Time and time again, I see programmer friends investing 6+ months of their time getting an "MVP" out the door. Instead they should be applying their problem-solving skills to figuring out how to test their market hypothesis an order of magnitude more quickly. For my business, that meant a plain HTML website — no JS, no backend — and a PayPal button. (If you care to hear the full story, I have a video and transcript here: https://www.semicolonandsons.com/episode/MVP-&-Origin-Story)
I think for very niche categories, a landing page might be the only thing you need but I honestly believe that if you’re pitching a product with features, people want to see that product, not a page with text.
Instead, it needs to be an iterative process. Build a little bit of product, tease it to the market, gauge interest, engage with customers, adjust trajectory as necessary, and continue to iterate.
Testing your business hypthesis before building anything is prone to generating false signal. Some times your customers don't realize they need what you're building until they see it and use it. Many times your customers will praise an idea, right up until you ask them to use it or pay for it.
A good example might be the recruiting company started by a famous HN commenter around 2015 that tried to use programming games as a recruiting filter. The idea received huge amounts of praise on HN and large numbers of waiting list signups before they released anything. The demand and hypothesis appeared to be validated. Then they switched to the other extreme, building enormously complex systems for years without actually selling anything to their customers. Eventually they shut down because they realized the market didn't actually want what they were building. The initial signal was misleading, but going heads-down to build a product according to the initial signal was also misleading. A better approach would have been to start recruiting up front and slowly iterate on improving it with programming games, rather than going off in the weeds to build a product that no one actually wanted.
That's one big part of testing the hypothesis that I feel a lot of people (including mentoring organizations) really don't get.
In an ideal scenario you've clearly identified a problem and can accurately gauge the validity of your solution by just talking about it with prospects, as they can easily relate. I'll label this approach the "Let's-imagine" validation.
In other situations though, target customers aren't even aware that they have a problem (maybe the problem is not immediately apparent) and it can be difficult for them to understand your value proposition, since they've "very successfully been using Excel for that for the past 20 years". You still need to somehow relay that there's a reality where things are significantly better than in the status quo. In some such circles, relying on simple conversations or mock-ups can at best prove very difficult (people won't give you time to wander in fuzzy hypotheticals), or at worst be plain misleading (they will dismiss your idea as irrelevant). In situations where you can't rely on your prospects' imagination, you need to bring proof and the mvp plays a more important role. I'll label this the "Show-me" validation.
"Let's-imagine" and "show-me" are not absolutes. They're on a spectrum, but it seems that the advice to validate by talking to customers is being taken to some dogmatic extremes sometimes. It's something for founders to be aware of when they receive canned advice. Regarding your own solution, you need to be smart to identify where on the above range you fall.
... started by 2 famous HN commenters.
Why did you chose not to name these HN commenters?
The point is that you can't simply make a mockup, assume it proves your hypothesis, and then go heads-down building the exact product shown in the mockups for 6-24 months and expect great results. Instead, you need to iterate both the mockups and the product in parallel, engaging with the market along the way.
As in the example I provided, sometimes customers will claim to love your mockups but then decline to pay for the product when it arrives. It's one of the first things every product manager learns in the real world.
> It's a good way to separate the technology decisions from the business decisions.
Trying to separate technology from the business decisions is a mistake. At the start of the process, you need technology, product, sales, and business to be tightly intertwined.
Dividing the labor and sending different roles in different directions is a mistake at an early stage company. You need to get everyone working together to iterate over and over again.
Also, User research can be done in a way to account for the fact that users will say they love something, but actually never use it. I've done it many times.
All of these things that you've mentioned should be done in tandem, but in practice, that's pretty rare. The good thing is that it creates market opportunities for other companies. Amazon is a more extreme example, but it's basically the business model of AWS. Another example is Terraform. HashiCorp has done a poor job of keeping up with user needs so there are add-ons or straight up replacements coming out of the woodwork to fill the feature and experience gaps that have been around in TF for years and years. You will see more competitors to TF and other HC products coming up for exactly this reason. They aren't even the close to the most glaring example, but just the first thing that came to mind.
When they were starting several years ago, how would have tested "the idea"?
"Is my idea testable with the time/runway I have?"
Assuming the context of a solo dev that just wants to make money: info products, simple apis, or simple apps should be easier to test.
