Method guideProduct Discovery

Fake Door Test

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium

Time1-5 Tage

ParticipantsNutzertraffic

FormatAsync

MaturityEstablished

Plan

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstMeasurable entry

Measure exposure and unique target clicks in the same audience.

Without a denominator a click count cannot be interpreted.

Complete firstTransparent resolution

Immediately after the click explain non-availability, purpose and optional follow-up.

If harm or substantial loss of trust is likely, choose an openly labelled concept test.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Entry point, disclosure page, event measurement.

People / roles

Experiment owner, implementation, analytics, support.

Pre-read

Define audience, offer, qualified exposure and evaluation rule in advance.

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.

Core question

The one question this method answers

How many relevant people actually try to access this specific offer?

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

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.

Fake Door Test· worksheet

Fictional example

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.

Alberto Savoia: Pretotyping Workshop

1
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Goal
Measurement hypothesis
Inputs for this step
- Segment and offer
Actions
- Define segment, value proposition, unique exposure, click event and decision rule upfront.
- Set duration, minimum data and stop conditions; justify thresholds rather than adopting universal rates.
Output
Measurement hypothesis
Are denominator and decision rule defined upfront?
Quality check
Are denominator and decision rule defined upfront?
Pitfall
The threshold is adjusted after seeing results. Record the upfront rule; treat changes as a new test.
Timing: 15 minutes
2
Entry point
Entry point
Goal
Tested entry point
Inputs for this step
- Value proposition and measurement plan
Actions
- Build and self-test a realistic entry point with appropriate disclosure.
- Immediately after the click explain that the offer does not yet exist; make optional contact separate and voluntary, without taking payment.
Output
Tested entry point
Does every click reach clear disclosure?
Quality check
Does every click reach clear disclosure?
Pitfall
A fabricated error message conceals the test. Explain actual non-availability and provide a return path.
Timing: 20–30 minutes
3
Run
Run review
Goal
Clean event counts
Inputs for this step
- Verified entry point
Actions
- Run within limits, count unique exposures and monitor complaints.
- Handle bots, internal tests, repeated clicks and channel differences by the upfront rule; pause for measurement or trust problems.
Output
Clean event counts
Are exposure and click counted in the same segment?
Quality check
Are exposure and click counted in the same segment?
Pitfall
Repeat clicks artificially inflate interest. Deduplicate using the predefined unique unit.
Timing: Laufzeit / run window minutes
4
Evaluation
Evaluation
Goal
Demand indication
Inputs for this step
- Events and upfront rule
Actions
- Click rate = unique clickers ÷ qualified exposed people; assess the rule and uncertainty.
- Analyse voluntary contacts separately; infer neither successful use nor willingness to pay from clicks.
Output
Demand indication
Is the finding limited to this offer and channel?
Quality check
Is the finding limited to this offer and channel?
Pitfall
A positive click test is treated as product validation. Test value and willingness to pay with a deliverable pilot.
Timing: 20–30 minutes

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Fake Door Test · Demand MeasurementShow a not-yet-built feature, measure click interest, and translate it transparently into learning

Form

Experiment record with exposures, click rate, disclosure and bounded interpretation.

Versioning / ownership

Record date and scope; retain the previous version and reason when changing it.

Tool alternatives

Existing product interface
Simple landing page
Event log with unique units

experiment-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-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

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

fake-door-test-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example

Hypothesis and upfront rule: 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: 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: 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: 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.