Most startups don’t fail because of product. They fail because of this
One mistake I see founders make constantly:
They start building before defining who the product is really for.
So the process looks like this:
Build → Launch → Silence → Panic → Rebuild.
Not because the product is bad.
Because the problem and the customer were never clearly defined.
Here’s a simple exercise that takes 5 minutes but can save you months.
Open a note and write these two sentences.
1. The problem
Write the exact sentence your user might say.
Example:
“I’m tired of manually searching Reddit and Twitter for people asking for tools like mine.”
2. The customer
Write the type of person who feels this pain the most.
Example:
“Solo founders launching SaaS products.”
Now do the most important step.
Go look online and see if people actually say the problem.
Search places like:
• Indie Hackers
• X (Twitter)
• niche forums
Look for posts like:
“Anyone know a tool for…”
“Looking for an alternative to…”
“How do you solve…”
If you find these conversations, you just discovered live demand.
That’s actually how LeadSynth started.
I kept seeing founders manually hunting these conversations across the internet.
So instead of manually searching, I built a system that detects those posts automatically.
Now founders wake up to a list of people already asking for the solution they’re building.
If you’re building something right now, try the exercise above.
Write down:
• the problem sentence
• the customer who feels it most
Then see if those conversations exist.
You might realize your next users are already talking about the problem.
If you want help finding those conversations, that’s exactly what LeadSynth does.
Indie Hackers also get 20% off with code IH20.
The exercise is solid but the most important step is the one that gets skipped most often: not just finding conversations online, but counting how many exist and measuring their emotional intensity. A few Reddit posts asking "anyone know a tool for X" is weak signal. Dozens of posts across multiple communities, with upvotes, with comments from people saying "I do this manually every week and it's painful," with the same phrasing appearing independently across platforms that is strong signal.
The distinction matters because founders routinely find one or two confirming posts, declare the problem validated, and start building. What they've actually confirmed is that the problem exists for someone. What they haven't confirmed is that it exists at a frequency and intensity that produces willingness to pay. Those are three different thresholds and validation stops too early at the first one.
The other piece worth adding to the exercise: after you find the conversations, check what solutions people are already using. If the thread ends with "I just built a spreadsheet for this" or "I use [competitor] for this," the competitive landscape and the incumbent switching cost are both visible in the same place as the demand signal. That context changes how you position entry, not whether you enter.
That is a really important distinction. A single post asking for a tool is curiosity but repeated conversations with frustration behind them usually signal real demand. When I started digging deeper I noticed the same patterns appearing across Reddit, Indie Hackers and X with founders describing the same pain in almost identical language. That observation is actually what pushed me to build LeadSynth. The system tracks those conversations across platforms so you can see how often the problem appears and how strongly people feel it before you build or reach out.
Seeing the 100 posts and 250 dollars revenue, it's clear the focus is on quality over quantity. Finding those 10 right users on platforms like Reddit or Indie Hackers really makes a difference. While sipping coffee, I wonder if this approach could work for more startups too, huh?
The "Build → Launch → Silence → Panic → Rebuild" cycle is painfully accurate. Most founders (myself included) underestimate how much clarity on the customer saves time downstream. The exercise you described is deceptively simple but effective. Writing the exact sentence your user would say forces you to get specific in a way that vague personas never do. The point about searching for live conversations before building resonates strongly. Finding people already articulating the problem is one of the clearest signals you can get early on — it removes a lot of the guesswork around whether the pain is real.
I completely agree with that. When founders show up like salespeople the conversation dies immediately. The best replies usually start by genuinely helping the person first and only mentioning the product if it naturally fits the conversation. What LeadSynth does is surface the moment someone expresses the problem so founders can enter the conversation early and respond like a peer who understands the pain instead of someone blasting cold outreach.
