Is SaaS really the worst business model to generate money fast?
Genuine question. I've been building products for a while now and I'm starting to think SaaS might be the slowest path to revenue for solo founders.
Here's my experience with two products:
PRODUCT 1 — Pregnalyze (pregnalyze.com) A pregnancy risk calculator backed by 54 peer-reviewed studies covering 500K+ pregnancies. Solid product, real science, users loved it.
We launched with a $5.99 unlock and a $14.99 premium tier. Results after months of traffic:
→ 119 ad clicks
→ 18 email signups
→ Paying customers: 0
→ Conversion rate: literally 0%
People used the free version, got value, and left. Nobody wanted to pay. We ended up removing the entire payment system and making everything free. Now we're trying to monetize through affiliates and ads instead.
PRODUCT 2 — AdPipe (adpipe.io) An AI tool that generates Meta ad copy from any product URL. $29/month subscription.
Two weeks in:
→ ~$50 on Google Ads
→ A few clicks, 0 conversions
→ Paid traffic bounces in 16 seconds
→ Organic users actually engage
→ $0 MRR
The product works. People try the free demo. But nobody has pulled out their credit card yet.
Both products solve real problems. Both have users. Both have $0 in revenue.
Meanwhile I see people making money faster with:
→ One-time digital products
→ Freelancing/consulting using their own tools
→ Lifetime deals (AppSumo model)
→ Service + tool hybrid models
So my honest question: is SaaS actually a terrible model if you need revenue in the short term? Is the "recurring revenue" dream just that — a dream that takes 12-18 months to even start?
What's your experience? Has anyone here actually generated meaningful SaaS revenue in the first
3 months?
Honest take from running a few small finance tools: one-time purchases consistently outperform SaaS for solo founders in the first 6 months.
The psychology is different — $9-29 one-time feels like buying a solution. $29/month feels like a commitment people need to justify forever.
What worked for us: build the tool, slap a one-time price on Gumroad, offer a free limited version so people can try before buying. No onboarding funnel, no churn management, no payment recovery emails. Just a tool that solves a problem.
SaaS makes sense when you have a wedge into an existing workflow (Slack, email, CRM) where people are already paying monthly for things. Standalone tools? One-time or bust, at least until you have enough users to justify the subscription model.
Your distribution-first insight is spot on. I learned this the expensive way building multiple apps.
Tiny Steps (ADHD-friendly habit tracker) took 8 months to get traction because I built it in isolation. Users loved it when they found it, but finding it was the problem. Meanwhile, PadelTracker (Apple Watch app for padel matches) gained users faster because I started engaging in padel communities before launch.
The "subscription-shaped problem" concept from the comments resonates. Some problems naturally recur on a schedule, others don't. Habit tracking is daily (subscription makes sense). Name memorization for events is periodic (NameDrill works better as a one-time purchase before conferences or networking events).
For AdPipe specifically, I wonder if the issue is positioning it as a time-saver rather than a performance multiplier. Instead of "generate ad copy fast," maybe "test 12 proven angles vs guessing on one." The value isn't just speed - it's having multiple shots at winning creative.
One thing that's worked for me: starting with a very specific niche. Prayerful isn't just "another Bible app" - it's specifically for guided prayer routines. Smaller market, but way clearer value prop and easier to find the right users.
The community-driven approach you're taking now sounds right. LinkedIn outreach to media buyers is smart - they already pay for tools that improve campaign performance.
I don’t think SaaS is the worst model, but it’s definitely not the fastest way to make money unless the problem is extremely urgent or tied directly to revenue.
From what I’ve seen, tools that are used during a “money moment” convert much faster. For example, when someone finishes a job and needs to send an invoice to get paid, they are already in a transactional mindset.
On the other hand, tools that help with optimization, analysis, or planning often feel optional, so users try them but don’t feel immediate pressure to pay.
I recently launched a small SaaS and noticed that usage doesn’t automatically translate into revenue. The biggest shift is when the product becomes part of a workflow tied directly to getting paid or saving money.
Curious if anyone here has seen better conversion with one-time payments vs subscriptions in early stages?
