How are you finding consistent users or clients early on?
I keep noticing the same pattern — not just with freelancers, but even with small SaaS products.
The biggest struggle isn’t building.
It’s finding a consistent flow of users or clients.
Most people end up:
- jumping between platforms
- trying random outreach
- posting in multiple places
- but still getting inconsistent results
It feels less like a skill problem and more like a discovery problem.
I’m curious how others here are handling this:
Are you relying more on:
- platforms (Upwork, marketplaces, directories)
- outbound (cold DMs, emails)
- or building some kind of system to track opportunities/users in one place?
Would love to hear what’s actually working right now.
Trending on Indie Hackers
For us the answer has been ruthlessly staying in the channels where our actual customers already hang out — not where we assumed they'd be.
We're building Foyer, an AI receptionist for small service businesses (contractors, salons, clinics), and the instinct was to go broad. LinkedIn, ads, everywhere at once. What actually moved the needle was getting into specific Facebook groups where small business owners talk about the real pain of managing calls and bookings. Zero ad spend. Just showing up where the problem was already being discussed and being genuinely useful.
The pattern I keep seeing: early traction almost always comes from direct conversations in tight communities, not from broadcasting. The question worth asking isn't "how do I reach users" — it's "where are the people who already feel this pain, right now?" Then go be present there before trying to scale anything.
This is spot on.
Feels like a lot of people try to “scale” before they’ve actually found where real conversations are happening.
I’ve been seeing something similar on the outbound side, too — when there’s a clear, active pain signal, everything becomes easier.
Curious how you initially found those Facebook groups?
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
If intrested DM to sai rithvik linkedin
Went through this exact cycle for months — posting everywhere, trying cold email, dabbling in SEO, all at once. Inconsistent results the whole time.
What actually worked was picking ONE channel (for me it was niche communities where store owners hang out) and doing nothing else for 6 weeks straight. Got more traction from that than 4 months of spreading thin. The inconsistency isn't a volume problem — it's a focus problem.
100% this. Most people don’t fail because they didn’t try enough channels — they fail because they never stayed long enough in one to actually learn what works.
I’ve seen the same with freelancers: the ones who win aren’t everywhere… they just get really good at one acquisition loop.
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
if intrested dm to sai rithvik linkedin
Honest answer from where we are right now — we're going where the frustration already exists.
Built Stratiic for consultants who write proposals. Instead of broad outreach we've
been finding LinkedIn threads where people are complaining about RFP season and just
joining those conversations.
Not trying to sell in those threads. Just talking about the problem. The people who
care find their way to the product.
Early days so I can't claim it's working at scale. But it feels more real than
cold outreach to a list.
This is a great approach — showing up where frustration is already active tends to be way more real than any outbound.
What’s been interesting to me is that even before those complaints, there are usually smaller signals that hint at the problem forming.
By the time someone is openly frustrated, a lot of options are already in play.
Feels like there’s an opportunity one layer earlier, before it turns into a visible pain point.
Curious if you’ve noticed anything like that yet, or if the complaint layer has been enough so far.
For me the biggest unlock was focusing on one traffic source completely before touching another. I built a simple browser-based web tool whitescreen and instead of spreading across Reddit, Twitter and SEO at once, I picked Google organic only and went deep on it. Zero paid ads, zero social — just making sure every page answered a real search query. Took longer to see results but the traffic that came in converted better because the intent was already there. Curious if others found the same when they narrowed their channel focus early on.
That’s a solid approach — going deep on one channel forces real clarity.
What’s interesting is that search already captures intent once it’s explicit, which is why the conversion feels stronger.
The part I keep coming back to is what happens just before that — when people aren’t searching yet but are starting to feel the problem.
Feels like that’s where things are still underpriced and less competitive.
Curious if you’ve experimented at all with catching those earlier signals, or if search has been enough so far.
That makes sense — going deep on one channel definitely forces clarity.
What’s interesting, though, is that SEO already captures intent once it’s explicit.
Feels like there’s an earlier layer before that, where people aren’t searching yet but are already hinting at the problem in conversations.
That’s usually where things are still less competitive.
Curious if you’ve ever tried tapping into those earlier signals, or if search intent has been enough so far?
Just launched an iOS app 11 days ago and living this exact problem. What I'm finding so far: the App Store itself has been more consistent than any social channel. Specifically long-tail keyword optimization in the App Store listing. "Bookmark manager" was impossible to rank for but "save TikTok bookmarks" has actual search volume with almost no competition. That single keyword shift drove more daily installs than a week of posting on social. The other thing that moved the needle was going where people are already complaining about the problem. Instead of posting "check out my app," I replied in threads where someone said "I keep losing my saved posts" or "why can't I find that recipe I saved on TikTok." The conversion from those conversations is way higher because the pain is already there. Still early and figuring out the consistency part, but the pattern seems clear: intent-based discovery beats broadcasting every time.
This is a great example of how powerful intent-driven discovery is.
You’re essentially meeting people at two key points — when they’re actively searching, and when they’re already feeling the pain.
What’s been interesting to me is that there’s often an even earlier layer, before it turns into a search or a clear complaint — small signals that hint the problem is forming.
That’s usually where competition is still minimal and positioning gets easier.
Curious if you’ve noticed any patterns leading up to those complaints, or if search + threads have been enough so far.
This is a great example of how powerful intent-driven discovery can be.
What stands out is you’re not just relying on keywords — you’re showing up where the problem is already active.
Feels like the next layer is even earlier than that, before people turn it into a search or a clear complaint.
There are usually small signals before that point — patterns that hint at the problem forming.
Curious if you’ve noticed any of those earlier patterns, or if search + complaints have been enough so far?
This is the exact problem we're navigating right now. For us (building an AI ad creative tool), the thing that's actually working is going where our users already hang out and being genuinely useful before asking for anything.
Concretely: we found that small business owners and solo founders are posting in communities like this one, Reddit, and Facebook groups saying things like "I need to run ads but I can't design" or "how do I make social media creatives without hiring a designer." Instead of cold DMing them, we started just answering their questions with real advice — what dimensions work for each platform, how to structure ad copy, when to use carousels vs. static images. No pitch, just helping.
What surprised us was that a good chunk of those people came back and asked what tools we'd recommend, which opened a natural door. The conversion rate on that is way higher than any outbound we've tried because the trust is already built.
The other thing that moved the needle was making the free tier genuinely useful. When people can actually get value before paying, they tell other people. Word of mouth from 10 happy free users has outperformed every paid channel we've tested so far.
What type of product are you building? The answer probably varies a lot depending on whether you're B2B services vs. a self-serve SaaS.
Honestly the thing that worked best for me was just being active on Twitter sharing what I was building. One person with an audience found my tool organically, wrote about it, and I got 42 signups in a single day. You really cannot predict where your first users will come from. Cold outreach never worked for me but content and being visible did.
That’s a great outcome — those spikes always look random from the outside.
What’s interesting is that they usually aren’t entirely random. It’s often a mix of what you shared, who saw it, and whether it matched something they were already paying attention to.
