Product Hunt is done. I have 1 sign-up and $0 MRR. Here's how I'm thinking about finding my first paying customer.
The launch is behind me. 5 upvotes, 0 new sign-ups, $0 MRR. That's the honest number.
I'm not dwelling on it. But I'm also not pretending it didn't tell me something important.
The thing it told me: warm relationships don't automatically become paying customers. They become warm relationships. The conversion requires something more direct than a post or a launch listing. It requires finding a specific person with a specific problem and asking them a specific question.
So here's how I'm thinking about it now.
The problem I'm solving is invisible until it isn't.
Founders don't know they're losing users to silence. They just notice the churn number and assume the product needs to be better. The moment it becomes visible "have you ever lost a user who didn't know about a feature that would have kept them?" is the moment the conversation changes.
That question is my filter. The founders who pause when they hear it are my customers. The ones who say "that's not really my problem" aren't.
Where I'm looking.
The founders who feel this pain most acutely are the ones with 10-50 paying users who are starting to see their first churn and don't know why. They're on IH posting about retention problems. They're on X talking about users going quiet. They're in threads asking what they're doing wrong.
Those are the conversations I'm inserting myself into not to pitch, but to ask the question.
The goal.
5 paying customers before I build a single new feature. That's the rule I set publicly and I'm holding it. Every day between now and that number is distribution work, not product work.
If you're a SaaS founder with 10-50 users and you're starting to see churn you can't explain I'd genuinely love to talk. tryreleaselog.com
What's your approach to finding your first 5 paying customers? Would love to hear what's actually working.
I can realate with you in so manye point.
I found in hard way to not go with ProductHunt immediatly, its better to wait until you have some clients.
I build DevTet monitoring for websites for agency not just dev which can prove they work to their clients with maintenace reports and all other stuff.
For now i go only with cold emails, but honestly its not how i expected. Also trying with Linkedin and building in public, but what i notice is that you must be persistent and work everyday on repeat, unitl you go to 10 paying customers.
Honestly the first paying customers almost never come from launches — they come from conversations. When I was trying to get early briefpeak users, I spent weeks in e-commerce communities just answering analytics questions with zero pitch, and the people who eventually paid were ones who DM'd me after seeing me be helpful repeatedly. My playbook was: find 3 communities where your target customer hangs out, answer questions genuinely for 2-3 weeks, then mention what you're building only when it's directly relevant. Are you already embedded in communities where your ideal customer is asking for help?
Yeah the more and more people I talk to; the more I realize what you’re describing to be the winning strategy. I’ve built some really good relationships here on indie hackers, but I'm thinking to expand more into Reddit. Do you have any insight on that, how’d you find the right communities for you?
"The filter question is the right move — you're doing discovery disguised as outreach, which is exactly what works at this stage.
One thing that helped founders I've worked with at the 0-to-5 customers stage: don't just insert yourself into threads. Identify 20-30 founders who match your 'pauses at the question' profile and reach out directly with that exact question.
Not a pitch. Just the question. 'Have you ever lost a user who didn't know about a feature that would have kept them?'
The ones who pause are your pipeline. The ones who don't save you both time.
That constraint of 5 customers before new features is the right one. Distribution first."
The direct outreach angle is the step I've been circling around but haven't fully committed to yet. Inserting yourself into threads is reactive you're waiting for the right conversation to appear. Identifying 20-30 founders who match the profile and reaching out directly with the question is proactive and faster. The filter still works the same way, the pipeline just fills quicker. Starting that list today. Who are you working with at the 0-to-5 stage is this something you do as an advisor or more informally?
GET IN TOUCH WITH A LICENSED CRYPTO RECOVERY HACKER EXPERT: ALPHA KEY
After investing over $458,760 worth of USDT, everything turned out to be a scam. I was depressed and on the verge of taking my own life until a coworker recommended ALPHA KEY RECOVERY to me after reading their online reviews. After being scammed, I was 50/50 about everything because of trust issues. Today marks seven months since I was conned by some online broker who claimed to help me through my process.Alpha key came to my aid and restored back my joy and happiness by recovering almost everything taken from me reach out to them today and be a living witness of their good work .
WhatsApp : +15714122170
Signal : +15403249396
I'm right there with you — just launched this week myself, $0 MRR and figuring it out in real time. The thing I keep coming back to is that the first customer is always the hardest because you're still learning who actually needs what you built. What does your ideal customer look like — have you talked to any of them directly yet?
Definitely and the first ones the one that build momentum! It’s hard to keep going at this stage, but it’s worth it. The customer I’m looking for is a saas founder with 10-50 users, at this stage you know your product works and is useful, but you can’t afford to lose your clients, you’re also still most likely at a stage where your constantly improving your product through user feed back, but your users don’t always know it. Releaselog helps solve that, makes it seamless to request a feature and upvote other features, it gets put on a roadmap so they feel heard, when it gets built they’re notified of the change, and now the product feels alive and improving. I’ve been able to talk to a lot of potential users actually by making post like this and was able to land one on my free plan. How’s your launch go, what’d you build?
Just launched on Product Hunt myself (PWAButton). Curious — did you try reaching out directly to potential customers before the launch, or did you rely mainly on the Product Hunt traffic?
I reached out to every warm lead I had !
One thing I'd add: make the first 5-customer goal concrete at the message level, not just the strategy level.