The distinction you're drawing between a product problem and a visibility problem is right, but I'd push it one step further: even founders who find the right conversations often stall because they show up as sellers rather than contributors. Someone posting "does anyone know a tool for X" on Reddit or IH doesn't have their guard down because they want to be pitched — they have it down because they're genuinely asking the community. The founders who convert those moments are the ones who answer the actual question first, demonstrate they understand the problem deeply, and let the product mention land naturally as context rather than a call to action. That positioning shift — from founder promoting a tool to practitioner who built a tool because they lived the problem — tends to change the response rate dramatically. Curious how you're coaching LeadSynth users on the actual reply strategy once they find a high-intent post, because the detection piece is only half of the equation and the other half seems like where most still fumble.
Exactly. Most people assume the product is the issue when in reality it is a problem clarity and distribution issue. When you see dozens of real conversations around the same pain point it changes how you think about building because you already know who the product is for and where those people spend time. That insight is what led me to build LeadSynth so founders can detect those conversations automatically instead of manually digging through platforms every day.
Totally agree with this. 👍
A lot of founders fall in love with the idea of the product before they really understand the problem. So they end up building features instead of solving pain. Then when the launch happens and nothing moves, it feels like a product issue — but in reality it’s a positioning and audience issue.
Searching places like Reddit, Indie Hackers, and X is honestly one of the most underrated validation methods. Real conversations reveal what people are actually struggling with, not what we think they struggle with.
Distribution is definitely the hard part. A lot of useful products fail simply because they never reach the people who actually need them. One thing I noticed is that the demand is often already visible in public conversations. The challenge is spotting those conversations consistently and early enough to engage. That gap is exactly what LeadSynth tries to solve by surfacing people actively asking for solutions across different communities.
This resonates a lot. Distribution seems to be the hardest part for most founders. Building something useful is one thing, but getting it in front of the right people is a completely different challenge.
This comment was deleted 6 months ago
So true. Defining the real user pain first changes everything — otherwise you're just building and hoping someone cares.
Exactly. When the pain and the user are clearly defined everything else becomes easier including messaging and distribution. You suddenly know where to find your users and how they describe the problem in their own words. That was actually the trigger for LeadSynth because I kept seeing founders manually hunting for those conversations instead of having a system that detects them automatically.
Have you ever felt like your company is doing well but people still don’t take you seriously yet?
I’m starting to think perception plays a much bigger role in founder success than we admit.”
Perception definitely matters especially in the early stages. Sometimes it is not about the size of the company but about whether people see you consistently contributing in the spaces where the problem exists. When founders show up where the real conversations are happening and help people solve problems they start building credibility quickly. That idea of meeting people inside those conversations is actually what inspired LeadSynth.
This is so true and something I think about constantly! I am 17 years old from Kerala India building my first startup and the biggest insight I have had is that most startups fail because founders never deeply understood their market and competitive landscape before launching. They build something genuinely good but have no idea how to position it against existing alternatives or communicate why customers should choose them over competitors. The founders who succeed seem to know their market inside out before writing a single line of code. What do you think is the single biggest non product reason startups fail?
That is a very sharp insight for someone building their first startup at 17. The biggest non product reason I see startups fail is building without being close enough to the actual conversations happening around the problem. Founders often understand the idea but not how people talk about the pain or what alternatives they already use. Once you start observing those conversations across communities you begin to understand positioning, competitors, and demand much faster. That pattern is actually what pushed me to build LeadSynth because I kept seeing founders manually digging through these discussions instead of having a system that detects them automatically.
"Spot on! The 'Build → Launch → Silence' trap is real. Your 5-minute exercise is a lifesaver for founders. I’ve realized that finding 'live demand' on Reddit/X is far more important than just having a cool idea. LeadSynth sounds like the perfect bridge for this. Thanks for the reality check!"
Glad it resonated. And yes that technical drift happens a lot. When the customer and problem are unclear teams start adding features based on guesses rather than real signals, which slowly makes the system more complex. I have seen founders reach clarity later but then spend months refactoring because the architecture grew in the wrong direction. One thing that helps is constantly grounding product decisions in real user conversations so the roadmap stays focused. That feedback loop is actually one of the reasons I built LeadSynth.
