Is there any point in creating a product in a crowded market?

Really enjoyed this post, it captures a dilemma a lot of us face as solo builders. The “yet another X” feeling can be demotivating when the market looks saturated. From my experience, the bigger challenge is usually distribution and positioning rather than the product itself, especially when competing against teams with strong SEO and growth engines.

For me the key questions aren’t just “is the market crowded?” but “which subset of users has a pain point that existing tools don’t solve well?” and “how can I reach them where they already are?” Building in public, engaging genuinely in communities, and focusing on a very specific moment where users think “this actually solves my problem” tends to work even in noisy spaces.

If traction feels slow, tightening the angle and talking directly to early users about what frustrates them with current solutions can really help shape both the product and the messaging.

The traction problem in crowded markets is usually distribution, not product.

Everyone's talking positioning (which matters), but the reality is most solo founders compete against companies with marketing teams and ad budgets. You're not going to out-SEO Hotjar for "session recording."

What works: finding where your ideal customer already hangs out and being genuinely useful there before ever mentioning your tool. Answer questions in relevant Discords, subreddits, forums. Build in public so people follow the journey. The first 50 customers almost never come from Google.

The uptime checker guy you mentioned probably got traction through consistent presence in communities, not because he figured out some magic positioning. Distribution compounds over time if you're patient with it.

This really hits.

For me the hardest part isn’t getting contacts, it’s remembering context.
What we talked about, why we connected, and when it makes sense to follow up.

Once that’s gone, reaching out later just feels awkward.

I don't think it's doomed if you choose a crowded market, you just have to do something different & better. Have a unique twist to it!

My favourite example is YouForm in the already crowded survey space

Crowded markets usually aren’t the issue but positioning is.

Most tools lose people because users don’t immediately see
what problem it solves better than what they already use.

What was the specific pain that made you start building this?

Crowded doesn’t mean impossible. It just means you need a fresh angle or a tiny niche others aren’t serving well.

We're dealing with this exact question right now.

Building in the "paid advice/expertise monetization" space - which sounds crowded. Calendly, Clarity, Superpeer, tons of creator economy tools.

But here's what we discovered: the crowded market was a mirage. When we spoke with users, we realized no one was addressing their actual problem. They didn't want to "monetize their expertise." They wanted permission to help without burning out.

The reframe: our product isn't about money. It's about removing friction. For the expert, the price is a filter that says "I'm open." For the asker, it's "permission to ask" without feeling like they're imposing.

Same space, totally different positioning. Suddenly we're not competing with anyone.
The question isn't "is it crowded?" ... I would refreame it to "is anyone solving the problem the way your users actually experience it?"

What space are you looking at?

In my opinion, there is always room for a better or or newer product of any kind whether it be physical or digital. Someone can always create something a bit better than the last product. That's pretty much how we got the swivel sweeper.

Yes just make sure you have a killer design. I'm constantly designing products in crowded markets and spend a good amount of time on UX , testing and I use a world class visual designer to make the final product beautiful. That will always get you further than a poorly designed product that is hard to use.

I also think not having a crowded market can be a downfall too

I think you don’t win by being another analytics tool. You win by owning a very specific use case or audience. Pick one sharp angle (e.g., fastest setup, privacy-first, indie SaaS only, cheapest, dev-friendly) and market that outcome, not the feature set. More features won’t fix traction; clear positioning will. Talk to a few users, find why they’d choose you over Hotjar, and lean hard into that.

Absolutely. A crowded market means there is demand. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, you just need to be slightly better (or simpler) than the bloated competitors.
I see so many founders trying to find a "blue ocean" and starving, while others just build a simpler CRM/Invoice tool and make a killing because the big players are too complex.

Crowded markets can work, but only when the product makes one thing decisively easier than the alternatives.

If traction is hard right now, it’s usually not a feature gap. It’s that users don’t quickly see what problem this solves better than what they already know.

Before building more, I’d pressure-test this:
after a short session, what decision should feel obvious to the user?