For each founder you contact, write down:
The last part matters. A call can feel productive even when it does not move toward payment. For your ICP, a useful next step might be "I'll audit one quiet-user flow and send the three messages I would trigger." If that feels valuable, it is easier to ask for a small paid pilot than to jump straight from discovery to subscription.
Your filter question is strong because it makes the pain specific. The follow-up offer should be just as specific.
This is a really good framework, especially the distinction between “a productive conversation” and “movement toward payment.” I can already see how easy it is to confuse engaged discussions with actual buying momentum.
I also like the idea of documenting the exact trigger + exact phrasing + response quality. That feels less like “doing outreach” and more like systematically learning where the real pain actually exists and how people naturally describe it.
And you’re right that the follow-up offer probably needs to become much more concrete and outcome-based. “Try my tool” is abstract. Something like “I’ll audit one quiet-user flow and show you where users are likely disconnecting from product momentum” immediately feels more tangible and easier to evaluate.
That bridge between discovery and payment is something I’m still figuring out, and I think this helped clarify it a lot. Especially the idea that the paid step should feel like a continuation of the exact pain they already acknowledged, not a sudden jump into a generic subscription.
the warm relationships line hit hard
got 350 signups on findmeidea in the first week
most said "this looks useful" and never came back
the ones who actually used it were the ones already googling "how do i find a saas idea" when they found it
mid-problem beats hypothetically-interested every time
your filter question is the right tool
rooting for the 5
“Looks useful” is a dangerous signal because it feels positive but has no buying cost behind it.
I’d split those 350 signups into:
The fastest paid path is usually not messaging all 350. It is finding the smallest segment that already has the painful workaround.
This is one of those patterns that keeps showing up across all these stories.
“Looks useful” is basically the most dangerous feedback early on it feels positive, but it doesn’t contain any cost. No time cost, no urgency, no existing behavior change behind it. So it rarely turns into repeat usage.
And your split is exactly the signal I keep hearing from others too: people who are already searching for the solution behave completely differently from people who just resonate with the idea of it. One is pull-based intent, the other is passive interest.
That “mid-problem beats hypothetically-interested” line is probably the cleanest version of ICP filtering I’ve seen in this whole thread.
Also appreciate you sharing that 350 signups in a week is no small experiment, but the difference between signups and activation is where all the real learning seems to happen.
This is the shift I keep coming back to too: a launch tells you whether a broad room is curious, but the first customers usually come from a painfully specific conversation.
The part I’d add is that the best discovery question often has two layers:
The second question is where the buying signal is. If they already have a spreadsheet, manual reminder, awkward workaround, or someone on the team doing it by hand, the cost is real. If they just say “yeah that sounds annoying” and have no workaround, it may still be too abstract.
For your 5-customer rule, I’d track workaround evidence as hard as you track calls. The people already paying in time are much closer to paying in money.
I love this! What are you building, has this method been helping you?
Thanks! I’m building FredBuilds: small AI employee kits for boring business workflows, starting with inbox / customer-message work.
The first use case is pretty narrow:
And yes, this method is helping, but mostly by showing me what is weak. Broad posts create curiosity. Specific conversations around an existing workaround are where the real signal is. So I’m trying to find people who already feel the inbox / follow-up pain instead of chasing generic AI interest.
If you want to take a look tomorrow, I’m running a 24h Saturday sale with code SATURDAY50 for 50% off:
https://fredbuilds.co/shop.html?utm_source=indiehackers&utm_medium=reply&utm_campaign=saturday_promotion&utm_content=releaselog_reply
I actually really like the “visible proof trail” part. I think that solves one of the biggest psychological problems with AI workflow tools right now — people don’t want to feel like important conversations disappeared into a black box they can’t mentally track anymore.
And your point about “specific conversations around an existing workaround” feels very true. I’m noticing broad posts generate agreement, but the strongest insights usually come from people already hacking together some manual process because the pain is frequent enough to force behavior.
Feels like that’s where the real validation starts:
not “would this be useful?”
but “what are people already doing because the problem annoys them enough?” definitely one of those areas where silent operational friction compounds over time.
I missed the sale, but I’ll check the product out still. How’d it go?
Mixed, honestly. The sale itself was not the big validation event; the useful signal was which conversations kept getting specific. The strongest interest still comes from people describing an existing workaround or trust gap, not broad AI curiosity. So I’m treating it less as “did a promo work?” and more as sharper evidence for where the next conversations should happen.
That’s what it’s all about, refining the strategy. The problems clearly there it’s about how you attack it. Keep me posted on your journey, and if at any point you think releaselog would be the right fit for you, let me know I can get you set up.
Appreciate it. I’ll keep following the ReleaseLog journey too.
That “attack it” part is the real work. I’m finding the same thing on my side: broad interest is useful, but the signal only gets real when you can point to one painful workflow and one next step someone would actually pay to fix.
Will keep you posted.
The filter question is doing double duty here — it’s both a sales discovery tool and your product value proposition stated from the buyer’s perspective. “Have you ever lost a user who didn’t know about a feature that would have kept them” is the exact moment Release Log prevents, which means the same framing that qualifies a prospect should probably be the center of your landing page copy rather than a description of release note mechanics.