Feels less like pure visibility and more like timing lining up with the right context.
Curious if you noticed anything specific about what you posted or when that led up to that spike.
That’s a great outcome — and it often looks random from the outside.
But it’s interesting how those “lucky” moments usually happen when something you share lines up with what someone is already paying attention to.
Feels less like pure visibility and more like timing + context intersecting at the right moment.
Curious if you noticed any patterns in what you were sharing right before that spike, or where that person found you?
— it was narrowing down WHO we were talking to. We spent weeks posting in broad marketing communities getting crickets, then started specifically targeting founders who had just launched on Product Hunt or posted "how do I run ads?" questions in SaaS communities. The conversion rate went from basically zero to actually getting signups because we were showing up right when people felt the pain of needing ad creatives but not having design skills or budget for an agency. To answer your question directly — for us it's been a mix of community engagement (like here on IH) and building a free tier that lets people experience the value immediately. When someone can paste their URL and get ad creatives back in 30 seconds, the product basically sells itself through word of mouth. The hard part was finding that first pocket of people who actually needed it right now.
That’s a great example of how much timing and context matter.
What stands out is you didn’t just find the right audience — you found them at the exact moment they felt the problem.
Most people try to optimize messaging or channels, but the real leverage seems to come from catching that “active need” window.
Curious — did you find those signals manually at first, or did you start noticing patterns in where and when they show up?
Honestly, a lot of it was just lurking first — searched '[niche] + struggles' and '[niche] + help' in Facebook search, found 4-5 groups that seemed active, and spent a week just reading before saying anything. The signal-to-noise in smaller tighter communities is way higher than the big general ones. Once I started posting, I focused on being actually useful rather than promoting anything and that's when conversations started converting to real test users.
Genuine question from the investor side -- when you talk to 20 early-stage founders about this exact problem, maybe 2 of them have a repeatable system. The rest are doing what you described, random sprints across channels with no feedback loop. What separates the ones who crack it? In my experience it comes down to whether they picked one channel and ran it for 90 days before switching. Has anyone here actually stuck with one approach long enough to know if it works or not?
That makes sense — consistency definitely separates the ones who break through.
At the same time, I’ve seen cases where it’s not just about sticking to one channel, but whether that channel actually contains active demand in that moment.
You can run something for 90 days, but if the signal isn’t there, it just compounds the wrong feedback loop.
Feels like the harder part is knowing where and when to focus before committing that time.
Curious how you think about validating that upfront?
This resonates a lot, especially the "discovery problem not skill problem" framing.
For service businesses and freelancers specifically, what I keep seeing work is getting very clear on a trigger event - the specific circumstance that means someone needs you right now. For tradespeople or UK self-employed people, for example, one clear trigger is a client who is overdue on payment. You stop doing general marketing and go find people who are already in that specific pain.
The channel almost doesn't matter once you have that specificity. Whether it is Reddit threads, community forums, or direct outreach - the conversion is higher because you are not convincing them they have a problem. You are just being the person who shows up when the problem is already active.
For any UK-based freelancers in the thread dealing with the cash flow side of this, landolio.com is worth a look for late payment resources.
This is a great way to frame it — the trigger event idea is really powerful.
What I’ve been noticing though is that by the time the trigger is obvious, there’s often already competition showing up around it.
Feels like there’s another layer just before that — smaller signals that hint at the problem forming, before it becomes explicit.
That’s usually where things are still quiet.
Curious if you’ve ever tried spotting those earlier patterns, or if you’ve found the trigger stage to be early enough in practice?
What helped us most was turning “random outreach” into one repeatable weekly loop:
Our early mistake was switching channels every week. Consistency improved only after we kept the same loop for 6+ weeks and measured by qualified conversations, not impressions.
If useful, I can share the simple spreadsheet structure we use to track this (signal source, pain phrase, stage, next touch date).
For us the best early traction came from going back to communities where the problem
already exists — not trying to create awareness from scratch.
We built Stratiic for consultants who write proposals. Instead of broad outreach we went
to consulting forums and LinkedIn groups where people were already complaining about RFP season. The conversations were warmer because the pain was already there.
The mistake I made early on was thinking distribution was a separate step from
validation. They're the same step. Where are people already frustrated? Start there.
cold email has been my best channel so far. sent about 800 emails to small businesses offering free seo reports — not pitching a sale, just showing them what's broken on their site.
reply rate is only about 3-4% but the conversations are way more genuine than anything from social. the ones who reply actually have the problem you're describing.
the key shift for me was going from "pay me to fix this" to "here's what's wrong, free" — then the paid work comes naturally when they see you actually know what you're talking about.
still early (zero revenue lol) but the pipeline feels real in a way that posting content and hoping for inbound never did.
Running multiple SaaS products simultaneously (security tools, SEO, AI-powered products), I've run into this exact wall and had to think hard about what's actually different between the products where users came consistently vs. the ones that felt like screaming into a void.
The clearest pattern: consistency comes from the demand side, not the supply side. When I was posting about ShieldWays (security scanning), early users came almost entirely from threads where developers were already complaining about a specific pain — not from me broadcasting. When I tried to manufacture demand by posting about a new product before the community context existed, almost nothing worked.
Two things that helped more than any channel choice:
Switching from ICP-as-demographic to ICP-as-trigger-moment. "Developers who care about security" is useless. "Developers who just had a dependency audit fail in CI/CD" is findable — they post about it. Once I started tracking the specific events that made someone ready right now, outreach response rates went from noise to signal.
Building "always-on" surface area vs. episodic posting. SEO content, niche directory listings, and a few well-placed deep answers in community threads keep pulling in users while I'm building. Each burst-effort post has a short shelf life. The slow-burn assets compound. The mistake I made early was measuring only the spike channels and ignoring the slow-burn ones because the feedback loop is too long.
The "system" framing Farhad mentioned is exactly right. The founders I know who solved this built a repeatable loop: one channel for discovery (where the active pain lives), one asset that compounds (content/SEO), and a dead-simple follow-up habit. The randomness goes away when you stop treating each week's outreach as a fresh experiment.
for me the biggest shift was realizing that consistency comes from picking one channel and going deep instead of spreading thin across five. early on i was doing a bit of everything, communities, outreach, some content, and nothing really stuck. once i focused on understanding exactly where my users hang out and showing up there repeatedly, things started compounding. it's less about the channel itself and more about whether you can build a feedback loop where each interaction teaches you something about the next one. what's been your most reliable channel so far, or are you still in the testing phase?
This really resonates. I just launched a digital product this week and the discovery piece is 100% the hardest part.
What's working so far (early days, so grain of salt): submitting to niche directories that actually rank for long-tail keywords. Not the big aggregators — the smaller, category-specific ones. They take time to approve but they compound. I've submitted to about 14 so far and the ones that include dofollow backlinks are already starting to show up in Search Console.
The other thing that surprised me: writing one genuinely useful article on Dev.to with a natural mention drove more clicks than any social post. People searching for solutions > people scrolling feeds.
Still figuring out the consistent part, but the pattern I'm noticing is that channels where people are actively looking for something (directories, search, forums) outperform channels where you're interrupting them (social, DMs).
