Purpose
When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.
Product Discovery Research method
Fake Door Test
A Fake Door Test shows how many relevant people actually try to access a specific offer.
A Fake Door Test presents an entry point to an unavailable offer and measures who actually uses it. Non-availability is explained transparently immediately afterwards. The signal concerns interest in the offer and its presentation.
How many relevant people actually try to access this specific offer?
- Participants
- Nutzertraffic participants
- Time
- 45–60 minutes planning; implementation and bounded run time separately.
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Define segment, value proposition, unique exposure, click event and decision rule upfront.
Entry point
Entry point
Build and self-test a realistic entry point with appropriate disclosure.
Run
Run review
Run within limits, count unique exposures and monitor complaints.
Evaluation
Evaluation
Click rate = unique clickers ÷ qualified exposed people; assess the rule and uncertainty.
Evaluate after the defined window; seek stronger demand evidence with a deliverable offer.
A good fit when
For an early demand assumption with a clear audience and manageable disappointment.
Ideal for
- Feature Demand
- Product Experiments
- Growth Discovery
Not good for
- Deceptive communication without transparency
- Critical workflows
Outputs
Demand experiment
Experiment record with exposures, click rate, disclosure and bounded interpretation.
Demand indication
Voluntary contacts are analysed separately; the click remains an indication of interest and establishes neither successful use nor willingness to pay.
Fake Door Test· worksheet
Fictional example
A Fake Door Test presents an entry point to an unavailable offer and measures who actually uses it. Non-availability is explained transparently immediately afterwards. The signal concerns interest in the offer and its presentation.
Hypothesis and upfront rule
Define audience, offer, signal, denominator, duration and justified threshold.
Fictional: signed-in instructors see a room-change overview offer. Upfront rule for a further pilot: at least 10% unique clickers among 200 qualified exposed people in two weeks; a local learning threshold, not an industry benchmark.
Entry and disclosure
What does the person see before and after clicking? How are non-availability and optional follow-up explained?
Entry: View room changes together. After clicking: This overview is being explored and is not currently available. Optional separate signup for a prototype test, otherwise return to courses. No payment and no automatic waiting list.
Measurement and result
Record unique qualified exposures, clickers, exclusions and separate follow-up signals.
Fictionally cleaned: 200 exposed people, 24 clickers = 12%. Eight voluntarily sign up for testing: 8/200 = 4% of all exposed people. Internal test accounts excluded; no purchase data.
Decision and limits
Compare upfront rule, uncertainty, complaints and the next stronger evidence.
12% exceeds the local 10% threshold. The team plans a deliverable pilot, not a full product. Sample, signed-in channel and wording limit the finding; long-term value remains open.
All example details are fictional and illustrate the application.
First step
Define audience, offer, qualified exposure and evaluation rule in advance.
Deep dive
How it works
It offers a visible entry point and evaluates whether people choose or continue it at all. The not-yet-existing capability is either made transparent or handled cleanly, so interest can be measured without damaging trust.
In detail
A Fake Door Test works because it measures actual interest in an option before the underlying feature is built. Good application makes sure the promise is credible and the context real enough to make behavior meaningful. The test becomes valuable when clicks, sign-ups, or other reactions are interpreted cleanly and not mistaken for real proof of value.
Facilitation
Place the door where users would reasonably expect the offered option, and phrase the promise precisely. Things become tangible once the reaction is high but the downstream context raises doubts about the quality of the signal. Close with an honest assessment of the interest and a decision on whether to go deeper, discard, or reformulate.
The method guide walks execution through 4 phases, timing, 4 pitfalls, and clear stop criteria.
Open method guideYour perspective
Does this method help with your work?
Your feedback helps shape the next improvements to methodatlas.
Sources and topics
Artifact templates
Experiment PlanShort plan for hypothesis, test design, success criteria, and decision.markdown
Experiment PlanShort plan for hypothesis, test design, success criteria, and decision.
markdownexperiment-plan-markdown.md
Short plan for hypothesis, test design, success criteria, and decision.