I think that doing lots of small projects and launching them is probably better than working on "the one thing" - until one of them becomes "the one thing". This gives you more opportunity to test ideas and test marketing (which is probably more important than your idea). The canonical example of this is probably Pieter Levels .
Let's call this the "Test with Teeny MVP"  method as a opposed to the "Test with Landing Page" method. Important note - I suspect that testing with a teeny MVP is easier than a landing page when you don't have an audience. Interesting tweet on that from Rob Walling :
"Out of nearly 1600 applicants to @tinyseedfund we chose 23 exceptional companies to fund. Of those 23, one (maybe two if you stretch) built an audience before launching their SaaS.
Audience helps, but so much less in SaaS. I've been beating this drum since 2012."
: I'm sure that someone will point out that "Teeny" is redundant here. :)
> "Is my idea testable with the time/runway I have?"
I'm already ramen profitable with what I'm doing. The vast majority of my ideas are not ideas for new businesses, though a few are.
The idea I'm testing in this thread is, "looking at successful businesses, how would rigid Lean Startup practices have worked in their early days?"
Tinyseed isn't terribly interesting to me in this context since they have a very narrow SaaS focus, none of them have had an IPO and Rob has a large podcast he uses to promote the companies. It's a great strategy on his part, but it makes it much harder to figure to know how much the success of companies they invest in is due to their ideas.
Something similar could be said of Jason Calicanis's launch.co, though I bet it will have some massive wins in the next few years.
Vaporware is an extremely common tactic in sales.
Most people here have the right intention on testing your idea/concept before building, but they forget the world is 100x more competitive than it was 10 years ago. All the low hanging fruit ideas are gone. Yes you can obviously test some ideas easily but most of them were executed already.
To succeed now, you need to tackle the “high hanging” fruit ideas/problems and a lot of those simply involve more complexity/building and are not as easily testable via a prototype. Instead you need to invest more into market research before you build a huge chunk of it (while continually doing more market research along the way)
Other than the sense that any question asked is one of a multitude of candidate questions that "survived" the decision process and made it out into the world, I don't see how asking how a company's "idea" may have been tested is survivorship bias.
It was literally the landing and pricing pages first, functionality came a few weeks later and only after people were clicking on the (non-functional) pricing plans because they wanted to buy the product.
It seems more of a crap shoot to gauge interest off of random clicks on a buy page versus having an actual product with actual user feedback that is actionable.
Further, how much time do you spend on making a basic landing and pricing page? Two hours? Four maybe? The original comment was talking about programmers working for 6+ months on a MVP product before showing it to people. You could launch hundreds of landing pages in that time, only limited by how many ideas you have. Even though the chance of a "hit" per landing page is probably lower, the sheer volume can more than make up for it. The landing plus pricing page model also immediately informs you how much people are actually willing to spend on it, which (if higher than zero) is a much higher indicator for product success than "I think this is a super cool feature".
Finally, I notice that you are talking about "product efficacy" while the original comment is interested in making money. The two are related but not the same, since there are tons of crappy products making a boatload of profit (comcast anyone?) and also tons of great products that struggle to make money (see the ongoing troubles of open source developers on this very forum). Either goal is fine, but optimizing for one while thinking you are then also optimizing for the other is a recipe for disappointment.
Now there are way less of those ideas available. And the ones that are available can’t be tested with a simple landing page.
So build the landing page first. Showcase the features you are going to build and see if you can get people to sign up.
> How do you test your product hypothesis without a product?
You can't. Actually... it depends on how you define a product. The way I think of it is: a product is merely a vehicle for the added value. With that understanding it becomes easier to decouple the value from the actual product. Therefore the MVP is no longer a stripped down version of the product but rather the simplest tool you can build to provide [that] value.
Its always entertaining getting some 23 year old programmer on later after the project has made some traction, and they are like “noooo this code is so bad, what, jquery!? An old version of jquery at that!?” because I’ve been copying my same landing page template for 8 years.
it is so just like the meme because I’m like “haha money printer go brrr”
translation: I just made a million dollars who gives af. turn your ideas into money, it has nothing to do with the stack you used, whatever level of discipline you’ve honed or anything.
I've spent a lot of time mentoring junior developers.
They don't really care that you or your product are using jQuery. They've been told that using anything but the latest frameworks and technologies is a death sentence for their career. They aren't interested in making your money printer go brrr for you. They're interested in pivoting to that next higher paying job somewhere else with a resume full of React and ES6 and websockets and other complicated technologies.
