Why Minimum Value Proposition might be a better way to think about MVP.

While the MVP approach has long been celebrated as a low-risk, rapid approach, to the less experienced, this can simply boil down to a set of discrete features to validate and forecast the success of an entire business. But how do we know what the right mix of features might even be? What if an MVP fails to prove market validation because of human error in simply choosing the wrong set of features, or perhaps configuring them in the wrong way? What is the lens we use to ensure an MVP consists of the right set of features, and that it has a real chance at success?

Maybe the Minimum Viable Product approach on its own is not enough. Considering how enduring brands are created, perhaps we also need to consider the Minimum Value Proposition simultaneously.

Minimum Value Proposition (MVP) embodies a fundamental shift in perspective, emphasizing the essence of a product or service — the value it provides to customers — over merely creating a minimally functional prototype. While a traditional MVP approach starts with user research, this strategic pivot prioritizes understanding and delivering value to users, reducing the risks associated with market acceptance, scalability, and long-term viability of a new product or service.

It’s the act of putting our feature list through a more focused lens that looks deeper at the value created by solving real customer needs.

Reimagining success – from MVP to MVP.

The conventional wisdom surrounding Minimum Viable Product revolves around the concept of quickly developing a basic version of a product or service, releasing it to the market, and leveraging user feedback to iteratively improve the offering. While this approach means rapid iteration, it can easily fall short in addressing the critical question: does the product or service fulfill an essential need or solve a significant problem for the customer?

In contrast, the Minimum Value Proposition shifts the focus toward comprehending and refining the inherent value of a product or service before delving into development. By closely aligning with the needs and pain points of the target audience, this strategy effectively mitigates the risk of investing time and resources into creating a product that may solve some problems but fails to deeply resonate with the market.

In essence, it’s the work before the typical work in developing a proof of concept. It ensures we’ve defined what value looks like, and can build a model that gets us to prove that value can be rightfully achieved.

Mitigating risk and aligning objectives.

In the pursuit of defining the Minimum Value Proposition, we align our product vision with a clear understanding of the features (or set of features) that will most closely contribute to creating the highest degree of business value. This approach ensures that the product or service caters to a validated demand, increasing the likelihood of market acceptance and adoption.

Moreover, anchoring business objectives around a solid Minimum Value Proposition fosters clarity in product road-mapping, development, and even fundraising. It serves as a guiding light, directing efforts toward a product strategy that directly contributes to the core value delivered to end customers. Consequently, we reduce the risk of feature creep and irrelevant work that might dilute the product’s initial focus.

The role of brand strategy and design in proving the value proposition.

In digital product and service innovation, brand strategy and design are critical factors to in establishing and communicating value to customers. Brand narrative helps clarify purpose – why we exist, our mission, our vision, and how we’re different. And design aligns a product's functionality with this message, reinforcing value and utility. Beyond aesthetics, it's about ensuring that a product's design amplifies and accentuates its core value to the customers while offering a usable solution to their business needs.

In the quest to constrain the effort in creating a Minimum Viable Product, you might run the risk of conducting user testing against a poorly designed product or service, and so the traditional MVP approach by its very nature can lead to negative results. This approach alone can often increase risk by over-indexing on simplicity and under-indexing on what matters most to end users.

An intuitive and user-centric design that takes into account brand fundamentals can better bridge the gap between the product's promise and the experience, enhancing user satisfaction and trust. This, in turn, strengthens the product's market positioning, increasing its chances of success in the testing and validation phase.

A comparative tale of MVP vs. MVP successes.

Team A chose to follow the traditional Minimum Viable Product approach. Their venture was based on knowledge of an existing customer need (maybe their own). The team rapidly developed a prototype version of their product, focusing primarily on a scaled-back feature set to minimize risk and effort. While they utilized customer research, they focused on features and failed to fully identify the true value their product could uniquely deliver. They thought, “We can figure that out later.” However a lack of clear understanding of how the problem they were solving directly related to value created for customers meant they failed to gain the desired results from their testing efforts. Yes, the product was novel, but it just wasn’t the right solution to attract real customer demand.

Meanwhile, Team B adopted the Minimum Value Proposition approach, investing a significant portion of their time in developing a comprehensive understanding of their target audience's pain points, and the white space that would give them latitude to create something truly innovative. They collected customer insights from participants at all levels of the organization. They explored how customers typically explore, evaluate, and buy these services. And they made a clear business and value case for their venture based on a deeper understanding of their target customer. From this, they crafted a clear and differentiated value proposition that directly addressed needs and developed a brand strategy and design approach to communicate the value of the business. They also narrowed in on a core feature set, driven by an articulated value proposition. Consequently, their product was in a far better state for user testing and validation.

A cautionary tale in taking the wrong MVP approach.

Earlier this year as Artificial Intelligence began to gain traction, a company called Humane began to promote a product called the AI Pin. The AI pin was interesting because it was a new, wearable form factor, offering AI-powered features through a projected display.

The Humane company itself seemed interesting having been founded by ex-Apple employees, Imran Chaudhri, hardware and software design lead for Mac, iPod, Apple TV, iPhone, iPad, and the Apple Watch, and Bethany Bongiorno, software lead for both iOS and macOS.

The AI Pin was to be released as a true MVP – a basic version of a product with potential for greater features and functionality to be released in the future.

To launch the AI Pin, Humane created a pre-order launch video that very much fell flat. Shortly after this, the AI would be reviewed by high-profile YouTuber Marques Brownlee, who gave a particularly harsh review calling it "The Worst Product I've Ever Reviewed", all of which may have single-handedly killed the Ai Pin altogether.

As covered in Mr. Brownlee’s review, not only were basic features missing, the interaction itself, and the form factor all seemed flawed. And worse, the price point was way off – an initial $700 purchase price, plus a recurring $24 monthly subscription.

While Humane launched the AI pin in a true MVP form, its lack of features, along with the price tag, meant Humane completely missed the mark on creating a clear value proposition. There simply wasn’t enough in the AI Pin to justify the price tag or the hype.

So now, after raising $230 million from investors, and creating a buzz worthy product, this lack of focus on value has led to Humane going up for sale. The Humane team overshot and missed the mark. They used an MVP approach to create a product that simply didn’t resonate. They simply failed to focus on a compelling Minimum Value Proposition.

Embracing the MVP mindset for long-term success.

The traditional Minimum Viable Product approach may have done us well over the last decade to bring many now-scaled products to market. No question that narrowing in on a core feature set will always be a smarter approach than simply building out a fulsome product from the start, presuming you’ve picked the right feature set. And likely in time, we’ll see new iterations of the traditional MVP approach leveraging AI to bring more efficiencies into the process.

But the last decade has also led to many failed startups and markets crowded with products competing for the same customers spending the same dollars. A Minimum Value Proposition approach helps founders think far beyond features at the outset, to form a clearer understanding of how their product will meet customer needs from a measurable value case perspective, and in ways no other competing product has tried. It’s an extra precaution in service of making sure a great idea is worth pursuing.

If your team is exploring how best to bring a new product or service to market, reach out to us to see how we can help you define the right core features, supported by a clear Minimum Value Proposition.