Launch first, figure it out later? Or validate first, then launch?

Yeah always had this question and people have very different opinions. For me, I launch first if I don't take it'll too long, but validate if I think it'll take more than a month

I personally lean towards the "validate first, then launch" approach. While the "launch first, figure it out later" strategy may work in some scenarios, it can be a huge risk if you haven't validated your idea first. By conducting market research, validating the concept, and gathering potential customer feedback, you're mitigating many of the risks that come with launching a product or service that may not be a fit for the market. Plus, having a pre-launch list can be a powerful tool when you're ready to hit the market.

That being said, there's no one-size-fits-all answer to this. It ultimately depends on the specific product, the target market, and the resources at hand. Startups often need to be agile and ready to pivot as they learn more about their market, so keeping a balance between validation and rapid iteration is key.

Just my two cents! Interested to hear others' thoughts.

I prefer validation first, this way you know you're heading toward building a customer-centric platform rather than thinking what you think might be an interesting idea.

This way you end up using time and your resources wisely!

I prefer validating first, bc you should know if the product is essential or ppl need your solution or not.

I always thought it was validation at first, but hearing both sides' views is excellent. Thanks for the thread!

I do a bit of both. It depends on the product and how hard expensive each option is. If an MVP is cheap I do that because it's more fun.

i think it depends from person to person. i decided to create my product first and worry about business later. It gives my users something tangible that they can give feedback on and evolve along side with. I'm also an engineer so I naturally leaned towards wanting to hack something.

I am the kind of guy not scared by the competition. If the competition is too fierce, I know it's going to be hard, if the competition is non existent, that's a red flag, since I can't be the only one with that idea.

So I usually go into markets where there is competition but not too fierce. Nascent markets if I may. Which usually means you need not to do validation, the competition already did it for you.

Just make your product 10x better. Of course validation is good if none of the above apply. :)

I think it depends on your goals. If you're looking to raise capital, you probably want both. If you're just looking for some validation to know whether you should pursue the idea, I think an MVP makes sense assuming it won't take more than a few weeks to build. Like others have said though, whether or not you should build an MVP also really depends on how long that MVP will take to build.

Questions I'd ask myself:
Can I do the research while starting to build out an MVP?
What does an MVP mean for my idea?

For me, I've built three applications, and each time, I've tried to build and launch with paying customers. It does validate the idea, but then you still have position, market, and deliver a product that customers will continue to pay for.

I'm very biased, but absolutely validate it first!

Validation doesn't mean that you can't build, but it can tell you what to build, and for who. Finding message-market fit accelerates your path to product-market fit.

If you need help, hit me up or feel free to check out Uprise

10 billion percent Validate first. Every line of code you write after validation holds an entirely new perspective. And every line that waits is not wasted on a market that's a no show.

I used to try to validate the idea first, by putting up an email-collecting landing page and spending a little bit on PPC ads to see what the CTR and signup rate would be.

But these days I do it the other way around. MVP first, then see if anyone likes it.

Ultimately - coding is more fun than marketing, so if you have a string of failed products (likely) then why not just do a string of the fun part instead of a string of the boring part?

Also it helps to focus the MVP to be a really really trimmed down version of your idea. I will try to build an MVP in one day, or maybe a weekend. And then try that out to see if anyone likes it. Then if they do go and iterate.

I agree with a lot of the points here... it basically depends. For me, being a non-technical founder focused on the business and marketing, I'm choosing to validate first. Here's why:

1. I'm bootstrapping and don't want to pay for anything until I feel good about PMF

2. I'm new to startups so having conversations, networking, and interviewing is a valuable skill I don't want to miss out on

3. My product idea is complex and I'm told will require a decent amount of engineering and compute cost so I'm holding out to hopefully learn deeply what customers want so I can build a strong MVP

Hope that helps!

I think launching with an MVP cause you may be launching in a space where you are not known, especially if you are starting on social with little following.

I think it depends.

