3 ms·
There's an interesting point to be made about B2C vs. B2B products. There's a thesis out there, that in order to test the market you can put up a simple websit
by Blackstone4 9y ago
There's an interesting point to be made about B2C vs. B2B products.
There's a thesis out there, that in order to test the market you can put up a simple website adverstising your yet-to-be-made product and see if you get any subscribers. I feel like this applies to B2C products and low ticket B2B products (i.e. $10 per user per month).
The playing field for a serious B2B product is very different and the MVP needs to be in good shape in order to win and keep clients.
- louisswiss 9y agoI strongly disagree with this comment (needing an MVP). For a serious B2B product you need a team, sales process and social proof/track record that convinces the customer you will deliver on your promises. But above all, you need a product which solves a tangible, significant problem for the customer! If the willingness of a customer to sign a prelaunch sales agreement comes down to the quality of your MVP, something has gone wrong in your sales process and the customer is just looking for an excuse to decline.
- siddharthdeswal 9y agoI think parent is saying something similar to you, but you've just laid it out in more detail. They didn't say the other things you've mentioned don't matter. They said that the product can't be a scrappy MVP.
- louisswiss 9y agoPerhaps. I understood 'the MVP needs to be in good shape in order to win and keep clients' as meaning 'in order to win (and keep) clients, you need a (good) MVP'. I was objecting to the idea that you need an MVP at all to win clients (although obviously retaining them is a different story).