10 ms·

It seems to me that the point is to avoid missing a glaringly obvious problem with a project that, while you may be blind to, a random stranger may not.

by dmazin 16y ago

ssskai 16y ago
The other point is to test your idea on someone who is not in love with your own idea. It can be easy to be in love with your idea so much that you discount obvious pitfalls. And like the article mentions, this technique would only work with a consumer oriented product.
brk 16y ago
I got the point of it, I just think it's horrible execution. If you have a business idea, and you cannot find a way to solicit honest feedback from an ad-hoc consumer panel, then you should probably check yourself. I don't understand why you need the whole deceptive angle. Go to Starbucks and approach someone and say "hey... I've got this interesting idea for [a way to do X better/faster/cheaper]. I'll give you a $5 gift card if you don't mind spending 15 minutes giving me your honest feedback." The other fail of the idea was the whole trying to maximize $20 at Starbucks concept. Many people are going there to get a drink that will likely average $3 or more. Offering to buy someone a $1.50 black coffee when they came in wanting a $4.50 latte isn't going to get you off to the right start. Even spending $100 for 20 $5 gift cards would be cheap feedback, and (IMO) a more realistic approach.
- dmazin 16y ago
  I don't really think this is very clever, either, but unlike you I can't quite put my finger on why. Has either the poster or the originator of the idea really tried to measure the effectiveness of this technique? Furthermore, why are people in a coffee shop sitting around without coffee, waiting to be bought a cheap drip drink (as you mention)? I think the dishonesty makes some sense as people are nice and have a natural tendency to sugarcoat or outright lie, but I am entirely uncomfortable with it.

It seems to me that the point is to avoid missing a glaringly obvious problem with a project that, while you may be blind to, a random stranger may not.

by dmazin 16y ago

It seems to me that the point is to avoid missing a glaringly obvious problem with a project that, while you may be blind to, a random stranger may not.

ssskai 16y ago

The other point is to test your idea on someone who is not in love with your own idea. It can be easy to be in love with your idea so much that you discount obvious pitfalls. And like the article mentions, this technique would only work with a consumer oriented product.

brk 16y ago

I got the point of it, I just think it's horrible execution. If you have a business idea, and you cannot find a way to solicit honest feedback from an ad-hoc consumer panel, then you should probably check yourself. I don't understand why you need the whole deceptive angle. Go to Starbucks and approach someone and say "hey... I've got this interesting idea for [a way to do X better/faster/cheaper]. I'll give you a $5 gift card if you don't mind spending 15 minutes giving me your honest feedback." The other fail of the idea was the whole trying to maximize $20 at Starbucks concept. Many people are going there to get a drink that will likely average $3 or more. Offering to buy someone a $1.50 black coffee when they came in wanting a $4.50 latte isn't going to get you off to the right start. Even spending $100 for 20 $5 gift cards would be cheap feedback, and (IMO) a more realistic approach.

dmazin 16y ago
I don't really think this is very clever, either, but unlike you I can't quite put my finger on why. Has either the poster or the originator of the idea really tried to measure the effectiveness of this technique? Furthermore, why are people in a coffee shop sitting around without coffee, waiting to be bought a cheap drip drink (as you mention)? I think the dishonesty makes some sense as people are nice and have a natural tendency to sugarcoat or outright lie, but I am entirely uncomfortable with it.