The commitment test that reveals phantom demand

Most teams spend months in "discovery conversations" with potential customers and partners. They collect verbal enthusiasm, positive feedback, and promises to "definitely consider it when you're ready." Then they build based on these warm expressions of interest.

This approach mistakes politeness for commitment. Commitment to Buy testing forces prospects to put their intentions in writing, revealing who's genuinely interested versus who's just being professionally courteous.

What's a Commitment to Buy test?

A Commitment to Buy test uses a short, non-legally binding written document that asks prospects to formally express their intent to purchase or partner. It's stronger than verbal interest but lighter than a contract; perfect for testing genuine demand before you build.

Think of it as a business engagement ring: a formal expression of serious intent that both parties can back out of, but which signals real commitment rather than casual interest.

How a logistics client avoided building for phantom demand

A logistics company we work with was developing a platform that automated supply chain monitoring for manufacturing companies. After 6 months of customer interviews across 45 prospects, they had overwhelming validation: 89% said they "definitely needed this solution" and would "absolutely purchase it" when available.

Based on this enthusiastic feedback, they were preparing to invest £3M and spend 18 months building the product. The verbal validation felt rock-solid; multiple prospects had even provided detailed feature requirements and indicated budget availability.

Before getting started, we suggest they test actual commitment. They created a simple one-page letter of intent asking prospects to formally express purchase intent for their planned solution, with delivery expected in 12 months.

Of 45 prospects who had expressed strong verbal interest, only 7 signed the commitment to buy document. That's a 16% conversion rate from stated interest to written commitment, a massive gap that would have destroyed their business case.

Follow-up interviews revealed the truth: most prospects liked the concept but had concerns they hadn't voiced during discovery calls. Budget approval processes, integration complexities, competing priorities, and risk tolerance for new vendors all surfaced when written commitment was required.

Instead of building a comprehensive platform, they repositioned as a pilot program partner. Their revised commitment to buy focused on 90-day proof-of-concept deployments. This time, 23 prospects signed commitments for pilot programs, a much stronger foundation for building and scaling.

Why written commitment reveals what conversations miss

The gap between verbal interest and written commitment isn't about dishonesty, it's about decision-making reality. When someone has to formally commit, even non-bindingly, they're forced to consider factors that don't surface in hypothetical discussions.

Verbal interest happens in conversations with innovation teams who love exploring new concepts. Written commitment requires involving procurement teams, legal departments, and budget holders who weren't part of those initial discovery calls. These stakeholders bring different perspectives about vendor risk, implementation complexity, and resource allocation that innovation teams often overlook.

The commitment process also forces prospects to consider competing priorities. When they have to formally rank your solution against other initiatives fighting for the same budget and attention, the real priorities become clear. Many solutions that seem urgent in conversation become less critical when prospects must choose between multiple "urgent" initiatives.

Timeline and resource constraints surface differently too. It's easy to express enthusiasm for a solution that might arrive "someday." Written commitment with specific delivery dates forces prospects to think through actual implementation timelines, change management requirements, and operational disruption.

How to structure tests that generate meaningful commitment

The key is making the commitment meaningful enough to require real consideration without creating unrealistic barriers. A simple one-page document works best; clearly non-binding, but formal enough that prospects must think through their actual intent rather than just expressing polite interest.

Include specific but reasonable conditions. Rather than open-ended commitment, specify timelines, basic terms, and key assumptions. Something like "intent to evaluate [solution] for purchase when available in [timeframe] subject to [key conditions]" gives structure without demanding detailed specifications.

Target the right people. Send commitment requests to individuals with actual budget authority and implementation responsibility, not just folks who like exploring concepts. The goal is testing real purchase intent, not curiosity about new technology.

What commitment rates tell you about your market

Don't expect high conversion rates from verbal interest to written commitment. Even 20-30% conversion indicates strong demand in most B2B contexts. The goal isn't maximising signatures, it's understanding the gap between stated interest and actual purchase intent.

Low commitment rates often reveal market readiness issues rather than solution problems. Prospects might love your concept but lack budget approval processes, implementation capacity, or stakeholder alignment needed for adoption. This intelligence helps you adjust timing, positioning, or go-to-market approach.

High commitment rates from a small group often predict better outcomes than low commitment rates from large audiences. Seven genuine commitments teach you more about product-market fit than 45 polite expressions of interest.

When commitment testing works best

This approach works particularly well for B2B solutions with complex buying processes, where multiple stakeholders influence purchase decisions and implementation requires significant organisational change. It's also valuable for partnership validation; testing supplier, distribution, or strategic alliance interest before committing development resources.

The timing matters too. Commitment to Buy tests work best after positive discovery conversations but before major development investment. You want prospects who already understand your concept and have expressed interest, but haven't yet made formal purchasing decisions.

Try this next week

Identify 10-15 prospects who have expressed strong verbal interest in your current innovation project. Create a simple commitment to buy document) one page, non-binding, with reasonable terms and timeline).

Focus less on the signature rate and more on understanding why people commit or decline. Both responses provide valuable market intelligence about decision-making processes, competing priorities, and implementation readiness.

Commitment to Buy testing bridges the gap between polite conversation and actual purchase intent. Most teams stop at verbal validation but successful teams test written commitment before they build.