Mom Test

作者 wondelaic172996495beMIT2.3K 個星標收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日儲存庫4 週前更新

Talk to customers without leading them using Mom Test rules: discuss their life not your idea, ask about specifics in the past, and talk less. Use when the user mentions "customer interviews", "validate my idea", "users say they want it but dont buy", "leading questions", "The Mom Test", "customer feedback bias", or "interview script". Also trigger when preparing user-research questions, interpreting ambiguous feedback, or designing customer-discovery that avoids false positives. Covers commitment and advancement, avoiding compliments, and extracting signal from noise. For product-market fit, see jobs-to-be-done. For rapid prototype testing, see design-sprint.

AI 產生的概覽

依 Mom Test 規則指導客戶訪談,避免誘導性提問與虛假驗證。

功能
提供一套框架,用來規劃、執行並評分客戶對話,讓對話聚焦在客戶自身的生活與過往行為,而不是你的想法。它提供提問模式、應對讚美與空話的方法、取得承諾與推進關係的策略、尋找訪談對象的建議,以及把筆記轉化為認知的整理流程。另含一份七項診斷表,以七分制為一次對話或訪談計畫評分。
適用情境
適用於準備客戶訪談、驗證產品想法、撰寫訪談腳本,或解讀含糊或過於正面的回饋。當使用者說想要某產品卻不購買,或需要設計能避免假陽性的客戶探索流程時也適用。
執行需求
不需要腳本或工具,僅提供說明與參考文件。代理會讀取隨附的參考檔案以取得更詳細內容。

The Mom Test Framework

Framework for customer conversations that won't lead you astray, based on a fundamental truth: everyone is lying to you -- not maliciously, but because you're asking the wrong questions. The Mom Test provides rules for asking questions so good that even your mom can't lie to you.

Core Principle

Good customer conversations are about their life, not your idea. The moment you mention what you're building, people switch from sharing truth to performing politeness. Talk about their problems, their lives, and their existing behavior instead of pitching, and ask about specifics in the past, not hypotheticals about the future. Above all, talk less and listen more.

Scoring

Goal: 7/7. Score a conversation (or interview plan) by the seven-row Quick Diagnostic below: 1 point per row that passes.

  • 6-7 = focused on their life and past behavior, concrete facts captured, a real commitment (time/reputation/money) secured, they talked 80%+, and beliefs got updated.
  • 4-5 = some past-behavior facts but leaking into hypotheticals, compliments accepted as signal, or ending without an ask.
  • <=3 = a pitch in disguise: leading questions, opinions and fluff, a polite zombie lead, no learning.

Always state the current score out of 7, name the failing diagnostic rows, and give the specific fix for each.

Framework Sections

1. The Mom Test Rules

Core concept: Three rules that make it impossible for even your most supportive loved ones to give you false validation, shifting conversations from opinion-gathering to fact-finding.

Why it works: People are unreliable predictors of their own future behavior, so opinions are worthless. Past behavior is the only reliable data and can genuinely inform product decisions.

Key insights:

  • Rule 1: Talk about their life, not your idea -- never mention your solution until the end, if at all
  • Rule 2: Ask about specifics in the past, not generics or hypotheticals about the future
  • Rule 3: Talk less, listen more -- aim for them to speak 80% of the time
  • A question fails the Mom Test if the answer is always "yes" regardless of whether the business will succeed
  • Good questions could potentially destroy your currently imagined business

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Idea validationAsk about the problem, never the solution"Tell me about the last time you tried to [problem area]" not "Would you use an app that does X?"
Feature prioritizationDiscover what people do vs. what they say"Walk me through how you handled this last week"
Pricing researchAnchor to existing spending behavior"What are you currently paying to solve this?" not "Would you pay $X?"

Copy patterns:

  • "Tell me about the last time you..."
  • "What else have you tried?"
  • "Why does that bother you?"

See: references/question-patterns.md [blocked] when drafting an interview script -- a 5-tier question hierarchy, domain-specific question banks (SaaS/consumer/marketplace), and four formulation exercises.

2. Good vs Bad Questions

Core concept: Most interview questions are broken because they ask people to predict the future, evaluate hypothetical products, or confirm your assumptions. Good questions anchor in observable past behavior and extract concrete facts.

Why it works: Asking "would you buy this?" is like asking "will you go to the gym next week?" -- the answer is always yes, the follow-through rarely there. Behavior that already happened can't be rationalized away.