The 10-50 user window is also the right ICP for a reason beyond churn visibility: at that size, founders are still close enough to individual users to feel the loss of a specific name, not just a cohort percentage. That makes the problem personal and urgent in a way that “improve retention” copy can’t replicate. At 500 users the same issue becomes a metrics problem. At 20 users it’s a gut punch — and gut punches convert.
Yeah, that framing hits pretty close to what I’ve been noticing in these conversations.
The “lost a user who would’ve stayed if they saw X” question actually started as a way to understand the problem space, but I’m realizing it also kind of describes the product’s job more directly than any feature explanation I’ve been using so far. It’s less about “posting updates” and more about closing that gap between shipped value and perceived value.
And I agree on the ICP nuance. The emotional weight at 10–50 users is completely different. At that stage, it’s not abstract churn it’s specific names, specific conversations, specific “wait, why did they leave?” moments. Once you scale past that, it naturally becomes dashboards and percentages, and the urgency shifts.
The PH launch as a forcing function for finding your buyer is dead. It's a vanity check, not a distribution channel. Your 'have you ever lost a user who didn't know about a feature' question is the real asset here. That's not a marketing line, it's a sales discovery script. Go find 30 founders running a $10k to $100k MRR SaaS, send each one that exact question, and book 10 calls from the ones who pause. Half will say it's not their pain and save you months of building. The other half are your first 5 paying customers.
Hey bro, I built UpsNode too, just like you did. I think finding the right audience is really the key here. Hope you reach your goals!
I love to hear it my guy!! Yeah it’s definitely finding the high quality leads, which ends up being people who could genuinely use the product to help their business, sometimes they just need help realizing how it’ll help. What does your product do?
the "5 customers before new features" rule is the move. we did something similar with aisa.to — refused to build anything new until we had real conversations with people who actually used it and could tell us what was missing vs what we assumed was missing. turned out we were wrong about like 80% of our feature priorities lol. the hard part isnt getting the 5, its staying disciplined enough to not build while youre waiting for them to show up.
Exactly! I have so many new features I want to add, everytime I think of a new feature I write it down, now the cool thing is when I get customers, they’ll help validate the ideas worth acting on. Someone here mentioned that every new feature without a user input is a guess anyways, which I find to be a calming reframe
This resonates a lot — going through the exact same thing today. Launched LifePilot on Uneed this morning (AI planner that breaks any goal into 4 daily actions) and the biggest lesson so far: every single upvote came from direct 1:1 outreach, not from posts or social.
Currently #2 of the day with 24 upvotes if anyone wants to check it out: https://www.uneed.best/product/lifepilot-ai-planner
Good luck with finding those first 5 paying customers — rooting for you.
I like that product idea! Good luck to you too, I’ll show some support there. Not pitching, but just want to ask to see another founders perspective. Do you think a product like mine could help you keep users ?
Thanks — means a lot on launch day. And yes, retention is exactly the problem LifePilot tries to solve from the habit side. Would love to see what you're building.
Of course! What was the final result? Yeah the angle we’re attacking is helping customers understand your product is improving and the feature request lets the users feel a part of that process, the ai writing assistant makes it seamless. Feel free to check it out tryreleaselog.com. This is what a public changelog / roadmap would look like. https://tryreleaselog.com/p/releaselog-building-in-public
the gap between 'warm relationships' and 'paying customers' is where almost every early stage founder gets stuck and you've named it cleanly. but i'd push on one thing: the founders posting about retention problems on IH and X are the ones who have already framed it as a retention problem. the ones who feel the pain most acutely might not have named it yet, they just know something is off and they're posting about growth or churn or product market fit without connecting it to the communication gap. how are you finding those conversations where the problem is present but unlabeled
That’s actually an interesting way to think about, to be honest I would have to sit down and think that through. Do you have any advice in regards to that?
the most reliable thing i've found is just asking a dumb open question in those threads. not 'do you have a retention problem' but something like 'what does your week 2 look like for most users.' people who have the problem answer immediately and in detail. people who don't give a one liner. you're basically letting them self-select without them knowing that's what's happening
That’s actually a really smart way to do it.
The more direct the question gets, the more people tend to switch into “answering a survey” mode. But something like “what does week 2 look like for most users?” forces people to describe reality instead of theory, and the emotional tone of the answer probably tells you as much as the words themselves.
I also like the idea of letting people self-select naturally instead of trying to qualify them upfront. The founders who immediately start explaining drop-off patterns, disengagement, confusion, or users going quiet are basically identifying themselves without being pitched.
Feels a lot closer to observing pain than trying to convince someone they have it.
This hit me hard. I'm in a similar spot
— launched ZERO LOG, a minimal daily
logging app, got 2 sales in closed testing,
then nothing after public launch.
The line about warm relationships just
staying warm relationships is painfully
accurate. People said "looks cool" but
didn't buy.
I've been posting short videos on social
media. A gaming streamer with 5,500
followers reposted one and got 1,500 views.
Zero sales. The audience just wasn't the
right fit — gamers aren't my target user.
Your filter question idea is interesting.
Stop broadcasting to everyone, find the
one person who actually feels the pain today.
Yeah I’ve had about 3 post do pretty well here on indie hackers, and it’s nice check the website analytics and seeing all the users click on my site, but at the end of the day 10 website clicks with 5 signups is infinitely more valuable then 1,500 website clicks with no signups. The lesson learned is how to go about distribution though, so that’s a win atleast
That's a good point — 1,500 views
with zero intent is just noise.