The "money moment" framework is spot on. Tools tied to getting paid (invoicing, payment processing) have built-in urgency. Tools tied to optimization feel optional — and optional is the enemy of conversion.
AdPipe sits in an interesting middle ground. For a solo founder running one store, ad copy feels optional — they can write it themselves or use ChatGPT. But for a media buyer launching 5 campaigns this week across 10 clients? That's a money moment. Every hour spent writing ad copy is an hour not spent optimizing campaigns that are actively spending budget.
Same tool, completely different urgency depending on who's using it.
On your question about one-time vs subscriptions early on — I'm starting to think the answer is both. One-time purchase ($9 per batch) for casual users who need it once for a campaign launch. Subscription ($39/month) for professionals who need it weekly. Different pricing for different levels of urgency.
What's your SaaS? Curious if you found a way to move it closer to a "money moment" for your users.
Nice breakdown. The part about “is SaaS actually a terrible model if you need revenue in the short term?” is especially useful. What channel has given you the best signal so far — SEO, communities, or direct outreach?
Direct outreach by far.
Here's what I've tried in 3 weeks:
SaaS is the worst for speed, best for compounding. If you need money fast — freelancing, consulting, or productized services win every time. SaaS is a bet on future revenue. You're taking a hit now for compounding later. The mistake is treating it like a sprint when it's a marathon. If cash flow in 30 days matters, SaaS isn't it. But if you're okay playing a 2-3 year game, nothing compounds like recurring revenue.
Honestly? I need money in the next 4 months. So I can't afford to just play the 2-3 year marathon. That's the reality most solo founders don't talk about — you believe in the long-term compounding, but your bank account is on a very different timeline.
That's why I'm thinking on a hybrid approach.
Sprint to survive, marathon to compound. Both at the same time.
I think the model matters less than whether the pain you're solving is recurring by nature.
I'm building in the accounting/bookkeeping space. Bank statements come in every month. VAT returns are quarterly. Year-end is annual. The problem literally regenerates on a schedule — so subscription pricing maps perfectly onto the workflow. Nobody questions paying monthly for something they need monthly.
Compare that to ad copy generation — someone might need it intensely for a campaign launch, then not again for weeks. That's not a subscription-shaped problem, it's a project-shaped one. The $9 one-time batch idea someone mentioned above actually fits the usage pattern better than $39/month.
The SaaS model works fastest when three things overlap: the problem recurs on a predictable cycle, switching away is painful (data lock-in, learned workflows), and the alternative is a person doing it manually at 10x the cost. If you've only got one of those three, you'll be grinding for months convincing people to subscribe instead of just buying once.
The "subscription-shaped problem" framing is brilliant. Your accounting example is perfect — the problem regenerates on a schedule, so monthly pricing feels natural.
But I'd push back slightly on ad copy being project-shaped. For solo founders running one store, you're right — they need it for a launch and then not again for weeks. But agencies and media buyers managing 10+ brands? They need fresh ad copy constantly. New products, seasonal campaigns, creative fatigue, A/B testing — it never stops. For them, it IS a subscription-shaped problem.
That's actually why I'm shifting my outreach toward agencies and media buyers instead of solo founders. The usage pattern is completely different:
I think the mistake I was making is treating all users the same. The answer might be both — one-time batches for casual users, subscription for professionals. Different pricing for different usage patterns.
Your three-overlap framework (recurring problem + switching cost + 10x cheaper than manual) is going on my wall. AdPipe has #1 for agencies and #3 for sure. Working on #2 — saved brand guidelines and performance history would add real switching cost.
The "output vs workflow" distinction in this thread is the best framing i've seen. But i'd add one more layer, even workflow tools struggle if you don't solve distribution first. I'm building a B2B payments product and the tech works, but finding the first merchants willing to try something new is the real challenge. Revenue speed isn't about the model, it's about how fast you can get in front of people who already feel the pain.
100% agree — distribution is the real bottleneck. I'm experiencing this firsthand with AdPipe. The product works, people who try it love it, but getting in front of the right people is where all the energy goes.
What I'm doing right now: LinkedIn outreach (Sales Navigator + personalized InMails to Meta ads professionals), Reddit engagement in niche communities, and posts like this one. All manual, all slow.