It's a difficult mindset to overcome. I try to emphasize that shipping product is better than simply knowing the right technologies.
But recruiters and technical interviewers should be more cognizant of the cross communicability of skills and concepts
Yeah yeah we get that every hiring manager wants someone that “can hit the ground running” and yet they’ve had the job posting up for 6 months when they should have had a 2 week orientation
There are times when I go work for other people and you really do need to be able to play buzzword bingo or pass a time trial using specific frameworks, or even repairing a project with that framework.
They still don’t simulate the real world so I don’t interview others like that.
Devs that work for me often are entrepreneurial in the sense that they are going out of their way to contract or moonlight, so it always entertaining how separated they are from the business acumen.
Typical strategies are using leverage - borrowing - and spending on more business growth stuff. You deduct more than you earned and also deduct the interest payments.
The mere use of a business entity gets you a 20% tax deduction up to $120,000 (unincorporated sole proprietors can get this too, just easier to challenge and audit to fail) and then you can pump another $57,000 into a solo 401k.
An S-Corp designation can somewhat mitigate the self employment taxes.
You can also try paying people in shares/membership interests, parts of specific revenue streams or other noncash things (like free access to your service), so that you can keep your cash position while still making tax deductions.
Just dont run for office, or do, I dont care. Tax code is very understandable to me, it is just a reading comprehension issue.
And usually, “approximately equal to” is expressed in this way: “n = ~3”.
Which is why I asked.
If that is what they meant, then I strongly disagree. A landing page is nowhere near a prototype. A landing page could be an advertisement for a prototype, but not a prototype.
I wonder whether I am not focused enough, don't deliver enough value, targetted the wrong audience, or picked the wrong marketing platform (blog instead of medium, traditionally published book instead of ebook).
Maybe I'm not committed enough--the idea of recording 5 screencasts a weekend for 7 weeks feels like a gargantuan effort.
Anyway, thanks to the OP for sharing his journey. It is interesting to see how often people move toward teaching as a higher leverage income stream. That is the foundation of Amy Hoy's philosophy (more here: https://stackingthebricks.com/why-you-should-do-a-tiny-produ... )
A while back, I wrote a blog post and posted it to HN. Looked up the best time to post, labored over the wording in the title, everything. It got like three views and disappeared quickly into nirvana.
I was super discouraged and didn't feel like writing more about this topic (probably dumb after just one post but hey that's how I felt).
Then, a few days later, some random person re-posted my blog post to HN. This time it exploded and landed on the front page, giving me a couple hundred subscribers alone. Until now I have no idea why the difference was so huge.
This experience taught me that luck is just insanely important. Not sure how this conclusion helps though.
The rule I follow when I want to publish one post is this one:
- Publish it one time first and see if you get at least 2 upvotes
- If you got them, try again to post it the next day at 9am (sf time)
- If still not successful try again in 3 days
If you dont get those 5 guys interested in your post in 30 minutes you will never get the frontpage, when you are on the frontpage, then there will be enough people seeing it and deciding if it should stay on the frontpage
On HN there are also a lot of emphasis on the title, and clickbait helps a lot also (look at this current post)
(I manage this  newsletter of 'HN blogposts which went unnoticed' and very often a post is linked in the newsletter and then a few days after that reaches the frontpage, because it gets re-posted or included in the second pool chance)
I do like to point out that there are bad examples. Titles that misrepresent content or low quality listicle stuff + "You won't believe #2!"
But headlines have been trying to entice people to read stories since before there were clicks to bait. I know a lot of people here think headlines should be basically boring but that's not how publications outside of journals etc. have ever operated.
I read something along the lines "Doing is often better than thinking of doing" somewhere and made it kinda my personal motto. Little things add up and you never know when the momentum builds and things start to feel better. I failed to get donations for my tutorials for about a year. Then I tried out converting them to a book. First one didn't give me much financial benefit but the second one did well enough. After 2 years and 7 books, I have sustainable income for the first time since leaving my job 6 years ago.
I have more ideas than I can ever implement, but I try to note them down and work on what I can. 2 hits out of 10 is still better than 0 hits out of 0 attempts. Those hits need luck too, as you mention. Seeing my idea come alive is immensely satisfying too.
