Most SaaS products fail for the same boring reason
After reading a lot of SaaS post-mortems across Indie Hackers, Reddit and X, I keep noticing the same pattern.
Founders spend months thinking about distribution, pricing models, launch strategies.
But the real problem usually shows up much earlier.
The cycle is almost always the same.
Someone builds a tool around a “great idea”.
The landing page gets some traffic.
Conversion is close to zero.
And the immediate conclusion is:
we just need more traffic.
But traffic is just a magnifier.
If the foundation is weak, more visitors don’t fix the problem — they just make the failure more visible.
The deeper issue is usually simpler.
The product doesn't actually replace anything.
It exists next to the user’s workflow instead of inside it.
And tools that live next to a workflow almost never become habits.
Most founders think they are building a product.
In reality they are often building a second tool that sits beside the thing people already use.
That’s a very hard position to win from.
Because users already have something that works “well enough”.
Most of the time your real competitors are not other SaaS products.
They are things like:
a bloated spreadsheet
a chaotic Slack thread
a messy Notion page
or a manual process someone repeats every day
These systems are ugly.
They are inefficient.
But they already sit directly inside someone’s workflow.
Replacing them is much harder than most founders expect.
People don’t adopt software because it has a cleaner UI or a new AI feature.
They adopt it when it removes friction from something they are already forced to do.
When a product truly fits the workflow, the moment of adoption feels obvious.
Sometimes users literally delete the old spreadsheet the same day.
That’s usually the real signal.
Not traffic.
Not signups.
But whether the product immediately replaces something messy that already existed.
Another uncomfortable observation.
A surprising number of founders admit they built their first version mostly on assumptions.
Not on repeated friction they observed in real workflows.
It’s easy to design features for imagined scenarios.
It’s much harder to design something that actually removes a mechanical problem for a specific type of user.
That difference shows up very quickly once real people try the product.
Because if a tool doesn’t clearly fit into an existing workflow, users simply go back to what they were already doing.
Even if your product is objectively better.
The hard truth is that workflow replacement is often the real product-market fit.
Everything else — traffic, marketing, distribution — only works after that moment.
So a question I keep asking when I look at new products:
What messy workflow does this actually replace?
If the answer is vague, adoption is usually vague too.
And if you can’t clearly name the messy, manual workflow your product replaces…
you probably don’t have a product yet.
If you're building something, I'd love to hear it:
What messy workflow does your product actually replace?
The pricing point is one that deserves more attention than it gets in these discussions.
Most early-stage SaaS pricing is anchored to what similar tools charge, not to the value the buyer actually gets or loses. The founder picks a number that feels reasonable relative to competitors and calls it done. The problem is that competitors might also be pricing badly - anchoring to bad benchmarks produces bad prices.
The more useful anchor: what does the problem cost the buyer in time, money, or lost outcomes if they do not solve it? A tool that saves a 5-person sales team 10 hours per week is worth far more than whatever its closest competitor charges. Pricing to the problem rather than to the category is how you find the number that converts without leaving money on the table.
The other piece: different buyers have wildly different willingness to pay for the same product. An SDR at a 10-person startup values the same tool differently than a sales ops person at a 200-person company. Most SaaS tools pick one price point and miss half their potential revenue because of it.
That’s a good point about pricing.
I’ve also noticed a lot of founders anchor to “what tools in this category charge” instead of what the problem actually costs the buyer.
And interestingly that often connects back to the workflow thing.
Messy workflows look cheap because they don’t have a price tag. A spreadsheet someone updates every Friday, manual emails after failed Stripe payments, some Notion page everyone half-uses.
But those things quietly eat hours every week.
When a product actually replaces that mess, pricing becomes a lot easier.
When it just sits next to the workflow, even $10/month can feel expensive.
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
The boring reason is usually not the one that gets written about, so I am curious which direction you are taking this.
If it is the one I have seen most: SaaS products fail because the founder solved a problem they do not have, for a buyer they have never talked to, priced based on a gut feel with no reference to how the buyer thinks about cost vs value. The product works fine. The business does not.
The talk to customers before building advice is correct but gets applied too superficially. Most founders interpret it as will you use this surveys, which are useless because people say yes to be polite. The version that actually works is: describe the exact situation where someone would pay money to solve this today. Not would you pay but describe the last time this problem cost you real time or money. If they cannot describe a recent, concrete instance, the problem is not active enough to sell to.
The other boring reason that does not get enough attention: pricing. A lot of early-stage products are priced like a discount version of enterprise software, not like a solution to a specific problem. The buyer is not comparing your product to nothing. They are comparing it to the cost of the problem persisting. If you have not modeled that comparison, you are guessing at a number.
What is the specific boring reason you are writing about?
The boring reason is usually not the one that gets written about, so I am curious which direction you are taking this.
If it is the one I have seen most: SaaS products fail because the founder solved a problem they do not have, for a buyer they have never talked to, priced based on a gut feel with no reference to how the buyer thinks about cost vs value. The product works fine. The business does not.
