What you test vs how you test it.
I am normally reluctant to make this sort of deal with the devil... but the more I think about it, the more I believe that it is better for teams at the very early stages to focus on testing the wrong thing well than the right thing poorly. Since they are more likely to actually do it. (curios to hear what +Justin Wilcox +Thor Ernstsson +Melissa Perri think about that notion and if the means justify the ends).
- Lean is a skill. If you focus on getting better and better at the actual science behind leanstartup, it will push you to start testing the right things anyway
- Selfish reason. It is easier for mentors and coaches. When you tell founders that their experiment sucks, it is ok. They are not offended bc they don't think of themselves as scientists they think of themselves as entrepreneurs. They are usually quite receptive to the notion of improving their experiment. If you tell them they are testing the wrong thing, you are actually hinting more at the quality of the "idea" (vs the experiment) which they are way less likely to embrace.
- TESTING THE WRONG THING THE RIGHT WAY IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO TESTING THE RIGHT THING THE RIGHT WAY.
- TESTING THE RIGHT THING THE WRONG WAY is likely to lead to testing the wrong thing the wrong way (which is fatal).
- Variant A should have a UVP (UNIQUE VALUE PROPOSITION) like "Make predictions to the public and ... be rewarded? be known as an expert? have pride? and
- Variant B should say the exact same thing but insinuate that the prediction is going to be shared only with a private group (or their friends).