If you launch and no one notices, launch again
I've definitely seen articles I posted (not necessarily mine) get reposted and have wildly different visibility.
It's also a fun excuse to go trolling through your back catalog of writing and see what is worth posting today.
Other than being a consolation when you work hard. Which isn't to be discounted.
Thanks for sharing your story.
I will say that I've had a couple of posts on the front page of HN or r/programming and still only get single digit subscribers. So maybe that does point to an issue with the content.
Which then brings up the bigger question of "what is my goal"? If I'm happy writing what I do and don't need a bigger audience, should I just keep doing what I'm doing (and accept the current results)?
I'm not sure you can engineer one of these waves, but you can jump on one when it appears perhaps.
But that's helpful to think about waves of posts too.
I would put a book cover in the right sidebar of your wordpress site too to give a bit more visuals. Possibly also redesign the hero area to give it more pop. You're also not prompting for a newsletter signup anywhere.
Happy to give you a few minutes of loom or zoom feedback if you think it would be helpful to optimize the site better since your content is already good, its your marketing that could use some help.
Agree! I don't have much control over pricing (traditional publisher) but I should probably raise the issue with them and see if there's anything I can do.
Thanks for the offer of feedback! Let me take what you've already given and see what I can do. I see you have contact info in your profile so will reach out after I've implemented it.
You may well make more money depending upon the sales. But, to be honest, what I make off the book is so trivial compared to what I make indirectly by having written the book that it doesn't really matter to me.
Deadlines are both a blessing and a curse--especially for the original book. On the one hand, they probably forced me to go heads down when I might have been inclined to work on other things. On the other hand, you sometimes have to do those other things too.
Thanks again for your feedback.
It sounds like "I wasn't a good writer, but I just wrote 50 articles and improved and now I had tens of thousands of readers a month"
I am skeptical that it was all about quality. If his first article had been the best article ever it's still unlikely he'd have found an audience/get noticed. So maybe it's about the frequency of posting? I think it'd be worth reflecting on this more, how did his readership grow in that early period? Were there any inflection points? Etc
I think that leveraging a platform like medium or dev.to can really help. I republish some content there and especially if you get picked up by one of the "magazines" it can put you in front of a different audience. This belief is based on a large part on research rather than firsthand experience, though.
Too bad the post received a somewhat bad criticism and my moral went down to keep writing at the time. I will get back to it someday for sure.
One of the things I've learned is literally don't "impose" anything to your readers. What I've written is mainly cited by big sources (and I have included the sources in the article!), but people rather prefer to point the finger if they do not agree with you.
I believe the article title is a bit "imposing" on the reader, but so do are all the other "click-baity" titles we see everywhere, and in this case I am able to prove my point of view, being it through an explanation or a PoC that I do provide as well. But people are mean :)
Thanks again for the suggestion!
The paragraph above is what I wrote in my article in https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/p/cracking-the-who-you...
Don't give up.
Thanks for the encouragement.
It's quite clear from the linked article too.
I'd consider that teaching.
Sorry if I was unclear, I didn't mean "teaching" in the classroom or webinar sense, I should have used the word "educate".
I accidentally ended up buying followers on Twitter. My wife writes sci-fi novels and I was looking for options to help market the books. At the same time, I was building a software product and trying things out for myself. Amazon had just released their "promotions" platform. One of the things you can do is a sweepstakes give-away. You pick an item on Amazon, set a max number of copies you'll give away, and set proportion of how many people will get the thing if they follow some call to action, and set a length of time. Just wanting to see how it worked, I thought I'd give away some Google Cardboards for people to follow my VR-oriented account on Twitter. I set it to 10 copies for a week, thinking it'd be super low effort and just give me a concept of scale of effort before putting real effort into a "campaign". I think it would have cost me $150 total, if the whole lot had been given away. I expected that maybe I'd get 20 new followers out of it, folks interested in VR since I picked an item I thought would only be desirable if you were interested in VR.
I completely underestimated people's lust for free shit. A week later, 5 had been given away and now I had 3000 throwaway accounts following me on Twitter, where I previously only had about 150 (most of whom were acquaintances). Super low quality, not a single person was there for my content. It was easy to tell; their accounts were full of retweets for other giveaways, they had no other content, and their profiles were empty or talked about being a stay-at-home mom. I was mortified. I thought I was at the door of getting banned.
