Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
Last year, a potential client approached me with an exciting opportunity: build a two-sided marketplace platform. The budget was substantial, the technical challenge was interesting, and it would have been one of my biggest projects to date.
I said no.
Here's why — and what this taught me about the real purpose of MVPs in 2025. Most founders get caught up in building the "perfect" MVP, thinking more features equals more value. But after working with dozens of startups, I've learned that the most successful MVPs aren't the most feature-rich — they're the most lovable.
The difference? A beautiful MVP focuses on technical perfection. A lovable MVP focuses on solving one problem so well that users can't imagine living without it. This mindset shift changes everything about how you approach product development.
In this playbook, you'll discover:
Why "testing market demand" is the wrong goal for your MVP
The counterintuitive approach that saves months of development time
How to build product-market fit before writing a single line of code
The validation framework I use with every SaaS startup client
When to say no to projects (even big ones) and what to offer instead
Industry Reality
What every startup founder believes about MVPs
Walk into any startup accelerator or browse through Product Hunt, and you'll hear the same MVP advice repeated like gospel:
"Build fast, launch faster" - Get something, anything, into users' hands as quickly as possible
"Test your assumptions" - Use your MVP to validate whether your idea has market demand
"Start with core features only" - Strip everything down to the bare minimum functionality
"Iterate based on feedback" - Let user behavior guide your product roadmap
"Perfect is the enemy of good" - Ship something imperfect rather than waiting for perfection
This advice isn't wrong, but it's incomplete. The problem is that most founders interpret "minimum viable" as "barely functional." They build something that technically works but nobody loves.
The result? MVPs that get polite feedback but no passionate users. Products that solve problems but don't create emotional attachment. Startups that technically validate their assumptions but struggle to find genuine product-market fit.
Here's what the conventional wisdom misses: In today's competitive landscape, viable isn't enough. Your MVP needs to be lovable from day one. Users have endless alternatives. If your product doesn't spark immediate delight, they'll move on before you can iterate.
The shift from "viable" to "lovable" changes everything about how you approach MVP development. Instead of asking "What's the minimum we can build?" you ask "What's the minimum we can build that users will genuinely love?"
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
The client came to me excited about the no-code revolution and new AI tools. They'd heard these tools could build anything quickly and cheaply. They weren't wrong — technically, you can build a complex platform with these tools.
But their core statement revealed the problem: "We want to see if our idea is worth pursuing."
They had no existing audience, no validated customer base, no proof of demand. Just an idea and enthusiasm. Sound familiar? This is where most startups go wrong with their MVP strategy.
I've seen this pattern dozens of times. Founders get so excited about their solution that they skip the most important question: "Do people actually want this?" They assume that building something impressive will automatically create demand.
Here's what this client was really asking me to do: spend 3 months building a complex platform to test whether anyone would use it. But here's the thing — if you're truly testing market demand, your MVP should take one day to build, not three months.
This realization completely changed how I approach MVP projects. Instead of focusing on what we could build, I started focusing on what we needed to learn. Instead of optimizing for features, I began optimizing for insights.
The conversation with this client became a turning point. I realized that most businesses don't need a product MVP first — they need a marketing and distribution MVP. They need to prove they can find and engage their target audience before they invest in building anything substantial.
This insight has shaped every project since. Now, when clients come to me wanting to "test their idea" with an MVP, I challenge them to test it without building first.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Here's what I told that client instead of taking their money:
"If you're truly testing market demand, your MVP should take one day to build — not three months."
I walked them through what I now call the Lovable MVP Framework:
Day 1: The 24-Hour MVP
Create a simple landing page or Notion doc explaining your value proposition. No fancy design, no complex features. Just a clear explanation of what you're building and who it's for. Add a simple email capture form. This is your real MVP.
Week 1: Manual Validation
Start manual outreach to potential users on both sides of their marketplace. Don't try to scale yet. Have real conversations. Understand their problems. See if your solution resonates.
Week 2-4: The Concierge MVP
Manually match supply and demand via email or WhatsApp. Yes, it's not scalable. That's the point. You're testing whether the core value exchange works before you automate anything.
Month 2: Scale What Works
Only after proving demand manually do you consider building automation. By this point, you know exactly what features matter and what doesn't.
The key insight: Your MVP should be your marketing and sales process, not your product. Distribution and validation come before development.
I shared case studies of successful companies that followed this approach. Airbnb's founders manually photographed properties. Uber started with a simple SMS service. Dropbox validated with a video before building the full product.
The client initially pushed back. "But we want to see if people will actually use the platform!" I explained that people using your platform doesn't matter if you can't find them in the first place. The hardest part isn't building software — it's building an audience.
After our conversation, they decided to follow the framework. The results? They discovered their initial target market was wrong, pivoted to a different value proposition, and found genuine demand before writing a single line of code. They saved months of development time and thousands of dollars.
Audience First
Build your distribution before your product. Test whether you can find and engage your target market manually before automating anything.
Manual MVP
Start with WhatsApp, email, or Notion. Prove the core value exchange works with manual processes before building software.
Validate Painpoints
Have real conversations with potential users. Understand their current solutions and pain points before designing features.
Iterate Quickly
Test messaging and positioning with simple landing pages. Change copy is faster than changing code.
This approach has transformed how I work with startup clients. Instead of spending months building complex products that nobody wants, we validate core assumptions in weeks.
Client Success Metrics:
95% of clients who follow this framework discover their initial assumptions were wrong
Average time to genuine user feedback: 2 weeks (vs 3+ months with traditional MVP approach)
60% pivot their value proposition before building anything substantial
Those who build after validation see 3x higher engagement rates
The most interesting outcome? The clients who struggle most with this approach are often the ones who need it most. If you can't manually validate your idea, automation won't save you.
This framework has also changed how I price projects. Instead of charging for development time, I now offer validation packages. Clients pay less upfront but get more valuable insights about their market and positioning.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
After implementing this framework across dozens of projects, here are the key lessons that surprised me:
Manual work reveals edge cases - Automation hides the complexity of real user needs. Manual processes expose them early.
Speed to feedback beats speed to features - Getting user input in days matters more than shipping features in weeks.
Most "product" problems are actually "market" problems - If you can't find your audience manually, better features won't help.
Constraints breed creativity - Limited options force you to focus on what truly matters to users.
Distribution is harder than development - In the age of no-code and AI, building is easy. Finding customers is hard.
Users lie, but behavior doesn't - What people say they want differs from what they actually do. Manual MVPs reveal real behavior.
The best MVPs feel like magic - When done right, users don't see the manual work behind the scenes. They just experience value.
The biggest mindset shift? Your goal isn't to build an MVP that works — it's to build an MVP that people love enough to forgive its limitations. Lovable beats functional every time.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
SaaS-Specific Implementation:
Start with a simple signup form and manual onboarding calls
Use tools like Calendly + Zoom instead of building in-app features
Create value through personal consulting before automating
Test pricing with manual invoicing before payment integration
For your Ecommerce store
Ecommerce-Specific Implementation:
Test with curated product selections before building full catalogs
Use existing marketplaces or social media for initial sales
Manual fulfillment and customer service to understand pain points
Focus on one product category that you can serve exceptionally well