When that answer is sharp, marketing stops feeling uphill ....even in crowded categories.

Yes. I believe if you have a different perspective about the market, something you feel other products have missed, a different way to do things then you should build.

This is a controversial issue. On the one hand, crowded markets mean there is strong demand, and if you can find a way for your solution to help users solve their problems better, you have a chance of success. But it requires investment, because you need to cut through the noise and stand out.

On the other hand, recent SaaS trends show that micro-SaaS for niche markets can be highly profitable with lower competition.

A lot of great points here on positioning. One thing I don’t see mentioned as much:

In crowded markets, most tools compete on what they capture (sessions, events, heat-maps), not on what users actually walk away understanding.

If you put yourself in the user’s shoes then after 30 mins in the tool, what decision should feel obvious?

For a session recording product, that might not be “more features,” but clarity around a specific moment that changes behavior (confusion, friction, drop-off).

Curious to know when you built v1, what was the exact moment you hoped the tool would make obvious?

I'm in a similar boat — building a tech news aggregator, which is an extremely crowded space (Feedly, Hacker News, etc.).

What's helped me think about it differently: crowded markets mean validated demand. The question isn't "is there room?" but "what specific frustration am I solving that others aren't?"

For me, the angle was: Japanese tech blogs (Zenn, Qiita) have great content that never reaches English-speaking devs. Plus, most aggregators give you headlines — I wanted structured summaries with prerequisites and tradeoffs, so you know if an article is worth your time before clicking.

That's not a feature list. It's a positioning story: "tech insights from Japan, summarized so you don't waste time."

For your session recording tool, I'd ask: what's the moment where someone using Hotjar thinks "this is annoying"? That frustration is your angle. Maybe it's pricing cliffs, or script load time, or just overwhelming dashboards. Find that and own it.

What specific user pain made you start building this in the first place?

I can relate—building a “me-too” tool can feel like shouting into a crowded room. A few things that helped me when I faced the same challenge:
Focus on a specific niche – Even small differences in target audience can make you stand out. For example, instead of “anyone with a website,” target indie SaaS founders, e-commerce shops, or a particular vertical.
Solve one pain extremely well – You don’t need all the features your competitors have. Find the one problem they’re missing or under-delivering on and own it.
Leverage existing communities – Post in Reddit, Indie Hackers, and relevant Slack/Discord groups where your ideal users hang out. Timing matters—answer questions when someone is actively asking for a solution.
Content-first marketing – Case studies, blog posts, or short tutorials showing how your tool solves a real pain often beats ads.
Sometimes traction comes more from positioning and distribution than feature parity. If you want, I can brainstorm some angles that could differentiate your session recording/analytics tool in a crowded market.
Do you want me to draft a shorter, punchy version that works really well on Indie Hackers?

Crowded markets aren't the problem. Undifferentiated positioning is.

"Session recording tool" puts you in a bucket with Hotjar, FullStory, PostHog, LogRocket, and dozens of others. You're competing on features with companies that have years of head start and millions in funding. That's a losing game.

A few questions that might help reframe:

1. Why indie hackers specifically?
   Your positioning tells me who, but not why. What about indie hackers makes them underserved by Hotjar or PostHog? Price? Complexity? Something else?

2. What do people hate about the current options?
   Pricing cliffs? Slow load times from heavy scripts? Data privacy concerns? Overwhelming dashboards? If you can find a specific frustration and solve it better than anyone, you have positioning.

3. What's your unfair advantage?*
   Are you willing to offer pricing that VC-backed competitors can't match? Do you have domain expertise in a specific vertical? Can you be radically simpler because you're not trying to be everything?

The "yet another X" framing is a trap. The uptime checker guy probably succeeded not because he built another uptime checker, but because he found a specific angle (price, simplicity, audience, distribution) that made him the obvious choice for someone.

More features won't fix this. Clearer positioning might.

What's the one thing about Scryspell that would make a specific type of customer choose you over Hotjar?