This resonates a lot. The “build → launch → silence → panic → rebuild” loop seems incredibly common.
One thing I’ve noticed is that when the problem and customer aren’t clearly defined, the technical side of the product tends to drift as well. Features get added quickly while the structure of the system evolves organically instead of intentionally.
Eventually the team ends up with something that technically works but is harder to maintain or change.
Curious if you’ve seen founders reach the point where the product direction becomes clear, but the underlying system has already become complicated enough that it slows development down?
Appreciate that Curtis. It is one of those small exercises that looks simple but changes how founders approach validation. Once you start seeing real conversations about the problem it becomes much easier to confirm whether the idea is worth building in the first place.
That makes sense. Once founders start having real conversations with customers, it definitely changes how they think about validation and what actually needs to be built.
I’ve noticed that clarity around the problem often speeds up product decisions, but it can also expose weaknesses in the early architecture that was built while things were still uncertain.
Have you seen teams reach a stage where the idea is validated and traction starts to appear, but the original system structure starts slowing them down and forces a round of refactoring or rebuilding?
Yes that happens quite often. Once founders start seeing real traction they move fast on features and customer requests, which can expose weaknesses in the early architecture built during the exploration phase. The advantage with LeadSynth is that many founders validate demand and talk to real users earlier, so the product direction becomes clearer before the system grows too complex.
That makes a lot of sense. Once real traction shows up, the pressure to ship features quickly can reveal assumptions that were fine during the exploration phase but don’t hold up at scale.
Getting founders talking to users earlier probably reduces a lot of that risk. When product direction is clearer sooner, the system architecture can evolve more intentionally instead of reacting to constant pivots.
Exactly, that’s the pattern I’ve seen too. When direction isn’t clear early, the system grows around uncertainty and then has to be reworked once real usage hits. That’s actually where LeadSynth helps upstream, getting founders into real user conversations earlier so they can lock in direction before the architecture compounds in the wrong way https://leadsynthai.app
Yeah that “architecture growing around uncertainty” line is spot on.
It’s almost like early systems encode indecision. When you don’t yet know who the product is really for, you end up building something flexible but vague — and that flexibility turns into complexity once real usage starts pulling it in a specific direction.
The teams that seem to handle it best aren’t necessarily the ones who avoid refactors, but the ones who earn clarity early. Once you’re confident about the user and the core problem, even imperfect architecture tends to evolve in a more consistent direction.
LeadSynth pushing that earlier conversation is interesting because it shifts where the work happens. Instead of paying the cost later in refactors, you’re paying it upfront in discovery — which is almost always cheaper.
Feels like the real win isn’t just better insights, but fewer “we built the right thing for the wrong user” moments.
Exactly, early systems reflect whatever uncertainty exists at the time. If the user and problem aren’t clear, that ambiguity gets baked into the product and shows up later as complexity. That’s why shifting effort upfront into discovery matters, and LeadSynth helps with that by getting founders into real conversations earlier so they can lock in direction before the system grows around the wrong assumptions https://leadsynthai.app
Thanx a lot mate that's a really nice suggestion !!
Glad it helped. If you want to take it further, LeadSynth can surface those exact conversations for you so you don’t have to search manually and can start reaching real users faster https://leadsynthai.app
Yes but no so. Defining an audience with a strong problem we can solve is key for a business to succeed but in the later years consumer-centrism has gone too far. Why? Because a product can be positioned differently to different audiences/problems. I've worked for Fortune 100 companies that have never changed their products and all they do is find new ways to present their products to new markets. Just saying.
That is a fair point. Many companies absolutely reposition the same product for different markets over time. I think the key difference is stage. Early stage founders usually need a very clear starting audience so they can get traction and feedback quickly. Once the product proves value it becomes much easier to reposition or expand to other segments. Starting narrow often creates the foundation for broader positioning later.