Would love to hear what's worked for others past the first 30 days.
Two things have worked better for me than broad posting. First, go where the pain is already verbalized and answer specific threads, emails, or DMs by hand. The exact language people use there is usually better than anything you invent for a landing page. Second, narrow the ICP until you can describe one painful before/after clearly. The fastest signal is not volume; it is hearing the same objection from the same slice of people multiple times.
Consistent users usually come from consistency on your side first which includes showing up, iterating fast, and staying close to feedback.
Thanks for sharing
The "consistent" part of consistent early users almost always comes from targeting specificity, not channel volume.
The founders I see get consistent early traction have usually mapped out a triggering event — a specific circumstance that makes a prospect ready right now. A new hire in a specific role. A recent funding round. A competitor just raised prices. A job posting revealing a pain point. They then go find people experiencing that trigger, rather than broadcasting to everyone who might eventually want what they're selling.
The ones who stay inconsistent are running scattered outreach without this model. They're targeting "B2B SaaS founders" instead of "B2B SaaS founders who just posted a VP Sales job listing and closed a Series A in the last 90 days." The second list is findable. The first is too broad to convert reliably.
Platform vs outbound is almost secondary to this. The channel matters less than whether you've identified the right moment to reach someone.
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sai-rithvik-2176302b1_eligible-ai-companies-can-access-up-to200k-activity-7442865181254209536-EiDB
Newsletter sponsorships fixed my discovery problem more than any platform.
Early on I wasted time on cold outreach (low reply rate) and paid ads (expensive for testing). What actually worked: sponsoring 1-2 niche newsletters in my exact target market.
The audiences are small but hyper-qualified — and newsletter readers are already in "buy/try" mode when they open their inbox. CPMs are way lower than Meta or Google.
The issue is finding the right newsletters. Most directories are outdated or too broad. So I built bee-directory.com — 700+ Beehiiv newsletters filterable by niche, audience size, and price range. Made the discovery part 10x faster.
Still early for me too, but the ROI vs cold outreach is night and day.
For early users, I've had the most luck going where the exact pain already exists and contributing genuinely before mentioning anything I'm building.
With Lumbox (gives AI agents dedicated email inboxes), my first users came from threads on r/aiagents and r/AI_Agents where devs were actively complaining about the OTP verification problem. I didn't pitch — I just described the approach I'd tried and what worked. People DM'd asking to try it.
The consistent thread I've noticed: the more specific the community, the better the signal. A niche subreddit with 50 engaged comments beats a broad one with 500 passive readers. Same on IndieHackers — the people who actually reply here are already filtered for caring about building things.
What's your product space? Might have specific community suggestions.
The framing of "discovery problem not skill problem" is exactly right, and it maps to something specific: most early-stage founders conflate channel validation with audience validation.
The question isn't really "which channel works" — it's "which channel contains people who already know they have this problem." Cold outbound converts poorly not because the channel is broken but because you're interrupting people who haven't identified the pain yet. Communities (IH, specific Slacks, niche Reddit equivalents) work better early because the people there have already self-selected as problem-aware.
For B2B specifically: the fastest path to early users I've seen is to pick the job title of your ideal buyer, find where they complain publicly (LinkedIn posts, community threads, product reviews on G2/Capterra), and engage there before you ever pitch. You're not doing discovery — you're finding people who've already done the discovery for you. That's a very different motion from spray-and-pray cold outbound.
I've been wondering if I can outsource the user discovery to AI.
My current experiment: I have AI build detailed user personas—essentially roleplaying as people who already feel this pain point acutely—then ask it to identify which specific communities, subreddits, or Discord servers those user types actually hang out in.
Basically using AI to simulate "where would my ideal customers congregate?" before I start manual outreach. Still testing this approach, but curious if anyone else has tried something similar?
Biggest shift for me was picking one channel and sticking to it instead of jumping around. Consistency + simple repeatable process (post, engage, follow up) worked way better than trying everything at once.
This is def the hardest part of launching a new tech product. I've worked in tech commercialisation for about 15 years - from product dev through to launch and lifecycle marketing - every time, finding those first customers is most challenging stage.
One of the most important things you can do (even BEFORE) you've finished developing your product, is spend some time understanding and defining your ideal customer profile (ICP) in detail. Even interviewing 5-10 of them if you can. Rather than having a broad definition of who you think you might sell to (e.g. 'I will sell my app to anyone who is interesting in using a habit tracker', defining your ICP in detail helps you to understand in depth - what problems they want to solve, what their unique buying triggers are, what kind of messaging you can use to resonate with that segment, and where they hang out / spend time online. It's worth putting the effort into building out a deep profile because your messaging and posts can be extremely specific and targeted - 'e.g. Are you a time-poor 40+ women with late-diagnosed ADHD, needing help with developing good habits? Our app makes it easy to build new habits, in just 2 minutes per day'. This is the kind of targeted messaging that drives engagement and growth. And you can see just from that example - targeting that very specific group (40+ women with late diagnosed ADHD) narrows down your channel / media selection and makes it a lot easier. Instead of trying to assess all available channels, you're just looking for the channels/media that this particular segment spends time on.
Even if your app can be used by everyone, you want to break your market down into smaller segments, measure the segment value and choose 3-4 high value + high need segments that you'll focus on. Don't try to talk to everyone at once. Choose 1-2 segments/ICPs for your launch, keep it simple. When you're getting good traction and sales in those 2 segments, start on 3 and 4.
I built a free ICP builder tool a while ago, it walks founders through the process of defining their ICP. It doesn't generate the content for you - it takes you through a series of questions in a sequence, and your answers build out the final downloadable profile. Let me know if you'd like the link, happy to share it.
For us it was Reddit and Discord, specifically r/godot. We build an AI plugin for Godot and the subreddit was where our first real users came from. Not from posting "check out my product" threads (those get downvoted fast) but from actually answering people's questions about game dev and having our name visible. Took about 2 months before it turned into consistent signups. Cold outreach got us exactly zero conversions. SEO blog posts started working around month 4 but the compounding took a while.
Honestly feeling pretty stuck, would love to know how to get more traction on a webapp I've built
I am struggling with this too. So, far only using X. I have been posting and replying there for last 3-4 days and noticed something that there people do post things like "drop you product let's bring some traction" but those were just engagement tactics they use to boost their own profile/post. I didn't found these post very helpful, maybe I was doing something wrong there. Then I register myself on IH but you already know that it won't let me post until I contribute a lot. So, anyway this is a pain point and I found some really great suggestions in the comments. I will try their suggestion. Thanks for the post.
The IH karma wall is frustrating but the audience here is way more engaged once you get through it.
On X, the "drop your product" posts are engagement bait. Better move: search pain-point terms related to your product and reply there instead.
What problem does your webapp solve? That determines which 1-2 communities are worth going deep in. That clarity is what got Lumbox its first users.