But something weird happened after. Legit followers started slowly trickling in. Eventually, I had an additional 500 followers, through no new effort on my own. I was still posting the same content, and the promotion was over. Where I couldn't get the needle to move before, suddenly it felt like it was working all on its own.
I eventually got rid of the fake followers. If you block someone on Twitter, it force unfollows your account for them. I then undid the block, just in case there were limits to how many people you could block or if I accidently swept up a friend in my dragnet. It took a solid week of spending an hour a day, force-unfollowing people.
I have a job that I love now (working in VR, I'm the head of the department), so I'm not trying to side-hustle anymore. And life is much better now. I still get a few legit followers every month, but I'm not putting any effort in other than posting what I want to talk about. The clear pay-to-win aspect of Twitter is not something that interests me. I never wanted to buy followers. I thought I was being smart about just getting my name in front of interested people and then they'd decide if they wanted to follow me or not. But that's not how it works. You're getting the randomized masses, and they are clicking through promos too fast to consider even the item that is being given away. But that is apparently necessary, if you're not already some kind of celebrity.
So the question is why hasn't it "worked" yet. There are TONS of new developers entering the field. The audience definitely exists, and they do hang out online.
I took Amy & Alex's 30x500 class a few years ago and it was a big factor in getting my blog + business (https://daveceddia.com) off the ground, so my ears perked up when you mentioned Amy!
I think you've got it right that she advocates for creating a tiny infoproduct first, but the emphasis is on tiny, less on education. Other tiny things are icon packs, or templates, or themes, etc. Small, quick-to-create, one-time-purchase products. Goal is to learn the entire build + market + launch cycle with low risk (vs building software for 6+ months that nobody wants). Once you get your footing with all of it, you can move up bigger/riskier products, if you want.
They also advocate that the content you create should deliver some kind of fix for a problem the reader has. Give the reader a win. Also, ideally, quickly helps the reader decide "this is for me". The easiest way to do that is to make it clear you understand their struggle.
I think this is where some of your posts could use tweaking. The "Write good commit messages" article, for instance, starts with "Take the time to write good commit messages." It's advice, yes, but is it for me specifically?
Contrast this with a title like "How to Write Better Commit Messages" and opening with "It's time to commit your code, and you need a commit message. What should you say? How long should it be? Should it describe every little detail? Or is shorter better? In this letter we'll look at some examples of bad commit messages and how to write better ones."
You mentioned that your email list hasn't grown much too. It's hard to figure out how to sign up though! There's a small sidebar link "Sign up to receive posts via email" and the "Subscribe to new posts" header link, but the copy isn't terribly compelling. Few people will go out of their way to click a link to sign up (as you've noticed!). You could probably improve signups quite a bit by writing more compelling copy and including those signup forms within the articles. I'd also remove the required field "how many years have you been a dev", it's just extra friction. Feel free to ask them that question in the welcome email though, it'd be a good way to connect.
Last strategy I'll mention is that hanging out in communities with your audience is a great way to learn what they struggle with, help them where they are (with comments/replies/tweets/etc), and occasionally, sometimes, share a link to something of yours if it's relevant. Goal is to be helpful and build a reputation, not just to share stuff.
Happy to chat more about this stuff any time.
I'll also revise the email signups a bit, that's helpful too.
This reminds me of Ghost.org (they're currently making $250k+/mo ) and how John O'Nolan (the founder) got started:
"My blog had a few thousand subscribers who were the first to be notified when I wrote the original idea post. That post had an email signup form which generated about 30k subscribers interested in finding out if it would ever become a reality, and those 30k people were the first to find out when the Kickstarter campaign launched." source: 
Many devs who want to eventually start their own SaaS/mobile app overlook this. Build an audience via blogging/tweeting/writing and then use that audience to launch/test your "startup". This way you won't have to go and "beg" people to cover you (via emailing/spamming publications, journalists, other influencers and so on.) The other reason that this seems to work is because information can be (in many cases) easier to promote/get coverage for than some black-box, software-based tool you've made (the exception here is the so-called "engineering as marketing", where people make a small/useful/straightforward tool that people get an immediate value from.)
This article https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/p/cracking-the-who-you... is one of the best on this topic.
"How to read this story — and everything else on Medium.
Not every story on Medium is free, like this one. Become a member to get unlimited access and support the voices you want to hear more from."
It's an okay income, not as much as consulting.