Key insights:

  • Bad: "Do you think it's a good idea?" -- always gets a yes
  • Bad: "Would you buy a product that does X?" / "How much would you pay?" -- hypothetical, anchored to please you
  • Good: "How are you dealing with this problem today?" -- reveals actual behavior
  • Good: "What have you tried before and why did you stop?" -- reveals past decisions
  • Good: "Where does the money come from for solutions like this?" -- reveals real budgets
  • The scariest questions -- ones with the power to change what you're building -- produce the most useful data

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Problem validationConfirm the problem exists and matters"When did this last come up? What did you do? What didn't work?"
Market sizingCheck if enough people share the problem"Who else in your industry deals with this? How do they handle it?"
Competitive analysisFind real alternatives already in use"What tools/processes do you currently use for this?"

Copy patterns:

  • "What's the hardest part about [doing this thing]?"
  • "How often does this come up?"
  • "Walk me through what happened the last time this came up"

3. Avoiding Compliments and Opinions

Core concept: Three types of bad data feel like progress but actively mislead: compliments ("That's a great idea!"), fluff (hypotheticals, maybes, future promises), and ideas (feature requests disconnected from real problems). Deflecting these and digging for truth is the core skill.

Why it works: Compliments are the fool's gold of customer development -- they feel amazing but contain zero information about whether anyone will pay or use the product. Only specifics about real past behavior and genuine commitments provide signal.

Key insights:

  • Compliments: deflect immediately and return to concrete facts about how they handle the problem today
  • Fluff: generic claims ("I usually," "I always," "I would never") are worthless without a specific instance
  • Ideas: dig into the motivation behind every feature request -- what's driving it, when they last needed it
  • Fishing for compliments ("Don't you think this would be useful?") is unconscious validation-seeking
  • Symptom of a bad conversation: you walk away feeling great but with no concrete facts or commitments

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Post-demo feedbackDeflect "this looks awesome""Thanks! What part of your current workflow would this replace?"
Feature requestsDig for the underlying job"Why do you want that? Can you show me the last time you needed it?"
Investor conversationsSeparate encouragement from interestAsk for customer intros, not "great idea" feedback

Copy patterns:

  • "Thanks, but to make sure I'm not wasting your time -- what does your current process look like?"
  • "When you say you'd 'definitely' use this, what would you stop using?"
  • "That's a great feature idea -- what problem would it solve for you specifically?"

See: references/avoiding-bad-data.md [blocked] when a conversation feels good but yields no facts -- how to spot and deflect the three bad-data types (compliments, fluff, ideas) in real time.

4. Commitment and Advancement

Core concept: The currency of a customer conversation is commitment, not compliments. End every conversation with a clear advance toward adoption or a clear rejection -- the worst outcome is a "zombie lead" who is polite but never commits.

Why it works: Saying "I'd definitely buy that" costs nothing; offering an intro, a deposit, or a pilot invests something real. Commitment closes the dangerous gap between what people say and what they do.

Key insights:

  • Commitment currencies: time (meeting, trial), reputation (intro, testimonial), money (deposit, pre-order, letter of intent)
  • Advancing moves the relationship toward a sale; spinning wheels produces pleasant, useless meetings
  • Know your "ask" before the meeting -- the minimum commitment that proves this is real
  • A "no" is more valuable than a "maybe" -- you can learn from it and move on
  • If they won't give you their time, they definitely won't give you their money

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Early validationRequest a commitment that tests interest"Can I follow up with a prototype next week for 15 minutes of your time?"
B2B salesAdvance toward the decision-maker"Could you introduce me to the person who handles the budget for this?"
Pre-launchCollect pre-orders or letters of intent"Launching in 8 weeks -- want to join the first cohort at 40% off?"

Copy patterns:

  • "Who else should I talk to about this?"
  • "Would you be willing to try a prototype next week?"
  • "If I built this, would you be willing to pilot it for 30 days?"

See: references/commitment-advancement.md [blocked] when a conversation ends without a commitment -- the currency ladder (time/reputation/money) and scripts for advancing instead of spinning wheels.

5. Finding Conversations

Core concept: The best customer conversations happen casually -- warm intros, industry events, online communities, coffee. Formal "customer interview" framing triggers performance mode; casual framing produces honest data.

Why it works: "Can I interview you about your problems?" makes people polished and guarded; "I'm trying to learn about the industry -- can I buy you coffee?" makes them open up. The framing determines the quality of the data.

