Do people actually pay for shitty MVP?
I looked at all the software I subscribed to or purchased in the last few months; and none of it is an MVP.
I put my money into products that had a good UI, UX and didn't have many bugs in the core functionality.
I wonder if people actually pay for half-baked, MVPs? The only use-case I can think of is a product that is creating a new market.
I recently read a great article against half-baked MVPs. Instead of an MVP, the author suggested creating a SLC (Simple, Lovable and Complete) version of your product. What is the most simple version of your product that's also lovable and complete?
It's not allowing me to post the link, but the article should come up if you google "simple lovable and complete".
Here's the article by @asmartbear. It's a good one!
https://blog.asmartbear.com/slc.html
asmartbear and Jason Cohen is amazing! I love his blog! He has many good content for builders building 0 to 1.
Awesome post! I really agreed with the kind of products he describe and that we should deliver.
Awesome.
That is a great comparison.
No one is buying a bad product..
In my experience, they still buy shitty MVPs, and if you are lucky, they will also complain to you and tell you why it's shit and churn if you don't fix their problems.
Many sources from either side of the fence of this will argue each side with valid points. But it comes down to your personal situation and the product you are building.
I am time-poor and building a product-led growth tool, so I want to spend the time on high-impact stuff as much as possible. And I have found that the best way to do that is a shitty MVP and see if people complain it's shit. If they don't complain, I wonder if you have a problem they care enough about.
I'm curious to know why'd anyone pick an MVP over an established solution that offers X,Y,Z features apart from the core problem solve. Price, support, UI/UX could be the differentiators.
But if you really care about a problem and are willing to pay for it; would you rather not pick a tried and tested solution over an MVP that may not exist two weeks down the line?
You're right! If there's already an established solution, there's really no reason to use a shitty MVP
The idea though is that you're solving an unsolved problem. That's why the problem and the customer matter so much.
YCombinator has great videos on this, and the analogy they use is to help people who's hair is on fire. Of course, water is the best solution. But even if you hand them a shitty MVP (a brick) they'll still hit themselves on the head trying to solve it.
You need to be the path of least resistance. This can happen in various ways:
#1 Attention
#2 Specialization
#2 Marketing
#3 Simplicity
If you introduce a problem to someone, then you have first mover advantage for that customer. (E.g. the value of fresh locally sourced veggies)
If you target a niche problem, then your targeting may resonate more certain customers than a broader more feature rich solution (E.g. like in the minimalist entrepreneur, be the best at selling local onions)
If your product is simple and specialized, then it can actually be advantageous over more general, feature rich products - for customers who don’t need more.
So a shitty but well marketed, specialized, and simple MVP could be great for certain customers. Then, as their needs grow, so will your product.
But there isn't always a 1. viable EXISTING solution, 2. an AFFORDABLE existing solution, or 3. a USABLE existing solution.
Some MVPs , even crappy ones, solve one or more of the above problems over existing solutions and early adopters will give them a try IF they reasonable solve their problem.
Everything out there we use and take for granted now started out as an MVP. We just don't realize or forget that because we se the polished v100 of the tools we currently use and don't remember / never user the crappy v0.5 MVP version.
Yes people do pay for ugly ass mvps if it solves a hair on fire problem. For example a shitty weird website blew up to millions of dollars which shows "till your next meal time". Which is, you take a photo of what you are eating and it shows when you can eat again to still maintain your target calorie intake. The site will make your eyes bleed. It's no longer operational now because the owner shut it down and retired.
Having said that I don't think having clean UX ever hurts. Just don't spend too much time making it pretty because that can also hide if you are solving a real problem.
Hi @thebigk,
The function of a minimum viable product is to learn. Learn what? Learn what resonates with your customers. It is "deliberately defective software" as I call it. If you spend time simplifying and completing something that you do not have confidence will resonate with your target market, you are not using evidence to build. If you throw something out there, and people go..."Meh. I don't really need another habit tracking app..but OMG, I love how configurable your notifications are!" You have some data to work with.
