At Ellevation, we identified a user need that kept coming up again and again: administrators wanted a way to share content from our system with families of students. At first, we hesitated. Our product had always been squarely B2B, built for district administrators and school staff to manage programs and services across their school district. Families had never been part of our platform.
Still, the request hinted at an exciting opportunity. If families could be engaged meaningfully, it might open up an entirely new layer of value. But stepping into that space raised a series of questions:
- What would they even do on our platform?
- How much work would this be to build out?
- Would it be worth the investment?
It was a long list of unknowns. But we also saw a glimmer of opportunity. Could this be a hidden gem? a whole new product space that could expand our portfolio and deepen our impact?
We wanted to explore this possibility, but carefully. With multiple bets competing for attention, we couldn’t afford to overinvest too early, and if we did invest, we had to be certain it would be worth it.
Starting with the Biggest Unknown
To tackle this greenfield area effectively, we turned to our guiding lights: Madhavan Ramanujan’s Monetizing Innovation, Teresa Torres’s Continuous Discovery Habits, Eric Ries’s Lean Startup, and, as always, Marty Cagan’s principles.
We kicked things off with a focused design sprint - five days of a lean product trio, a couple of subject-matter experts, and a lot of whiteboards packed into a room for eight hours a day. In that sprint, we rapidly explored the problem and solution space to clarify the core jobs to be done behind the need and what a truly valuable solution might look like. This process was essential for defining scope: Which problems are we solving, and where are the boundaries of a viable, feasible solution? Early on, it’s all too easy to chase “cool ideas” that don’t matter. By the end of the sprint, we had a crisp problem statement, a rough solution sketch, and early signals that it might resonate.
But rather than jumping straight into refining that solution or building it out, we went after the biggest existential risk: would anyone actually pay for this? If no one was willing to buy, everything else was irrelevant - a trap many teams fall into when exploring greenfield ideas.
To test this, we began discovery with existing customers with our solution sketch in hand. Our goal wasn’t to collect polite nods - it was to learn:
- How much districts were already spending to address this problem
- Whether our prototype created enough value to justify replacing or supplementing those costs
We interviewed about 20 participants using a mix of Monetizing Innovation tactics: Van Westendorp price sensitivity questions to understand perceived value thresholds, Gabor-Granger testing to gauge price elasticity, conjoint analysis to weigh feature trade-offs, and direct willingness-to-pay interviews for clarity on budget priorities. Because our team was small, we didn’t have a formal research lab or expensive survey tools. Instead, we built lightweight interview scripts, iterated as we went, and tested multiple formats to see which elicited the most honest responses. These adjustments not only improved the quality of feedback but demonstrated that effective pricing research doesn’t require a big budget - just curiosity and adaptability.
The results were encouraging: districts were already spending on competitors or workarounds, and while willingness to pay wasn’t sky-high, it was solid enough to justify moving forward.
Testing the Market for Real
With evidence of real spending and a viable price point in hand, we had de-risked the business case - but interview data only gets you so far. To truly validate demand, we needed to see how real buyers would respond in real conversations.
We quickly iterated on the prototype based on earlier feedback. Then we trained a small group of sales reps on the prototype and had them pitch it live to customers.
This provided invaluable insights into:
- Which price points resonated
- What positioning and messaging landed
- Where objections surfaced
- Which features mattered most to buyers
The goal wasn’t to close deals, it was to learn. One key discovery was that an even leaner version of the product could drive purchases, letting us cut features we’d assumed were launch-critical. Beyond this project, these insights created a repeatable approach for testing demand and willingness to pay, one we now use across the product portfolio and that other teams can adopt as well.
Key Takeaways
- De-risk the biggest unknown first: Validate willingness to pay before investing in design or development.
- Start small and iterate quickly: Use scrappy tools to get reliable signals without overbuilding.
- Test in the real market, not just theory: Live sales conversations reveal insights you’ll never get from surveys or internal debates.
- Use pricing research as a learning tool, not a formality: Techniques like Van Westendorp or Gabor-Granger can guide both price points and feature prioritization.
- Collaborate cross-functionally early: Involving sales, marketing, and product together early builds confidence, aligns messaging, and creates a ready pipeline for pilots.