b3126044e8
- Simplify flatten_vault API to return usize instead of MigrationResult struct - Add KEEP_FOLDERS: attachments/ and _themes/ alongside type/, config/, theme/ - Use HashSet for collision tracking in unique_filename - Update wikilinks from path-based [[folder/slug]] to title-based [[slug]] - Clean up empty directories after flattening - Flatten demo-vault-v2: move all notes from type-based subfolders to root - Update smoke tests for flat vault structure - Remove migrate_to_flat_vault from repair_vault (one-time migration only) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
4.3 KiB
aliases, Is A, Author, Topics, URL
| aliases | Is A | Author | Topics | URL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Note | Rob Fitzpatrick |
|
https://example.com/mom-test |
The Mom Test
Rob Fitzpatrick
The Mom Test is the most practical book on customer research I have read. The title comes from a simple observation: if you ask your mom "Do you think my business idea is good?" she will say yes, because she loves you and wants to be supportive. The same is true of almost everyone you ask about your idea -- people are polite, and they will tell you what you want to hear. Fitzpatrick's solution is to never ask about your idea at all. Instead, ask about their life, their problems, their behavior, and their past actions. These are facts that are hard to lie about, and they give you the real information you need to validate (or invalidate) your assumptions.
The three rules of the Mom Test are: talk about their life instead of your idea, ask about specifics in the past instead of generics or opinions about the future, and talk less and listen more. These rules sound simple but require significant discipline to follow. The natural instinct when you are excited about an idea is to pitch it and seek validation. Fitzpatrick argues this is worse than useless -- it gives you false confidence and wastes time. The counterintuitive move is to approach conversations with genuine curiosity about the other person's reality, not with an agenda to prove your idea is good.
For anyone running a content business, these principles apply directly to understanding your audience. When a reader says "I love your newsletter," that is a compliment, not data. When they say "I forwarded last week's edition to three colleagues because the framework for evaluating SaaS metrics saved us two hours in our board prep," that is data. The specificity and the past behavior are what matter. Fitzpatrick's framework has changed how I think about reader feedback, audience surveys, and sponsorship conversations -- I now optimize for learning about real behavior rather than collecting opinions.
Key takeaways
- Never ask people if your idea is good -- they will lie to be polite, and you will get false validation
- Talk about their life, not your idea: ask about real problems, real behaviors, and real spending patterns
- Ask about the past, not the future: "What did you do last time this happened?" is far more reliable than "Would you use this?"
- Compliments are not data: "That sounds great!" tells you nothing about whether someone will actually pay for or use your product
- The most important signal is commitment: will someone give you time, money, or reputation to get your product?
- Keep conversations short and specific -- a 15-minute focused conversation yields more insight than an hour of unfocused chat
- Bad customer conversations are not just unhelpful; they are actively harmful because they create false confidence
How I apply this
- When I survey readers about potential new content formats or products, I follow the Mom Test rules. Instead of asking "Would you pay for a premium tier?" I ask "Tell me about the last time you paid for a newsletter subscription. What made you decide to do it? What problem was it solving?" The answers reveal genuine willingness-to-pay patterns rather than hypothetical enthusiasm.
- In sponsor conversations, I apply the same principle. Instead of asking "Does this sound like a good fit for your brand?" I ask "Walk me through how you evaluated the last three sponsorships you purchased. What worked? What did not? What metrics did your team use?" This gives me real information about their decision-making process rather than polite interest.
- I use commitment as my signal for reader interest rather than verbal enthusiasm. When readers ask to be notified about a product launch, that is moderate signal. When they prepay or share the waitlist link with their network, that is strong signal. This distinction has prevented me from overinvesting in products that generated excitement but not actual demand.