The Goldilocks fallacy
One way to tell if the audience is happy is to ask a simple question: “Do you want it spicier?” (or the equivalent).
If half the people want it to go in one direction and the other half want the other, then you know you’re at ‘just right’. You’ve minimized the number of unhappy customers.
Here’s the problem: This assumes that there’s a normal distribution of preferences. In nature, many things are in fact distributed like this. Height, for example, or sensitivity to loud sounds. Most people are in the middle, fewer people are at either end. The goal when making something for everyone, if everyone is distributed normally, is to seek out the middle.
But!
Personal preferences aren’t normally distributed. Most people don’t care at all, some people care a lot.
And!
In any market with choices, you’re no longer going to be able to serve everyone, because given a choice, people will make a choice.
So, seeking the Goldilocks equilibrium is a trap. While it might diminish criticism, it maximizes apathy. While it might increase your appeal to a hypothetical middle-of-the-road consumer, it might be that there aren’t many of these.
For many products and services, the middle is hollowed out. What you’re left with are the people who want a lot more or want a lot less of whatever it is you’re able to adjust.