The exercise is solid but the most important step is the one that gets skipped most often: not just finding conversations online, but counting how many exist and measuring their emotional intensity. A few Reddit posts asking "anyone know a tool for X" is weak signal. Dozens of posts across multiple communities, with upvotes, with comments from people saying "I do this manually every week and it's painful," with the same phrasing appearing independently across platforms that is strong signal.
The distinction matters because founders routinely find one or two confirming posts, declare the problem validated, and start building. What they've actually confirmed is that the problem exists for someone. What they haven't confirmed is that it exists at a frequency and intensity that produces willingness to pay. Those are three different thresholds and validation stops too early at the first one.
The other piece worth adding to the exercise: after you find the conversations, check what solutions people are already using. If the thread ends with "I just built a spreadsheet for this" or "I use [competitor] for this," the competitive landscape and the incumbent switching cost are both visible in the same place as the demand signal. That context changes how you position entry, not whether you enter.
You are completely right. One or two posts only prove the problem exists for someone, not that it exists often enough for a business. What really matters is frequency and emotional intensity. When you start seeing the same frustration appear repeatedly across Reddit, Indie Hackers and X, often using very similar language, that is when it becomes a strong signal. I also like your point about checking what people already use because it reveals switching costs immediately. That pattern recognition is actually what pushed me to build LeadSynth since it helps founders surface those conversations at scale and see how often a problem appears before deciding whether it is worth building for.
Love this framework.
Curious — when you’re looking for those conversations online, how do you usually separate real demand from people just casually discussing something?
I’ve been experimenting with different ways of testing ideas before building and it’s interesting how much clearer things become once the problem sentence is written properly.
Great question. What usually separates real demand from casual discussion is urgency and repetition. Casual discussion tends to sound exploratory like “this would be nice to have,” while real demand often sounds like frustration or time pressure such as “I’m tired of doing this manually” or “is there a tool that solves this.” The other signal is seeing the same problem appear repeatedly across different communities and phrased in similar ways. Once you start noticing those patterns it becomes much easier to validate ideas before building. That pattern recognition is actually what led me to build LeadSynth because I kept seeing founders manually trying to spot these signals across multiple platforms.
To have a solution, you also have to have a problem and know where that problem is, so this is good. It can definitely help avoid a lot of wasted time and confusion.
Exactly. A lot of founders focus on building the solution first but skip the step of mapping where the problem actually shows up in real conversations. Once you know where people are actively discussing the pain it becomes much easier to validate the idea and even find your first users before building anything. That was actually the insight that led me to create LeadSynth because I kept seeing founders manually searching for those conversations across different communities.
Hello Indie Hackers! 👋
I'm excited to share that my latest micro-SaaS, SachCheck AI, just got approved and featured on the SideProjectors homepage!
The Problem:
In India, fake news in regional languages like Hindi spreads like wildfire. Most tools are built for English, leaving 600M+ Hindi speakers vulnerable.
The Solution:
SachCheck AI is a lightweight tool that uses the Google Fact Check API to verify claims instantly in Hindi.
Tech Stack:
- Frontend: Vanilla JS, HTML, CSS
- Hosting: Vercel
- API: Google Fact Check Tools API
I am now looking for a new owner to take this forward and scale it. You can see the live listing here: https://www.sideprojectors.com/project/sach-check-
Would love your feedback on the tool!
Knowing your ICP is critical. Testing out your 4 most likely ICPs is a good first step into the madness known as GoToMarket.
Completely agree. Testing a few potential ICPs early often reveals where the strongest pain actually sits. Sometimes the group you expected is not the one talking about the problem the most. Watching real conversations across communities makes that much clearer because you can see which audience repeatedly expresses the frustration. That is actually part of what led me to build LeadSynth since it helps surface those conversations and patterns so founders can identify their real ICP faster.