In product innovation, the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) is one of the most debated and misunderstood tools. At relevantive, we’ve seen this question surface repeatedly in sprints, strategy workshops, and early-stage validations:
How polished does our MVP really need to be in order to generate reliable, meaningful feedback?”
Should it include high-fidelity visuals, or are placeholders enough? Do we need a brand-compliant look and feel, or can we rely on stock assets and dummy copy? Do we need to fine-tune every copy, or is rough text just fine. Is a real domain necessary, or will a prototype on a generic link do?
These questions are not just tactical—they’re strategic. Time and resources are limited. The wrong level of fidelity can either waste effort or, worse, sabotage the test by failing to convey the core value proposition to the user. And this is what you want to measure.
So, When Is It Good Enough?
Our guiding principle is simple but powerful:
An MVP is good enough when it successfully communicates the core value to the user—nothing more, but also nothing less.
It’s not about polish. It’s about perception. If the user can’t grasp what you’re offering, can’t connect to the “why,” then the test won’t validate the idea—it will only test your execution.
To help teams align, we often return to a metaphor inspired by Jordan Ellenberg’s book Shape. In it, Ellenberg explains how a geometric proof doesn’t require perfection to be valid—it requires structural clarity. In one example, he shows two different arrangements of right triangles within a square to visually demonstrate the Pythagorean Theorem. Both diagrams are simple. They’re not perfect illustrations, but they are persuasive—they allow the viewer to grasp the concept and trust its logic.
The big square is the same in both pictures. But it’s cut up in two different ways. In the first picture, you have four copies of your right triangle, and a square whose side has length c. In the second picture you also have four copies of the triangle, but they’re arranged differently; what’s left of the square is now tow smaller squares, one whose side has length a and one whose side has length b. The area that remains when you take four copies of the triangle out of the big square has to be the same in both pictures, which means that c2 (the area left over in the first picture) has to be the same as a2 + b2 ( the area left over in the second).” (p.23)
This is exactly the role of a well-built MVP: it doesn’t need to be flawless—it needs to make the value visible, tangible, and clickable.
MVP as a Strategic Tool
At relevantive, we don’t view MVPs as product shortcuts. We see them as experiential arguments—designed to trigger the famous German “Klick” moment where a user says: “Ah, I see what this could be.” And only then you have the clarity to decide what to do next. Everything else is “Hippo”.
This is why we have spend so much energy in getting MVPs “good enough”: Because if done right, you can make your product a data and growth generating engine.
If this resonates, take a look at how we approach UX strategy and early innovation formats. We’d love to help you shape what’s next..