B2C makers, what have you done to validate your idea to ensure there is a need for it in the market?

For me it depends, for example, if you are making something already out there but you just need to improve it, then you know there is a market, but maybe you just need to improve it a bit. Now these improvements, may require that you have alot of knowledge in the industry and some discussions with potential users (or atleast friends) or the opposite (some knowledge and alot of discussions). If you are creating something new, that makes it a bit more difficult, since in the first example you can just tell people I am creating a comparable of X, so you can actually show them that website / app while talking. Here, you need to talk to more users to just imagine the product and features you will first launch with. Let me know what you are building (or thinking of at this stage). Last thing, just thought about it now, there are websites for idea validation, I don't recommend that if that is the only thing you are going to do.

The more validation you do upfront the better your product will be and the less money/time you will waste. The challenge is that you will always need to take some leap from point A to point B with your prospective users/clients and hope that they actually follow you on that journey. For MoneyMinx.com, we validated the concept, talked to potential users, did surveys, compared to what is already available and then eventually decided to start building.

The most important thing is validating you’re solving a problem people are ready to pay for (unless your BM is advertising or in app purchases). So I would focus on interviewing people about their problems, and coming back a few weeks later to show them wireframes or, even better, a prototype, and ask if this solves their problem and how much they would pay for it.

Validation of innovative products is a tricky thing. The more disruptive your innovation is the more validation has to become a constant loop of tiny improvements, due to the following issues: A) As the product is not available at the start, so you are never validating the product itself, but only its representation. If you are a genius graphic designer, people validate the genius design, not the product. If you are a genius narrator, people are validating the narration, not the product. There’s no real validation without the product. B) If you want to bring in a disruptive innovation, people have no mind model available to assess it, they don’t understand it, as they have no experience with it - their imagination is limited. The more innovative your future product is, the more the negative validation becomes dangerous as you get discouraged, although you are on a good path already. So don't take it too serious. A real pre-validation is impossible. You have to go through a process of iterations - a resonance circle between your development and the community you present it. With each iteration the community grows. First you talk to friends, this phase can take in some cases years. Then you show prototypes and mockups. Then you build technology. Each step is accompanied by feedback loops. As an inventor you go through all this, constantly pivoting and iterating the concept, the target, the benefits, the methods, the processes, the values behind - but you keep on track. Feedback is important as far it does not discourage you, sometimes it redefines the personas of your target group, sometimes it tells you insufficiencies of your product or your presentation. Validation is not a distinct event, it’s a constant loop of improvement. At the heart of success is your stamina.