The Mom Test is wrong - and why I don't believe in idea validation

Seems like no one read the book or listened to a podcast.

You just ask them are they currently doing/paying anything for similar solutions.

• It isn't a sales call
• Doesn't require mock ups
• You don't ask if they will buy your solution

Lmao dude you clearly didn't read even the first few pages of the book, and respectfully it sounds like you still have a lot to learn - it's about validating the problem, not your ideas and solutions (though validation of those is the second step).

This thing didn’t work for me a sample of 1 therefore it must be bad

"get validation by sales"
That is one type of many possible ways to validate an idea.

The mom test just teaches you how to ask proper questions. It doesn't say it is the only way to validate an idea...

I think your post is misleading... but that my POV

While I agree with you that building and releasing quickly (ideally in a weekend) is a good way to go, I think you misunderstood The Mom Test.

With everything I have built the people who say they will buy don't

The point of the test is to ask questions even your Mom couldn't lie to you about. It's to validate the problem and learn how the interviewee has tried to solve that problem. If you're asking "Would you buy x" you're doing it wrong.

The 5 questions to ask a user:

1. What's the hardest thing about [doing this thing]?
2. Tell me about the last time you encountered that problem...
3. Why was that hard?
4. What, if anything, have you done to try to solve the problem?
5. What don't you love about the solutions you've tried

As a user experience designer, and having read the Mom Test, I feel very sad reading this post.
What they talk about in the Mom Test is nothing else than a small fraction of design user research 101.
The first thing you learn when you study user research, is that your objective isn't validating your solution (this of course won't work). But understanding the problem space. Empathizing with the people who will use the product. Understanding what are their problems, their motivations, and their goals. You might have been lucky at finding an easy problem to work on and building a decent solution without investigating the problem in depth. But believe me, most of the solutions out there demonstrate that most entrepreneurs do not follow these basic design principles, and that's a dumb choice.

I think it completely depends on your target audience - I'm assuming you are selling B2C. I think idea validation in B2B works much better because businesses know what they want/need. I agree individuals can change their minds easily. I think this is a psychologically proven point of not being able to predict what we will want in the future, so you're not wrong.

Build first, build quickly, build cheaply, get validation by sales

That's it really, 100% dialed in. Sales are the real deal, everything else is just cattle-pottery

I think you don't understand the Mom test:

Here's a simple way of putting it:

F [eelings] - how do you feel about your current pain point
I [ideas]- What are you doing instead? Do you have an idea what's causing you the pain?
F[unction] - How does it impact your daily life? You work? what happens if you don't solve your problem?
E[xpectations] - why haven't found & paid for a service so far? do you have any ideas what a good solution looks like?

As many have pointed out already, it is very clear that you didn't read the book.

"With everything I have built the people who say they will buy don't"

That was one of the main points in the book. It also emphasized that you shouldn't ask questions like "would you use such a product", "do you like the idea" because most people won't want to hurt your feelings and won't give you an honest answer. Instead, the book offers better strategies to get solid evidence to validate the idea.

I have a background in music, and I'd have to agree with you. People don't know what they want until you show it to them. It's about having the vision to craft a great experience for the customer and then converting it.

The quasi-related challenge I've encountered myself is that for certain types of products, validating the solution is a lot harder than validating the problem, or a set of pain points.

Some concepts won't have this challenge; they are basically point solutions for pretty specific issues and if the challenge is "I don't like this issue" and the solution is "I get rid of the issue", you're good. But other things (hint: my thing) are tradeoffs; they eliminate validated pain points, but they either add other (lesser?) ones, or simply require a user to learn something new which is a pain point of it's own.

"This won't be good enough unless it's awesome" is basically the nightmare scenario for trying to build an MVP. Sometimes people just don't GET it until you've put a lot of work and polish into it, and that often requires either high-risk leaps of faith, or clairvoyance that I definitely don't have.

I completely agree with the author's point that the Mom Test is not always the best way to validate an idea. I have found that it is important to not just rely on anecdotal evidence from friends and family, but to also gather data from potential customers through surveys and interviews.

The whole point of The Mom Test book is that you can't ask people what they want, and that this is not how you validate if you are on the right track.

Sounds like you got a lot wrong, if that is your take-away from the book or validation in general. But that is great - a lot to learn does mean a lot of potential to improve. Would've been sad to realize that you already hit the ceiling. :)

The whole point about the Mom Test is to NOT ask about what kind of solution your audience is looking for or if they would buy the solution you have in mind.

It's all about asking about their current workflows, problems and weird workarounds. Simply digging into what they are doing now. From that data, YOU conclude what the best solution is, not your audience. But everything is grounded in your audiences' current problems. That's gold imo!

Sales are a validation, no doubt about it, but you can validate your idea/problem much faster and earlier in the process without building anything. A good middle way is launching a landing page with a quick mock-up and gathering signups. But again, I would definitely do research beforehand for initial validation.

I can't agree with you, "people don't know what they want" is not The Mom Test's problem.

