What I learned from building a site to test if people would pay for your idea
Hey Indie Hackers,
It’s been a few weeks since I launched IdeaPz, a free tool that helps creators get early signals on their ideas before building them.
The idea is simple:
→ Submit your idea
→ People indicate how much they’d actually be willing to pay
→ Track how the signals evolve over time
But one of the biggest things I’ve learned is that I’ve actually learned a lot about IdeaPz itself from the people using it.
When I started, I could have said that IdeaPz was for everyone.
But the more people I talked to, the more I realized that some audiences are simply more relevant than others.
For example, if someone submits an idea for dentists, having mostly developers vote on it isn't necessarily very useful.
So instead of saying “IdeaPz is for everyone”, I’m now trying to focus on specific audiences and get the right people in front of the right ideas.
I think this is one of the most useful things I’ve learned from launching:
Sometimes you understand who your product is really for only after putting it in front of real people.
I’m still figuring out the best way to do this, so I’d love to hear:
How did you figure out who your product was really for?
Thanks to everyone who has tested IdeaPz and given feedback so far. A lot of what I’m changing comes directly from it.
A disclaimer won't close that gap, only friction will. Make the vote cost something, even a $1 refundable hold, because across the deals I've evaluated the count of strangers willing to move real money is the only pre-launch number that ever predicted anything, and enthusiastic survey data was usually a warning sign rather than a green light. You'd get far fewer votes, and each one would be worth more than the hundred you're currently throwing away.
But it could be a possibility for the future. IdeaPz is still a very young project, so not yet, but thanks for your feedback.
I understand your point, and honestly it does make me think.
A system like that would be quite complex to manage though, especially if someone collects money and then never launches the project. I’m not really sure how I would handle that at the moment.
For now, I’m mainly focused on bringing more traffic to IdeaPz and seeing what the simple signals it provides are actually worth.
I know they don’t replace proper market research or talking to your target audience, which I still recommend. The goal is just to give people who are hesitating a few simple signals to help with their decision.
I’ve made the mistake myself of building things without having much information beforehand, so I think even that can be useful.
Thanks for the feedback, it’s definitely something to think about.
The mismatch hit me when polite "interested" people and the people who actually paid looked nothing alike. I stopped treating early nods as audience proof and started watching who came back with the same job twice and named a price without being nudged. Audience isn't who likes the pitch — it's who shows up with the problem again.
Yes, exactly. That’s actually why I added a disclaimer before each vote, to make it clear that people should only vote if they could genuinely see themselves paying for the project if it were launched.
I’ve noticed that the number of votes has dropped quite a bit, even though I’m getting more visitors. So I think the votes are probably a bit more realistic now, although you can never really know until someone actually buys.
In the future, I’d like to find other ways to make these signals stronger, without trying to replace proper market research. I also make that clear on the site, because I still think the best thing is to talk directly to your target audience.
For me, IdeaPz should mainly stay a quick and simple tool that gives a few signals to people who are hesitating about an idea, and helps them decide whether they want to explore it further.
But yeah, I completely agree with you that real interest is ultimately shown through people’s actions.
Keeping it lightweight makes sense. One small test: after the vote, offer an optional question: “What did you use the last time this problem came up?” Then offer a separate opt-in to test a rough version.
Keep the signals separate: relevant visitor → stated price → test opt-in → actually tried it. None proves purchase intent, but each tells the founder something different. For the dentist example, I would also separate dentists from everyone else instead of averaging all the prices together.
Fewer votes after the disclaimer could mean better filtering, or simply more friction. Comparing those next-step actions within the same audience would help distinguish them without adding payments or making the initial vote longer.
Thanks for the advice and for such thoughtful, well-structured feedback! I really appreciate it. It definitely gives me some things to think about