The Mom Test: Summary and Thoughts

post by Adam Zerner (adamzerner) · 2024-04-18T03:34:21.020Z · LW · GW · 2 comments

Contents

  Summary
  Thoughts
    Hierarchy of evidence
    Genuinely helpful takeaways
      Ask for intros
      Ask what they've tried
    Things on my radar
      Organize an event
    Half reminders, half learnings
None
2 comments

I just finished reading The Mom Test for the second time. I took "raw" notes here. In this post I'll first write up a bullet-point summary and then ramble off some thoughts that I have.

Summary

Introduction:

Chapter 1 - The Mom Test:

Chapter 2 - Avoiding Bad Data:

Chapter 3 - Asking Important Questions:

Chapter 4 - Keeping It Casual:

Chapter 5 - Commitment and Advancement:

Chapter 6 - Finding Conversations:

Chapter 7 - Choosing Your Customers:

Chapter 8 - Running The Process:

Thoughts

Hierarchy of evidence

In academic research they have this idea of a hierarchy of evidence. At the top are lit reviews. Beneath that are randomized, controlled trials. Towards the bottom are theory-based predictions and case studies. I think this is a useful way to think about things.

And I think that it's important to ask yourself where we're at in that hierarchy when we read the things in this book. My answer? Uh, basically it's one guys opinion.

Ok, no, that's selling it too short. The author Rob Fitzpatrick seems like he's very knowledgeable, very reasonable, pretty experienced, and generally just has a good head on his shoulders. So as far as trusting people goes, I think he's relatively high up there.

But still, it's just one person, and there's a limit to how much you should trust one person. So then, try to take things with the appropriately sized grain of salt. I'm having trouble being more specific than that.

Genuinely helpful takeaways

It doesn't happen too often, but I came away from reading this book with two genuinely helpful takeaways. Things that I didn't understand before reading the book and that I expect to seriously help me in my journey as an entrepreneur.

Ask for intros

Context: right now I am looking for a startup idea to pursue. I've decided[2] that I want to build some sort of SaaS app that targets SMBs and is priced at something in the range of hundreds to low-thousands of dollars a month.

It's tricky though: I don't know anything about the industries that these SMBs are in. I need people to sit down with me and tell me about the problems they face.

I've tried cold outreach but it's incredibly hard. It's lead to a few meetings, but they didn't go anywhere. And without a lower-friction way to find prospective users to sit down and talk with me, I'm a bit stuck. But I'm hopeful that the whole "asking for intros" thing will get me past it. Let me elaborate.

Here's how it's supposed to work. You hustle with cold outreach to scrap together a few meetings. In these meetings you learn about their work and the problems they face. At the end you ask if there's anyone else who they think you should talk to and if they could introduce you to them.

According to the author, people are frequently willing to do this. As long as you appear genuine, thoughtful, polite, friendly and whatnot, they're usually happy to help. And then boom: exponential growth! Virality! Compounding!

Maybe you start off with two people. Each of them introduce you to two more people. So in the next "round" you talk to four people. Each of those four people then introduce you to two more people. So in the following round you're talking to eight people. So on and so forth. In practice things won't just cleanly grow at 2^n forever, but at least in theory the compounding should get you to a point where you have a surplus of warm intros and people to chat with.

In retrospect this seems obvious, but I had never actually thought to try it.

Ask what they've tried

Sometimes people will act like a problem is really big, get emotional about it, say they'd spend money to solve it... and you still can't trust them. Their talk is still cheap.

What should you do? Check to see if they've actually brainstormed and taken steps to solve the problem they're having. Often times they haven't.

I ran into this issue somewhat recently. I was talking to someone who works at a local window installation business. I asked about what sort of things frustrate him in his day-to-day work. He mentioned this software they use to handle the logistics of sending agents out on installation jobs. Like who goes to what building and stuff.