Finding the right 10 people matters
more. Still figuring out how to do that.
Good luck on the journey! Keep me updated on any launches. I’ll make sure to come back with any distribution tips if I find any
The waitlist page is the minimal filter test. Not "would you pay?" - just "is this problem real enough to give me your email?"
Running this right now with BillWatch (billwatch-landing.vercel.app) - a federal legislation tracker for small businesses. Free signup, no charge until launch. Signup count is noise. What matters: a few people wrote in asking about specific bills they're watching. Those are the people who have the problem today. Those are the people worth calling.
Your filter question is the same move in a DM. The people who pause when they hear it - those are your 5.
One thing to add: charge before the product is fully built. Even $9/month. Entering payment info filters differently than email. The act of paying means they have a current need, not just a future one.
Thanks!
Solo dev building AI tools for India. Doing a flash sale today: 500 credits at Rs 49 via UPI (yog-1496@ptaxis). VoiceAI Studio TTS + RevenueSystem. Would love your feedback on the pricing — too low, too high?
the 'filter question' framing is the strongest part here — most founders skip it and go straight to demos. when i was bootstrapping hosting90 (18y, eventually sold it), first 5 customers all came from 1:1 dms where ppl were already complaining about the problem, not from launches. ur instinct about churn-curious founders is right but id narrow further — look at who replies to those churn threads, not just who posts them. repliers self-identify as ppl who care enough abt retention to debate it publicly. also: comments under similar tools' launches are gold for disappointed users.
That distinction — posters vs repliers — is really sharp.
I’ve been paying more attention to people starting the conversation, but you’re right that the repliers are often further down the intent curve. They’ve already opted into the topic, not just experienced it.
And the point about “disappointed users under similar tools’ launches” is something I’ve definitely underused. That’s probably one of the cleanest pools of people who already tried a solution and felt the gap.
Your experience with those first 5 customers coming from 1:1 DMs maps almost exactly to what I’m seeing too — launches create visibility, but DMs with pre-existing frustration create conversion.
Feels like the real pattern is: public signal → self-selection in comments → private DM → behavior proof.
5 upvotes and 0 signups is actually useful data - PH measures curiosity, not pain. the people who pay have a story about when it cost them something recently. you're looking for that story.
Absolutely!
yeah - curious if you've heard any of those pain stories from the conversations you've had so far
The '1 signup, $0 MRR after PH' pattern is more common than the highlight reel admits. The thing that usually flips it isn't channel — it's whether the demo answers a specific question someone is already losing sleep over. What were the top 3 questions people actually asked you before/during the launch? That's usually where the real ICP is hiding.
I think the gap is exactly what you said: demos tend to explain the product, but they don’t always answer a specific unresolved question someone already has in their workflow.
On your question — the most common ones I got around launch were basically:
Looking at that now, the ICP signal is probably less about interest in “release notes” and more about people already feeling friction between shipping and users actually noticing what changed.
"This is an incredibly sharp reality check. Product Hunt launches can easily become a vanity metric, but your pivot to direct problem discovery is where the real business is built.
That filter question you formulated—'have you ever lost a user who didn't know about a feature that would have kept them?'—is brilliant because it focuses entirely on an unsolved pain point rather than just pitching a solution. I'm currently in the product discovery phase for a B2B SaaS dashboard concept, and I'm realizing that asking those highly specific, behavior-focused questions is the only way to cut through the noise and find real intent. Sticking to that '5 paying customers before a single new feature' rule is tough, but it's the absolute right move. Rooting for Release Log!"
Appreciate this and you’re right, Product Hunt can very easily turn into a vanity spike if there’s not already a tight problem loop underneath it.
The shift I’m trying to make is exactly what you said: less “do you like this idea?” and more behavior-based signals that point to something already breaking in their workflow.
That filter question ended up doing more work than I expected because it forces people to think about a real moment rather than a hypothetical tool.
And yeah, the “5 paying customers before features” rule is more of a forcing function for me than anything else otherwise it’s too easy to drift back into building instead of learning.
Good luck with the B2B dashboard concept that discovery phase is where all the signal actually lives.
This resonates so heavily. That line about warm relationships just staying warm relationships, not automatically converting into customers, is an absolute reality check.
I’m in the exact same boat. I just put my first project out there because I was desperately trying to solve a personal headache, but man... shipping the code is the easy part. Switching over to the distribution and marketing phase is giving me a whole new kind of headache.
I really love the discipline of your '5 paying customers before another feature' rule. It’s so easy to hide behind building more features when marketing gets uncomfortable.
Thanks for sharing your raw thought process here. It’s incredibly validating for fellow early-stage founders.
The warm relationship thing has been a hard lesson for me too. People can genuinely like the idea, relate to it, even encourage you… and still never feel enough urgency to actually adopt it.
That’s part of why I’m trying to force myself into a tighter loop with real paying users before I drift into feature work again. Otherwise it becomes too easy to confuse momentum in building with momentum in the market.
Appreciate you sharing where you’re at that transition phase is where most of the real learning seems to happen.
When I launched Quillify dot io for the first time. I also felt the same for quite long time with $0 MRR but I didn't lost my home and 2 days ago I got my first two paid customers.