Experiment Plan
Hypothesis
We believe that ...
Target audience
Who are we testing for?
Test design
What exactly will participants or users do?
Success criterion
We count the test as positive if ...
Risks and limits
What can the test not prove?
Decision afterward
If positive: ... If negative: ...
Owner and date
...
Fake Door Test: WorksheetDefine audience, offer, qualified exposure and evaluation rule in advance.markdown
Fake Door Test: WorksheetDefine audience, offer, qualified exposure and evaluation rule in advance.
markdownfake-door-test-working-template.md
Define audience, offer, qualified exposure and evaluation rule in advance.
Fake Door Test: Worksheet
Question
To be confirmed
Desired outcome
To be confirmed
Scope
Complete cycle Time: 45–60 minutes planning; implementation and bounded run time separately.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
Preparation for this scope
Method setup
- Materials: Entry point, disclosure page, event measurement.
- Roles: Experiment owner, implementation, analytics, support.
- Advance information: Define audience, offer, qualified exposure and evaluation rule in advance.
- Overall time needed: 45–60 minutes planning; implementation and bounded run time separately.
- Setup: Connect the entry point to immediate disclosure; instrument exposure, click and optional-contact events separately and verify with test accounts.
Prepare for the work steps
Hypothesis: Hypothesis
- Segment and offer
Entry point: Entry point
- Value proposition and measurement plan
Run: Run review
- Verified entry point
Evaluation: Evaluation
- Events and upfront rule
Fake Door Test· worksheet
Hypothesis and upfront rule
Define audience, offer, signal, denominator, duration and justified threshold.
...
Entry and disclosure
What does the person see before and after clicking? How are non-availability and optional follow-up explained?
...
Measurement and result
Record unique qualified exposures, clickers, exclusions and separate follow-up signals.
...
Decision and limits
Compare upfront rule, uncertainty, complaints and the next stronger evidence.
...
Answer the prompts with your own information. Explicitly mark unknowns and assumptions.
Alberto Savoia: Pretotyping Workshop
Hypothesis: Hypothesis
Expected artifact: Measurement hypothesis
Are denominator and decision rule defined upfront?
Entry:
...
- Are denominator and decision rule defined upfront?
Entry point: Entry point
Expected artifact: Tested entry point
Does every click reach clear disclosure?
Entry:
...
- Does every click reach clear disclosure?
Run: Run review
Expected artifact: Clean event counts
Are exposure and click counted in the same segment?
Entry:
...
- Are exposure and click counted in the same segment?
Evaluation: Evaluation
Expected artifact: Demand indication
Is the finding limited to this offer and channel?
Entry:
...
- Is the finding limited to this offer and channel?
Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/fake-door-test/run-sheet
Alternatives and neighbors
Fitting alternatives with decision guidance, followed by other related methods.
Product Discovery
Landing Page Test
Instead of Fake Door Test, choose Landing Page Test when you want to measure interest in an offer through a concrete offer page.
Product Discovery
MVP Test Matrix
Moves customer problem, solution idea, and evidence toward a concrete result through "list assumptions", "map assumptions to dimensions", and "derive the test plan".
Product Discovery
Pretotyping
Tests a market claim with the smallest fitting precursor and makes real interest measurable.
Product Discovery
Riskiest Assumption Test
Moves customer problem, solution idea, and evidence toward a concrete result through "collect assumptions explicitly", "rate uncertainty and leverage for each assumption", and "decide to pivot, persevere, or stop".
Product Discovery
Experiment Canvas
Moves customer problem, solution idea, and evidence toward a concrete result through "clarify the learning goal and the assumption to test", "formulate the hypothesis as an if-then statement", and "define the decision rule after the test".
Product Discovery
Learning Card
Separates hypothesis, observation, insight, and next action into four fields after a test.
Constraints and origin
MediumAsync1-5 Tage
Profile
- Method form
- Research method
- Participants
- Nutzertraffic
- Time
- 1-5 Tage
- Maturity
- Established
- Origin
- Lean Startup Community
Next up: Smoke Test