Marketing an MVP is difficult.

[kexej28769@nongnue]

Second, an MVP type of marketing is useless. It's just terrible. Great products are rarely minimum viable products. An MVP is a brilliant way to build. I really, really like what Eric Riess has done with this movement, where he's taken the concept that you can build the smallest possible thing that still solves a user problem, a customer problem, and launch it so you can learn from it and iterate.

The only complaint I have is that if you do it belarus number data , if you launch your MVP publicly and you're already a well-known brand, you really damage your reputation. Nobody ever thinks that. Nobody ever thinks, "Gosh, you know, Moz just launched the first version of their new tool X. It's pretty scary, but I can see how, with a few years of work, this is going to be an amazing product. I really believe in them." Nobody thinks that.

What do you think? You think, “Moz launched this product. Why did they launch it? This is kind of scary. Are they going downhill? Are they sucking now? Maybe I should trust their other tools less.” That’s how most people think when it comes to MVP, and that’s why it’s so dangerous.

Marketing Lessons Learned from 16 Years of Building Moz - Whiteboard Friday
So I made this stupid chart here. But if quality goes from crappy to best in class and amplification ability goes from zero to viral, then it turns out that most MVPs are starting out here, when they're barely good enough and thus have almost no amplification ability and can't really do much for your marketing except hurt.