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 the thing - with tools like Bubble and AI making development faster than ever, founders are getting caught in a dangerous trap. They think because they can build quickly, they should build first and validate later. That's backwards.
After working with dozens of SaaS startups and seeing the same pattern repeat, I've learned that the constraint isn't building anymore - it's knowing what to build and for whom. This shift changes everything about how we should approach MVP validation.
In this playbook, you'll discover:
Why modern no-code tools create a validation paradox
The real MVP framework I use with clients before any development
How to validate demand in days, not months
When Bubble AI actually makes sense in the validation process
The counterintuitive approach that saves months of wasted development
Let me walk you through exactly why I rejected that lucrative project and the validation framework that's now become core to every client engagement I take on. You can find more insights on SaaS development strategies in our playbook series.
Industry Reality
What every founder thinks about modern MVP development
The no-code and AI revolution has fundamentally changed how founders think about MVPs. Here's what the industry typically preaches:
"Build Fast, Iterate Faster" - Tools like Bubble, Webflow, and now AI coding assistants promise you can go from idea to MVP in weeks. The narrative is compelling: reduce development time, lower costs, get to market quickly.
"Test in Production" - Launch something basic, gather user feedback, then improve. The lean startup methodology applied to modern no-code tools suggests building is now so cheap that you might as well start there.
"Technical Validation First" - Can we build it? Does the tech work? Most founders focus on proving the solution is technically feasible before proving anyone actually wants it.
"Minimal Viable Product = Minimal Features" - Strip down to core functionality, build the simplest version possible, then add features based on usage.
"Platform-First Thinking" - Especially with marketplace ideas, the assumption is you need both sides of the platform from day one to validate the concept.
This conventional wisdom exists because traditional development was expensive and time-consuming. When building an MVP took 6 months and $50K+, the focus was naturally on technical feasibility and feature prioritization.
But here's where this approach falls short: Easy building doesn't equal easy validation. In fact, the easier it becomes to build, the more critical proper validation becomes. When everyone can build quickly, the differentiator isn't speed of development - it's accuracy of market understanding.
The result? A flood of well-built products that nobody wants. Beautiful, functional MVPs sitting in digital graveyards because founders confused "can we build it?" with "should we build it?"
Consider me as your business complice.
7 years of freelance experience working with SaaS and Ecommerce brands.
This mindset shift hit me personally when that marketplace client approached me. They had done their homework on the technical side - researched Bubble's capabilities, mapped out user flows, even created wireframes. But when I asked about their target market, the response was telling:
"We want to see if our idea works."
Red flag. They had no existing audience, no validated customer base, no proof of demand. Just an idea and enthusiasm. Sound familiar?
The client was excited about AI tools and no-code platforms they'd heard about. They weren't wrong - technically, you can build a complex marketplace with these tools. But their core statement revealed the fundamental problem: they wanted to build to test demand rather than test demand before building.
This is a pattern I see constantly. Founders get excited about what's technically possible and lose sight of what's actually needed. The conversation typically goes like this:
Founder: "We can build this marketplace in 3 months with Bubble. It'll connect X with Y, and we think there's huge demand."
Me: "How do you know there's demand?"
Founder: "Well, we haven't validated it yet, but that's what the MVP is for."
This is backwards thinking. By the time you've built even a "minimal" marketplace, you've invested months of time and significant resources into an assumption.
I've watched brilliant technical founders build incredible products that nobody wanted. I've seen marketplace platforms with perfect UX sit empty because they solved problems people didn't have. I've witnessed months of development time wasted because founders confused technical feasibility with market demand.
The marketplace client had fallen into this exact trap. They wanted to spend 3 months building to answer a question they could answer in 3 days with the right validation approach. That's when I knew I had to say no - not because the project wasn't interesting, but because it was set up to fail.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Instead of taking on that marketplace project, I shared what's become my standard validation framework. Here's exactly what I told them - and what I now implement with every client before any development begins:
Day 1: Hypothesis Documentation
Before touching any development tools, we document three critical hypotheses: Who specifically has the problem? What problem are we actually solving? How are they solving it today? This isn't market research - it's hypothesis formation.
Week 1: Manual Validation
Create the most basic possible test of demand. For the marketplace client, this meant a simple landing page explaining the value proposition, then manually connecting supply and demand via email and phone calls. No automation, no platform, just pure human-to-human validation.