Congratulations!! What does your product do
This resonates. I launched DramaHub on Google Play Store and the first weeks were the same — you expect the launch to do the work but it doesn't. What actually moved the needle for me was ignoring the launch entirely and just making the product better until word of mouth started. Your filter question strategy is smart though — finding the person who pauses is much better than broadcasting to everyone. Following your journey on this.
Happy to have you here!! What did you build, would love to follow along as well. I’m interested in your point of “ ignoring the launch entirely and just making the product better until word of mouth started” how did you get that initial push of word of mouth to get started? That’s the end goal for me, but I’m in the distribution grind right now.
This is painfully relatable.
I’m in a similar stage right now: product is live, the technical stuff works, and now the real work is finding people who feel the problem badly enough to actually try it.
The line about warm relationships becoming warm relationships, not customers, is the part that hit me. I think I’ve been guilty of assuming “people get the idea” means they’re close to using it. Totally different thing.
I also like the discipline of 5 paying customers before another feature. That feels like the right kind of uncomfortable constraint. Building is the easy place to hide because it feels productive immediately. Distribution gives you the cold mirror.
For my own product, I’m trying to do the same thing you described: stop talking broadly about the category and start looking for very specific moments where someone is already feeling the pain.
Curious how you’re thinking about the first conversation after someone says “yeah, I have that problem.” Are you trying to get them straight into the product, or are you doing a discovery call first to sharpen the problem before pitching?
Yeah, I’ve made the same mistake “they get it” ≠ “they’ll use it.” Those are completely different levels of commitment.
On your question: I’m not treating that “yeah, I have that problem” moment as a pitch trigger yet. It’s more like a signal to slow down and get precise.
Usually the next step is still discovery, but very grounded in behavior:
If they can’t answer in specifics, I don’t move them forward. If they can, that’s when I start thinking about a very small, concrete next step not a full product walkthrough, but something like seeing their current workflow or mapping where the breakdown actually happens.
The goal for me right now is less “get them into the product” and more “make sure the pain is real, recent, and already costing them something.”
I'm in the very early stage — no paying customers yet, still tweaking the product constantly. Reading your post is a good reminder that I need to stop tweaking and start showing. I've been engaging on Reddit communities and getting friends and family to try things but I haven't done the hard part yet — finding the specific person with the specific problem, like you described. Good luck with the 5 customers goal!
Glad this gave you some value!! What’d you build? would love the follow the journey
Thanks! I built Next Chapter OS - a strategy tool for people navigating career transitions. It helps you define different directions you're considering, evaluate opportunities against what actually matters to you, and track what's working. Built it for myself first because I was stuck between multiple paths. Still early but just started looking for beta testers this week.
The "5 paying customers before building a single new feature" rule is the right discipline. One thing that helped me with a similar zero-to-first-user problem was finding the exact places where people were already complaining about the problem, not startup communities but the actual forums and subreddits where your target users hang out. For a churn/retention tool, that's probably SaaS founders in niche communities posting about users going quiet. The question you're using as a filter is strong, but it works better in DMs than in public threads.
I really appreciate the insight!!! I’m realizing you’re definitely right, now it’s time to execute. What’d you build, and how’s that going?
The 'warm relationships don't automatically become paying customers' line is the one I keep coming back to. Just shipped to PH and got the same lesson - people who said 'definitely useful' didn't install, but the installs that did come through came from one specific DM ('would you do X differently if Y?'). DMs converted ~70%, the launch post under 1%.
Your filter question is the right shape. Curious how you're sourcing the 10-50 user threads. Mostly searching IH and X for specific retention language, or do you have a feed set up?
That DM vs launch conversion gap is kind of the whole lesson condensed into one metric.
I’m seeing the same thing — broad visibility creates agreement, but specific conversations around an already-felt pain create action. Your “would you do X differently if Y?” example is interesting because it forces them to mentally simulate behavior change instead of just reacting to the idea.
Right now I’m mostly manually searching IH, X, going to start adding Reddit, but I’ve been searching launch comments for retention/churn/onboarding language rather than using a structured feed. Things like:
But honestly the best signal has been less the original posts and more the replies/comments underneath them. The people debating retention publicly usually care about it enough to already be feeling the cost somewhere in their workflow.
I can relate to this, launched on ProductHunt got 2 upvotes in total. I don't think the page even ranks on Google at all. It's definitely demotivating but sounds as though it's not an unusual experience.
That’s just the start, the distribution grind, having to manually come in here and find your users, ideally not having to convince them, but in a way the conversations tend to be you making them realizing your product can fix there pain points. What’d you build, would love to follow along
That line about warm relationships just staying warm relationships is gold. Super honest, and definitely a wake-up call.
It takes a ton of discipline to hold yourself back from building new features until you get 5 paying customers. As an architect building SaaS right now, I know I'm 100% guilty of hiding behind coding because it feels way safer than talking to prospects.
I'm actually taking a page out of your book for distribution. Instead of shouting into the void with a big broad launch, I’m looking for hyper-specific complaints on Reddit/X—specifically folks losing it over ChatGPT cutting off their 50-page files mid-translation.
Your hook question is killer. Wishing you the best with Release Log—rooting for you to hit that 5-user milestone soon!
Appreciate this and honestly, I think a lot of us default to building because it gives immediate psychological feedback. You write code, something changes, progress feels visible. Distribution is slower and a lot more emotionally ambiguous.
