Are your teams product decisions being made based on assumptions rather than validation?
Just because your team has identified a problem, doesn't mean it's the right problem to solve right now. I've seen teams drop everything, make quick decisions and ship based on a hunch. Oftentimes they don't see the impact they expected and they end up paying for this in other ways.
Why does this happen?
※ Curse of knowledge: What’s feels obvious to you may not be to others.
※ Confirmation bias: One complaint becomes “everyone wants this.”
※ Telephone effect: Insights get distorted across teams.
※ Time pressure: Shipping fast often feels easier than validating.
Here's how to change the cycle:
1. Start small: Pick a project where assumptions might be wrong but stakes are manageable.
2. Reframe assumptions as hypotheses: “What if we’re wrong?” instead of blaming.
3. Quick validation: Find ways to validate quickly eg. 5-minute user check, support tickets, analytics, team conversations.
4. Build allies: Engage stakeholders curious about real user feedback.
You don’t need a perfect validation process to design better.
One hypothesis, one user conversation and your teams confidence and impact grow.
👇 What’s one assumption you could challenge this week?
💡Guerrilla Testing: 5 tips & tricks
Guerrilla testing is an informal, low-cost, and rapid method for gathering user feedback on a product. Unlike more formal usability testing, which often takes place in controlled environments with recruited participants, guerrilla testing is typically done in public places with people who are available at the moment, such as in cafes, parks, or shopping malls.
1️⃣ Prepare
✔ Define clear objectives. Before starting, clarify what you want to learn from the testing (and why you want to do it). Focus on specific aspects of your product when defining objectives.
✔ Prepare design materials: Bring sketches, wireframes, or a prototype that can explain product ideas and be easy to interact with.
2️⃣ Choose the right location
✔ High foot traffic areas: Choose places where your target audience is likely to be.
✔ Relaxed atmosphere: Select locations where people feel comfortable and not rushed so that they are more likely willing to participate.
✔ Offer incentives: Offer small incentives like a coffee voucher or a snack to encourage participation.
✔ Be friendly & approachable: A smile and a casual approach go a long way in getting people to participate.
✔ Be ready to improvise: Guerrilla testing environments are unpredictable, so be prepared to adapt your script and approach on the fly.
3️⃣ Keep it simple & engage with participants
✔ Brief introduction: Keep your introduction short and to the point. Explain what you're doing, how long the testing will take, and what participants will get out of it.
✔ Minimal tasks: Focus on 1-3 key tasks during the 10-minute session to keep the testing brief and engaging.
4️⃣ Capture the essentials
✔ Avoid leading questions: Ask open-ended questions to get genuine feedback rather than guiding participants towards a specific response.
✔ Note-taking: Jot down key observations, but don't let it distract you from engaging with the participant.
✔ Record (with permission): If possible, record the session using a phone or a notepad app to capture nuances you might miss during the test.
5️⃣ Analyze and iterate quickly
✔ Immediate review: Go through your notes and recordings as soon as possible to capture fresh insights.
✔ Document and share key findings: Keep a record of all the insights you gathered, and ensure your team has access to this information.
📕 Guides
✔ A guide to guerrilla testing (by Nick Babich)
https://lnkd.in/dhBZbXkW
✔ A Guerrilla Usability Test on Dropbox Photos (by Francine Lee)
https://lnkd.in/dNRFUbtd
🖼 Usability testing methods by Maze#usability#ui#uidesign#ux#uxdesign#testing#design
User experience surveys are often underestimated. Too many teams reduce them to a checkbox exercise - a few questions thrown in post-launch, a quick look at average scores, and then back to development. But that approach leaves immense value on the table. A UX survey is not just a feedback form; it’s a structured method for learning what users think, feel, and need at scale- a design artifact in its own right.
Designing an effective UX survey starts with a deeper commitment to methodology. Every question must serve a specific purpose aligned with research and product objectives. This means writing questions with cognitive clarity and neutrality, minimizing effort while maximizing insight. Whether you’re measuring satisfaction, engagement, feature prioritization, or behavioral intent, the wording, order, and format of your questions matter. Even small design choices, like using semantic differential scales instead of Likert items, can significantly reduce bias and enhance the authenticity of user responses.