For your B2B payments product, I'd imagine the pain is even sharper — merchants don't switch payment systems casually. Are you doing direct outreach or trying to find them through communities?
You're right, merchants don't switch easily, especially for payments. Right now it's community-first, engaging in spaces like this, crypto/fintech discords, and twitter replies to ecosystem accounts. The product is a stablecoin checkout widget so the target is merchants who already feel the pain of high card fees or slow cross-border settlement, no cold outreach yet, trying to find the first few through conversations like this one, your linkedIn + reddit approach makes sense for AdPipe, media buyers are very active on both.
I don’t think SaaS is the slowest model , I think cold traffic SaaS is.
From what you shared, both products seem to solve real problems. The issue might not be the model, but where and how users are discovering you.
Paid traffic (especially early) is brutal without trust layers. People click, test the free version, and bounce because there’s no social validation around the product.
Before changing the model, I’d look at:
• Where your ideal users are already discussing this problem
• How they currently solve it
• What objections stop them from paying
For AdPipe especially, marketers constantly compare tools and discuss ad performance in communities. Being present in those conversations can convert better than cold ads.
Out of curiosity , have you tested community-driven acquisition before relying on paid traffic?
This is spot on, and honestly it's exactly the shift I've been making this past week.
I stopped paid traffic entirely (Google ads and Meta ads) and went all-in on community-driven acquisition:
You're right that cold traffic without trust layers is brutal. The people responding to my InMails are responding because I reference something specific from their profile, not because of a generic pitch.
To answer your question directly — community-driven acquisition is now my entire strategy. Paid traffic is off the table until I have at least 10 organic customers and real social proof.
The "where your ideal users are already discussing this problem" point is key. For AdPipe, that's Reddit ad communities, LinkedIn marketing groups, and Facebook groups for media buyers. That's where I'm spending all my time now.
That’s a strong pivot honestly.
What you’re doing right now (manual outreach + niche communities) is exactly how early SaaS wins before paid ever makes sense.
One thing I’ve seen work well for tools like AdPipe is identifying high-intent threads where marketers are actively comparing tools or complaining about creative fatigue , those conversations convert significantly higher than general visibility posts.
The difference isn’t just being in communities , it’s being present at the exact moment someone is already evaluating solutions.
If you ever want, I’d be curious to see how AdPipe is currently positioned inside those comparison threads. Sometimes small positioning tweaks make a big difference.
Super relatable post, Edgar. I’ve been down the SaaS road too, and honestly, for solo founders, the early months can feel brutal. People love the free version, try it, and bounce—paying is often the last thing on their mind.
From my experience, if you want fast revenue, one-time products, freelance consulting, or hybrid models usually outperform pure SaaS early on. SaaS shines in the long term, but yeah, 12–18 months to meaningful MRR sounds about right for a lot of solo founders.
Would love to hear if anyone has cracked real paying SaaS in the first 3 months—seems rare!
Thanks! Yeah the "love the free version and bounce" is real — I'm living it right now haha.
The hybrid model point is interesting. I've actually been thinking about offering a one-time "ad copy pack" — pay $9 for a single batch instead of committing to $39/month. Lower friction for people who just want to try it once for a campaign launch. Haven't built it yet but it's on my mind.
On cracking paying SaaS in the first 3 months — I think the founders who pull that off usually have one of two things: either a built-in audience before launch, or they're solving a problem so painful that people pay immediately (like saving money, not just saving time).
AdPipe saves time, which is harder to monetize early because people undervalue their own time until they're drowning in work. The agencies managing 10+ clients? They'll pay. The solo founder running one store? Free tier is "good enough."
That's why I'm focusing my outreach on agencies and media buyers managing multiple accounts — they feel the pain at scale. Solo founders will come later when there's enough social proof.
Still early days though. 3 weeks in, $0 MRR, but the conversations from this post alone are worth more than any ad spend I could have done.
IDK about the facts but one must push through regardless of the outcome
Agreed. Showing up every day is the only strategy that always works.
SaaS may not the best model for "short-term" profit, but we should think as a consumer. Would you pay the full price up front or turn to subscribe, knowing you can always just cancel? The risk is significantly low as long as the price is right.
Good point. The subscription model is actually better for the customer — low risk, cancel anytime.
