I launched a project 13 days ago to find out if people would actually pay
13 days after launching IdeaPz, I’ve managed to maintain between 17 and 40 visitors per day.
It mostly comes down to one thing: don’t rely on a single distribution channel.
I started with Indie Hackers, but the results can be pretty unpredictable. So I started testing emails, Reddit, LinkedIn, videos, etc.
Reddit is honestly pretty underrated.
As for IdeaPz, people are still submitting ideas and voting every day.
My goal now is to reach 1,000 total visitors by the end of the month and hopefully get my first feedback from someone who found a customer or validated their project through IdeaPz.
IdeaPz is a free tool for developers to share their project ideas and see if people would actually be willing to pay for them.
Feel free to share your thoughts!
Nice way to turn this into a sharper validation loop. Alongside traffic, try a small paid-intent test: give each idea a concrete target customer and price, then measure view → vote → email → “I’d pay” (or deposit). Run one audience/message for a week and compare conversion by source; 17–40 visitors/day is enough to spot a signal if the funnel is narrow. A short founder interview with each high-intent voter could reveal what would make the idea genuinely worth paying for.
Thanks for the advice.I just redesigned the project, actually. I thought the email idea was pretty interesting, but I noticed that people were voting without ever leaving their email.
So I decided it would be better to focus on two things: would people pay, and how much would they pay?
I’m going to pivot the project around that and remove the email feature for now
That’s a useful pivot. I wouldn’t remove email entirely—move it after the price choice so it doesn’t gate curiosity: first show one concrete promise for one target user, then ask “Which is closest? €0 / €X / €Y” plus “Would you commit this month?” Only request contact details after the last answer, and make it optional for low-intent voters. Keep one audience/problem constant for a week and compare price-choice → commitment by source; follow up with the few highest-intent voters to learn what alternative they use today. That should tell you both whether and why they’d pay without confusing votes with demand.
I see. I’ll think about it. For now, the emails have been removed, and I’ll see whether I want to bring them back in the future or focus the project on other signals.
I’m still in the middle of repositioning IdeaPz, so I’m not entirely sure where I’ll take it yet. But thanks a lot for your advice and for taking the time to help with the project.
That pivot makes sense. To separate curiosity from willingness to pay, show a specific job-to-be-done and one concrete offer, then ask for a commitment rather than a generic vote: offer three price points (including “not worth it”) and invite high-intent voters to a paid pilot or a 10-minute interview. Track unique visitors → offer views → price selection → commitment, segmented by source; report the drop-off at each step, not just total votes. Keep the audience and problem statement constant for a week, and test prices with separate cohorts. Even 5–10 real commitments or interviews will teach more than hundreds of votes.
Thanks for all the advice! It’s really useful and it’s helping me see things beyond just the current version of my project.
For now, I’m going to see how people respond to the addition of the pricing options, and then I’ll decide where to take the project from there.
Thanks again for all the advice
That pivot to willingness-to-pay is the right score—votes measure curiosity, while a commitment measures demand. Two cheap tests: put a priced “Buy” button on the idea page and fulfill manually, or offer a prepaid waitlist/deposit for a specific version before building it. Track clicks → checkout → paid commitments, keeping the audience and offer fixed. Who’s the narrowest ICP you’re testing first, and what price point will you put in front of them?
I’ve actually already added three different price options to measure willingness to pay more precisely.
As for the waitlist, it would basically mean going back to the email collection idea I had before. I tried that previously, but it got zero usage. People seemed interested in the ideas, but they never actually left their email.
The deposit idea has been mentioned to me quite a few times though, and I do think it could be a really good idea. Just not right now — the project is still too young for that.
For now, I’d rather focus on consolidating the core concept of the site and finding an audience for it first. Maybe I’ll explore the deposit idea in the future.
Thanks again for the suggestion