When we ask users, "How satisfied are you with this feature?" we might assume we're getting a clear answer. But subtle framing, mode of delivery, and even time of day can skew responses. Research shows that midweek deployment, especially on Wednesdays and Thursdays, significantly boosts both response rate and data quality. In-app micro-surveys work best for contextual feedback after specific actions, while email campaigns are better for longer, reflective questions-if properly timed and personalized.
Sampling and segmentation are not just statistical details-they’re strategy.
Voluntary surveys often over-represent highly engaged users, so proactively reaching less vocal segments is crucial. Carefully designed incentive structures (that don't distort motivation) and multi-modal distribution (like combining in-product, email, and social channels) offer more balanced and complete data. Survey analysis should also go beyond averages. Tracking distributions over time, comparing segments, and integrating open-ended insights lets you uncover both patterns and outliers that drive deeper understanding.
One-off surveys are helpful, but longitudinal tracking and transactional pulse surveys provide trend data that allows teams to act on real user sentiment changes over time. The richest insights emerge when we synthesize qualitative and quantitative data. An open comment field that surfaces friction points, layered with behavioral analytics and sentiment analysis, can highlight not just what users feel, but why.
Done well, UX surveys are not a support function - they are core to user-centered design. They can help prioritize features, flag usability breakdowns, and measure engagement in a way that's scalable and repeatable. But this only works when we elevate surveys from a technical task to a strategic discipline.
UX Research Method: Five-Second Testing
What is it?
A quick, low-cost method where participants view a design (often a landing page, interface, or visual) for just five seconds, then answer questions about what they saw, understood, or remembered. The aim is to capture first impressions before conscious analysis sets in.
Type of research:
• Qualitative
• Evaluative
When to use it:
• To assess clarity of value proposition, navigation, or branding.
• Early in the design process to test layouts and messaging before full build.
• As a complement to usability testing, focusing on first impressions rather than task flow.
• When you want to quickly compare multiple design variations.
What it’s useful for:
• Checking if key messages, calls to action, or brand identity come across instantly.
• Spotting distractions, visual clutter, or ambiguous copy.
• Gathering gut-level reactions from potential users.
• Comparing the impact of different headlines, imagery, or layouts.
What it’s not useful for:
• Understanding long-term usability or in-depth interaction.
• Exploring complex tasks or workflows.
• Capturing nuanced emotional responses that emerge over time.
Tips for success:
• Keep the test scenario realistic — show what users would actually encounter.
• Limit the exposure to 5–7 seconds for consistency.
• Ask focused follow-up questions (e.g., “What product or service do you think this offers?”).
• Run with a diverse participant set to catch varied interpretations.
First impressions matter — and with five-second testing, you can see exactly what’s sticking (or not) before your design ever goes live.
What’s the first thing people notice about your product?
I have been meeting a lot of new founders every day. So I figured I would share my 2 cents in short content for a couple of days.
Here goes the first one.
How to Validate Your Startup Idea — Without Building an MVP
Most founders make one mistake that costs them months of effort and thousands of dollars:
They built first.
And validate later.
That’s exactly why so many early-stage startups burn money, time, and confidence before understanding whether anyone even wants their product.
After working with /talking to 400+ founders across Bangladesh, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, here’s the exact validation framework I learned —a method that has helped teams test ideas for less than $50.
🔹 Step 1: Talk to 20 Real Users
Not your friends.
Not your investors.
Not people who will “support you no matter what.”
Talk to people who feel the pain TODAY.
Real conversations reveal real problems — not assumptions.
🔹 Step 2: Ask Only 3 High-Impact Questions
These are the only questions you need to find product–market fit signals early:
What are you doing to solve this problem right now?
What frustrates you the most in that process?
What would a perfect solution look like to you?
These three questions alone have shaped solutions for 400+ startups we’ve worked with in the past decade.
🔹 Step 3: Build a “Mock Solution” — Not an MVP
Founders often think validation requires a full product. It doesn’t.
Your mock solution can be as simple as:
A one-page Google Doc
A Figma screen
A WhatsApp flow
A clickable prototype
If users don’t understand your mock solution, they won’t understand your MVP either.