That's why pricing matters so much early on. Too high and nobody tries it. Too low and you need thousands of users to survive.
One thing nobody's mentioned yet: a chunk of what looks like "churn" isn't churn at all.
Failed payments. Expired cards. Soft declines. Customers who never chose to leave - their card just failed and nobody told them. For most SaaS it's 3-9% of MRR leaking silently. Looks like churn in your dashboard, but it's actually recoverable.
Once you hit that $1k MRR milestone, this is the first leak worth plugging. It's the easiest revenue to get back because the customer already said yes once.
Great point — You spend all this effort acquiring a customer and then lose them because of an expired card, not because they wanted to leave.
Right now my challenge is getting from $0 to $1 haha, but saving this for later. Thanks for the heads up.
Running exactly this experiment right now, so here's live data.
I spent the last two weeks building 7 one-time digital products on Gumroad instead of another SaaS. Templates, databases, prompt libraries. $12–$79 per product. Zero subscription management. Zero MRR graphs.
Honest result: also $0 so far. But the failure mode is completely different.
With SaaS, you fail because of product–market fit or the wrong pricing model (which is what your Pregnalyze story sounds like — the product worked, the monetization structure didn't).
With digital products, the product is fine but you fail because of cold-start distribution. There's no trial, no freemium funnel, no virality loop. You need external traffic from day one.
The core tradeoff I've found:
SaaS advantages:
— Built-in recurring revenue if you get PMF
— Customer feedback loop is richer
— Can iterate based on usage data
Digital product advantages:
— Sell before you build (validate with a landing page)
— No churn, no support load, no infrastructure
— Lower trust threshold (paying $29 once vs. $29/month forever)
— Faster to launch (days, not months)
The fastest path I've seen: sell the digital product first, then build the SaaS for the customers who want more.
Your AdPipe demo-to-conversion problem sounds like a pricing structure issue, not a model issue. What if you sold a "starter pack" of 50 AI-generated ad variants for a one-time fee, then offered the subscription for ongoing generation? The one-time purchase gets them in; the subscription retains them.
Anywho — curious to see how your experiment evolves. Will share Gumroad numbers here once I have something worth reporting.
Your Gumroad experiment is interesting — $0 on both models but completely different failure modes is a great observation. SaaS fails on monetization structure, digital products fail on distribution. Same $0, different lessons.
The starter pack idea for AdPipe is actually something I've been thinking about this week. Something like "pay $9 for a single batch of 12 variants" as a one-time purchase, no commitment. Then the subscription makes sense for agencies and media buyers who need it weekly.
Right now I'm testing distribution before changing the model — went all-in on LinkedIn outreach (personalized InMails to Meta ads professionals) and community engagement like this post. Got my first real lead from an InMail yesterday, so the "people who feel the pain" are out there. Just need to find more of them.
Would love to see your Gumroad numbers when you have them. The honest "$0 on both sides" transparency is refreshing — most people only share the wins.
No, SaaS is not worst model to earn money, this is the best way to become millionaire, if you can master it. In your case, its not a problem of SaaS model.
Ask yourself, WHY they will pay you?
I have visited both of your websites. And here is my observation:
Regarding the first product, there are a lot of free pregnancy risk calculator. Even some tools providing better options than your one totally for free. They have brand visibility, Google Ranking, still they are offering free option. So, why they would like to pay you for the same feature? when they even don't know you.
Regarding your second product:
I have visited your website (not used the tool), I believe your tool is far better than ChatGPT or Gemini ad copy right? In the comparison table of ChatGPT and AdPipe is very good and your tool has really strength. Users should pay you for ad copy. But you could't properly positioned your tool.
Users won' t pay for "Meta ad copy you can launch today". They know they can launch anytime with all free options.
You have to understand, actually when they would like to pay your tool. They will pay you if you can ensure ROI, more conversions through your ad copy.
Regarding your Google Ads, $50 is not enough to test Google Ads. Google have a learning phase of 14 days for any campaigns. So, initial $50 is nothing for Google (however it depends on your target market).
Hope you understand!
These are just my observations, best wishes for your SaaS products!
This is genuinely valuable feedback, thank you for taking the time to visit both sites.
