Your MVP Is Probably Too Big

Welcome back to NoteLoft Newsletter - the shortcut for founders who want to go from MVP to scale. Every week (ish - I’m working on it), my goal is to share what actually works when building software, so you can spend more time on deals, growth, and going to Pilates.

If you need help taking your product from MVP to scale, get in touch! We’ve grown our tech team, and we can’t wait to help you.

Let’s get into it!

A lot of early-stage founders think their biggest challenge is building.

Usually, it’s not.

Usually, the real challenge is deciding what deserves to be built first.

Because most MVPs do not fail because the idea was terrible.
They fail because the founder tried to build too much, too soon — or built the wrong thing entirely.

And right now, I’m seeing this happen constantly.

A founder comes in with a real problem, a real audience, and a real opportunity… but by the time they describe the product, the MVP has quietly turned into a full platform.

They do not want one product.

They want three.

Let me show you what I mean.

Example: a booking app for wellness studios

Let’s say a founder wants to build a software platform for yoga and pilates studios.

At first glance, that sounds clear enough.

The founder says they want:

• booking features for clients

• a social chat feature for community engagement

• AI to help schedule teachers

That sounds exciting. It also sounds expensive, operationally messy, and way too broad for version one.

Because now we are no longer talking about one simple MVP.

We are talking about at least three separate value propositions:

1. A studio operations tool
This is the booking and scheduling side.

2. A community product
This is the social chat layer.

3. An AI operations assistant
This is the teacher scheduling intelligence.

Each of those could become a product on its own. And each one introduces different technical requirements, user expectations, and workflow complexity.

That is where founders get in trouble.

They think they are describing “the app.”
What they are actually describing is an entire roadmap.

The question founders should ask instead

Before thinking about features, AI, or what the app could become later, the better question is:

What is the first problem this product needs to solve well enough for someone to care?

Not:

• What would make this feel impressive?

• What would make this look like a real startup?

• What can we add to make it feel bigger?

Just:

What is the first painful problem worth solving?

In this case, that question might reveal that the real problem is not “wellness needs a platform.”

It might be something much smaller and much more useful, like:

• independent yoga studios are losing revenue because class booking is clunky

• studio owners are spending too much time manually managing class schedules

• teachers and admins struggle with schedule changes and coverage

• clients drop off because booking, waitlists, and reminders are inconsistent

Those are different problems.

And the founder needs to pick one, and test it against user need.

What should the MVP actually be?

If I were helping this founder scope an MVP, I would push them to narrow the product down to a much tighter first version.

For example:

Recommended MVP:
A lightweight booking and class management tool for independent yoga and pilates studios.

That is much clearer.

Now we have a product direction with a primary user and a core workflow.

The primary user is probably not “everyone in the wellness ecosystem.”
It is likely the studio owner or studio manager.

The core workflow is also much easier to define:

• studio creates classes

• clients book classes

• studio manages capacity

• studio handles cancellations and waitlists

• teachers can view assigned classes

That is a real MVP.

It solves a real operational problem.
It creates immediate value.
And most importantly, it gives the founder a way to learn what users actually need before layering on more complexity.

What gets cut from version one?

This is the part founders hate, but it is also the part that saves them the most money.

For this app, I would almost certainly cut the social chat feature from the MVP.

Why?

Because social chat sounds sticky, but it is not the core reason a studio owner would buy the product.

Studios do not wake up in the morning desperate for “community features.”
They wake up needing classes filled, schedules managed, and admin work reduced.

Social features may matter later. But later is not the same thing as now.

I would also be very careful about the AI scheduling feature.

Not because AI is bad.
But because founders often add AI before they have earned the right to use it.

Does AI belong in this MVP?

Maybe. But probably not in the way the founder is imagining.

“AI for scheduling teachers” sounds sophisticated, but the real question is whether the app has enough data, enough operational consistency, and enough user trust to make that feature useful.

To make AI scheduling work well, the product would need things like:

• teacher availability data

• class demand patterns

• business rules around certifications or preferences

• conflict handling

• override logic for studio managers

• enough usage history to make recommendations reliable

That is a lot.

And if those inputs do not exist yet, the AI feature is not actually making the MVP smarter. It is just making the product harder to build, harder to trust, and harder to explain.

A better early approach might be:

• start with manual scheduling tools

• add simple rules-based logic later

• introduce AI only after the product has enough data and repeated scheduling patterns to support it

That is a much stronger path.

Sometimes the smartest MVP is not AI-powered at all.

Sometimes the smartest MVP is the one that creates the conditions for useful AI later.

So what belongs in version one?

For this founder, version one might include:

Must-haves

• studio onboarding

• class creation

• teacher assignment

• customer booking

• cancellations

• simple reminders

Could wait

• social chat

• member profiles with social activity

• AI-based teacher scheduling

• advanced analytics

• multi-location complexity

• marketplace features

• consumer discovery layer

• basic admin dashboard

• waitlists

That is how founders should think.

Not: “What would be cool to have?”
But: What is required to make this useful?

The mistake founders keep making

A lot of founders confuse their long-term vision with the first version of the product.

That is how an MVP turns into:

• a booking system

• plus a social network

• plus an AI assistant

• plus a marketplace

• plus a dashboard

• plus a brand experience layer

All before launch.

And then they wonder why the project is expensive, slow, and impossible to prioritize.

Your MVP is not supposed to contain your entire vision.

It is supposed to test whether one part of that vision creates value.

What a founder should leave with before building

Before hiring a designer or developer, a founder should be able to answer a few very clear questions:

Who is the primary user?
Not everyone. One person first.

What is the first problem the product solves?
Not the whole industry. One painful problem.

What is the core workflow?
What does the user actually do inside the product?

What must exist in version one?
Only the features required to make that workflow work.

What can wait until later?
Anything that is not essential to the first value moment.

Does AI actually improve the outcome?
Or is it being added because it sounds impressive?

If a founder cannot answer those questions clearly, they are probably not ready to build yet.

And that is okay.

Because the goal is not to rush into development.
The goal is to make better product decisions before development starts.

Final thought

Founders love momentum.

I get it. Building feels like progress.

But sometimes the highest-leverage move is not starting faster.
It is slowing down just enough to make sure you are building the right thing.

The best early-stage founders are not always the ones with the biggest ideas.

They are the ones who know how to narrow those ideas into a first version that is actually usable, testable, and worth paying for.

And if you can do that well, you do not just save money.

See you next week,

LaToya