There's probably a funnel (or a framework) to evaluate whether it's worth building something. > This is rehashing some stuff that is fairly obvious, and is an iteration on what my sentiment was on this topic in [2023](https://blog.shivan.dev/writing/post/simple-good-things). The intention is for me to frame my thinking around validating ideas. Let's get into it. ### "Easy" Questions - Can you articulate the ICP? - A bad ICP: "real estate agents" - Slightly better "real estate agents in South Africa with at least one post on social media about a property listing" - That's still probably not tiny enough for an MVP - Can you articulate a pain point? - Bad: Taking property photos is hard - Better: This ICP loses approximately X leads because of the comparatively lower quality of their posts when compared to agents with more resources using professional photography - This informs the ICP to be honest. Engineer "brain" defaults to the solution. But spend enough time here and you'll realise that building the right thing is not super easy or straightforward. - Is there a market of solutions that generate revenue solving this problem? - Yes if N > 1 and the business shape is similar to how you'd solve the problem. - I.E If you're building an AI staging tool, then there should exist a rev generating one. - Crowded markets aren't always a bad thing (if the products are getting decent #s of customers). But ideally your market has a clear set of incumbents doing well, alongside some clear issues that their customers experience. - In most cases, I think this will the price of admission being high for SaaS. - Looking at things like: Ahrefs, Semrush, Intercom. - Is there a unique differentiator, or X% improvement on that product in what you're building to create competitive advantage? - Can you differentiate on pricing without cutting margins too deeply? - OR Can you differentiate on features, without blurring the core value proposition? ### The Hard Thing If you're mostly "winning" on this checkbox exercise, the next question should be challenging for 95% of ideas: - What does distribution look like? - 1. How do you access the market? i.e sell to our ICP - 2. What is your hypothetical conversion? - Based on ^ that, is it worth it (for you) to invest the time into building something? - Can you start with distribution, and then build? ### Being Honest But to be honest, distribution at the bottom of the funnel is a symptom of me avoiding the hard problem (in my mind). I should upfront asking if I can access a market in a way that's profitable for _me_. Good framing questions: - Can I name 3 people who would $X (break even + margin) price point for the thing I want to build? - CAC grows uncontrollably if I value my time equitably (i.e. R1000 / hour). - What's the founder / creator advantage? What uniquely positions _me_ to solve a problem in this market? - Can I reasonably set CAC at a low enough value (if I value my time at 0)? - What does CAC:LTV look like at scale that would make me "happy"? - i.e. does it scale? For each $ that I spend, do I make enough on the back end to be happy with spending that upfront? And _then_: - In the market of existing "stuff", are they winning - or simply existing? What do the economics of those businesses look like? Is there longevity? Or are they 8-12 month plays? ### Wrapping Up So ya - it's "simple" in theory. I reckon this framework should spit out a big, clear **NO** for most things. This doesn't mean you (or I) shouldn't try if we have unusually high conviction about building something. I think it's worthwhile to explore the natural curiosity. It is cheaper to build these days. This is more to help you (or me!) not feel disappointed when "number doesn't go up". Remember; this isn't field of dreams. If you build it, you have to go and get them to use it.