On Pregnalyze — I have to respectfully push back here. My wife and I built it after experiencing 5 consecutive miscarriages. She tested every pregnancy risk calculator on the internet, and none of them gave real, accurate numbers. Most are generic tools with outdated data. Pregnalyze is backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies with real science-based probabilities. There is no better miscarriage calculator on the internet, and we say that from painful personal experience. The monetization was the challenge, not the product quality.
On AdPipe, your positioning critique is fair — the messaging on the site could be stronger. But I want to clarify the ChatGPT comparison because AdPipe is fundamentally different:
It's like comparing Google Docs to a purpose-built proposal tool. Yes, you CAN write a proposal in Google Docs, but the specialized tool does it faster and better.
Where you're 100% right is the messaging — I need to lead with outcomes (more winning ads, better ROAS, test 12 angles instead of guessing on one) instead of just "ad copy fast." That's a change I'm making to the landing page this week.
And yes, $50 on Google Ads was basically throwing money away. I've stopped paid traffic entirely and shifted to direct outreach to Meta ads professionals — that's been way more effective.
Really appreciate the honest feedback on AdPipe's positioning. This is exactly the kind of input that helps solo founders course-correct early. 🙏
If you want to earn money or be successful in the SaaS niche, you don't need to focus on whether people will "like" or "need" the product. If you only look at need, people will simply enroll in free trials and then leave.
Instead, you need to see if the product can make someone pay for it. Just look at luxury brands: do people actually need them? No, but they still pay a handsome amount of money for them.
You can't assume people will buy something just because it’s a great product; you have to determine whether they are willing to pay for it or not.
Great point — "need" and "willingness to pay" are two very different things. I've learned this the hard way with Pregnalyze. Hundreds of users, genuinely helpful product, but the willingness to pay for pregnancy info is low when people expect health tools to be free.
With AdPipe the dynamic is different — marketers already pay for tools that save them time and improve performance. The willingness to pay exists in this market. My challenge is proving the ROI clearly enough that trying AdPipe feels like a no-brainer over using ChatGPT or writing copy manually.
The luxury brand analogy is interesting though — those brands sell identity, not utility. Still working on nailing that messaging.
Success in SaaS depends on two factors: the business model itself and whether you have the foundational pieces in place. You need the right technology stack and an existing audience.
A SaaS I built a couple of years ago validated this. I built a platform for a real estate law firm to digitize their workflow. It handled client registration, vetting, contract management, and deadline reminders. Since they already had a client base, adoption was straightforward. The platform streamlined their process, saved them time, and boosted client engagement.
More recently, I've worked on two different approaches. One is a specialized SaaS for Amazon SP-API, promoted directly by Amazon; this one gets a helping hand from Amazon. The other is a web app for contextual lead analysis that I'm building independently. After years of building solutions for clients, I wanted to shift to building products that solve my own problems.
The "existing audience" point is key. Your real estate law firm example proves it — they already had clients, so adoption was just about making their lives easier.
Your Amazon SP-API project is smart — having Amazon promote it for you is basically built-in distribution. That solves the hardest part.
Curious about the contextual lead analysis tool — are you planning to use your own network to get first users or going cold?
the output vs workflow framing in these comments is spot on. been through the same thing building AI video tools - if the free tier delivers a finished result, you already lost the subscription argument.
one thing that worked for me: make the free version good enough to prove value but cap it at a point where professionals hit a wall. for AI content generation specifically, the wall is consistency across batches. anyone can generate one good image or one good ad copy. doing it 50 times with brand consistency is the real paid feature.
also worth noting - the service hybrid path is genuinely faster to revenue. i was charging for done-for-you AI video production at $500-1k per video while the self-serve tool had zero paying users. the service revenue funded the product development. now building the open source version at openslop.ai so others can skip the $0 MRR phase entirely.
You're right — anyone can get one good output from AI. Doing it repeatedly with brand consistency is where professionals need a real tool.
That's actually one of AdPipe's strengths I haven't been communicating well. Each batch pulls directly from the product page (price, features, reviews, brand voice), so the output stays consistent to the brand across all 12 variants. But across multiple products for the same brand? That's where there's room to build — saved brand guidelines, tone presets, things like that.
