Thread by @jelenajansson

Some teams will release lean rough mvp to masses fast, some will do mvp as a fragmented feature test in an already validated market to few early adopters. Some will do full products as the viability needs more in already established space.
👉 No #startup will have the same path.

The mpv is to validate a thesis around a problem/solution & marketing/research around it is to test if there is a need, want, desire & at what price point. Many of these things you can find out without building.

On the other end, in crowded market with many sophisticated solutions, rolling out an excel style 3 button app might not give the best step forward, especially if the user is accustomed to 1.better 2.their need is not dire.

Since many companies will make money on improving instead of innovating from scratch, the mvp will have to reflect what market & space you are entering. This should also be used to understand how much runway you need & at what is worth building on the budget you have.

Many of us will not land into space of effortless innovation & come up with new things from scratch. I don’t. I tend to improve on things & for that I know in certain sectors I will have to compromise on speed, focus on micro validation & aim at high quality versus quick & dirty.

What is the viability benchmark of an average user for your early #startup? Are you in the field where there are many sophisticated solutions or are you creating a whole new category with your product?

#creative #mvp #founders

Sidenote: I worry, as the users are becoming more & more technologically proficient & visually conditioned, that only #startups that will stand the test of time are those who have significant funds to bankroll builds to point of necessary viability for the target.

AKA the entry point is higher & higher. MVPs of 10 years ago would not fly now. So, how to make more consumer friendly mvps without losing time & money.