He explained that everyone in the industry basically uses this one app, but that the app is expensive and targeted at big firms. His firm is small and it'd be a great idea if I built an app that targets smaller window installation firms like his. It's a real pain point and they'd definitely pay for it. Currently they use some other app that is cheaper than the popular one and don't like it.

I asked what else they've tried. He kinda shrugged and indicated they haven't really looked into anything else and they're a bit too busy to be exploring alternatives. And then I too shrugged and moved on. Mistake.

I wanted to understand more about why they don't like the app they currently use, but we didn't have time. We ended the call with me saying I'd go off, do some research, and then check in. I googled around and learned about the apps that are available. Some of them seemed like decent apps at a reasonable price point that target smaller window installation firms. So I emailed him asking what he thinks of those apps.

He didn't respond with anything substantial. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was basically a shrug.

I spent more time doing research. And I spent more time emailing him. He didn't want to engage.

I was so confused. This seemed like a really promising idea. He said it's a very real problem. That they'd happily pay money for it. That solutions targeting smaller window installation businesses don't exist. So then, why isn't he being responsive?

Well, The Mom Test talks about this exact sort of situation. People claiming that something is a big problem, that they'd pay money for a solution, even getting emotional about it. And nevertheless, they don't actually give a shit.

This gets revealed when you ask what they've tried. If they haven't taken the action of getting off their ass and looking for a solution, it's a strong indicator that the problem isn't big enough.

However, even with all of this said, I hesitate to take it as too strong of an indicator. After all, humans are not automatically strategic [LW · GW]. I feel like it's pretty plausible that someone has a real problem, is actually very willing and eager to pay for a solution, but still has never taken meaningful steps to look for a solution.

For example, having clutter in my apartment really bothers me and affects my happiness but it took me many years to start googling around for advice and eventually hiring a professional organizer. That doesn't mean that my problem is small or fake. And it doesn't mean that I wouldn't be willing to pay for a variety of solutions. It just means that I failed to be strategic.

Things on my radar

Organize an event

The author mentions this as one of those hacks that are unreasonably effective.

If you organize some sort of meetup or event or club for people in the industry you're looking to enter, people will see you as an important enough person and be willing to meet with you. Pair this with the fact that it's relatively easy to organize such events and you've got yourself a promising tactic for getting people to sit down and chat with you.

I'm not too excited about this though. If the "ask for intros" thing works, then this is kinda solving a non-problem, right? You already have a reliable way of getting warm intros.

However, the author does swear by it. I'm not too clear on why he swears so hard. What problem is it solving, exactly? And why is it so much better than the alternatives? But, I dunno, I'll keep it on my radar I guess.

Half reminders, half learnings

There were a lot of things in this book that I kinda-sorta knew already, but I probably didn't understand deeply enough. Maybe I didn't full grok them before.

Or maybe they just weren't salient enough. Maybe they weren't close enough to the forefront of my mind and thus didn't stand by my side when I needed them.

There's not as much to say here so I'll just list them out with bullet points:

  1. ^

    Unless of course your name is Larry David (source).

  2. ^

    As a medium-term thing. I can pivot in the future if necessary.

2 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Viliam · 2024-04-18T13:52:55.758Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I like the rest of the article, but...

Cold calls. It's ok if you have a terrible response rate.

It's ok for you, but you generate negative externality as a side effect (waste other people's time and attention).

Replies from: adamzerner
comment by Adam Zerner (adamzerner) · 2024-04-27T00:50:27.479Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Hm, maybe.

Sometimes it can be a win-win situation. For example, if the call leads to you identifying a problem they're having and solving it in a mutually beneficial way.

But often times that isn't the case. From their perspective, the chances are low enough where, yeah, maybe the cold call just feels spammy and annoying.

I think that cold calls can be worthwhile from behind a veil of ignorance though. That's the barometer I like to use. If I were behind a veil of ignorance, would I endorse the cold call? Some cold calls are well targeted and genuine, in which case I would endorse them from behind a veil of ignorance. Others are spammy and thoughtless, in which case I wouldn't endorse them.