[4pkjai]

Another PMF-inspired practice in vogue is using Google Adwords to channel keyword searches to a dummy product site listing various features. The idea is to establish PMF before even beginning work on the product. A certain click-through rate establishes a clear need and a ready market to consume the product.

I've always disliked this strategy. It doesn't feel good to start off your relationship with a customer with deception.

[nine_k]

It should not be deception.

The landing page should say: "We are building this product, but it's in the early stages. Leave us your email if you're interested to learn about its progress and availability before your competitors do. Early adopters will get discounts / free plans."

If this page gains any traction, subscriptions, interest expressed via the "Contact us" page, then the product is likely worth building past the feature list and a general idea of the architecture. You better have a prototype that will allow you to quickly demo some of your key promised features.

[lelanthran]

>>I've always disliked this strategy. It doesn't feel good to start off your relationship with a customer with deception.

> It should not be deception.

> The landing page should say: "We are building this product, but it's in the early stages.

But you aren't building that product. You're considering building that product.

IOW, it's still deception.

[nine_k]

If you have no idea how to build that product, no plans, no realistic way to do it, then yes, a deception.

If you have a proof of concept, have put in some thinking, made UI sketches and flows, etc, you have started building the product, because you can't advance further without that. But you have to find out if it's worth putting more effort and money into it.

[barrell]

If the building of the product is contingent on the CTR, and the landing page does not mention that contingency but just says it’s being built, it is deception plain and simple.

Cleverly worded gotcha deception, sure. But deception none the less.

[lelanthran]

> If you have a proof of concept, have put in some thinking, made UI sketches and flows, etc, you have started building the product,

I think that that bar is too low to move from "we're considering building $FOO" to "we're building $FOO".

I mean, with the bar for "we're building $FOO" being "Investigate demand for $FOO", then the phrase "we're building $FOO" loses all meaning.

It's the difference between "we're getting divorced" vs "we're considering divorce".

"we're starting a new job" vs "we're looking for a new job"

"we're building a LEGO deathstar" vs "we're buying a box of LEGO"

I see no reason that "we're determining whether to build $FOO" is the same as "we're building $FOO"

[s1mon]

Email signups can be meaningful if the product doesn't cost the user much (e.g. ad-supported web or app), but for paid products, getting a commitment to buy something is more real. Even then, something can have a very successful Kickstarter (for example), but then the product itself is disappointing or fails in some way when it actually ships to the customers, and it never sells more than the initial batch.

[waprin]

> "Early adopters will get discounts / free plans."

If you include this then you're not even validating to the extent that you think you are. Because you're validating that people will sign up to use it for a discount / free, which doesn't necessarily mean anyone will pay full price for it.

[XorNot]

The problem with this strategy is that the product that might exist is always better then what actually can exist.

People building AI-powered things are doing this a lot: add AI and clearly the product will now do <thing it's not clear you can actually deliver value on>.

[usernamed7]

There are ways to do this that are sleazy, slimey and sneaky. And there are ways to do this that are genuine. What and how you communicate to potential customers matters a lot. But this is one of the best way to develop startups.

[jamil7]

Perhaps, but I'm not even sure this strategy really works anymore.