Do you really need to talk to 50 people before working on a product?

Imagine you're trying to fix an unusual noise in your car. Would you rather:

A) Post in 50 different Facebook groups and forums, getting opinions from casual drivers, people who owned a different model 10 years ago, and 'car enthusiasts' who've never touched your specific make?

B) Talk to 12 mechanics who work specifically on your model and deal with this exact issue regularly?

Option A floods you with conflicting advice like 'probably just needs an oil change' or 'my cousin had something similar once.' Option B gives you clear patterns of actual problems and solutions from people who know what they're talking about.

Customer research works the same way. When founders chase "50 interviews" because someone told them that's the magic number, they end up with the equivalent of 50 random car opinions.

Here's what that mess typically looks like:

• They talk to anyone willing to give feedback
• They accept input from people who used to do it
• They drown in conflicting opinions
• They hear unhelpful advice like "X competitor does it like this"
• Their notes become a jungle of contradictions
• They end up more confused than when they started

Here's why: If ten project managers coordinating remote teams of 15+ people are trying to keep projects on track, they're probably:

• Using some combination of Slack, Asana, and spreadsheets
• Hitting identical challenges with timezone coordination
• Creating similar workarounds between communication tools
• Wishing for a better way to track team progress across different platforms

By conversation 12 with the right people, you'll be finishing their sentences. That's not coincidence. That's signal.

The usual traps that lead to bad research:

1. The investor trap when investors push for "more research," they connect you with:

• A VP of Operations who hasn't managed a team since 2015
• An advisor who "scaled multiple remote companies"
• A program manager who delegates all coordination to team leads
• Other founders who "built a project management tool once"

2. The random sample trap

• Mixing active project managers with "anyone who manages people"
• Getting vague feedback like "Most managers would probably..."
• Hearing generic opinions like "Just add AI to everything"
• Counting coffee chats as customer research

What makes someone "right"?

• They're actively managing a remote team of 15+ people RIGHT NOW
• They've tried Jira, Asana, and countless spreadsheets
• They can show you their daily standup routine
• They have deliverables due this quarter

You've found your pattern when:

• You know they're using a separate spreadsheet for tracking before they mention it
• You can guess their Monday morning coordination process
• Their frustrations with timezone management sound familiar
• More interviews just confirm what you already know

50 random opinions will give you 50 different directions. 12 conversations with project managers actively coordinating remote teams will show you one clear path.

Stop diluting your insights with quantity. Start focusing on quality.

Here's your research playbook:

1. Define your exact user - instead of "project managers":
   • "Remote team leads managing 15+ people across 3+ time zones using multiple tools"
2. Find them where they already are
   • Remote work Slack communities
   • Project Management subreddits (read my guide on this)
   • LinkedIn groups for distributed team leads
   • Asana/Monday.com user forums
   • Look up your audience on thehiveindex.com
3. Qualify before talking. Ask these screening questions:
   • "How many people do you currently manage?"
   • "What tools do you use daily for coordination?"
   • "When was your last team sync?"
4. Structure your conversations
   • Start with "Walk me through your Monday morning routine"
   • Ask for specific examples: "Show me your current tracking system/approach/tool"
   • End with "What did we miss that you deal with daily?"
5. Know when to stop you’ve hit gold when:
   • You can predict their problems
   • You hear the same workarounds
   • You understand their daily workflow better than they do
   • New conversations just confirm your patterns

Remember: customer research isn't about hitting an arbitrary number of conversations. It's about finding the clear signal in all the noise.

You don't need 50 random opinions. You need 12 conversations with the right people who:

• Live your target user's problems every day
• Have tried and failed with existing solutions
• Can show you their current workarounds
• Are actively looking for a better way

When you focus on quality over quantity, you'll spend less time researching and more time building exactly what your users need.

Stop counting interviews. Start counting patterns.