mom-test
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseNote: This skill is independent analysis and commentary, not a reproduction of the original text. It synthesizes the book's core ideas with modern startup practice, surfaces where frameworks are outdated or incomplete, and integrates perspectives from adjacent disciplines. For the full argument and context, read the original book.
注意： 本技能为独立分析与评论，并非原文复刻。它将书中核心观点与现代创业实践相结合，指出框架过时或不完善之处，并整合了相关领域的视角。如需完整论点与背景，请阅读原版书籍。
The Mom Test
The Mom Test
"How to talk to customers and learn if your business is a good idea when everyone is lying to you" - Rob Fitzpatrick
"如何与客户沟通，并在所有人都对你撒谎的情况下判断你的商业想法是否可行"——Rob Fitzpatrick
The 3 Core Rules
三大核心原则
- Talk about their life, not your idea
- Ask about specifics in the past, not generics or opinions about the future
- Talk less, listen more
- 聊他们的生活，而非你的想法
- 询问过去的具体情况，而非泛泛之谈或对未来的看法
- 少说多听
Decision Tree
决策树
Need customer feedback?
├─ Pre-product, no idea what to build → Mom Test (this skill)
├─ Have validated market, packaging product → 100m-offers
├─ Have offer, need traffic → 100m-leads
└─ Selling enterprise → spin-sellingIn a customer conversation?
├─ They're complimenting you → DEFLECT to current behavior
├─ They're speaking in generics ("usually", "always") → ANCHOR to last specific instance
├─ They're requesting features → DIG to underlying motivation
└─ They're committing nothing → PRESS for time/reputation/moneyNeed customer feedback?
├─ Pre-product, no idea what to build → Mom Test (this skill)
├─ Have validated market, packaging product → 100m-offers
├─ Have offer, need traffic → 100m-leads
└─ Selling enterprise → spin-sellingIn a customer conversation?
├─ They're complimenting you → DEFLECT to current behavior
├─ They're speaking in generics ("usually", "always") → ANCHOR to last specific instance
├─ They're requesting features → DIG to underlying motivation
└─ They're committing nothing → PRESS for time/reputation/moneyBad Questions (Never Ask)
无效问题（切勿询问）
| Question | Why It Fails |
|---|---|
| "Do you think it's a good idea?" | Only the market can tell. Opinions are worthless. |
| "Would you buy a product which did X?" | Everyone says yes. Hypotheticals are lies. |
| "How much would you pay for X?" | Numbers feel rigorous but are still lies. |
| "Do you ever..." / "Would you ever..." | Invites fluff and future-tense promises. |
| 问题 | 失效原因 |
|---|---|
| "你觉得这个想法好吗？" | 只有市场能给出答案。观点毫无价值。 |
| "你会购买具备X功能的产品吗？" | 所有人都会说愿意。假设性回答都是谎言。 |
| "你愿意为X支付多少钱？" | 数字看似严谨，但依然是谎言。 |
| "你是否曾..." / "你是否愿意..." | 会引出空洞内容和未来式承诺。 |
Good Questions (Use These)
优质问题（建议使用）
| Question | What It Reveals |
|---|---|
| "Why do you bother?" | Real motivation behind perceived problem |
| "What are the implications?" | Must-solve vs nice-to-have |
| "Talk me through the last time that happened." | Concrete past behavior |
| "What else have you tried?" | Whether they care enough to search |
| "How are you dealing with it now?" | Current solution + price anchor |
| "Where does the money come from?" | Budget and purchasing process |
