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: build a complex two-sided marketplace platform with a substantial budget. The technical challenge was interesting, it would have been one of my biggest projects to date, and the client was enthusiastic about the no-code revolution.
I said no.
Here's why—and what this decision taught me about the real purpose of MVP validation in 2025. The client came to me excited about AI tools and platforms that could build anything quickly and cheaply. They weren't wrong technically, but their core statement revealed a fundamental 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. This experience reinforced a principle I now share with every client considering an MVP: in the age of AI and no-code, the constraint isn't building—it's knowing what to build and for whom.
In this playbook, you'll learn:
Why most MVPs fail before they even launch (and it's not technical)
The one-day validation framework that saves months of development
How to validate demand without building anything
Why your MVP should be your marketing process, not your product
The critical difference between testing an idea and testing distribution
Ready to validate the right way? Let's dive into what the industry gets wrong about MVP development and product validation.
Industry Standard
What every startup accelerator teaches
Walk into any startup accelerator or read any product development guide, and you'll hear the same advice about MVP validation:
"Build fast, test quickly, iterate rapidly." The conventional wisdom follows a predictable pattern:
Build a minimal version of your product with core features
Launch to early adopters and gather feedback
Measure user engagement and retention metrics
Iterate based on data until you find product-market fit
Scale what works and pivot what doesn't
This framework exists because it worked in the early 2000s when building software required significant technical investment. Back then, an MVP was genuinely minimal because development was expensive and time-consuming. The logic made sense: build the smallest possible version to test your core hypothesis.
But here's where this advice falls short in 2025: technology is no longer the bottleneck. With AI tools, no-code platforms, and readily available development resources, anyone can build a functional product in weeks or even days. The constraint has shifted from "can we build it?" to "should we build it?" and more importantly, "who will use it?"
The traditional MVP approach treats validation as a post-build activity. You build first, then validate. But this sequence is backwards in today's environment. By the time you've built even a minimal version, you've already invested weeks or months in the wrong direction if demand doesn't exist.
Most founders following conventional MVP wisdom end up building solutions in search of problems, then spending months trying to find users who care enough to pay for what they've created.
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 platform, everything about the project seemed perfect on paper. They had researched the market, identified a gap, and even had some initial user interviews suggesting demand. The budget was there, the timeline was reasonable, and technically, it was absolutely achievable.
But during our discovery conversations, I kept asking variations of the same question: "Who exactly will use this on day one?" Their answers revealed the real problem. They had a hypothesis about market demand but no concrete evidence that people would actually change their behavior to use their platform.
This wasn't their fault—they were following exactly what every business school and startup guide teaches. Identify a market opportunity, build an MVP to test it, then scale based on results. The logic seems sound, but I'd seen this pattern before with other clients.
A few months earlier, I'd worked with a SaaS startup that spent six months building a "minimal" project management tool. Beautiful interface, solid functionality, even some early beta user feedback. But when they launched, they discovered something painful: their target market wasn't actively looking for a new project management solution. They were trying to convince people to switch from tools they already used and were comfortable with.
That project taught me something crucial: most MVP failures aren't product failures—they're distribution failures. The product works fine, but there's no clear path to reach people who have the problem you're solving and are actively seeking a solution.
Back to my marketplace client: as we dug deeper into their validation process, I realized they were about to make the same mistake. They wanted to test if their idea was viable by building it first. But what they really needed to test was whether they could find and reach their target users before building anything.
That's when I made the decision to turn down the project and instead share what I believed they should do first.
Here's my playbook
What I ended up doing and the results.
Instead of accepting the platform build, I walked my client through what I call the "one-day validation framework"—a process that tests the most critical assumption before writing a single line of code: can you reach your target users and get them interested in your solution?
Day 1: Create Your Value Proposition Test
I suggested they start with a simple landing page or Notion doc explaining their value proposition. Not a functioning product—just a clear explanation of what problem they solve and for whom. This takes hours, not weeks, and forces you to articulate your core hypothesis clearly.