Your approach sounds directionally right though. “People losing it over ChatGPT cutting off 50-page files mid-translation” is exactly the kind of specific frustration where the pain already exists before the product enters the conversation.
That’s the pattern I keep seeing too:
generic audiences give opinions,
people mid-problem give behavior.
And thanks rooting for your project too. The fact that you already know the exact complaint language users are using is probably a really strong sign.
The pivot from product work to distribution work is exactly right. Most founders keep building features hoping it will sell itself. Five paying customers before a single new feature is the right constraint. One thought on the filter question: the person who pauses is your target, but the person who immediately says yes and starts describing their specific churn problem is your urgent buyer. That urgency is worth more than the hesitation. The SaaS founder segment with 10-50 paying users and unexplained churn is narrow enough that you can find them directly where they hang out. Indie Hackers posts about churn, Reddit SaaS threads, and founder communities on Discord are all rich hunting grounds. The key is to show up consistently in those conversations, not just ask the question and leave. Consistency builds trust, trust builds sales.
Yeah, I think that distinction between “pause” vs “immediate specificity” is important.
The pause is still useful as a signal that the framing landed, but the real intent signal is exactly what you said the people who immediately start describing a real churn moment, with context and detail, are the ones already living in the problem every week.
And I agree on the sourcing too. Those SaaS churn threads on IH, Reddit, and Discord aren’t just good for discover they’re basically pre-segmented by pain. You’re not convincing anyone they have a problem, you’re just finding the ones already trying to solve it.
The consistency point is probably the part I’m still calibrating. It’s easy to jump into threads, get a few signals, and leave, but the compounding effect seems to come from being a familiar presence in those same conversations over time.
Feels less like outreach and more like ongoing participation in a problem space.
PH launch reality check is real. Did mine last month, got basically nothing lol. But "warm relationships don't become paying customers" — yeah, that one stings. Rooting for you.
Much appreciated, what have you been working on? Would love to support
This hit home. I launched on PH yesterday too — 3 upvotes, #91. Built a networking CRM that 30+ people asked for, and launch day delivered crickets.
Your insight about warm relationships not converting automatically is exactly right. I had the same realization — the people who said "I'd love this" aren't the same as people who'll pay for it. The conversion requires finding someone mid-problem.
Your filter question approach is smart. I'm trying something similar — instead of "check out my tool," asking users: "How do you decide who to reach out to first when you have 500 connections and no system?" The ones who pause are the ones who need what I built.
Rooting for your 5. I'm chasing the same number.
that’s a very familiar PH pattern — the “this is useful” layer and the “this is urgent enough to change behavior” layer rarely overlap on launch day.
Your question is actually strong because it’s not about the tool at all, it’s about the current decision pain. “How do you decide who to reach out to first…” forces them to expose whether there’s already a system, a workaround, or just chaos. That gap is usually where the real product opportunity sits.
And I think you’re right on the pause signal too but I’ve started treating it as step one, not validation. The real validation is whether they can immediately describe what breaks today and what it costs them in time, attention, or missed opportunities.
Appreciate the support sounds like we’re both in the same part of the curve right now.
The "invisible until it isn't" framing is powerful. Most SaaS problems aren't unknown — they're unfelt until a specific moment triggers awareness. Your filter question does exactly what a good positioning statement should: it separates the people who feel the pain from those who don't, without wasting anyone's time.
The 5-customers-before-features rule is solid. Too many founders respond to slow traction by building more, as if the next feature will be the one that magically unlocks growth. It won't. Distribution work is harder than product work because it requires repeated, direct human interaction without the dopamine of a finished commit.
The founders posting about churn on IH and X are your free focus group. You're not guessing what they need. You're reading their complaints in real time. That's better than any survey.
One thought: the jump from $0 to first paying customer is the hardest step in any SaaS. Have you considered offering a founding member discount — not to devalue the product, but to lower the barrier for someone to say yes and give you that first case study? Momentum compounds after the first yes. The first yes is the bottleneck.
Yeah, I agree with the “invisible until it isn’t” framing most of the work right now is just finding the moment where the problem becomes visible enough that it forces behavior change.
And you’re right about the distribution vs product tradeoff. It’s weirdly easy to convince yourself that shipping is progress because it’s concrete, even when it’s not actually moving you closer to understanding demand.
On the founding member discount idea I’ve thought about it, and I think it can make sense if it’s used carefully. The main thing I’m trying to avoid is accidentally validating the wrong signal, like price sensitivity instead of problem urgency. I’d rather the first few users reflect real willingness to pay for the outcome, even if that means fewer of them.
But I do agree with your core point: the first “yes” is the bottleneck, and everything after that tends to get easier once there’s real usage and a real story.
Same here. Launched Worvi on PH last week — 2 upvotes, 0 sales. The painful realization: PH without an existing audience is just shouting in an empty room. Now I'm focusing on direct outreach, Reddit karma, and building the audience BEFORE the next launch. What's your different approach?
This is the approach I used for my first launch! Got me the at upvotes and a lot of warm relationships. What’s different now, is I’m looking for very specific question and straight up asking them if the problem my tool fixes is a problem for them
Same boat here. Just launched an e-signature tool, have 2 organic sign-ups so far (both from UK property management, interestingly), $0 MRR. The building part felt manageable, it's the distribution that's a completely different skill set. What's working for you so far? I've been trying Product Hunt, Reddit, SaaS directories, but every platform has restrictions for new accounts which makes it frustrating when you're eager to get the word out.