| "Who else should I talk to?" | Tests if they care enough to make intros |
| "Is there anything else I should have asked?" | Catches missed points |
| 问题 | 揭示的信息 |
|---|---|
| "你为什么要费心处理这件事？" | 潜在问题背后的真实动机 |
| "这会带来什么影响？" | 必须解决的问题 vs 锦上添花的需求 |
| "跟我说说上次发生这种情况的具体过程。" | 真实的过往行为 |
| "你还尝试过其他什么方法？" | 他们是否足够在意去寻找解决方案 |
| "你现在是怎么处理这个问题的？" | 当前解决方案 + 价格参考 |
| "资金从哪里来？" | 预算和采购流程 |
| "我还应该和谁聊聊？" | 测试他们是否足够在意去介绍人脉 |
| "还有什么我应该问但没问到的问题吗？" | 捕捉遗漏的要点 |
Three Types of Bad Data + Responses
三类无效数据及应对方式
| Bad Data | Example | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Compliments | "That's really cool, I love it." | "Thanks - but how are you dealing with this stuff at the moment?" |
| Fluff | "I usually..." / "I would definitely buy that." | "When's the last time that happened? Walk me through it." |
| Ideas/Features | "Can you add X feature?" | "Why do you want that? What would it let you do? How are you coping without it?" |
| 无效数据类型 | 示例 | 应对话术 |
|---|---|---|
| 赞美 | "这真的很棒，我喜欢它。" | "谢谢——但你目前是怎么处理这类事情的？" |
| 空洞内容 | "我通常..." / "我肯定会买这个。" | "上次发生这种情况是什么时候？跟我详细说说。" |
| 创意/功能需求 | "你能添加X功能吗？" | "你为什么想要这个功能？它能帮你做什么？没有它你现在是怎么应对的？" |
Commitment Currencies
承诺衡量维度
Real interest = giving up something valuable. Compliments cost nothing.
| Currency | Examples |
|---|---|
| Time | Clear next meeting, using trial for real, sitting down for feedback |
| Reputation | Intro to peers, intro to boss, public testimonial |
| Money | Letter of intent, pre-order, deposit |
真正的兴趣意味着愿意付出有价值的东西。赞美毫无成本。
| 衡量维度 | 示例 |
|---|---|
| 时间 | 明确的下次会面、实际使用试用版、坐下来提供反馈 |
| 声誉 | 介绍同行、介绍上级、公开推荐 |
| 资金 | 意向书、预购、定金 |
Good Meeting Endings
优质会议收尾
- "What are the next steps?"
- "When can we start the trial?"
- "Can I buy the prototype?"
- "When can you come back to talk to the rest of the team?"
- "接下来的步骤是什么？"
- "我们什么时候可以开始试用？"
- "我能购买原型吗？"
- "你什么时候能回来和团队其他人聊聊？"
Polite Rejections (Bad Endings)
委婉拒绝（糟糕的收尾）
- "That's so cool, I love it!"
- "Let me know when it launches."
- "I would definitely buy that."
- "这太酷了，我喜欢！"
- "产品上线时告诉我一声。"
- "我肯定会买这个的。"
Critical Principle
核心原则
They own the problem. You own the solution.
You aren't allowed to tell them what their problem is. They aren't allowed to tell you what to build.
他们拥有问题，你拥有解决方案。
你不能告诉他们问题是什么。他们不能告诉你该做什么产品。
The Filter Test
筛选测试
If they haven't even Googled for a solution, they don't actually care enough to pay for yours.
如果他们甚至都没谷歌过解决方案，那他们根本没在意到愿意为你的产品付费的程度。
Customer Slicing
客户细分
Signs Your Segment Is Too Broad
细分群体过于宽泛的迹象
- 10+ conversations, results all over the map
- Everything "sort of works" but nothing breaks through
- Cannot prove yourself right or wrong
- Every feature is someone's favorite
- Massive price variance ($10 vs $10,000)
- 10次以上对话，结果差异极大
- 所有内容都“有点用”但没有突破点
- 无法证明自己的观点正确或错误
- 每个功能都是某个人的最爱
- 价格差异巨大（10美元 vs 10000美元）
The Slicing Process
细分流程
- Within this group, who would want it MOST?
- Why do they want it? What's their specific problem?
- What are they already doing to solve it?
- Where can we find them?
Good segment test: A segment is useful only if you know WHERE to find them.
