The owner wanted a PSC Inspection Guide for gas carriers. The author provided 143 inspection items across 6 modules. The target audience was narrow: officers on board during PSC inspections.

I told the owner upfront that I did not believe the niche was large enough. He wanted it built anyway. The go/no-go decision was his, not mine.

Problem

The product needed 10–15 sales to recoup development costs. The question was not only “can we build it?” but “is there enough demand, and what is the right form for this product?”

A plain text manual would be a commodity. An interactive tool could be more useful — but only if the audience trusted it and could find it.

Evidence and assumptions

  • Audience: officers on board during inspections — narrow, high-stakes, not mass-market.
  • Author credibility: a chief officer’s assistant; his video/explanation could be a trust signal.
  • No demand validation before building.
  • No paid acquisition planned.
  • Break-even: 10–15 sales.
  • The author did not provide the launch assets we asked for: a video address for the landing page and short explanatory clips.

Options considered

  1. Do not build it. My preferred option: the niche was too narrow.
  2. Build a plain PDF/manual. Cheapest, but a commodity.
  3. Build an interactive checklist tool. Better product, more development.
  4. Use freemium instead of a one-off purchase. Lower barrier, but no recurring value yet.
  5. Give it away free first to validate demand. Learn before charging.

Decision

  • Build the interactive tool, not a plain manual: checkboxes, progress, modules, a “Pass or Detain” test.
  • Ship on time at the end of August.
  • Use a one-off purchase model.
  • Ask the author for video and launch assets to build trust.

The product decision was mine; the go/no-go was the owner’s. I disagreed with the bet but executed it properly.

Execution

  • Designed the tool and its modules around the inspection workflow.
  • Built checkboxes so an officer could walk the ship and tick each item.
  • Added progress tracking and the final “Pass or Detain” test.
  • Launched with a landing page.
  • The author did not deliver the video/explainers; distribution and trust were weaker than planned.
  • No paid acquisition.

Result

  • 0 sales in September and October.
  • Break-even was 10–15 sales; it was not reached.
  • The tool itself was good; the product did not find demand or distribution.
  • The owner’s decision rights meant the project went ahead despite my objection.

What I learned

  • A good tool without demand or distribution is a hobby, not a product.
  • For a narrow, high-trust product, the author’s credibility and launch assets are part of the product.
  • Saying no to the owner is not enough. You need a decision framework and a pre-agreed kill criterion.
  • I should have tested demand cheaper before building: a landing page, a waitlist, a free pilot, or a short paid pre-order.
  • What I would do differently: set a 60-day kill criterion, validate demand before development, and use freemium or a paid pilot instead of a one-off purchase.