Yeah it’s annoying starting out, I think we’re really in the same boat right now, finding users where we can, through Reddit post and the IH community, just have 1 sign up from doing that, keep me updated on your journey, would love to support
The "specific person × specific problem × specific question" framing is the cleanest version of warm-to-paid I've read this week.
One thing I'd add: the conversation also needs an asymmetric ask. "Want to chat about your churn?" = symmetric (both invest 30min, unclear payoff). "Did you ever lose a user to silence?" = asymmetric (they think for 5 seconds, you get a yes/no signal). The asymmetric ones convert because they don't impose cost before value is proven.
Your filter question already does this. Worth making the asymmetry explicit when you frame the methodology to others — that's the non-obvious part.
Yeah, that’s a really good way to formalize what I’ve been seeing but hadn’t named.
The asymmetry piece is important I think that’s why some questions “feel easy” to answer but still produce strong signal. They don’t require the other person to invest effort upfront, just to reflect briefly on something already true in their experience.
And I agree, “symmetric vs asymmetric” is probably the hidden mechanic behind why certain outreach works and most discovery calls don’t. Once both sides are investing equally, you often drift into polite discussion instead of signal extraction.
The strongest versions of the filter question so far have all had that property: low friction to respond, but high specificity in what the response reveals. I might start thinking about it more explicitly in those terms going forward.
"Low friction to respond, high specificity in what the response reveals" is a cleaner formulation than mine. Stealing it.
Will test it against a few outreach drafts this week and report back if anything interesting comes out.
the "5 paying customers before any new features" rule is the part i'm taking from this. launching PH next wednesday and i can already feel the temptation to keep rewriting the listing instead of doing the actual distribution work.
Building as much distribution as you can is the way to go, how’s that been going for, and what’d you build, would love to support it
appreciate it. SnipPrompts — free library of ~150 ChatGPT prompts for the job hunt (resume, cover letter, interview, salary negotiation) plus a paid bundle. built it because every AI resume prompt i tried came back with metrics i never had, so the prompts here refuse to invent that stuff.
launching on PH in like 5 hours actually, first time. winging it. snipprompts.com.
what are you building?
I actually really like that idea! Send the product hunt link, I built release log, it’s a communication layer between developers and their users. Changelogs and roadmaps so users can see what’s been built and being worked on, and the users can request new features, makes the product feel “alive” and reduces churn. It’s free to use if you wanna try it out! Tryreleaselog.com
thanks man. PH link: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/snipprompts
honest about it — 2 upvotes 0 sales, the conversation in comments is where i'm actually learning something today.
re releaselog: i have a basic /changelog.html static page right now (me writing bullets, no user input loop). the feature-request side of releaselog is the missing piece. will check it out properly when i'm not in launch-week fire mode.
The "warm relationships don't automatically become paying customers" line is something early-stage non-tech folks discover the hard way too — except for them it's "warm relationships also don't reliably tell me if my idea is worth building." Same dynamic, upstream phase.
Hire_Hivemind's point about diagnostic vs leading is gold. "Tell me about your last churned user" works because you HAVE users. For pre-launch folks the parallel is "tell me about the last time you spent 30+ minutes trying to solve [adjacent problem]" — harder to find since they have no install base to mine.
One question — when you set the 5-paying-customer bar before new features, did you attach a specific timeline, or is it open-ended? Constraint shapes which prospects feel worth chasing.
That’s a really interesting distinction — “diagnostic vs leading.” I hadn’t thought about it that way, but you’re right. Once you have users, you can investigate behavior that already happened. Before that, you’re basically trying to detect friction patterns before people even think of them as a “problem.”
And honestly, no hard timeline attached to the 5 paying customers goal right now. It’s more of a forcing function to keep me from defaulting back into feature-building mode every time growth feels uncomfortable. I know myself well enough to know I could spend months polishing things that nobody actually asked for.
That said, your point about constraints shaping which prospects feel worth chasing is probably true. An open-ended goal changes the psychology a lot versus “I need 5 customers in 30 days.” One pushes toward deeper understanding, the other pushes toward speed and potentially narrower bets.
Still figuring out where the balance is there.
"Open-ended goal changes the psychology vs '5 customers in 30 days'" — that tension is real and I rarely see founders articulate it cleanly. Most either default to no constraint (and drift) or impose an arbitrary one (and warp their decisions to hit it).
Quick question on your "still figuring out where the balance is" — when you imagine the 5th paying customer landing, do you have a vague sense of the timeframe even without naming it? Like "if this is still 0 by [month X], something's wrong"? Asking because that implicit floor often IS the constraint, just unexamined. Once founders name it, they usually realize they've been operating under it the whole time but without the focusing benefit.
That question you're asking founders is a good way to find the right people. Have you tried posting it in threads where founders are already talking about losing users?
That’s actually a smart idea. I’ve mostly been asking the question directly or through posts like this, but I haven’t intentionally inserted myself into conversations where founders are already talking about churn, low activation, or users missing features.
That probably gets closer to people actively feeling the pain instead of people hypothetically relating to it. I’m going to test that approach — feels more like joining an existing problem conversation than trying to create one from scratch.
Appreciate the suggestion.
