Customer research for AI writing tools

Define the question before collecting names

For ai writing tools, investigate whether draft generation is quick but checking factual claims and brand fit takes too long. Research is useful when it explains a workflow, its owner, and an unresolved constraint. A list of companies in a sector cannot establish that those companies have this problem.

Begin with writers adapting approved source material to a specific brief and check how their work relates to an editorial or marketing lead accountable for publishable copy. Map the current process around generic prompts followed by manual document review. You are looking for the step where the workaround stops being adequate, rather than asking people to validate an abstract product idea.

Search for the language of the problem

Try the queries below in a search engine or the search feature of a relevant professional community. Read the original discussion and its date. Results are starting points for research; these query examples do not claim any particular search volume or the existence of a matching prospect.

Write an evidence note you can revisit

Illustrative source text: “We can generate drafts, but editors spend ages checking whether the claims came from the supplied brief. What keeps the source visible?” Save the actual source URL and date when researching a real example. Keep a short relevant excerpt and your interpretation in separate fields. Do not rewrite your interpretation as something the author said.

The working hypothesis is that the team produces recurring content from a growing set of approved materials. The missing information includes whether the author is an editorial or marketing lead accountable for publishable copy, whether the need is still open, and which implementation requirements remain unverified. Keep this constraint visible: generated wording can be fluent while unsupported; source review remains part of the task.

• Observed: the original words, the visible date, the task described, and any explicit requirements.
• To verify: whether the current process is generic prompts followed by manual document review.
• Disqualify when the need belongs to buyers requiring fabricated expertise, copied material, or automatic publication without editorial judgment.
• Next step: one context-appropriate question, or no contact when there is no suitable route.

Use a short discovery interview

Ask about a recent event before showing your product. Let the person explain the sequence in their own words; do not treat agreement with a leading question as validation.

• Which statements in the last draft required the editor to find supporting evidence?
• What must be approved before a draft can be published?
• What would need to be true for you to prepare one short draft from an approved brief with a claim-to-source review?
• How would you verify that an editor accepts or corrects each material claim before approving the draft?

Turn notes into a research decision

Compare independently sourced accounts of the same task. Keep an example that contradicts your hypothesis, such as this ambiguous scenario: A request to generate thousands of indistinguishable articles automatically. It may justify more reading, but it is insufficient to label someone a buyer.

At the end of a bounded research session, decide whether to narrow the audience, ask a specific follow-up, change the pilot, or stop. Keep unknowns visible and store only the information needed for that decision. Research quality is measured by a better decision, not by how many names are collected.