In this fictional scenario, an Albany startup founder is considering a custom pet-portrait service. They can create an attractive sample, but do not yet know whether the proposed ordering explanation makes sense to a newcomer. Their first research task is therefore about the customer experience, not a prediction of sales.
The example is wholly illustrative. No real customer interviews, artwork commissions or business results are reported. It follows a small prototype test that helps the founder identify questions before deciding how the service should operate.
The offer is narrowed before the test
The founder’s first draft combines several portrait styles, sizes and delivery choices. They recognise that a participant could struggle because the offer is poorly defined, rather than because the enquiry form needs more features.
They choose a limited fictional offer for the prototype: one portrait format based on a suitable reference image, with the remaining service details described for the test. This is not an actual product available to purchase. It gives the participant something definite to interpret.
Business.gov.au’s market research guidance recommends deciding what to learn about customers and services. The founder writes a specific question: can a newcomer explain what they would receive, what information they must provide and what happens after the enquiry?
The prototype avoids a live order
The founder prepares a draft description, a sample enquiry page and an example acknowledgement. The material is clearly marked as a prototype. It does not process payments, publish personal information or send messages to an operating business.
They use an invented sample image and details they are entitled to use. A real household photograph is unnecessary for this early exercise. The test concerns the sequence and meaning of the service, not the artistic quality of a stranger’s pet portrait.
Before any actual research, participants would need to understand the purpose, what involvement means and how their responses will be recorded. The fictional exercise does not create consent to later marketing.
A newcomer is asked to explain the journey
Within the fictional test, the participant reads the draft without the founder narrating each step. The founder asks what they think is included and what they believe they would need to do next. They avoid asking whether the page is easy, which could produce a polite answer without revealing understanding.
The task includes an unclear reference image and a question about a requested completion date. Those details test whether the prototype allows uncertainty to remain visible. A customer should not have to invent information or assume that a preferred date is accepted.
The fictional response reveals an approval gap
In the example, the participant interprets a preview as the finished artwork and assumes a requested change is automatically included. That fictional response exposes a question in the draft offer: what is the purpose of a preview, and how are changes actually handled?
The founder does not solve the issue by adding a reassuring promise they cannot support. They first decide the proposed service stages and boundaries, then revise the wording to reflect them. An enquiry, an accepted commission, a preview and final delivery need understandable meanings.
The ACCC’s claims guidance explains that descriptions and other service information should be accurate and supported. The founder uses that principle to check the overall impression, rather than relying on fine print to contradict the main description.
The revised test checks a specific change
The next prototype describes the stages more clearly and separates a requested date from an agreed commitment. The founder would retest those points without coaching the participant towards the intended answer.
They also ask what remains unclear about the supplied image and the item being delivered. A digital file and a physical print are different outcomes; packaging or delivery should not be left to assumption if the eventual offer includes an object.
The founder keeps the comparison focused. They do not add unrelated account features simply because another service uses them.
The research record preserves the limits
The useful notes distinguish:
- The draft offer and prototype version tested.
- What the participant was asked to do.
- What was understood without explanation.
- The specific confusion and proposed change.
- What still needs investigation before a real launch.
A small fictional exercise cannot establish demand across Albany, acceptable pricing or profitable production time. Even a future real participant understanding the page would not prove that they would buy the service.
The first decision stays modest
The scenario ends with a clearer customer journey and a further research question, not a successful launch. The founder still needs to investigate the wider offer, capability and actual market before accepting real commissions.
Testing the customer experience first gives an Albany startup a concrete way to improve an idea. It connects the promise with the next action while preserving the difference between a useful prototype finding and evidence of a viable business.