The service hybrid path is interesting. I've been thinking about offering a "done-for-you" ad copy pack — run AdPipe for someone's top 10 products, curate the best variants, deliver a ready-to-launch spreadsheet.
Your path of service revenue funding product development is probably the smartest advice in this entire thread. Revenue is revenue — doesn't matter if it comes from SaaS or services in month one.
Will check out openslop.ai — the open source approach to skip $0 MRR is a cool concept.
As a solo builder myself, I’m starting to think SaaS isn’t about building a product — it’s about building leverage.
If you don’t have leverage (audience, SEO, community, partnerships), SaaS becomes a very slow game.
Do you think your issue was pricing, positioning, or distribution?
All three, in this order:
Distribution — I had zero audience when I launched. Built the product first, then tried to find users. Classic mistake. Now I'm fixing it with direct outreach and community engagement like this post.
Positioning — I was selling "ad copy fast" when I should have been selling "more winning ads with less effort." This thread has honestly been a masterclass in helping me see that.
Pricing — $39/month might be right for agencies running 10+ brands, but it's too much friction for a solo founder who wants to try it once. Thinking about adding a one-time option to lower the barrier.
Your leverage point is spot on. The founders who hit $1k MRR fast almost always had one of those things before they launched. I had none. So now I'm building the distribution manually — LinkedIn outreach, Reddit, this post — while the product is already live.
the output vs workflow framing is sharp, but I'd push it one level deeper: subscriptions struggle when the value lands before the payment ask.
output tools — ad copy, a risk score, a generated image — deliver everything in the free trial. by the time the user is deciding whether to pay, they're already satisfied. you're asking them to prepay for next week's value based on this week's memory. weak ask even when the product genuinely works.
workflow tools solve this structurally. a CRM with 6 months of data, a monitoring tool with a history of alerts, a tracker you've built around — there's real cost to cancelling. subscriptions hold when users have something to lose.
for AdPipe: if the free demo outputs copy good enough to actually use in a campaign, you've out-competed yourself. the question isn't 'why won't they subscribe' — it's 'at what point in the flow did they decide they had enough?' the gate needs to move earlier.
the service hybrid is probably the faster first-revenue path regardless. charge per campaign, use AdPipe to deliver, let real client work prove the product. once you have testimonials and retention data, the self-serve subscription is an easier pitch.
"You're asking them to prepay for next week's value based on this week's memory" — that perfectly describes the output tool trap. And yeah, AdPipe's free demo gives you 2 variants that are good enough to use. So the user thinks "cool, I got what I needed" and leaves.
The "at what point did they decide they had enough" question is making me rethink the whole funnel. Right now the free tier gives 2 full variants. Maybe the move is: show all 12 variants but only reveal the full copy for 2. You can SEE the hooks and styles of the other 10, but you need to pay to unlock them. That way the user knows there's more value sitting right there, not hypothetical future value.
The workflow angle is something I've been underestimating. If AdPipe saved your brand guidelines, tracked which copy styles performed best for your products, and built a history of winning angles over time — that's switching cost. That's data you'd lose if you cancel. Right now it's just a generator with no memory. That needs to change.
And yes, the service hybrid keeps coming up in this thread for good reason. Charge per campaign, deliver using AdPipe, collect testimonials. That's my next move.
adpipe sounds like a cool ai tool, I would like to have it on my toolsai cloud platform, see if you can get more traffic from there
Thanks! I'd be interested — always looking for distribution channels. What's the platform? Drop me a link and I'll check it out.
toolsai cloud that's the name of the platform, I'm new on indie, still can't send links yet. just type toolsai dot cloud... you find it right away 😀
SaaS is slow when the value delivered is diffuse or the pain threshold is low. Your Pregnalyze example is a perfect case: the free version fully resolved the anxiety. There was no residual problem left to sell around.
The faster monetization paths you mentioned — consulting hybrids, done-for-you services, LTDs — all share one thing: the payment moment feels proportional to the value delivered. Subscription friction is highest when users can't intuitively project what they'll get next month.