🔹 Step 4: Pre-Sell the Idea
This is where real validation happens.
👉 If nobody is willing to commit in advance → the idea is weak.
👉 If 5–10 people say “Yes, I want this” → you have a winner.
Pre-selling is the clearest signal of demand because people don’t lie with their wallets.
This is exactly how we validated multiple products across Asia without writing a single line of code — or spending more than $50.
Build later.
Validate first.
Your future self (and your bank account) will thank you.
Do you validate before building — or build before validating?
Too many product teams believe meaningful user research has to involve long interviews, Zoom calls, and endless scheduling and note-taking. But honestly? You can get most of what you need without all that hassle. 🙅♂️
I’ve conducted hundreds of live user research conversations in early-stage startups to inform product decisions, and over the years my thinking has evolved on the role of synchronous time. While there’s a place for real-time convos, I’ve found async tools like Loom often uncover sharper insights—faster—when used intentionally. 🚀
Let’s break down the ROI of shifting to async.
If you want to interview 5 people for 30 minutes each, that’s 150 minutes of calls—but because two people are on the call (you and the participant), you’re really spending 300 minutes of combined time. Now, let’s say you record a 3-minute Loom with a few focused questions, send it to those same 5 people, and they each take 5 minutes to write their feedback. That’s 8 minutes per person and just 5 minutes once for you. 45 total minutes versus 300. That’s an order-of-magnitude reduction in time to get hyper-focused feedback. 🕒🔍
Just record a quick Loom, pair it with 1-3 specific questions designed to mitigate key risks, and send it to the right people. This async, scrappy approach gathers real feedback throughout the entire product lifecycle (problem validation, solution exploration, or post-launch feedback) without wasting your users' time or yours.
Quick example: Imagine your team is torn between an opinionated implementation of a feature vs. a flexible/customizable one. If you walk through both in a quick Loom and ask five target users which they prefer and why, you’ll get a solid read on your overall user base’s mental model. No need for endless scheduling or drawn-out Zoom calls—just actionable feedback in minutes. 🎯
As an added benefit: this approach also allows you to go back to users for more frequent feedback because you're asking for less of their team with each interaction. 🍪
Note that if you haven’t yet established rapport with the users you’re sending the Looms to, it’s a good idea to introduce yourself at the start in a friendly, personal way. Plus, always make sure to express genuine appreciation and gratitude in the video—it goes a long way in building a connection and getting thoughtful responses. 🙏
Now, don’t get me wrong—there’s still a place for synchronous research, especially in early discovery calls when it’s unclear exactly which problem or solution to focus on. Those calls are critical for diving deeper. But once you have a clear hypothesis and need targeted feedback, async tools can drastically reduce the time burden while keeping the signal strong. 💡
Whether it’s problem validation, solution validation, or post-launch feedback, async research tools can get you actionable insights at every stage for a fraction of the time investment.
Expensive usability testing is a waste of money.
There. I said it.
"We don't have the budget."
"We don't have the time."
"We'll test in the next sprint."
I know,
But here's what nobody tells you.
The cheapest usability test costs nothing.
The fastest one takes 15 minutes.
I'm not talking about fancy research labs.
I'm not talking about paid user panels.
I'm not talking about six-week studies.
I'm talking about showing your screen to a real person
And getting the quickest and cheapest usability test done.
Here are the only 4 methods you need:
— Hallway testing. Zero cost. Today.
— 5-second test. Free tools. 24 hours.
— Think-aloud session. One user. Thirty minutes.
— Guerrilla survey. Three questions. Real answers.
Start today.
Not next sprint, but today.
Because you're not too busy to test.
You're too busy not to.
PS: Made this for UX designers doing real work without big resources. If it helps, share it. Someone on your feed needs to see this today.
Most people think testing demand is expensive.
It isn’t.
Building the wrong product is what’s expensive.
Before I invest in anything new, whether it’s software, consumer goods, or hardware, I look for something simple: evidence that demand exists outside my imagination.
That’s where lean validation comes in.
Not as a tactic.
As a discipline.