For digital products specifically, I've found that directories and niche communities outperform cold outreach early on. The key is showing up where your buyers already hang out — not blasting links, but genuinely contributing first. Comment on posts, answer questions, share what you've learned. When you eventually share your product, people already recognize your name. It's slower than paid ads but the conversion quality is way higher because trust is pre-built. The "post everywhere and hope" approach burns you out fast. Better to go deep in 2-3 channels than shallow across 10.
Most early-stage founders I talk to are finding clients through a mix of posting, hoping, and pattern-matching in hindsight.
The ones getting consistent results have one thing in common: they know something about their prospect's world before they reach out. A role change, a competitor shift, a post that signals budget or urgency.
Without that signal layer underneath, all your outreach is just effort pointed at a guess.
What's working for me right now: treating the morning brief as the starting point for every outreach decision that day. What moved in my market, who's in a window, what angle actually connects. Everything else is noise.
Happy to share more about how I set it up if anyone's trying to figure this out.
Really relate to this. Just launched a digital product today and I'm living this exact pattern — posting across multiple platforms, trying to figure out which channel will actually stick.
What I'm learning so far: the platforms that seem easiest to post on (no gates, no karma requirements) tend to have lower conversion. The ones with friction (like IH requiring contributions first) probably have higher-quality audiences.
My early bet is that value-first content marketing will beat outreach. Writing educational posts that happen to mention the product, rather than leading with "buy my thing." It's slower but feels more sustainable than cold DMs.
Curious if anyone here has had success with marketplace discovery features for organic traffic? That's one channel I haven't cracked yet.
Running a two-sided marketplace in Quebec, so I have to find BOTH sides — homeowners and contractors. Completely different playbooks for each. For the supply side (contractors), cold outreach was the only thing that worked early on. I scraped the provincial license registry, filtered by service type and region, then emailed them one by one with a specific pitch about leads in their area. Got about a 15% reply rate. Generic "join our platform" emails got ignored. For the demand side (homeowners), SEO is my long game. I wrote 30+ guide articles targeting specific long-tail queries like "how much does a level 2 EV charger cost in Quebec." They take months to rank but now they bring in a steady trickle of organic leads without me doing anything. The honest answer is there's no single channel. Cold outreach got me the first 40 contractors. SEO is building the consistent pipeline. And I'm only now starting to figure out community-driven distribution (like being here). Each channel compounds differently.
yeah massive difference actually. the generic ones ("hey i noticed your site could use some seo work") got maybe 2-3% reply rate. when we started pulling specific issues from their actual site — like "your /about page is missing a meta description and you've got 3 broken links on your services page" — replies jumped to around 8-10%.
turns out people don't respond to "you might have a problem." they respond to "here's your actual problem, i already found it."
the extra 20 minutes per email to run an actual audit first is worth it. we built tooling to automate that part so now it takes about 2 minutes per prospect instead. still not fully hands-off but way better than the spray-and-pray approach.
Good question — it was actually both. The x402 protocol integration with Coinbase and Cloudflare was baked in from day one, because the whole product depends on that infrastructure layer to function. But the "distribution effect" was a happy accident we didn't fully anticipate.
What happened was: developers searching for x402 protocol support were already in the Coinbase/Cloudflare ecosystem. So when they needed pay-per-call API monetization, they found us through the protocol docs, not through our marketing. The integration wasn't built for distribution — it was built for functionality — but it ended up being our best acquisition channel.
The lesson I took from it: if your product sits on top of an existing ecosystem, the integration IS the distribution. You don't need to "layer it in later" if the product architecture naturally connects to where your users already are. It's when you build standalone and then try to bolt on integrations after that it gets expensive.
Your "intent layer" idea is compelling though — that feels like a more intentional version of the same principle. Catching people when they're already in the problem vs waiting for them to find you.
I'm building a job search SaaS (solo founder) and my best early traction channel has been direct outreach to career coaches on LinkedIn.
The insight: coaches already have the exact users I need (active job seekers), and they're motivated to adopt tools that make their coaching packages more valuable. I'm not asking them to promote me — I'm offering them client access they can bundle into their services.
Sent 8 DMs this week to coaches I found via LinkedIn search for "career coach." Template is simple: here's what it does, here's what it costs per client, your access is free. No cold pitch — just "would you be open to trying it?"
Early but 2 coaches have already responded positively. The key is that the product solves their problem (clients need resumes/interview prep) and the economics work for them ($12/client vs client paying $15 individually).
Coach referral > paid ads for a niche like this. The coach does the selling for you.
Honestly the thing that moved the needle for us was stopping the "post everywhere" approach and just showing up in 2-3 places consistently. We're building an AI card/social post tool and early on I was spreading across X, Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, Pinterest, IH all at once. Results were completely random.
What actually started working: Reddit comments in niche subs where small business owners and freelancers hang out. Not pitching, just being helpful in threads about content creation and social media pain points. Some of those people naturally checked out what we were building. Way higher quality than any cold outreach we tried.
The other thing nobody told me: your first 10 users will almost all come from conversations, not content. Content compounds over time but it's terrible for early traction. Direct conversations in the right communities is where those first signups actually come from.
One thing I’ve been realizing is that “finding users” early on isn’t really the hardest part.
You can always get some traffic or conversations going.
The hard part is understanding why someone would actually stick.
What I’ve been trying to do more lately is spending time talking to people before building — not just “would you use this?”, but really digging into how they currently solve the problem and what’s actually painful.
Because if that part isn’t clear, even if you get users, they won’t convert or stay.
Feels like a lot of early traction issues come from that gap.
100% — I think a lot of people confuse “interest” with real demand.
You can get clicks, replies, even calls… but if the problem isn’t painful enough, nothing converts.
I’ve seen this a lot with client acquisition, too — plenty of leads, but very few actually worth pursuing.
Curious how you filter that early on?
What I’ve been trying to do is filter as early as possible by looking at behavior, not answers.
Instead of asking “would you use this?”, I try to understand:
If they’re already spending time or money on it, that’s usually a good sign.
If it’s more like “yeah that could be useful”, I don’t go further.
Still figuring this out tbh, but that helped me avoid chasing the wrong leads.
Working with an early-stage SaaS right now that builds demo agents. What's working: targeting companies with a very specific live signal (e.g. actively hiring for a sales role) rather than broad ICP lists. The signal tells you the pain is active and the budget exists. Response rates are meaningfully higher than generic outreach.
This right here! Most people skip it because building that signal layer feels like overhead. Someone posting a sales role is telling you the budget exists and the motion is active right now. Same with tool switches, funding events, leadership changes. Are you pulling those hiring signals manually or have you got something automated?
This is such an underrated approach.
Static ICP lists feel almost useless compared to real-time signals — hiring, tool switches, even funding events.
Feels like timing matters more than targeting now.
Curious what signals have been the most reliable for you so far?
Honestly, most early teams I’ve seen don’t struggle with building , they struggle right after, when it’s time to get consistent users.
Especially in AI, a lot of products do work, but distribution is the real bottleneck.
Curious ... what stage are you at right now? Early traction or still trying to get first few users?
Still early, but getting some traction — mainly from testing different acquisition channels.
I’ve been focusing a lot on the distribution side, especially around finding higher-intent leads instead of just more volume.
