Market-fit is so wildly under-leveraged and misunderstood. If I could have a nickle for every founder I worked with who was confident they had pmf, when they in fact did not have pmf, I'd have a lot of nickles.
I like to phrase it for founders, that it should have been called Market Product Fit.
Stop trying to find or establish the market for the thing you already built. Market first: know it, live it, breathe it, and develop the Product that fits it.
Brilliant post, Sean. This line is a multi-million dollar lesson in itself:
"We had PMF with free, motivated users, but not with the paying market."
This is the ghost in the machine of so many funded startups. They mistake engagement for evidence. They use free usage as a proxy for value, but the only true measure of value is a transaction.
It's why I believe the "Willingness to Pay" test must come before any serious investment in scaling. It's the only way to know if you've built a business or just a popular hobby.
Exceptional Sean. And continues to be frustrating that so-called marketers and agencies pitch and sell founders on growth that they have no idea how to deliver. While at the same time, the fundamentals are so straight forward that every founder should be on top of it, and no Advisor or Investor should have a say in a startup, if they too can't handle the basics that give an entrepreneur some traction.
Yep. It’s not the complicated but it requires a lot of hard, disciplined work. And agencies/advisors will struggle to have much influence on the levers that matter the most.
One more thought. You perfectly described the moment of realizing you had PMF with an engaged, free user base, but not with the actual paying market.
It raises a question for all founders in 2025:
Is the classic 40% "very disappointed" benchmark still a sufficient signal for PMF on its own? Or has the market shifted so much that it now must be paired with a hard "Willingness to Pay" test to be considered a true, fundable signal?
Essentially, did your own experience teach you that the original test needs an amendment for today's capital-efficient world?
Hey Adam, good question. I don’t think there is necessarily a change in 2025. I think it’s always been the case that if you have a freemium business you need PMF for both the free version and the paid version. In our case we initially only had a free version. But business viability requires monetization. You don’t really have business validation until you can make the unit economics work. Additionally my PMF question only gives you part of the picture. Retention is an even better indicator of PMF. The question helps you understand why you have PMF and can often give you a signal before retention cohorts mature.
In your experience, what is the single, non-negotiable KPI that is most effective at forcing alignment between Product, Marketing, and Engineering? A single number that, if the CEO makes it everyone's #1 priority, makes silos impossible.
Thanks Adam. The best metric for overcoming silo challenges is establishing a clear North Star Metric. The metric will be different for most businesses but it should reflect units of value delivered across your user base.
The NSM is the only way to get everyone rowing in the same direction.
The most common failure pattern I observe is teams selecting a "vanity" North Star - a metric that appears to indicate progress but lacks a proven, causal link to long-term revenue (e.g., "reports generated" vs. "users retained after week 4").
Market-fit is so wildly under-leveraged and misunderstood. If I could have a nickle for every founder I worked with who was confident they had pmf, when they in fact did not have pmf, I'd have a lot of nickles.
PMF is definitely the most powerful force in growth!
I like to phrase it for founders, that it should have been called Market Product Fit.
Stop trying to find or establish the market for the thing you already built. Market first: know it, live it, breathe it, and develop the Product that fits it.
Definitely. Start with the undermet need or problem!
Brilliant post, Sean. This line is a multi-million dollar lesson in itself:
"We had PMF with free, motivated users, but not with the paying market."
This is the ghost in the machine of so many funded startups. They mistake engagement for evidence. They use free usage as a proxy for value, but the only true measure of value is a transaction.
It's why I believe the "Willingness to Pay" test must come before any serious investment in scaling. It's the only way to know if you've built a business or just a popular hobby.
Exceptional Sean. And continues to be frustrating that so-called marketers and agencies pitch and sell founders on growth that they have no idea how to deliver. While at the same time, the fundamentals are so straight forward that every founder should be on top of it, and no Advisor or Investor should have a say in a startup, if they too can't handle the basics that give an entrepreneur some traction.
Yep. It’s not the complicated but it requires a lot of hard, disciplined work. And agencies/advisors will struggle to have much influence on the levers that matter the most.
One more thought. You perfectly described the moment of realizing you had PMF with an engaged, free user base, but not with the actual paying market.
It raises a question for all founders in 2025:
Is the classic 40% "very disappointed" benchmark still a sufficient signal for PMF on its own? Or has the market shifted so much that it now must be paired with a hard "Willingness to Pay" test to be considered a true, fundable signal?
Essentially, did your own experience teach you that the original test needs an amendment for today's capital-efficient world?
Hey Adam, good question. I don’t think there is necessarily a change in 2025. I think it’s always been the case that if you have a freemium business you need PMF for both the free version and the paid version. In our case we initially only had a free version. But business viability requires monetization. You don’t really have business validation until you can make the unit economics work. Additionally my PMF question only gives you part of the picture. Retention is an even better indicator of PMF. The question helps you understand why you have PMF and can often give you a signal before retention cohorts mature.
I also have a question Sean:
In your experience, what is the single, non-negotiable KPI that is most effective at forcing alignment between Product, Marketing, and Engineering? A single number that, if the CEO makes it everyone's #1 priority, makes silos impossible.
Thanks Adam. The best metric for overcoming silo challenges is establishing a clear North Star Metric. The metric will be different for most businesses but it should reflect units of value delivered across your user base.
Thanks Sean, that's the perfect framework.
The NSM is the only way to get everyone rowing in the same direction.
The most common failure pattern I observe is teams selecting a "vanity" North Star - a metric that appears to indicate progress but lacks a proven, causal link to long-term revenue (e.g., "reports generated" vs. "users retained after week 4").