You have an idea, which exactly means you know what you want; And you pitch it to potential customers, to test if your idea solves their problems, so they know what they want too - that is to solve their problems.

"So, no, I don't validate my ideas anymore" takes you to a higher risk of wasting time and money on building something with no certain demand, I wouldn't suggest anyone follow that.

Again, don't overrate idea validation, but don't underrate it either, it's necessary for early-stage, and it helps you avoid many risks, but it doesn't mean you are 100% safe to succeed, as idea validation isn't the only factor that decides whether you can make money.

It's OK that you don't believe in it, but don't mislead others.

I actually really liked The Mom Test. It helped me validate my startup idea, and without it I would have spent money on building things that no one wanted. I agree with other commenters though, it does depend what you're selling and to what market. It just shows that there is no one right way to go about doing business, I guess.

While it is true that people's preferences and circumstances can change over time, and that hype and special offers can influence their purchasing decisions, idea validation can still be a valuable step in the product development process.

By validating an idea, you can gather feedback from potential customers and assess the market demand for your product. This information can help you refine your product, identify potential challenges, and make more informed decisions about your business.

Furthermore, building a product without validating your idea can lead to significant time and financial investment, with no guarantee of success. It's essential to strike a balance between validation and execution to increase the chances of building a successful product.

It depends how intelligent your intuition is some people are not blessed and have to take different hard ways to reach their goal

Yes i think same, the mom test is wrong !

OOO, nice

I am not sure what mom test is, but I could not agree more with everything else said

Absolutely agree with you on the idea of validation. As you said, people often don't know what they want and their interests can change by the time a product is available. I also believe that building quickly and cheaply, and getting validation through sales, is a much more effective approach. It's all about testing the market and seeing what resonates with customers.

This is really interesting. In entrepreneurship theory we have something called "effectuation theory" that emphasizes the importance of tangible stakeholder commitments (e.g. paying customers) rather than the kind of non-committal feedback advocated for in the "lean startup" method. I think we need to identify the conditions under which one approach trumps the other.

Did the people who said they liked it actually buy it?

There's stated preference and perceived preference in UX research, people rarely behave the same as what they say they would do. That's why asking the right questions doing user interviews is an art. https://medium.com/@marksweep/if-they-dont-ask-about-the-price-its-absolute-bunk-7b2c4183ff32

Validation could be useful but yeah agree, the best way to validate is through users' behavior.

When you build quickly, do you stop building at the point it would provide value to you and start selling then?

If you are working on something that challenges existing mainstream ideas, I think The Mom Test is similar to what Henry Ford said, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

However, It's always helpful to explain the problem you're trying to solve to others and observe their reactions about your solution. This can give you a new perspective on the problem or help you understand it better.

Also relatable: (Feynman Technique) https://www.colorado.edu/artssciences-advising/resource-library/life-skills/the-feynman-technique-in-academic-coaching

I believe that concept validation calls for a high level of intelligence while creating anything fresh. Market research serves no purpose, as Steve Jobs once observed. He merely overlooked some conditionals.

The majority of IndieHackers should be better at applying existing ideas for a niche because most new things fail. I created my product in collaboration with a customer. If others will pay, only time will tell.

This is a bad approach to make billions of dollars. The market is saturated, and the entry barrier is low. But it isn't the objective.

For me, The Mom Test provided a better way of approaching conversations regarding my startup idea.
What I look for is to understand what problems my potential customers face.

Also, the book provides different ways of validating the product. If they want to spend something (time, money, reputation) to get the product, then it has potential.

For example, sales is one of the best way to validate your product (customers spending money).

I think that if you are building something novel then idea validation requires extreme intellect. Like Steve Jobs said, market research is pointless. He just forgot to mention some conditionals.

Most new things fail, so most IndieHackers should be implementing existing ideas better for a niche. I have built my product with someone who wants it. Time will tell if others will pay.

This isnt a good way of making billions. The barrier to entry is low, the market is saturated. But that's not the goal.

I absolutely agree. Sales are the only real form of validation.

Agreed – I too do think that everything is validated on the market. But, unfortunately, when you say so in this community, people tend to dismiss you.

Along with that, I loved Rand Fishkin's post on product-market fit: https://sparktoro.com/blog/product-market-fit-is-a-broken-concept-theres-a-better-way/

Especially relevant:

Fit vs. non-fit is isn’t how product work, and it’s not how people work, either. Consumers and businesses don’t suddenly switch from a mindset of “welp, this product does not fit my needs and so I will not consider it” to “oh hey, this product is a fit and so I/we will now purchase.” These aren’t even two ends of a useful spectrum, they’re just… baloney.

Yeah, mockups / prototype usually won't do it. Build a small but nicely working version of the thing and see if people pay for it. Not just "say" they will pay for it, but actually put down the card details and stay as an active customer.

While building, reach out to potential customers so you have a bunch of warm leads once your first version is ready.

If you're interested, I've written some about how you can do this, especially for B2B and using cold email here: https://wobaka.com/blog/how-to-validate-ideas-and-get-your-first-customers/