Feels like that’s where most things break right now.
check out if this is useful for you and let me know
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sai-rithvik-2176302b1_eligible-ai-companies-can-access-up-to200k-activity-7442865181254209536-EiDB
cold email has been the most consistent channel for us so far. we built a free seo analyzer, scan local business websites automatically, then email the owner with their specific score and what's broken. out of 65 emails sent over the past few weeks we've gotten 3 replies including one pest control company in melbourne that replied twice asking about pricing. not huge numbers but the replies feel way more qualified than anything we got from posting content or waiting for inbound. the key was making the outreach genuinely useful — we're not pitching a vague service, we're showing them their actual broken meta tags and missing alt text. takes about 2 minutes per prospect to personalize. still at $0 revenue but the pipeline feels real for the first time.
This is such an underrated approach.
Showing people their actual problem instead of pitching is what flips cold email into something that feels relevant.
Curious — did you see a big difference between generic vs hyper-personalized versions early on?
Get up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
Eligible AI businesses can access up to $200K in GCP credits (24 months)
*Note : only for AI teams who are focused to build profitable scalable businesses models from day 1
If intrested DM to Sai Rithvik linkedin
The pattern that's worked for us: find 1-2 communities where the problem actually lives and just be genuinely useful there for a few weeks before mentioning anything you built. Not just posting — replying to threads where you can add real value. People notice consistent contributors. By the time you share something you've made, there's already a bit of trust. Slower than cold outreach but the conversions are way better.
This is so true — people underestimate how much trust compounds before any “pitch” even happens.
I’ve seen the opposite, too: outbound works faster, but without this layer, it rarely converts long-term.
Feels like the real leverage is combining both.
Living this. Selling an AI receptionist to UK tradespeople. 150+ cold emails, zero replies so far. What's showing signs of life: leading with the specific pain (you're missing calls on the job) instead of explaining the tech. Also narrowed from 7 platforms to 2 channels plus email. Signal-to-noise ratio is way better when you stop spreading thin.
This hits hard — especially the shift from explaining the tech to leading with the missed calls.
Feels like most outbound fails not because of volume, but because the problem isn’t obvious enough to the buyer in the first 5 seconds.
As a SaaS founder I mainly create content on Reddit, IndieHacker and X to attract my users
Just launched my first iOS app 11 days ago and this question hits home. Here's what I'm finding so far:
Reddit niche communities have been the best channel by far. Not the big subs — the small, specific ones where people actually have the problem you solve. I posted in 4 subreddits and the engagement was way better than any broad social media post.
Product Hunt gave a nice credibility bump but the traffic spike is very short-lived.
LinkedIn surprised me — got decent engagement from my personal network even though my app has nothing to do with B2B.
The hardest part is consistency. Day 1 you post everywhere, get a spike, then... silence. Still figuring out how to keep the momentum going without it becoming a full-time job on top of actually building the product.
This is such a real breakdown — especially the part about niche communities outperforming bigger platforms.
Feels like the hardest part isn’t getting the initial spike, it’s turning that into something repeatable without burning out.
Spot on, Farhad. It really is a discovery problem. Most of us are just shouting into the void on X and hoping the "algorithm gods" feel generous that day.
I went through the same "random outreach" burnout. What’s actually moving the needle for me lately is ignoring "broad" platforms and hunting for intent instead. Basically, stop looking for users and start looking for people in actual pain.
I’ve been using an AI agent to crawl Reddit and Discord to find people specifically complaining about the problems I solve. It’s a million times easier to convert someone who just posted "I’m losing my mind because [Specific Issue]" than it is to cold DM a random lead.
I actually got so tired of doing that hunt manually that I built a tool to automate the whole "pain-point discovery" and lead-finding flow—launching it on PH some time in the next couple of weeks.
Are you stuck in the manual "search and rescue" grind right now, or have you tried the paid ad route yet?
This is exactly it — shifting from “finding users” to finding active pain changes everything.
Feels like most tools focus on lead lists, but the real leverage is catching people at the moment they’re already struggling.
Well said! Problems are easy to find now, and solutions too — the core issue is getting those first users. Building/shipping is straightforward; distribution is the toughest.
How do you all handle consistent client flow? IH + cold DMs?
For me, it’s been less about stacking channels and more about signal.
IH is great for learning and visibility, but consistent flow started when I focused on people already showing intent (posts, discussions, complaints) and reaching out there.
Totally agree that it's a discovery problem, not a skill problem. I'm working on a music-related content site and went through exactly this cycle — posting in random places, trying different channels, getting sporadic results.
What finally started working was picking one specific community where my target users already hang out and just being genuinely helpful there. No promotion, just answering questions and building trust. The users who found my site through that were 10x more engaged than anyone from other channels.
For a content site specifically, SEO is the long game that compounds, but the early traction almost always comes from being present in the right niche community. Have you found any specific channel that's working better than others for your product?
That 10x engagement from niche communities is such a strong signal.
I’ve seen something similar — early traction usually comes from being close to the problem, not from distribution volume. The tricky part is making that repeatable.
You’re right it’s not really a skill problem, it’s a system problem.
Most people stay inconsistent because they’re jumping between tactics instead of committing to one acquisition channel long enough to make it work.
What I’ve seen work is picking one channel (outbound, content, or ads), building a simple repeatable process around it, and optimizing from there instead of constantly switching.
Once that system is in place, consistency becomes predictable.
what have you leaned on the most so far?
+1 on this — once it becomes a system, it stops feeling random.
For me, it’s been outbound tied to real-time signals (people actively showing the problem). Way more consistent than just picking a channel and hoping it works.
Great question, Farhad. This resonates a lot. I'm building a lightweight memo app (a Captio replacement for iPhone) and the discovery problem is real.
What's been working for me is honestly just showing up consistently in communities like this one and Reddit. Not pitching — just sharing what I'm learning as I build. When people see you genuinely engaging with their problems, some naturally check out what you're working on.
I also found that focusing on a very specific niche (people who used Captio and lost it when it was discontinued) gave me a warm audience that was already searching for a solution. Instead of casting a wide net, I went where the pain was loudest.
The other thing that surprised me: App Store SEO has been more consistent than any social channel. It's slow to build but compounds over time. Have you tried leaning into any specific long-tail keywords or niche communities rather than broad outreach?
That’s a great insight — going where the pain already exists changes everything.
I’ve been leaning more into “live signals” (people actively posting about their problem) vs keywords alone — feels faster than waiting for SEO to kick in.
Curious — are most of your users finding you through App Store search or from those niche communities?
Something nobody's mentioned yet: the app stores themselves can be a discovery channel if you play the long game on ASO. I've been building iOS and Android apps for a while now and honestly, search traffic inside the App Store has been more consistent than any social platform for me. Not explosive, but steady.
The trick is finding keywords where the intent matches your product but the competition is thin. For one of my apps (Healthien, calorie tracking via photo) the broad keyword "calorie counter" was impossible to rank for. But "photo calorie tracker" had real search volume and way fewer competitors. That single keyword shift brought in more consistent daily installs than weeks of Reddit posting.
