Built something I don’t even know how to position anymore
I started building a simple app.
Now I have something I don’t even know how to describe anymore.
It’s not one product. It’s more like a core system I can build different things on top of.
There’s a lead system, calling (AI or I guide it), some CRM logic, content generation, translations, signals from RSS/LinkedIn/Reddit…
Everything is connected and modular. I can turn things on/off, run it per client, spin up different versions from the same core.
Honestly it feels like 4–5 different systems inside one.
And now I’m stuck.
It’s too wide. I don’t know what to target.
For an agency this would probably be really powerful.
For me alone, it’s just sitting there because I don’t know how to package it.
If you were in my place, what would you do?
Break it into smaller things?
Find someone with clients?
Or try to sell it as a whole?
Who's your target customer for this? Depending on who you're after, I might know a few people I could intro you to for free.
Sorry for the late reply.
Right now I’m focusing on startups, agencies, SaaS founders, and businesses that need custom AI systems or platforms built fast without rebuilding everything from scratch.
LMSY is basically a modular SaaS core where I can spin up different products, dashboards, CRM systems, marketplaces, automations, AI workflows, and client platforms from the same infrastructure.
If you know people building AI products, internal tools, SaaS platforms, or agency systems, I’d definitely be interested in connecting.
There's a community called "replyz" where you can connect with exactly the kind of people you're looking for. Just search for the type of person you want to talk to and you'll get thoughtful, detailed replies from them. The only thing is that members are expected to share their own knowledge with others too, which is what keeps the community valuable. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
This might be the most genuinely useful post on IH this week. The builder trap - where you shipped something real and working but can't summarize it in one sentence - is chronically underrepresented in founder conversations. Everyone talks about their positioning before building; almost no one talks about rediscovering it after.
Something I've noticed from digging into engineering data: the commit history often tells the positioning story before the founder can articulate it. Whichever module got the most iterative commits - the most bug fixes, the most incremental depth, the most late-night pushes - that's almost always what users end up actually valuing. It's where the builder's conviction and early user friction compounded together. The codebase "reveals" the product before the copy does.
Looking across your building/deployment layer, the lead-finding layer, and the calling layer - which one got the heaviest engineering attention over the past few months? That's probably where your positioning actually lives.
That’s a really interesting way to look at it.
If I follow your logic, then the answer is probably uncomfortable but clear — I didn’t build “a product”, I built the layer that builds products.
The reason it’s hard to position is because different parts of the system kept evolving at the same time — modules, AI orchestration, tenant deployment.
There isn’t one dominant “feature”, there’s a system that can turn into multiple outcomes.
So maybe the real question isn’t “what is it?”
but “which entry point do I expose first?”
Curious how you would approach that — would you lock it to one use case or keep it flexible and let usage define it?
Lock the landing page to one use case. Keep the product flexible underneath. The trap with platform-shaped products is the landing page tries to be honest about everything the system can do, and ends up describing a category instead of a buyer's pain. Visitors who half-fit any use case bounce. Tying it back to the commit-history idea - the module that got the heaviest iteration is usually also the one with the shortest path to "user got real value." The codebase already voted. Positioning is just catching up. Practical heuristic: which entry point has the shortest time-from-signup-to-first-result? That one becomes the public face. The other capabilities don't disappear - they just become earned discoveries instead of front-door promises. Usage defines the long tail. But the entry point has to be a single hook, or none of the long tail ever gets explored.
That makes a lot of sense.
If I’m honest, the fastest path to value is probably the “build something from modules” flow — where the agent takes a goal and actually assembles a working system.
That’s also the part that feels closest to a real “moment” for the user.
The hesitation I had was that it almost feels like I’m hiding the real depth of the system by doing that — but I see your point that trying to expose everything just kills clarity.
So maybe the right move is:
one clear promise on the surface,
and let the system reveal itself after first value.
Appreciate the perspective — this actually helped me cut through a lot of noise.
Classic platform trap — you built infrastructure when the market buys solutions.
The honest answer is you probably need to pick one use case, strip everything else out of the pitch, and sell that one thing hard. Not because the other parts aren't valuable but because "powerful modular system that does everything" is impossible to buy. "AI calling system for real estate lead followup" is something someone can say yes or no to in 30 seconds.
The good news is you haven't wasted anything. The core system stays the same — you're just changing the label on the door depending on who you're talking to.
If I were in your position I'd look at which module solves the most painful and specific problem, find 5 potential customers who have that exact problem, and pitch only that piece. Ignore everything else exists for now. Once you have paying customers for one use case you can expand naturally.
The "find someone with clients" path is also worth considering — an agency partner who brings the customers while you bring the tech can shortcut the distribution problem entirely. You build, they sell, you split revenue.
What module do you think solves the most urgent problem right now?
Yeah I get what you mean.
But the thing is, everyone out there is solving just one piece.
One tool builds websites.
Another one does leads.
Another one does calls.
Another one does analysis.
Nothing is really connected.
What I built is basically all of that in one place.
I can build something, deploy it, find leads, call them (AI or manual), and improve it -all inside the same system.
And honestly… that’s just one example. There’s more behind it.
I think that’s also the problem.
People are used to buying one thing, not something that does everything together.
I’ve had a few people tell me I’m a few years ahead with this.
Sounds nice, but in reality it just means most people don’t really know what they’re looking at yet.
So yeah… I’m kind of stuck between:
this makes total sense to me and the market not really seeing it the same way yet
"A few years ahead" is a real problem disguised as a compliment.
The market not seeing it yet isn't a marketing problem you can solve with better messaging. It means the pain isn't felt yet or people are coping with the fragmentation well enough that switching feels risky.
The honest move is to find one person who already feels the exact pain your system solves — someone who is actively juggling 4-5 disconnected tools and hating it — and solve it entirely for them. Not as a product sale, as a service. Charge them monthly, build around their specific workflow, learn what actually matters versus what you thought would matter.
That one customer teaches you more about packaging than any amount of thinking about it alone.
The "all in one" pitch is hard to sell cold. But "I will replace your entire outreach and lead workflow with one system" to someone drowning in tools is a very easy yes.
Yeah, that actually makes sense.
The “few years ahead” thing sounded like a good thing at first, but I can see how it’s actually part of the problem.
I think you’re right about the pain not being strong enough yet. People are used to juggling tools, even if it’s messy.
And yeah, the all-in-one angle is probably what’s killing it when I try to explain it.
The idea of just finding one person who already feels this and solving it fully for them… that actually sounds like the most real way to test it.
Feels a bit weird to step back from “system” and treat it like a service, but I get why that works.
Appreciate the perspective.