Key insights:

  • Cold outreach: keep it short, lead with their expertise, don't pitch
  • Warm intros are the best source -- one well-connected advisor can open dozens of doors
  • Go where customers already gather: industry events, meetups, online communities (participate genuinely first)
  • "I'm trying to learn" beats "I'm doing customer research"
  • Use the five-part structure for getting meetings: vision / framing / weakness / pedestal / ask

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Pre-idea explorationImmerse in the target community3 industry events and 20 casual conversations before writing code
B2B prospectingWarm intros through advisors"Our advisor [Name] suggested I ask how you handle [problem area]"
Consumer researchIntercept at the point of behaviorTalk to people in line at the store, the gym, the coworking space

Copy patterns:

  • "I'm researching how [industry] handles [problem] -- could I learn from your experience over a 15-minute coffee?"
  • "[Mutual contact] suggested I talk to you because you know a lot about [area]"
  • "I'm not trying to sell anything -- I'm just trying to understand the space"

Ethical boundary: Never disguise a sales call as a learning conversation -- if you already have a product and are selling, be transparent.

See: references/finding-conversations.md [blocked] when you need to source interviews -- cold vs warm outreach templates, the five-part meeting ask (vision/framing/weakness/pedestal/ask), and how to keep it casual.

6. Processing and Learning

Core concept: Conversations are only useful if processed: distill raw notes into beliefs, update them regularly, and share with your team. Without a system you'll cherry-pick quotes that confirm your biases.

Why it works: Memory is biased toward recent and emotionally charged information, so teams selectively remember confirming data. Processing as a team prevents any one person's bias from dominating the narrative.

Key insights:

  • Take notes during or immediately after -- never rely on memory
  • Separate facts (what they said and did) from interpretations (what you think it means)
  • Share raw notes with your team, not filtered summaries
  • Update your three key beliefs after each batch: the problem, the customer segment, the solution
  • Stop talking and start building when conversations start repeating
  • Use a simple spreadsheet: who, date, key quotes, facts, commitments, belief changes

Product applications:

ContextApplicationExample
Team alignmentReview notes together weekly5 conversations per week reviewed as a team; belief board updated
Pivot decisionsTrack evidence against core beliefs8 of 10 conversations reveal a different problem than expected -- pivot
Feature validationCount unprompted mentionsA problem named by 7 of 10 people is real; 1 of 10 might not be

Copy patterns:

  • "Our current belief is X -- here's what confirms it and what challenges it"
  • "We've heard this from N of M people -- is that enough signal?"
  • "Time to stop talking and build -- conversations are repeating"

See: references/processing-learning.md [blocked] after a batch of interviews -- the notes-to-beliefs spreadsheet template, team-review cadence, and signals that it's time to stop talking and build.

Common Mistakes

MistakeWhy It FailsFix
Pitching your idea instead of asking about their lifeTriggers politeness; produces compliments, not factsDon't mention your idea until the very end, if at all
Asking "would you buy this?"Hypothetical yeses cost nothingAsk what they've already done: "How much are you spending on this now?"
Accepting compliments as validation"Great idea!" carries zero information about behaviorDeflect immediately: "Thanks -- but what are you doing about this today?"
Talking too muchYou learn while listening, not talkingThey should talk 80%+ of the time
No clear ask at the endProduces zombie leads that go nowhereKnow your advance before the meeting: trial, intro, pre-order
Running formal "interview" sessionsTriggers performance mode and filtered answersKeep it casual: coffee, hallway conversations, Slack DMs
Not processing notes as a teamIndividual bias filters data into confirmationShare raw notes weekly; update shared beliefs together

Quick Diagnostic

QuestionIf NoAction
Did the conversation focus on their life and past behavior, not your idea?You ran a pitch, not a Mom Test conversationRedo with zero mention of your solution
Did you get concrete facts about what they've already done?You collected opinions and hypotheticalsAsk about the last time the problem occurred and what they did
Did they give a commitment (time, reputation, or money)?Likely a zombie lead -- polite but not interestedAsk for a specific next step: trial, intro, or pre-order
Did they do most of the talking?You talked too much and learned too littlePractice silence; let awkward pauses work for you
Did you learn something that could change what you're building?You asked safe, confirming questionsAsk the scary questions you've been avoiding
Did you update your beliefs based on the conversation?You're collecting data but not learningReview notes with the team; update problem/segment/solution beliefs
Can you summarize the key facts (not opinions)?Poor notes, or opinions confused with factsSeparate facts from interpretations immediately after

See: references/case-studies.md [blocked] when you want to see the rules applied end-to-end -- realistic SaaS, consumer, B2B, and marketplace interviews scored against this diagnostic.

Further Reading

This skill is based on Rob Fitzpatrick's Mom Test methodology:

About the Author

Rob Fitzpatrick is an entrepreneur and educator who founded multiple venture-backed startups and learned the hard way that most customer conversations produce misleading feedback. The Mom Test (2013) distills his evidence-based approach, has been translated into 20+ languages, and is required reading at accelerators including Y Combinator and Techstars. He also wrote The Workshop Survival Guide and Write Useful Books.

來源與署名

來源:wondelai/skills位於mom-test提交c172996

授權條款: MIT

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架