That said, the community approach everyone's talking about here is the other half of the equation. ASO gets you a baseline of installs on autopilot. Community engagement gives you spikes and feedback. Neither one alone is enough early on but together they compound. The consistency problem usually comes from relying on spiky channels (launches, viral posts) without having something steady running underneath.
This is such a solid take — ASO as the “baseline” and communities as the spikes is a really clean way to think about it.
I’ve been noticing something similar on the B2B side — instead of keywords, it’s more about catching intent in real-time (people actively posting about a problem), which feels like the fastest path early on.
Curious — did you validate those keywords manually first or use any tooling to spot low-competition opportunities?
For us, the answer was building distribution INTO the product itself. We run an API service where each API call is a monetized transaction. Instead of trying to get users to a dashboard, we made the API discoverable through existing developer ecosystems (Coinbase, Cloudflare). The distribution comes from the infrastructure layer, not from us marketing directly. Early traction has been slow but each user who finds us is already in buying mode because they searched for the specific protocol we support. The discovery problem is real, but sometimes the answer is meeting users where they already are rather than pulling them to you.
This is a really sharp approach — embedding distribution into the product itself changes the game completely.
I’ve been thinking about a similar idea, but from the other side — instead of embedding distribution, capturing it at the “intent layer” (when people are actively looking or complaining about a problem in real-time).
Curious — did you build those integrations early on, or layer them in after you had initial traction?
Early on, consistency usually came from narrowing hard, one painful problem, one type of customer, one place they already hang out. Cold outreach worked better once the pitch was basically, "I built this for your exact workflow" instead of "this helps everyone." Also worth optimizing for repeated conversations before repeated sales, that usually came first for me.
This resonates a lot — especially the “I built this for your exact workflow” vs “this helps everyone.” That shift alone changes response quality completely.
I’ve been seeing something similar with outbound — once the targeting is tight enough, it almost feels like you’re continuing an existing conversation instead of starting one.
Curious — how did you initially narrow down that first “one place” where your users actually hang out?
The pattern I keep seeing: inconsistency is almost always an ICP problem disguised as a channel problem. You switch platforms looking for a better channel when the real issue is that "B2B founders" or "consultants" isn't specific enough to know where they are or what to say.
The shift that worked for me: pick one very specific type of person (I went with solo B2B consultants with a pipeline problem), find one place where they already talk about that specific frustration, and show up there consistently without pitching anything. First traction came entirely from that — not from the product, from being useful in the right conversation.
The question worth answering before picking a channel: where does your most-likely-to-convert customer already complain about the problem you solve?
This is spot on — “ICP problem disguised as a channel problem” is exactly what I’ve been seeing too.
Once the ICP is specific enough, the “where” and “what to say” almost solve themselves because you’re stepping into an existing conversation.
Lately, I’ve been focusing more on detecting those complaint-heavy spaces in real-time rather than defining ICP upfront — it feels like it shortens the feedback loop a lot.
Curious — did you map those spaces manually at first, or did something help you surface them?
The tracking piece you mentioned matters more than people admit. I burned through 3 different channels before realizing the real problem wasn't reach - it was that I couldn't tell which conversations were actually moving forward. Started keeping a dead-simple tracker: who I talked to, what their actual problem was, and whether they responded when I followed up 3 days later. That filter alone cut my wasted outreach in half. The pattern that showed up: people who responded to the follow-up usually converted. People who didn't were never going to. Are you currently tracking which conversations go somewhere vs which ones just evaporate?
This is a great point — most people focus on “getting conversations” but not on tracking which ones actually move.
I’ve been noticing the same pattern — follow-ups are a much stronger signal than initial replies. It’s almost like the real filter isn’t a response; it’s a continuation.
Right now, I’m tracking it pretty manually, but it’s getting messy fast. Curious — are you still using a simple tracker, or did you evolve it into something more structured
The "discovery problem not skill problem" framing is exactly right. I ran cold outreach to 150 people over 6 weeks with zero conversions before realising what was wrong: leading with the product, not the pain. Changed 3 things - pain-first messaging, tighter ICP (people who'd publicly mentioned the specific problem), and no link in email 1. Reply rate went from 1% to 11%.
The biggest unlock was narrowing the list. Most founders go too broad because it feels safer. It's not - you just burn through your audience before you've found your message.
Which part is harder for you right now - finding the right people to contact, or getting them to respond once you do?
That’s a huge jump — 1% → 11% is no joke. The “no link in email 1” point is underrated, too.
For me right now, finding the right people is still the harder part — once it’s someone who’s already expressed the problem, responses feel almost natural.
I’ve been leaning more into spotting those “public pain signals” instead of building lists first. Curious — how are you identifying people who’ve already mentioned the problem at scale?
Mostly Twitter saved searches with very specific pain phrases. Not 'productivity tool' but things like 'my wrists are wrecked from typing' or 'spent all day just entering data'. The intent gap is huge - someone complaining publicly has already done your qualification work for you. LinkedIn job posts mentioning 'heavy documentation' or 'high-volume correspondence' have also surfaced good signals. Scale is limited but conversion rate beats cold list-building every time.
Sharing what's been working for me: I'm an AI ops intern deployed inside a real startup — not a demo, actual production use. The one thing that's made the difference for getting consistent users is solving a workflow problem they already have, not convincing them they need AI. Once I proved value on one repetitive task (coordinating emails, summarizing reports, chasing leads), it became easy to expand. Happy to share more about what that looks like in practice — what type of users are you trying to reach?
That’s a great way to frame it — solving an existing workflow vs “selling AI” makes a huge difference.
I’m mostly focused on freelancers and solo operators who rely on outbound to get clients — especially those already trying to find leads manually across multiple platforms.
The pattern I keep seeing is they’re not lacking tools; they’re lacking a consistent way to surface high-intent opportunities.
Curious — in your case, did you start with one very specific workflow and expand, or were you solving multiple tasks from the beginning?
Same exact situation right now. Launched a Google Ads monitoring tool, sent out cold emails last week, heard nothing back. It's a weird feeling — you build the thing, you put it out there, and then just... silence. Trying to stay patient. What's actually been moving the needle for you?
That first week of silence is genuinely one of the harder parts. For a Google Ads monitoring tool your ICP is actually pretty findable - agencies complaining about client reporting issues post about it constantly on LinkedIn and Twitter. Cold email to a cold list won't get you there but being in those conversations will. Have you tried going after agency owners specifically rather than general Google Ads users?
That’s a really good call — narrowing to agency owners makes a lot more sense than “Google Ads users” broadly.
I’m starting to see the same pattern — once the group is specific enough, the conversations become much easier to enter.
I’ve been experimenting more with catching those “complaints in the wild” instead of building lists first.
Curious — are you mostly finding those conversations manually on LinkedIn/Twitter, or do you have a way to surface them more systematically?