- 在这个群体中，谁最想要它？
- 他们为什么想要它？具体的问题是什么？
- 他们已经在尝试什么解决方案？
- 我们在哪里可以找到他们？
优质细分群体测试标准： 只有当你知道在哪里能找到他们时，这个细分群体才是有用的。
Conversation Length Guide
对话时长指南
| Duration | Goal |
|---|---|
| 5 min | Does problem exist? Is it important? |
| 10-15 min | Workflow details, what they've tried |
| 1+ hour | Industry deep-dives with experts |
| 时长 | 目标 |
|---|---|
| 5分钟 | 问题是否存在？是否重要？ |
| 10-15分钟 | 工作流程细节、他们已尝试的方法 |
| 1小时以上 | 与专家进行行业深度交流 |
Keep It Casual
保持轻松氛围
- Strip the formality - reduce "meeting" to "chat"
- Pop your most important question immediately
- Goal: they don't even realize they've "had a meeting"
- 5-10 minute casual conversations yield as much as formal meetings
- 去掉正式感——将“会议”简化为“聊天”
- 立刻提出你最重要的问题
- 目标：让他们甚至没意识到自己“开了个会”
- 5-10分钟的轻松聊天能获得和正式会议一样多的信息
Process Checklist
流程清单
Before
事前准备
- Choose focused, findable segment
- Decide 3 big learning goals with team
- Decide ideal next steps and commitments
- Do basic desk research first
- 选择聚焦且易触达的细分群体
- 与团队确定3个核心学习目标
- 确定理想的后续步骤和承诺
- 先完成基础案头研究
During
对话过程中
- Frame the conversation
- Keep it casual
- Ask questions that pass The Mom Test
- Deflect compliments, anchor fluff, dig beneath signals
- Take good notes
- Press for commitment and next steps
- 设定对话框架
- 保持轻松氛围
- 提出符合Mom Test标准的问题
- 转移赞美、聚焦具体事实、深挖信号背后的内容
- 做好记录
- 争取客户承诺和后续步骤
After
事后跟进
- Review notes and key quotes with team
- Update beliefs and plans
- Decide next 3 big questions
- 与团队复盘记录和关键引用
- 更新认知和计划
- 确定接下来的3个核心问题
Signs You're Doing It Wrong
操作失误的迹象
- You're talking more than they are
- They're complimenting you or your idea
- You don't have notes
- You got an unexpected answer and didn't change anything
- You weren't scared of any question you asked
- You don't know what happens next
- Meeting "went well" but no concrete commitments
- 你说的话比他们多
- 他们在赞美你或你的想法
- 你没有做记录
- 得到意外答案却没有做出任何改变
- 你对提出的任何问题都不感到担忧
- 你不知道接下来该做什么
- 会议“进展顺利”但没有具体承诺
Quick Rules
快速规则
Rules not already captured in the tables and checklists above:
- Customer conversations are bad by default. Your job to fix them.
- People know problems but not solutions. Don't ask what to build.
- You should be terrified of at least one question you're asking (terrified of the answer, not the asking).
- There's more reliable information in a "meh" than a "Wow!"
- It's not a real lead until you've given them a concrete chance to reject you.
以下规则未包含在上述表格和清单中：
- 客户对话默认是无效的。你的工作是改善它们。
- 人们知道问题但不知道解决方案。不要询问该做什么产品。
- 你至少应该对一个提出的问题感到担忧（是担心答案可能否定你的想法，而非担心提问本身）。
- “一般般”的反馈比“哇！”的反馈包含更可靠的信息。
- 只有当你给了客户明确的拒绝机会时，这才是真正的潜在客户。
Timeline
时间规划
Spend a week, maybe two. Get your bearings, then give them something to commit to. Don't spend months theorizing.