I'm also working on some courses to generate passive income, but I don't like that kind of work. It's so much up front before you can relase the stuff.
Still looking for something that pays as much as consulting but doesn't take much more work than blogging.
It's a bit of a grey area, I guess.
For me it's good because it's flexible work. Also, I'm payed to learn about new technology, which is nice.
pardon me but it sounds like a potential for future ponzi schemes :)
I agree, this course sounds like a _pyramid_ scheme.
Sorry to bother you, but I'm a total pedant about this; everyone keeps explaining that the terms are used interchangeably by most people but I still think we oughta be specific in the type of scams we're calling out.
I don't know.
I did a course on React and React-Native and some people told me they got a dev job with these courses. So I guess they weren't a ponzi scheme, haha.
A course on react seems a lot more productivity friendly
I banned this guy from Lobste.rs for endlessly posting terrible, thin retreads of Ruby docs and idiotically vague motivation porn. He had zero interaction with any other post and nothing mattered to him except that posting a link got him a few clicks: https://lobste.rs/threads/mehdi-farsi#c_attzu3 When asked to participate normally he posted some comments randomly like "very interesting topic." (no longer visible on this page)
Edit: Check the authors submissions here as well. Non-stop spam, though little traction in terms of upboats.
Although I'd say the odds of succeeding are highly in favour of citizens in a country that is supported by Stripe.
Stripe-exclusive integrations I can think of on top of my head: Medium, GitHub Sponsors, Substack, Ghost CMS.
So, to me, it's not what's the "best" way to do thing, it's the what you used to do matter.
As soon as i accomplised boring tasks, my next projects go smoothly, and more importantly, i feel more productive for my own work, too.
Same with authentication to be honest ...
I would be curious to know more about what was required of your webpack configuration that justifies this timeframe.
I can't help but wonder how sustainable this is. How many truly "fun" facts can you list before you run out of steam?
I think this is a new feature (at least, I haven't noticed it before), and seems to apply to some other domains as well, such as twitter.com and github.com.
Your mental model of the world is not the mental model everyone has of the world. Your quoted sentence above comes from the result on one thinking their way of the world is the only way. This is surprisingly common in a number of intelligent people. The result of this is that it prevents them from creating products.
One person might pay because the course provides a structured way to learn a topiC. Another person might pay because by paying, they are more likely to learn the subject.
Support is one thing.
Let's say you have a $100 course where you build something real in the end. Not only do you get fully working code (which could easily save you 100+ hours of dev time) but you also get direct access to the author to ask questions. At least that's what I do in my own courses (I offer (24/7 - sleeping hours) support).
Sure the fully working code that gets continuous updates is nice on its own but think how expensive it would be if you wanted to hire someone to do 1 on 1 help with you as you learn something new from various blog posts and scattered Youtube videos. You could easily spend $100-200 an hour for that and it would be less effective because the person you're paying likely didn't write the material you're learning from.
For a lot of folks $100 is well worth saving an endless amount of nights of furiously Googling around on how to troubleshoot things. Especially if they have a family or are trying to ship whatever they want to build as soon as possible.
With enough persistence you might be able to battle through that on your own, especially if it's a well explored technology that's been around for a long time but we all have limited time. If you value spending 50 hours of your own time instead of spending $100 then you're right, you're probably not the target audience for buying courses.
If I see a course on SQL, sure I could get all that content for free, but I am more likely to commit if I paid something for it, and I know that, and I'll convince myself it's a good investment because it's curated etc even if I ultimately end up using a lot of free resources anyway to do my learning.
The only exception to that is domain names of course.
1) make a course
2) constantly put in hours supporting it.
It's not world changing but it definitely is to his users.
Another example in my case is guidebooks. Sure, a lot of the information is online. But paying $15 for something that lays out the travel information with nice maps and organizes it has paid for itself if I save one hour or points me to a better restaurant.
Just seems simpler to post on a Gist or anywhere really. But maybe I'm missing something and people are actually earning some money from posting on Medium.
A good part of the potential audience does read the article and does not hate medium. Otherwise, their business would have crashed and burned long ago. This is market validation.
This is the blind spot people are talking about. That’s why market validation with minimal effort pays off so much. Stop just assuming, start testing your assumptions.
> Two months later (and after generating ~$3000 with my paid blogposts), my publication was generating an estimated 30 000 views per months.