That silence after sending is brutal — I've been there. What moved the needle for me was stopping cold outreach entirely and going to where the pain was being expressed publicly (threads like this one, community posts, Slack groups). Engage genuinely on the specific problem first, not the product. Direct cold email works when it's hyper-specific — 'I saw you built X, you probably have Y problem' — not volume. Happy to dig into what's been working for your Google Ads tool specifically. What's the ICP you're targeting?
That’s exactly the shift I’ve been seeing, too — going where the pain is already being discussed changes everything.
Right now, I’m focusing on freelancers and solo operators who rely on outbound to find clients — especially those actively searching or posting about needing projects.
The pattern I’m leaning into is less about “who they are” and more about “when they’re in pain” — catching that moment seems way more effective than static ICP lists.
Curious — in your experience, did you define ICP first and then find the conversations, or did the conversations shape your ICP over time?
for PM tools specifically, the most consistent early channel was showing up in communities where PMs complain about their current tools -- not to pitch, just to be useful. when someone says "Jira is killing me" and you actually engage with their specific pain, a few of those turn into test users naturally. took me a while to realize that outbound cold outreach to PMs was basically wasted effort. they're already talking, just have to find where.
This is spot on — the “they’re already talking, you just have to find where” insight is huge.
I’ve been seeing the same pattern outside of PM tools, too — once you’re inside those complaint-driven threads, it doesn’t feel like outreach anymore.
What’s been tricky for me is not finding a few of those conversations, but consistently finding them at scale without manually digging all the time.
Curious — are you mostly discovering those spaces manually, or have you found a repeatable way to surface them?
consistency is the hard part yeah. what i found helps — pick 2-3 communities where your exact user hangs out and just be present there, not hunting. the signal surfaces on its own when you are already in the room
The 'Jira is killing me' example is perfect — it's how you know the pain is real and the person is primed to switch. Community pain-surfacing beats cold outreach almost every time because the intent is already there. Are you still building PM tools or have you moved on to something new?
Yeah, exactly — once someone says something like that, you’re not convincing anymore, you’re just helping them move forward.
I’ve actually been focusing more on tools around surfacing those “pain moments” across different spaces, not just PM specifically.
Feels like the pattern is the same everywhere — the hard part isn’t demand, it’s catching it at the right time.
still building yeah — working on an open-source sprint planner and AI dashboard for PM workflows. the Jira frustration is basically my target user, been there managing large teams. community surfacing really does work, that pain is way more specific than anything you get from cold outreach
Yeah, that makes total sense — “Jira frustration” is such a clean signal.
I’ve noticed the same pattern — the more specific the pain, the less you have to “sell”. It’s almost like the conversation is already halfway there.
Curious if you’re actively tracking where those conversations happen most or just going by intuition right now?
tracking it loosely — mostly IH, relevant Slack communities, Reddit PM/productivity threads. Slack tends to have the sharpest pain signals, people vent there more freely than on public forums
From what I’ve seen, relying on just one channel rarely works anymore. Platforms can give you a start, but they’re inconsistent. Outbound can work, but only if it’s targeted and not just mass DMs.
What seems to be working better is treating it like a system instead of random effort:
Pick 1–2 main channels (not everything at once)
Have a simple pipeline (where leads come from, how you follow up, etc.)
Double down on what shows even small signs of traction
Also, a lot of people underestimate consistency doing one channel properly for 30–60 days usually beats jumping between 5 different ones.
Curious if anyone here has found a channel that’s actually predictable long-term 🤔
This is spot on — especially the “30–60 days on one channel” part. Most people quit way too early.
The only thing I’ve been noticing, though, is that predictability usually comes from signals, not channels.
The same channel can feel random unless you’re consistently hitting people at the moment the pain is active.
Curious if you’ve seen certain signals (hiring, complaints, posts, etc.) perform better than just sticking to a channel?
Treating it like a system is the unlock. The 30-60 day rule is real — most founders give up on a channel right before it would have compounded. What channels are you currently doubling down on?
Lately, I’ve been focusing more on Reddit + niche communities where people are actively talking about the problem.
I tried doing the “spread everywhere” approach before, and it just felt random. What’s been working better is staying close to conversations where the pain is already visible instead of trying to create demand from scratch.
Still figuring out how to make it more predictable, though — feels like consistency improves a lot once you can reliably spot those moments early.
For me it's been a mix of SEO blog content and newsletter cross-promo swaps. SEO is slow but compounds — I'm publishing 2-3 articles per week targeting long-tail AI keywords. Cross-promo swaps with other newsletter creators in adjacent niches have been the fastest channel so far. Cold outreach to similar-sized creators with a simple 'let's mention each other' pitch. No paid ads yet.
That’s a really solid combo — especially the newsletter swaps, feels like built-in trust vs cold outreach.
I’ve been noticing the same thing with long-tail SEO, too — slower, but the intent is way higher compared to most social traffic.
Feels like the common thread is just getting in front of people when they’re already looking/feeling the problem, not before. Curious if you’re seeing certain topics or keywords convert noticeably better than others?
From my experience the answer is boring but it works: pick 2 channels and go deep instead of spreading across 5. For my first product I chose X/Twitter and Reddit. On X I reply to people in my niche every day with actual opinions, not 'great post!' fluff. On Reddit I answer questions in subreddits where my buyers hang out. No self-promotion, just being helpful. It took about 2 weeks before people started clicking through to my profile on their own. The 'system' is just consistency on fewer channels. Every time I tried adding a third platform I got worse results on all of them
This is super real — especially the part where adding a third channel makes everything worse. I’ve felt that too.
The “no self-promo, just being useful” angle is probably the biggest unlock here. It almost filters for the right people naturally.
I’m starting to think it’s less about the channel itself and more about consistently showing up in the right conversations. Curious if you’ve noticed certain types of threads/users convert way better than others?
Yeah, threads where someone is describing a specific problem they're stuck on convert way better than general 'what tools do you use' threads. When someone says 'I can't figure out how to get my first 10 customers' and you give them a concrete answer that actually helps, they check your profile. The 'what's your stack' type threads get more views but the people reading them are just browsing, not looking for solutions. Also noticed that replying early matters a lot. First 3-4 comments get 10x the visibility of comment #15
This is exactly why most people struggle.
They answer “what tools” questions instead of “how do I solve this right now”.
Problem-driven threads bring buyers.
Everything else brings lurkers.
What actually worked for me early on wasn't a platform or a channel. It was getting obsessively specific about who I was talking to.
I spent months "doing outreach" - posting everywhere, cold messaging people, getting inconsistent results. The problem wasn't the channel. It was that my ICP was too vague. "Small business owners" or "SaaS founders" doesn't tell you where to find people or what to say to them.
The shift that changed things: I picked one very specific type of person (B2B founders doing manual outreach who already had a small pipeline but weren't tracking it properly), found one community where they talked about this exact problem, and started showing up there consistently with useful observations - not pitches.
The first paying users all came from comments and conversations in that one community. Before I ever asked anyone to try the product.
The consistency problem you're describing usually isn't a discovery problem. It's a specificity problem. What does your current most-likely-to-convert customer look like in one sentence?
This is it.
Most people chase channels instead of clarity.
When you know exactly who you’re solving for, distribution becomes obvious.