What I've seen work for early SaaS revenue: targeting a workflow where the cost of not using the tool is visible and recurring. Things like sales outputs, proposals, client deliverables — where skipping the tool has a direct professional consequence. That urgency justifies the subscription ask much faster than tools that improve productivity abstractly.
The 3-month revenue window is real but it tends to reward specificity over breadth. The more clearly you can say "this is for person X doing task Y", the faster payment decisions happen.
"The payment moment feels proportional to the value delivered" — that's the cleanest way I've heard this explained.
With Pregnalyze, the payment moment was actually working against us. Someone in a pregnancy scare doesn't think "let me optimize my spending" — they want answers NOW and free. The anxiety was the product's distribution engine but also the reason nobody paid. The value was fully consumed before we ever asked for money.
Your point about "cost of not using the tool" is making me rethink AdPipe's positioning. Right now we sell it as "generate ad copy faster." But the real cost of NOT using it is: you spend 2 hours writing mediocre copy, launch ads that underperform, and burn ad budget. That's a $500+ problem every campaign cycle. We're not communicating that cost clearly enough.
The specificity point is also spot on. "AI ad copy tool" is broad. "The tool media buyers use to generate Meta ad copy from product URLs in 30 seconds" is specific. Same product, completely different purchase decision speed.
Really appreciate this breakdown. Are you building something yourself or advising?
It depends heavily on your niche and distribution.
SaaS is slow to revenue but compounds, once you hit $1k MRR, churn is your main enemy, not acquisition.
I'm building a personal finance SaaS and the hardest part hasn't been the product, it's been getting the first 50 users who actually pay.
The model works, the distribution problem is real.
"The model works, the distribution problem is real" — 100% where I'm at right now.
With AdPipe, the product genuinely works. People who try the demo engage with it. But getting the right people to the front door is the bottleneck.
The first 50 paying users thing resonates. It feels like the hardest gap in all of SaaS — from 0 to 50. After that you have data, testimonials, word of mouth. Before that you're basically selling a promise.
How are you approaching distribution for your personal finance SaaS? Curious what channels you're testing — feels like a space where content/SEO could be a strong long game but slow to start.
Honestly I think the issue isn't SaaS as a model — it's the gap between "people use it" and "people pay for it." Those are two completely different problems.
With Pregnalyze, the free version solved the whole problem. There was no remaining pain to monetize. That's not a SaaS problem, that's a value-gating problem. Same with AdPipe — if the demo gives enough output to be useful, why would someone subscribe?
I've had the most luck with what I'd call "workflow tools" rather than "output tools." If your product generates a one-time result (a score, an ad copy), people will use it once and bounce. But if it's something they need to come back to daily — tracking, monitoring, managing — subscriptions make sense because the value literally compounds over time.
To your question about fast revenue: I think the hybrid model is underrated. Charge for done-for-you services, use your own tool to deliver, and the tool itself becomes the productized service backend. Way faster to $5k/mo than pure self-serve SaaS.
This is probably the most useful reply I've gotten — especially the distinction between "output tools" and "workflow tools." That hit hard.
You're right about Pregnalyze. The free version solved the entire problem. We essentially gave away the full value and then asked people to pay for... more of what they already got. Classic value-gating mistake. We've since removed the paywall entirely and pivoted to a free traffic model (affiliates + ads + funneling users to our TTC calculator which has a clearer paywall justification).
With AdPipe, I think we're in a slightly better position because ad copy isn't a one-time need — media buyers need fresh copy every campaign cycle. But your point still stands: if the free demo gives them enough to walk away satisfied, the subscription has no pull.
The hybrid model idea is really interesting. We've actually considered offering "done-for-you" ad copy packages using AdPipe as the backend — charging per campaign instead of $29/mo self-serve.
Appreciate the honest take. What kind of workflow tools have worked for you?
I’ve been on the other side of this for years. built a SaaS over 7 years, invested over $1M of my own money. Learned a ton. Traction? Not much. Eventually had to shut it down. Built a few others that never really picked up either.
so I don’t think SaaS is dead. But I do think it’s slow. And crowded. And subscription fatigue is real. Every product wants $19–$49/month. After 5–6 tools, people start asking themselves: do I really need another recurring bill?
