Growth & Strategy
Personas
SaaS & Startup
Time to ROI
Short-term (< 3 months)
Last year, a potential client approached me with what seemed like a dream project - a substantial budget to build a two-sided marketplace platform. The technical challenge was exciting, the money was good, and it would have been one of my biggest projects to date.
I said no.
Not because I couldn't deliver, but because I realized they were about to make the same expensive mistake I've seen countless startups make: confusing building features with validating demand.
The client came to me excited about AI tools and no-code platforms, convinced they could "test their idea" by building a complete platform. They had no existing audience, no validated customer base, no proof of demand - just enthusiasm and a budget.
Here's what you'll learn from this experience:
Why your first MVP should take days, not months to build
The counterintuitive approach to feature prioritization that actually works
How to validate demand before writing a single line of code
The framework I use to help clients avoid expensive feature bloat
Real examples of manual validation that saved millions in development costs
This isn't about being anti-technology or anti-building. It's about being smart with resources and building things people actually want.
Industry Reality
What every startup founder believes about MVPs
Walk into any startup accelerator or scroll through Product Twitter, and you'll hear the same advice repeated like gospel:
"Build fast, fail fast" - Ship your MVP quickly to get user feedback
"Start with core features" - Identify the 3-5 essential features and build those first
"Iterate based on data" - Let user behavior guide your feature roadmap
"Technical debt is fine" - Worry about scalability later, focus on proving the concept
"Use no-code/AI to move faster" - Leverage modern tools to build without extensive development
This advice isn't wrong - it's just incomplete. The problem is that most founders interpret "build fast" as "build immediately." They skip the crucial step of validating whether anyone actually wants what they're planning to build.
The conventional wisdom assumes you've already identified a real problem and confirmed people will pay to solve it. But here's the reality: most startups fail not because they built the wrong features, but because they built features for a problem nobody cared enough about to pay for.
The result? Founders spend months building elegant solutions to problems that don't exist, then wonder why their perfectly executed MVP gets zero traction. The real issue isn't feature prioritization - it's distribution and demand validation.
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
When this potential client approached me about building their two-sided marketplace, everything seemed perfect on paper. They had done their homework - researched the market, identified pain points, even sketched out user flows. The budget was substantial, and they were excited about using modern AI and no-code tools to build quickly.
But their core statement revealed the fundamental problem: "We want to see if our idea is worth pursuing."
They had no existing audience, no validated customer base, no proof that people were actively looking for this solution. Just an idea and the assumption that if they built it well enough, users would come.
This reminded me of a pattern I'd seen repeatedly in my consulting work. Clients would come with detailed feature specifications, convinced that the main challenge was technical execution. They'd spend weeks debating whether to include chat functionality, how many user types to support, or which payment integrations to build.
The conversation always went the same way: "We need to test if our marketplace idea works. Can you build us an MVP with user profiles, messaging, payments, search filters, and a rating system? We want to launch in 3 months and see if we get traction."
I'd learned from previous projects that this approach was backwards. The most beautiful, feature-complete platform in the world is useless if you can't get users on both sides of the marketplace. And you can't solve the user acquisition challenge by building more features.
That's when I realized: they weren't trying to build an MVP, they were trying to build a fully functional product and calling it an MVP. True validation doesn't require complex features - it requires proving demand exists first.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Instead of taking their money and building what they asked for, I shared something that initially shocked them: "If you're truly testing market demand, your MVP should take one day to build - not three months."
Here's the framework I recommended instead:
Day 1: Create Your "MVP"
Instead of building a platform, create a simple landing page or Notion document explaining your value proposition. Include a way for people to express interest or sign up for early access. This tests if your message resonates.
Week 1: Manual Outreach
Start reaching out to potential users on both sides of your marketplace. Don't ask if they'd "theoretically" use your product. Ask if they have this problem right now and what they're currently doing to solve it.
Week 2-4: Manual Matching
When you find people with the problem and people who might solve it, manually connect them via email or WhatsApp. Facilitate the transaction yourself. This proves that value exchange is possible and helps you understand the real friction points.
Month 2: Scale the Manual Process
Only after proving demand and completing several manual transactions should you consider building automation. Now you know exactly what features matter because you've done the process manually.
The Key Insight: Your MVP should be your marketing and sales process, not your product.
I walked them through how successful marketplaces actually started. Airbnb founders manually photographed listings and handled customer service. Uber began with a simple SMS system. These weren't technical limitations - they were smart validation strategies.
For their specific marketplace idea, I outlined a 30-day validation plan:
Create a simple "Coming Soon" page with their value proposition
Find 20 potential suppliers and 20 potential buyers
Manually facilitate 5 successful transactions
Document every friction point and user complaint
Only then decide what features to build first
This approach answers the real questions: Do people want this? Will they pay for it? What are the actual barriers to success? And most importantly, can you acquire users before building complex features?
Demand First
Validate that people actually want your solution before building any features. Manual processes reveal real user behavior.
Distribution Reality
Most startups fail on user acquisition, not product features. Solve the "getting users" problem manually first.
Manual Validation
Use email, WhatsApp, or simple tools to facilitate the core value exchange. This reveals what features actually matter.
Feature Minimalism
Build the smallest possible thing that proves your core assumption. Everything else is optimization for a problem you haven't validated yet.
The client initially pushed back, concerned that manual processes wouldn't "scale" and that competitors might move faster with a full platform. But I shared examples of successful companies that had used this approach.
The Reality Check: Three months later, they discovered through manual validation that their original target market wasn't willing to pay enough to make the business viable. But they also discovered a adjacent market segment that had a much stronger pain point.
Instead of spending months building features for the wrong market, they pivoted quickly and found product-market fit in a completely different niche. The manual process had cost them a few weeks of time instead of months of development.
This reinforced my core belief: In the age of AI and no-code, the constraint isn't building - it's knowing what to build and for whom. The tools have made development easier, but they've also made it easier to build the wrong thing quickly.
The most successful founders I work with now spend 80% of their time on validation and 20% on building, not the other way around. They treat every feature decision as a hypothesis to test, not a requirement to implement.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
Manual validation reveals actual demand - You can't fake enthusiasm when people have to take real action
Distribution challenges surface early - You'll discover user acquisition problems before investing in features
Real friction points become obvious - Users will tell you what actually matters when they're trying to complete tasks
Feature priorities clarify naturally - When you facilitate transactions manually, essential features become obvious
Pivot costs drop dramatically - Changing direction costs weeks instead of months when you haven't built complex systems
Market feedback happens immediately - You get real user behavior data, not survey responses or focus group opinions
Resource allocation improves - You invest development time in features that directly impact validated user needs
The biggest lesson: Feature prioritization is a symptom of a deeper problem. If you're debating which features to build first, you probably haven't validated demand properly. Start with the market, not the features.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups implementing this approach:
Create a "powered by" solution that manually delivers your core value
Use existing tools (Zapier, Airtable, email) to simulate your platform
Focus on proving one key workflow before building automation
Validate pricing by asking for payment commitments upfront
For your Ecommerce store
For ecommerce businesses applying this framework:
Test demand with pre-orders or waitlists before building complex features
Use simple tools to validate marketplace or platform concepts
Manually curate product recommendations before building AI systems
Validate subscription models through manual billing before automation