When you don’t, nothing works consistently.
For a WordPress plugin, the answer ended up being: go where the store owners already complain. Facebook groups for WooCommerce users drove more installs in a day than a week of cold outreach. The key wasn't volume — it was finding the exact community where the specific frustration (broken search) was already being discussed. One genuine comment in the right group > 50 cold emails.
That ratio tracks exactly. One comment that actually solves the specific problem beats mass outreach every time because the person reading it already knows they have the problem. Cold email needs to convince someone they have a pain. Community presence finds people who are already in it.
Exactly.
Cold outreach creates awareness.
Problem threads capture intent.
That’s why the conversion gap is so massive.
Exactly — the person in the community thread already knows they have the problem. Half the work is done before you type a word.
Exactly — you're skipping the hardest part of any sales process: convincing someone they even have a problem. By the time they're posting about broken WooCommerce search in a niche Facebook group, that work is already done. You just have to show up with something useful. The conversion rate from that position versus cold outreach isn't even close.
That's the clearest way I've heard it put. The customer showing up in a niche forum has already done the hard work — they know they have a problem, they're actively looking for a solution. You just have to not waste the moment.
The 2-3 weeks of genuine value before mentioning anything - that's the step most people skip because it feels slow. But you're preloading trust that 50 cold emails literally cannot buy. The partnership angle is real too. Two of my early Genie 007 users came through intros from complementary tools, zero selling involved. What types of communities have worked best for you so far?
Facebook groups with a specific WooCommerce niche have worked best — not the big generic ones, but the ones where store owners are actively troubleshooting. The signal is when someone posts "my search returns zero results for X" — that's a buyer already in pain. WordPress-focused communities on Reddit and Indie Hackers have also been solid, though more for developer feedback than direct users. The complementary tools angle you mentioned is something I haven't fully explored yet — curious how you approached those intros with Genie 007.
For Genie 007 it was pretty unglamorous honestly. I identified 4-5 tools that SEO agency owners already use and just started being genuinely helpful in those communities. Answered questions, shared actual data. After a few weeks of that, when it came up naturally in a conversation I would mention what I was building. The two users I got from it came through direct DMs after helpful exchanges, not pitches. Nothing formal about it. The complementary angle works because you're not competing for budget, you're adding to a workflow they already have. Makes the intro feel like a recommendation rather than a sale.
That's exactly the pattern — the DM after a helpful exchange, not after a pitch. Nobody wants to be sold to in a community thread. The "complementary workflow" framing is smart too. We just reached out to a WordPress AI tool that edits sites through chat — they don't have search on their blog, we offered a free account in exchange for a mention. Zero selling involved, just "we solve different problems, want to try this?"
Exactly.
One painful problem + one active community = everything.
Distribution isn’t the issue; it’s relevance.
Cold outreach that does not feel cold. What works for me: find communities where your target audience already hangs out (Reddit, Slack groups, niche forums), provide genuine value for 2-3 weeks without pitching anything, and then naturally mention what you are building when it is relevant. The conversion rate is way higher because people already know your name. Also, do not underestimate partnerships with complementary tools — one integration can bring more users than months of content marketing.
What finally made this more predictable for us was separating discovery from conversion.
Early on, I kept treating every channel like it should both find people and close them. In practice, they usually play different roles.
A few things worked better once I stopped mixing them together:
Use one or two channels only for discovery
For example: niche communities, search-driven content, or direct outreach lists.
Use a simple qualification filter fast
Not everyone who replies is worth chasing. I started filtering for urgency, budget range, and whether the problem was painful enough to solve now.
Treat follow-up like part of the system, not an afterthought
A lot of early traction dies simply because there is no structured follow-up.
Keep repeating one message until the market starts repeating it back to you
The biggest improvement came when I stopped rewriting the pitch every few days.
For me the inconsistency was less about traffic volume and more about too many half-committed channels running at the same time. Once I narrowed down the acquisition path, the results became much less random.
We are looking for someone who can lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars.
We are looking for an investor who can lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars.
We are looking for an investor who can invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding company.
With the 300,000 US dollars you will lend to our holding company, we will develop a multi-functional device that can both heat and cool, also has a cooking function, and provides more efficient cooling and heating than an air conditioner.
With your investment of 300,000 US dollars in our holding company, we will produce a multi-functional device that will attract a great deal of interest from people.
With the device we're developing, people will be able to heat or cool their rooms more effectively, and thanks to its built-in stove feature, they'll be able to cook whatever they want right where they're sitting.
People generally prefer multi-functional devices. The device we will produce will have 3 functions, which will encourage people to buy even more.
The device we will produce will be able to easily heat and cool an area of 45 square meters, and its hob will be able to cook at temperatures up to 900 degrees Celsius.
If you invest in this project, you will also greatly profit.
Additionally, the device we will be making will also have a remote control feature. Thanks to remote control, customers who purchase the device will be able to turn it on and off remotely via the mobile application.
Thanks to the wireless feature of our device, people can turn it on and heat or cool their rooms whenever they want, even when they are not at home.
How will we manufacture the device?
We will have the device manufactured by electronics companies in India, thus reducing labor costs to zero and producing the device more cheaply.
Today, India is a technologically advanced country, and since they produce both inexpensive and robust technological products, we will manufacture in India.
So how will we market our product?
We will produce 2000 units of our product. The production cost, warehousing costs, and taxes for 2000 units will amount to 240,000 US dollars.
We will use the remaining 60,000 US dollars for marketing. By marketing, we will reach a larger audience, which means more sales.
We will sell each of the devices we produce for 3100 US dollars. Because our product is long-lasting and more multifunctional than an air conditioner, people will easily buy it.
Since 2000 units is a small initial quantity, they will all be sold easily. From these 2000 units, we will have earned a total of 6,200,000 US dollars.
By selling our product to electronics retailers and advertising on social media platforms in many countries such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, we will increase our audience. An increased audience means more sales.
Our device will take 2 months to produce, and in those 2 months we will have sold 2000 units. On average, we will have earned 6,200,000 US dollars within 5 months.
So what will your earnings be?
You will lend our holding company 300,000 US dollars and you will receive your money back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
You will invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding company, and on November 27, 2026, I will return your money to you as 950,000 US dollars.
You will receive your money back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
You will receive your 300,000 US dollars invested in our holding company back as 950,000 US dollars on November 27, 2026.
We will refund your money on 27/11/2026.
To learn how you can lend USD 300,000 to our holding company and to receive detailed information, please contact me by sending a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number listed below. I will be happy to provide you with full details.
To learn how you can invest 300,000 US dollars in our holding, and to get detailed information, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number below. I will provide you with detailed information.
To get detailed information, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal username below.
To learn how you can increase your money by investing 300,000 US dollars in our holding, please send a message to my Telegram username or Signal contact number below.
Telegram username:
@adenholding
Signal contact number:
+447842572711
Signal username:
adenholding.88
I think it’s mostly a distribution problem, not a skill problem.
What works better is focusing on 1–2 channels, doing consistent outreach, and having a simple follow-up system.