Week 1: Manual Outreach to Both Sides
For a two-sided marketplace, you need both supply and demand. I recommended they spend their first week doing manual outreach to potential users on both sides. Not surveys or interviews about hypothetical behavior, but actual attempts to recruit people who would use the platform if it existed today.
The key insight: if you can't manually recruit your first 10-20 users through direct outreach, a platform won't magically solve this problem. Distribution difficulty doesn't disappear when you have better technology.
Week 2-4: Manual Matchmaking
Once they had interested parties on both sides, I suggested they manually facilitate the connections they wanted their platform to automate. Use email, WhatsApp, or basic tools to broker the transactions their marketplace would eventually handle automatically.
This manual process reveals crucial insights:
What information do both sides actually need to make decisions?
Where do friction points occur in real transactions?
What percentage of initial interest converts to actual engagement?
How much effort does it take to facilitate each connection?
Month 2: Prove Repeatability
Only after proving they could manually facilitate transactions should they consider building automation. The goal isn't to prove the concept—it's to prove you can repeatedly find and serve your target market.
I explained that their MVP shouldn't be their product at all. Their MVP should be their marketing and sales process. Once they could consistently generate demand and deliver value manually, then technology becomes an amplifier rather than a hope.
This approach flips the traditional sequence: instead of build-then-market, it's market-then-build. You validate distribution first, demand second, and only then consider the most efficient way to deliver that value.
Core Insight
Your MVP should test distribution before product
Manual First
Start with manual processes to understand real friction points
Demand Proof
Validate that people will change their behavior for your solution
Distribution Test
Your biggest risk isn't technical—it's reaching your market
If you can't manually acquire your first 50 users through direct outreach, you have a distribution problem that technology won't solve.
What I've learned and the mistakes I've made.
Sharing so you don't make them.
My client initially resisted this approach. They wanted concrete proof that their marketplace concept was viable, and manual processes felt like a step backward. But six weeks later, they contacted me with an update that validated the entire framework.
After following the one-day validation process, they discovered something crucial: while demand existed on one side of their marketplace, supply was much harder to secure than anticipated. The manual outreach revealed that their target suppliers had existing relationships and processes they weren't eager to change, even for a potentially better solution.
More importantly, they learned this in six weeks instead of six months. The manual matchmaking process showed them exactly where their initial assumptions were wrong and what they'd need to address before any technology solution could work.
Rather than building a platform and hoping users would come, they spent those six weeks understanding their market's real behavior patterns. This led them to pivot their approach entirely—focusing on just one side of the marketplace first and building different value propositions for suppliers.
The validation framework saved them months of development time and tens of thousands in development costs. But more importantly, it gave them real data about their market instead of assumptions about how people "should" behave.
This experience reinforced my belief that in 2025, the best MVPs aren't products at all—they're processes that prove you can reach and serve your market consistently.
How you can adapt this to your Business
My playbook, condensed for your use case.
For your SaaS / Startup
Here are the key lessons learned from turning down that project and watching the alternative approach succeed:
Technology amplifies demand, it doesn't create it. If people aren't actively seeking your solution, making it easier to build won't solve the fundamental problem.
Manual processes reveal real user behavior in ways that surveys and interviews cannot. People say one thing in interviews but behave differently when making actual decisions.
Distribution is harder than product development in today's environment. Focus your validation efforts on the hardest part first.
Failed outreach is valuable data. If you can't manually recruit users through direct outreach, that tells you something important about market readiness.
Manual scaling breaks at predictable points. These breaking points tell you exactly what to automate first and what features actually matter to users.
Validation should feel uncomfortable. If your validation process feels easy, you're probably not testing the right assumptions.
Time spent validating is time saved building. Every week spent in manual validation potentially saves months of development in the wrong direction.
The biggest mindset shift: your first MVP should prove you can consistently reach and serve your market, not that you can build your product. In an age where anyone can build, the competitive advantage goes to founders who can validate and iterate on distribution before touching code.
For your Ecommerce store
For SaaS startups specifically:
Start with manual demos and onboarding before building self-service features
Validate that users will integrate your solution into their existing workflows
Test willingness to switch from current solutions before building features