Yes, they do if it solves their problem and they trust the creator
Thank you all for sharing your experience. I must admit that reading your comments is eye opening for me and changes how I should treat MVPs
I think the trick is to make something that solves the need of one customer. If it truly solves their problem, it doesn't matter if it looks shitty or is a little buggy - they are willing to pay for it because it is so important to them.
I think that people first buy a solution to their pain points. If they pay for a shitty MVP, it's
an amazing validation that your users need you. And they trust you'll provide them with the best experience in the foreseeable future.
Yeah you'd be surprised.
Bootstrapped personal budgeting startup You Need A Budget (YNAB) started off selling a basic spreadsheet for $20 (that didn't really work on Macbooks) and built a substantial revenue base off of that.
Funded startup HubSpot grew all the way to $29 million ARR with a product that the founder and CTO himself admits sucked (and the CPO brought in to fix the product in 2011 was similarly shocked that the company had grew so big with such a bad product). What's even more surprising is that HubSpot's customers LOVED them even though their product sucked.
Both of these were in established markets (personal finance and internet marketing) so half-baked products is not just for new markets.
The only thing that these two companies have done (and others like them) is sell something more than their product - HubSpot founder Dharmesh Shah calls it selling a philosophy but I call it selling a BLUNT belief (because the mnemonic BLUNT is a more accurate description of what they sold).
Customers aren't therefore buying a product but more buying access to the company's ability to help them implement the belief system/philosophy that the company sold them.
Good UI (not ugly), UX and bug free is a requirement for MVP too!
MVP just means, minimum set of features in comparison to final product. It does not mean the implementation should be sh***y.
Unless you solve a huge problem for a huge audience, and you have no competitors, then any product will do (think Google search).
Yeah they do if their branding is good.
Example : Threads :)
If the problem is serious enough people need it solved. Obviously the less friction the better i.e. good ux makes it quicker to pick up and use.
if it solve a critical problem or you are going to save a lot o money will likely be worth to try, all boils down to risk reward
It really matters by your ICP and the vertical your product is in. I like to build the MSP - Minimum Sellable Product - which encompasses multiple nuances that you’ve mentioned (visuals, stability, etc.).
As long as people feel it is helpful and can increase productivity or their income people will buy it. That's why my concept of building product right now is simple, can people use my product make money from it.
If yes than it is a good product else it won't be that useful for others.
After I know and sure that my product will make people money, I will only built the feature that can do just that. Then test it out at the market.
And when building the feature my rule is make sure it does not take more than a week ( no include research ) . That way I will not be bothered by simple useless UI stuff.
Here checkout the article about building mvp: How to build a MVP: Focus on what user want
I have really learnt a lot by just reading through comments and getting the idea of MVPs from different perspectives.
I’m new here and I really enjoy getting knowledge from this community.
I think the standard for the MVP is definitely dependent on the market you're entering but at the end of the day it will still have defining features that should be able to attract enough users for some valuable feedback to be attained. There will always be people willing to look past polish/UI features if there's something in there they like.
I agree, MVP is short for "minimum viable product". Viable being the key word. Standards for what qualifies as an minimum viable product have gone up fast over the last 10 years.
I think so. Even products in existing market but with a new approach that unlocks new value. That value might not lie in the UI/UX bit but in the efficiency/performance/quality side of things.
People pay to have their problem solved. Simple as that.
To put it another way, think of money as stored time and effort. In other words if someone can do something themselves in an hour of their own effort, then that thing is worth an hour of their time (to them).
The opportunity to sell something to someone comes from the fact that people want to save time or reduce effort. But there's also another variables... experience / expertise and tools.
Not everyone can build a website, fix a car or mow a lawn. They may not be capable, or just don't have the desire to do it themselves. So they are happy to pay someone else money to do it for them.
So the real question is.. does the shitty MVP actually solve their problem?
If its solve your problem, why not?
Sure, the MVP has to solve a problem. Unless it's category defining; why'd you pick an MVP over an established competitor?