Looking at my own behavior, I sign up for lifetime deals way more often than monthly subscriptions. One-time payments feel lighter psychologically. There’s no ongoing tax on my brain.
Lately my approach has shifted:
Core product free, no signup required
Most features usable immediately
If someone creates an account, they get full access for 6–12 months
I watch usage, not just signups
If people are consistently using it without being forced, that’s signal. Then I can think about a one-time payment or something closer to a software license model. SaaS can work. But recurring revenue is not automatic. It’s earned slowly. And if you need fast money, services or hybrids are almost always quicker.
Curious how many of us are really building SaaS for revenue speed vs building it because we like the model.
7 years and $1M of your own money — that takes guts. Respect for sharing that honestly.
The subscription fatigue point is something I think about a lot. I'm a consumer too, and I catch myself doing the same mental math: "do I really need another $29/month?" If I hesitate, my users definitely hesitate.
Your approach is interesting — free core, full access for 6-12 months, watch usage. That's essentially what happened with Pregnalyze by accident. We had a paywall, nobody paid, so we removed it. Now we're watching usage to figure out where real value lives. Turns out people love the calculator but the willingness to pay was zero at the point of crisis ("am I having a miscarriage?"). The paying moment might be later in their journey — which is why our TTC calculator has a different model.
Your last question is the real one though. I think a lot of us (myself included) fell in love with the MRR dream before validating whether our specific product even fits the subscription model. Not everything needs to be recurring.
What does your current product look like? Sounds like you landed on something closer to a freemium + license model?
Interesting question. I think the answer depends on what you mean by 'fast' money vs sustainable revenue. I've built 6 apps across different models and the patterns are pretty clear: One-time purchases (like my iOS apps Tiny Steps and NameDrill) generate immediate cash but plateau quickly. Subscription SaaS takes longer to ramp but compounds. The sweet spot I've found is freemium mobile apps with IAP - you get immediate revenue from power users while building a subscription base. My latest launch, FaunaDx (AI animal identification), went free on iOS last week and is already seeing both download volume and upgrade conversions. The key insight: don't pick the model first, pick the market. Some problems are worth paying for immediately (productivity tools), others need nurturing (lifestyle apps). What specific timeline are you optimizing for?
"Don't pick the model first, pick the market" — that's a great reframe.
Looking back, I think that's exactly where I went wrong with Pregnalyze. We picked the market right (pregnancy loss — huge demand, 4M+ annual searches), but we picked the wrong monetization model for the emotional context. People googling "am I having a miscarriage" are in crisis mode. Asking them to pay $5.99 for clarity in that moment was tone-deaf, even if the product was solid. We've since made it completely free and shifted to an ad/affiliate model — which fits the market behavior much better.
With AdPipe, the market (media buyers needing Meta ad copy) is more transactional by nature — these are people who already spend money on tools. So subscription should theoretically work. But I think the problem right now is awareness, not model.
To answer your question: honestly, I'm optimizing for first $1K MRR within 90 days. Not because I need the money to survive, but because revenue is the only signal that tells me the product-market fit is real vs imagined.
Congrats on FaunaDx — AI + mobile freemium is a smart combo. What's your conversion rate looking like from free to paid so far?
This comment was deleted 8 hours ago.
This comment was deleted 8 hours ago.
Thank you, you've basically done a positioning audit for free.
A few things that hit hard:
"Prompt Engineering Fatigue" — this is exactly right. I've been underselling this. AdPipe requires zero prompting. You paste a URL and get 12 variants. No crafting the perfect prompt, no tweaking, no "act as a senior copywriter with 10 years of experience." Just a URL. That alone is worth paying for if you've ever spent 20 minutes wrestling with ChatGPT to get usable ad copy.
"AI Slop" — the other side of the same coin. ChatGPT doesn't know your product. It hallucinates features, gets prices wrong, writes generic copy that sounds like every other AI output. AdPipe scrapes the actual product page — real price, real features, real reviews — so the copy is grounded in reality, not guessing.
"Automated Ad Ops Layer" vs "AI for ads" — this reframe is powerful. I'm not competing with ChatGPT. I'm competing with the 45 minutes a media buyer spends per product creating copy for A/B testing. That's a completely different category.
Genuinely, thank you.