It’s the philosophy of learning quickly, cheaply, and honestly, long before you commit real capital.
Lean validation isn’t about fancy experiments.
It’s about answering one question with ruthless clarity: Will anyone care enough to take action?
If the answer is no, you’ve just saved yourself years of work and a painful loss.
If the answer is yes, you now have something worth building.
Here’s how I approach lean validation, beyond the buzzwords:
1. Validate behavior, not opinions.
Asking people what they want is useless.
People describe familiar solutions, not real needs.
Instead, observe how they act: what they click, what they ignore, what they pay for, and what they return to.
Behavior tells the truth that opinions hide.
2. Look for active interest, not passive praise.
Compliments are free.
Commitment is expensive.
I care about actions: sign-ups, preorders, saved items, waitlists, replies.
A “yes” that costs people nothing is meaningless.
3. Test the story before you test the product.
If the narrative doesn’t resonate, the product won’t either.
Lean validation is the art of presenting the idea in its simplest, rawest form and watching whether the market leans in or walks away.
4. Treat every metric as a hypothesis, not a victory.
When conversion rates rise, it’s not proof, it’s direction.
When they fall, it’s not failure, it’s signal.
The goal isn’t perfection.
It’s clarity.
5. Make it cheap to learn and expensive to ignore.
The purpose of lean validation is not to guarantee success.
It’s to prevent delusion.
A few hundred euros spent early can save hundreds of thousands later.
Lean validation isn’t about being cautious.
It’s about being smart.
You’re not testing the product, you’re testing the market’s willingness to embrace it.
Because the biggest mistake isn’t building slowly.
It’s building blindly.
And the fastest way to de-risk an idea is simple: learn first, invest later.
"We'll never make more revenue just because we're improving how we collect client feedback."
Some companies are drowning in feedback, others barely receive any—or worse, they don't realize they're already receiving valuable signals. But for most, the result is the same: feedback isn't driving growth.
Scenario 1: If you're not getting enough of it—or don't realize you're already receiving some—the problem isn't the lack of feedback. It's tools, culture, and process. User Feedback is everywhere, and it matters, but it’s scattered, unrecognized and unreadable,
Here are 3 ways to uncover it and make it count:
1. Meet client feedback where it is—and centralize it.
▶️ Your feedback system should work like a CRM, syncing input from everywhere: Product feedback emails, Feature requests from support tickets, CSM notes from calls and meetings, Public comments or reviews.
▶️ Centralize this information into a single system where you can track, prioritize, and act. (Google Sheet, Notion, ProdCamp).
2. Engage users intentionally.
▶️ Skip one-off surveys and focus on tools users ALREADY engage with on their schedule.
▶️ Share a public roadmap, backlog, or feedback widget that shows users you value their input and lets them share ideas when it’s convenient for them.
▶️ Make feedback a part of your culture. Let users and Teams know it’s central to how you make decisions.
3. Look beyond direct feedback.
▶️ Recruit your customer-facing teams they are your best proxies for user needs: Build a feedback culture, and reroute relevant customer requests and tickets as feedback pieces.
▶️ Sometimes users don’t tell you what they need—they show you: Analyze specific behaviors at different stages of your product funnel.
Scenario 2: You've got feedback pouring in from every direction—surveys, support tickets, NPS scores. It could be a good problem to have but instead of clarity, it's chaos. Without structure, feedback becomes noise. Everyone thinks nobody cares or listens.
What's missing? A revenue-centric feedback loop. A system to prioritize feedback that aligns with business outcomes and act on it. Here's how:
🧭 Identify high-value signals. Not all feedback is equal so you need to tie it with data. Focus on input from your ICPs, wedge the chunk of revenue impacted.
🧭 Close the loop. Notify users when their feedback drives a choice. It builds trust and improves revenue metrics.
🧭 Turn feedback into action. Use it to signal product opportunities to derisk decisions and even re-engage lost prospects.
The best part? It gets really easy with ProdCamp 😇
____________________
Hey👋🏻 I'm Matei, CRO of ProdCamp (The revenue-centric user feedback platform) and I provide consulting services as a Revenue Operating Partner for B2B SaaS.
#B2BSaaS