I can see why we’re doing a fake-door test. Before spending weeks building something, we want to know whether anyone would pay for it. But seeing a price on a website would make me assume the product exists. If I signed up and found out otherwise, I’d probably feel a little tricked, even if nobody charged me.
I think we owe people a clear explanation before they give us their information: the product hasn’t been built, we’re testing interest, and signing up means joining a waitlist. We should also follow up if we abandon the idea. It’s easy for us to move on after getting the data we need, but the person who signed up might still be waiting.
What stuck with me from Design Justice was how much control designers can keep even when they involve users throughout the process. Asking for someone’s opinion doesn’t necessarily give them any power. If a PM were a full partner on our team, they’d have a say in which problem we tackle, what we charge, and whether our solution is worth building at all. We’d also have to be willing to change direction when their judgment conflicts with an idea we’re excited about.
For me, testing crosses a line when we treat someone’s time or trust as expendable because we want a useful result. Calling it a quick experiment doesn’t erase what we asked them to believe.
If being upfront that our product doesn’t exist makes fewer people sign up, should we accept that as better evidence, even if it makes our idea look less promising?