If you have a clear idea of who your customers are going to be, ideally even some contacts I’d say it’s always worth speaking to them before building anything, and use that feedback to guide what you build.

There are times though where I’m not sure who my customers are going to be (if any!) so it makes more sense to build a low effort MVP and try to get some feedback once people have used it.

On my first software we launched early with a MVP, got users and then had to keep iterating and improving the software based on user feedback and competition. This time around I spent a lot of time building and now going to launch it…problem is I think I spent too much time on the build and not enough time talking to potential customers on solving their problem. I don’t think it’s wrong to build past an MVP, but I would only do that if you are simultaneously doing market research to validate.

Hey there! It's great to see you contemplating different approaches to launching a startup. Both methods have their merits, and it often depends on your venture's specific circumstances and goals.

At Logomakerr, we understand the importance of finding the right balance. We launched with a solid MVP while conducting market research to ensure we met customer needs. Gathering insights, validating your ideas, and iterating and adapting as you go is essential. Every startup journey is unique, so finding the best approach with your vision and market dynamics is critical.

And hey, speaking of startups, if you need a visually captivating logo, check out logomakerr.ai (https://logomakerr.ai/), an AI-powered logo design platform empowering startups and small businesses to create memorable branding packages in minutes. Good luck with your launch!

Validate and conduct market research, build a list, and then launch.

It's usually a bit of both. You have to launch into a demand, right? So you have to have an idea of what that is by doing market research. If what you're launching is something novel, then you won't know the end-users' reaction until you launch and test the waters.

If you are building a competitor to a known problem, or a proven concept, you dont need to validate, but rather understand the market, what the current solutions miss etc, as the idea is already proven. You just need to execute correctly, which you can only do if you REALLY understand.

If you are building something brand new, then yes. Validate it before you invest time in building a company.

That's the objective reality.

This is very subjective I must say

But I prefer to brainstorm a little, create MVP, and start interacting with people.

Because people want to see what you are delivering, not what you are thinking to deliver.

I first reach out to my repeat customers for a basic validation and with the feedback I get to building the MVP, then launch it on Twitter and take it from there.

But if you're a first time founder, I'd recommend building the MVP in public without validation.

This is by biggest confusion these days ... But from my small small experiences I think.... If your product gonna take much time to be properly ready to be launched then first MVP and validation choice is better... But if it can be launched in less time then that's better !
Thanks for asking this I am going through all the comments and clearing up my mind for my next project 🌸

I used to launch products first but it kind of not working out. You can go with MVP first approach. You can launch your MVP, and then build your customers around it.

MVP - You can use No code tools (create within 15 - 20 days)
Landing page - To get your customers.

I recommend doing some smart due diligence first of all, just to make sure if anyone even cares about the problem at all. When it comes to seeing whether your solution resonates, it's cool to start showing prototypes and journeys but nothing makes someone's eyes light up (or glaze over) than a functional (but limited) MVP.

Validate first or If you can launch quick then do it because it's much better when you have something tangible to show.

Both are possible but both should be for validation first.
If you can make a free demo in under 2 weeks, e.g. I have see a project that took a PDF and generated an AI chatbot on the content. Promoted on twitter, got thousands of signups. Later changed to scan a site for the content of the chatbot. -> charged money for this one. But now he has a huge follower count for promoting it. Doing IIRC 60k/mo

Seen validation 1st like wix doing a landing page with a creditcard for website building. Got a good response back then before coding => unicorn.

So both are good, but both should serve a purpose and that is not for an MVP. For validation, for channel building etc...

Myself: Did validation, had customers, market changed its mind after the economy crash and meanwhile big competitors closed the gap, lost customers, stuck with MVP, back to validation stage with an MVP is difficult but doing it now. So even validation can sometimes backfire because it makes you feel secured when having a few customers but that may blind you.

The general tried n tested model is validation withthe prototype first, right. But,interesting perspectives here!

Thanks to everyone that responded, everyone had really good insights!