The "talk to customers before building" advice is correct but gets applied too superficially. Most founders interpret it as "will you use this?" surveys, which are useless because people say yes to be polite. The version that actually works is: describe the exact situation where someone would pay money to solve this today - not "would you pay" but "describe the last time this problem cost you real time or money." If they cannot describe a recent, concrete instance, the problem is not active enough to sell to.
I keep running into this with my own tools. The ones that feel most obvious to me are sometimes the ones with least traction, because I built them for my specific context and assumed others shared it. The ones I built after watching people articulate the problem in their own words on Reddit or in community threads tend to get faster initial traction.
What is the boring reason you found?
The boring reason is usually not the one that gets written about, so I am curious which direction you are taking this.
If it is the one I have seen most: SaaS products fail because the founder solved a problem they do not have, for a buyer they have never talked to, priced based on a gut feel with no reference to how the buyer thinks about cost vs value. The product works fine. The business does not.
The "talk to customers before building" advice is correct but gets applied too superficially. Most founders interpret it as "will you use this?" surveys, which are useless because people say yes to be polite. The version that actually works is: describe the exact situation where someone would pay money to solve this today - not "would you pay" but "describe the last time this problem cost you real time or money." If they cannot describe a recent, concrete instance, the problem is not active enough to sell to.
I keep running into this with my own tools. The ones that feel most obvious to me are sometimes the ones with least traction, because I built them for my specific context and assumed others shared it. The ones I built after watching people articulate the problem in their own words on Reddit or in community threads tend to get faster initial traction.
What is the boring reason you found?
The boring reason is usually not the one that gets written about, so I am curious which direction you are taking this.
If it is the one I have seen most: SaaS products fail because the founder solved a problem they do not have, for a buyer they have never talked to, priced based on a gut feel with no reference to how the buyer thinks about cost vs value. The product works fine. The business does not.
The "talk to customers before building" advice is correct but gets applied too superficially. Most founders interpret it as "will you use this?" surveys, which are useless because people say yes to be polite. The version that actually works is: describe the exact situation where someone would pay money to solve this today - not "would you pay" but "describe the last time this problem cost you real time or money." If they cannot describe a recent, concrete instance, the problem is not active enough to sell to.
I keep running into this with my own tools. The ones that feel most obvious to me are sometimes the ones with least traction, because I built them for my specific context and assumed others shared it. The ones I built after watching people articulate the problem in their own words on Reddit or in community threads tend to get faster initial traction.
What is the boring reason you found?
The boring reason is usually not the one that gets written about, so I am curious which direction you are taking this.
If it is the one I have seen most: SaaS products fail because the founder solved a problem they do not have, for a buyer they have never talked to, priced based on a gut feel with no reference to how the buyer thinks about cost vs value. The product works fine. The business does not.
The "talk to customers before building" advice is correct but gets applied too superficially. Most founders interpret it as "will you use this?" surveys, which are useless because people say yes to be polite. The version that actually works is: describe the exact situation where someone would pay money to solve this today - not "would you pay" but "describe the last time this problem cost you real time or money." If they cannot describe a recent, concrete instance, the problem is not active enough to sell to.
I keep running into this with my own tools. The ones that feel most obvious to me are sometimes the ones with least traction, because I built them for my specific context and assumed others shared it. The ones I built after watching people articulate the problem in their own words on Reddit or in community threads tend to get faster initial traction.
What is the boring reason you found?
The "replaces a messy workflow" test is the right one. It's also why Stripe-integrated tools often get adoption fast — Stripe is itself a workflow people are already forced to use.
Concrete example: failed payment recovery. Most SaaS founders at 0-30k MRR handle it the same way — they notice a churned user, look up the invoice in Stripe, send a manual email, hope for the best. It's a spreadsheet-adjacent mess: some founders have a Notion doc, some have nothing.
The replacement threshold is actually low here. When a tool watches invoice.payment_failed and fires a Day1/Day3/Day7 sequence automatically, founders literally stop logging into Stripe to check. That's the deletion-of-the-old-spreadsheet moment you described.
Built tryrecoverkit.com/connect for exactly this — one Stripe connect, no new workflow to learn, it just handles the thing that was manual before. The 'messy workflow it replaces' test was the north star the whole way through.
The pairing of 'runs locally' + 'no API keys' is undervalued positioning. It speaks to the technical buyer who has already been burned by SaaS tools that changed pricing, added rate limits, or went down at the wrong moment.
The one-time purchase model makes sense when the tool does a defined job well. What's the job this tool does?
The pairing of 'runs locally' + 'no API keys' is undervalued positioning. It speaks to the technical buyer who has already been burned by SaaS tools that changed pricing, added rate limits, or went down at the wrong moment.
The one-time purchase model makes sense when the tool does a defined job well. What's the job this tool does?