ReviewPin (working name)

Idea status: Idea stage · Target: an MRR ladder ($1k → $50k) instead of one fixed number · Verdict: No as described. Go small, as an honest-by-default review engine for UK and Irish web-design agencies · Last updated: 30 Sept 2026

Start here → WHAT-TO-DO-AND-AVOID.md: odds at each MRR level (with conditions, ~15 hrs/week / full-time: $1k ~40% / 55%, $5k ~13% / 21%, $10k ~6% / 11%, $20k ~2% / 4%), 13 do's, 15 avoids, checkpoints.

Origin: this idea came from the 30 Sept 2026 micro-SaaS idea catalog, row D1 (../_research/2026-09-30-micro-saas-idea-catalog.md). It was assessed with the same brutal-honesty review as the other ideas in this portfolio.

Name: "ReviewPin" is a working name. Check trademark (UK IPO and EUIPO) and domain before using it publicly.

Research was run on 30 Sept 2026, with a confidence level on each claim. See research/10-verified-research.md.

Folder layout

reviewpin/
├── WHAT-TO-DO-AND-AVOID.md      ← final analysis and decision (read first)
├── README.md                    ← this index
├── analysis/                    ← the investor-style assessment
│   ├── 00-one-page-brief.md
│   ├── 01-verdict.md
│   ├── 02-market-reality-check.md
│   ├── 03-feature-scrutiny.md
│   ├── 04-expanded-feature-catalog.md
│   ├── 05-pre-mortem.md
│   ├── 06-fundability.md
│   ├── 07-gaps.md
│   └── 09-assumptions-and-open-inputs.md
├── plans/                       ← execution plans
│   ├── 08-90-day-plan.md
│   └── 11-24-month-gated-roadmap.md
└── research/                    ← verified, cited evidence
    └── 10-verified-research.md

File numbers match the other ideas in this portfolio, so cross-references like "doc 08" work the same way.

Documents

#	Document	What it answers
—	WHAT-TO-DO-AND-AVOID.md	Final decision: MRR ladder, Tier A/B, conditions, customer math, 13 do's, 15 avoids, checkpoints
00	analysis/00-one-page-brief.md	The whole assessment on one page
01	analysis/01-verdict.md	MRR ladder for 5 versions of the idea and 2 time commitments, why there's no base rate, Tier A/B, fundable yes/no
02	analysis/02-market-reality-check.md	Buyer segments, pain scores, the free-widget floor, competitors and prices, market size
03	analysis/03-feature-scrutiny.md	The stated features, classified, plus the Google API reality
04	analysis/04-expanded-feature-catalog.md	About 45 features buyers ask for, classified and prioritised
05	analysis/05-pre-mortem.md	Top 3 causes of death, warning signs, fixable?
06	analysis/06-fundability.md	Invest?, the skeptic's first 5 minutes, proof points, bootstrap vs raise
07	analysis/07-gaps.md	Gaps to pay, renew and refer, plus the API and legal map
08	plans/08-90-day-plan.md	First 90 days, week by week, sized for limited weekly hours
09	analysis/09-assumptions-and-open-inputs.md	Assumptions made, and the inputs that would change the verdict
10	research/10-verified-research.md	Cited research (30 Sept 2026), confidence levels, corrections to the catalog, and what's still unverified
11	plans/11-24-month-gated-roadmap.md	Month 0–24 phases, gates, revenue path for both time commitments, budget guardrails

Caveat

Team, location, hours per week and agency access were not provided. The assumptions are in analysis/09.

The proof case, ReviewsOnMyWebsite, no longer runs under that name. It became LocalImpact in 2025, now priced at $49–149 a month. It was either acquired or rebranded; which one is unverified.

Three points are unverified:

whether Google's Business Profile API storage rule allows a third-party review widget on the owner's site;
the number of UK web-design agencies;
Meta's review requirement for Facebook recommendations.

See research/10.