花费一到两周时间。摸清情况后，就让客户做出承诺。不要花数月时间空想。
Context: Founders vs. Product Teams
适用场景：创始人 vs 产品团队
This framework is written for founders validating whether a new idea is worth pursuing at all. If you're a product manager at an established company, your situation is different: you already know customers want the product. Your interviews are doing problem discovery (what's broken?) or feature discovery (which direction next?) with existing users - not testing whether a market exists. The "press for commitment" and customer-slicing sections are largely irrelevant. The core questioning mechanics (past behavior, avoid hypotheticals, anchor fluff) still apply directly.
本框架是为验证新想法是否值得投入的创始人编写的。如果你是成熟公司的产品经理，你的情况有所不同：你已经知道客户想要该产品。你的访谈是针对现有用户进行问题发现（哪里出问题了？）或功能发现（下一步往哪个方向走？）——而非测试市场是否存在。“争取承诺”和“客户细分”部分基本不适用。核心提问技巧（关注过往行为、避免假设性问题、聚焦具体事实）仍然直接适用。
When This Doesn't Apply
不适用场景
- Formal B2B/Enterprise: Some contexts require formal protocols
- Regulated industries: Healthcare, finance may need different approaches
- Truly novel innovations: Customers can't imagine what they want until they see it
- Cultural contexts: Japan, Germany, formal corporate cultures expect different protocols
- Domain experts: Expert opinions about THEIR domain carry weight (the rule is about opinions on YOUR IDEA)
- 正式B2B/企业场景： 某些环境需要遵循正式流程
- 受监管行业： 医疗、金融可能需要不同方法
- 真正的创新产品： 客户在看到产品前无法想象自己想要什么
- 文化差异： 日本、德国等正式企业文化需要不同沟通方式
- 领域专家： 专家对自身领域的观点有参考价值（规则针对的是对你想法的观点）
Red Flags (Customers to Avoid)
危险信号（需避开的客户）
Even enthusiastic, paying customers can derail you:
- Needs so specific they'll pull you off-course
- Demand custom work that doesn't generalize
- "Visionaries" who want something completely different from your vision
- Will only commit if you build their pet feature first
即使是热情的付费客户也可能让你偏离轨道：
- 需求过于特殊，会让你偏离方向
- 要求定制化工作，无法通用
- “空想家”想要的东西与你的愿景完全不同
- 只有当你先开发他们想要的功能时才会承诺
Supporting Files
配套文件
- frameworks.md - VFWPA email template, ACA framework, deeper question hierarchy, finding-conversations playbook
- cases.md - Earlyvangelist concept (Steve Blank's term, used by Fitzpatrick), case-style examples
- examples.md - Note-taking symbols, full email scripts, conversation walk-throughs
- integration.md - How Mom Test feeds 100m-offers, 100m-leads, spin-selling, obviously-awesome; conflicts with hypothesis-testing approaches
- frameworks.md - VFWPA邮件模板、ACA框架、更深入的问题层级、寻找对话对象的指南
- cases.md - Earlyvangelist概念（Steve Blank提出，Fitzpatrick引用）、案例式示例
- examples.md - 记录符号、完整邮件脚本、对话流程示例
- integration.md - Mom Test如何与100m-offers、100m-leads、spin-selling、obviously-awesome配合；与假设测试方法的冲突
The Nuance
细节说明
- "Talk less" means don't pitch your solution, not don't talk at all. Strategic questions and redirections are talking.
- "Be terrified of a question" means terrified of the ANSWER (it might invalidate your idea), not asking aggressive questions.
- "Press for commitment" doesn't mean be pushy. Know when to back off. Burning a contact is worse than no commitment.
- "They can't tell you what to build" doesn't mean ignore domain experts. Sophisticated users may know implementation better than you - understand the WHY.
- “少说”指的是不要推销你的解决方案，而非完全不说话。战略性提问和引导属于有效沟通。
- “对问题感到担忧”指的是担心答案（可能否定你的想法），而非担心提问过于尖锐。
- “争取承诺”并不意味着咄咄逼人。要知道何时收手。得罪联系人比没有承诺更糟糕。
- “他们不能告诉你该做什么产品”并不意味着忽略领域专家。资深用户可能比你更了解实现方式——要理解背后的原因。