Week 2-4: Demand Testing
Once we prove people will engage manually, we test willingness to pay. This is where most validation fails - people will sign up for free, but will they actually pay? We use pre-orders, waitlists with deposits, or manual service delivery at scale-test pricing.
Month 2: Only Then Consider Building
After proving demand exists and people will pay, we evaluate whether technology amplifies an already working system. This is when tools like Bubble become valuable - not for validation, but for automation of proven demand.
The marketplace client initially pushed back: "But we need to see if the platform concept works!" This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. Platform concepts don't work - solutions to real problems work. Platforms are just delivery mechanisms.
Here's what actually happened when they followed this approach: Week 1 manual matching revealed their assumption about the problem was wrong. What they thought was a supply shortage was actually a discovery problem. Week 3 showed people would pay for the service, but not through a marketplace model - they wanted direct relationships.
By month 2, they had a completely different business model that required 80% less development and generated revenue from day one. The "platform" became a simple matching service with a basic CRM backend. This is where Bubble AI tools actually made sense - automating a proven process rather than validating an unproven concept.
The key insight: Your MVP should be your marketing and sales process, not your product. Distribution and validation come before development. Technology amplifies working systems; it doesn't create them.
Validation Framework
Manual testing approach that proves demand before any development starts
Distribution First
Focus on proving you can acquire customers before building retention features
Problem Validation
Test if the problem is real before building the solution
Market Research
Understand how customers currently solve the problem and what they pay
The results speak for themselves. Every client who follows this validation-first approach sees dramatic improvements:
Time to Revenue: Instead of 3-6 months of development followed by customer acquisition struggles, we typically see first revenue within 30 days of starting validation.
Product-Market Fit Accuracy: When you build after validation, you're building exactly what people already want to buy. No pivot anxiety, no feature guessing.
Development Efficiency: Knowing exactly what to build means no wasted features. Final products typically require 60-70% fewer features than original specifications.
Customer Acquisition Cost: When you validate through direct customer contact, you're simultaneously building your first marketing channel. Your validation process becomes your distribution strategy.
The marketplace client? They launched their revised model in 6 weeks instead of 6 months, reached profitability in month 2, and scaled to $50K ARR in their first year. More importantly, they never had that terrifying "will anyone use this?" moment because they already knew the answer.
This approach consistently produces better outcomes because it aligns effort with certainty. The more certain you are about demand, the more you can safely invest in building. Early validation equals confident development.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
Here are the seven critical lessons I've learned from applying this validation framework across dozens of projects:
Speed of building inversely correlates with need for validation. The faster you can build, the more critical proper validation becomes. When everyone can build quickly, validation is your only competitive advantage.
Customers don't know what they want, but they know what they'll pay for. Skip the surveys and interviews. Focus on behavior - what are they actually doing and spending money on right now?
Manual processes reveal automation opportunities. Only by doing things manually first do you understand what actually needs to be automated versus what you think needs to be automated.
Platform thinking is solution bias. Most "platform" ideas are really service businesses that could be delivered manually first. Test the service before building the platform.
Validation should generate revenue, not just data. If your validation process isn't producing paying customers, you're not validating market demand - you're validating willingness to engage with free things.
No-code tools work best for proven concepts. Use Bubble AI to automate validated processes, not to test unvalidated assumptions. The technology should serve certainty, not create it.
Time spent on validation saves exponentially more time on development. One week of proper validation saves months of building the wrong thing. The math is obvious, but founders consistently get this backwards.
The hardest part isn't the validation process itself - it's convincing founders to slow down and validate before building. The tools make building feel so accessible that validation feels like unnecessary friction. It's not. It's your best insurance policy against building something nobody wants.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
For SaaS startups:
Test demand with landing pages and manual service delivery before building any features
Focus on proving people will pay for the outcome, not the tool
Use manual processes to understand what automation actually adds value
Validate distribution channels alongside product demand
For your Ecommerce store
For Ecommerce stores:
Test product demand through pre-orders or manual sales before building inventory systems
Validate customer acquisition channels manually before automating them
Use manual fulfillment to understand operational requirements
Test pricing and positioning before investing in platform features