support, regardless of the merit of the product. And this type of sales is not good for validation, because in the long run you're not going to be able to sustain that sort of revenue that's predicated on liking you instead of liking the product. This is why many big-name brands launch products under stealth/unrelated brand names to test the market, among other reasons (e.g. if it failed, it wouldn't be embarrassing).
Exactly -- having an existing audience is incredible for marketing, but can be a little deceptive for validation. I'd still take the audience if I had the option, of course, since it's a huge advtange. I'd just also do some validation with folks who don't already know me.
I had never thought about it this way, but I really like the distinction. I can't tell you how many times I've spun my wheels with a client who gave me commitment through time but very little advancement 😒