Yeah those threads are where the real pain is. Let me know how it goes when you try it!
I definitely will!!
The strongest part here is the question, not the launch recap.
“Have you ever lost a user who didn’t know about a feature that would have kept them?” is much sharper than “release log,” because it turns the product from a publishing tool into a retention and activation problem.
I’d probably narrow the ICP even more: not just SaaS founders with 10–50 users, but founders shipping fast enough that users miss important product changes. That is where the pain becomes urgent. If they only ship once a month, the problem feels nice-to-have. If they ship weekly and users still churn silently, the value is much easier to sell.
The naming is worth watching too. Release Log is clear, but it frames the product as a changelog utility. The pain you described is bigger than logging releases. It is about making product progress visible enough that users stay engaged. If that is the direction, a broader name like Xevoa .com would carry the workflow/retention layer better than a name tied to one feature format.
This is a really good point, especially the distinction between “release log” and “retention/activation.” I think I accidentally started by building the visible surface layer (posting updates), but the actual problem underneath is closer to “users missing momentum” or “not realizing the product is improving.”
You’re also probably right about narrowing the ICP further. A founder shipping weekly or even daily feels the pain much more intensely because the gap between “we built it” and “users discovered it” compounds fast. That’s where churn can happen silently.
The naming insight is interesting too. “Release Log” was originally chosen because it immediately explained the feature, but I can already feel the product slowly expanding beyond just changelogs. I’ve been thinking more about the idea of helping products make progress visible and keeping users connected to the evolution of the product itself, which is definitely broader than a traditional release log.
Really appreciate this comment — it helped clarify the positioning in my own head a bit more.
That broader direction is exactly where the naming starts to matter.
Release Log works if the product stays a clean changelog tool. But if you are moving toward helping products make progress visible, keep users connected, and reduce silent churn, then the product is no longer just about logging releases. It becomes more like a workflow layer around product momentum.
That is why I mentioned Xevoa. It gives you more room than a feature-format name, especially if this becomes something founders rely on continuously after every ship.
I would not overthink the name if Release Log is just a narrow tool. But if the broader retention/activation direction is real, it is worth pressure-testing the brand before more users, pages, and product language get locked around the current name.
Yeah, I think that’s the tension I’m starting to feel now. “Release Log” explains the initial product very clearly, which helped early on because people instantly understood the mechanic. But the more conversations I have, the more the underlying problem seems less about changelogs themselves and more about maintaining visible momentum between the product and the user.
The interesting thing is I didn’t intentionally set out to build a “workflow layer around product momentum,” but that description actually feels closer to the direction the conversations are pulling me toward.
I agree it’s probably worth pressure-testing earlier rather than later if the positioning keeps broadening. Especially because names quietly shape how you think about the product internally too, not just how users perceive it externally. A feature-format name can unintentionally constrain the roadmap if the actual value starts living at a different layer.
Definitely something I’m thinking about more seriously now.
One practical thought here.
You are already at the point where the product is changing category in your own head: from “release log” to visible product momentum, activation, and user retention.
That is exactly the stage where a focused naming/positioning audit can save time before you rewrite landing pages, onboarding, and product language around the wrong frame.
I do sharp written audits for early products covering current name risk, category framing, domain perception, whether the brand can scale, and what stronger naming direction makes sense before more users and public assets build around the current name.
For Release Log, I’d specifically look at whether the product should stay a changelog utility or move toward a broader workflow/retention layer, and whether Xevoa-level branding is actually justified.
I’m doing a few of these at $99 while refining the format.
If useful, connect here and I can give you a clear outside read before you lock the next version of the product positioning:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/aryan-y-0163b0278/
Exactly. That internal constraint is the part most founders notice too late.
Once the product starts becoming “visible product momentum” instead of a simple changelog, the name is not just external branding anymore. It starts shaping the roadmap, landing page language, onboarding, and how users explain the product back to others.
That is why I would not leave the name until later if the broader direction already feels real. Waiting feels safer, but it usually just means more pages, users, docs, and mental associations get built around the smaller category.
Xevoa.com fits the direction because it does not trap the product inside “release notes” or “logs.” It gives you room to own the broader workflow layer around product updates, activation, and user momentum.
If Xevoa feels like a serious candidate, connect with me here and we can pressure-test fit privately before you lock the new positioning in:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/aryan-y-0163b0278/
The public "5 paying before any new features" rule is exactly the discipline most founders skip.
One refinement on your diagnostic question: "have you ever lost a user who didn't know about a feature" is a leading question, not a filter. Founders are nice — they'll say yes to any sympathetic hypothetical.
Sharper: "tell me about the last user you lost. What was the last thing they did before they stopped logging in?" Buyers tell you a story with a name and a feature. Polite agreers say "I think they got busy." The story is the signal.
Also — your ICP (10-50 users, first churn) is operationally invisible upfront. Those founders post "anyone else dealing with dropoff?" not their user count. Engage with every churn post, sort in conversation.
The leading vs diagnostic question distinction is useful. "Have you ever lost a user who didn't know about a feature" is easy to agree with sympathetically. "Tell me about the last user you lost, what was the last thing they did before they stopped logging in" forces a specific memory. Buyers have the story. Polite agreers don't. The ICP visibility point is also right "10-50 users" is an internal metric nobody posts publicly. "Anyone else dealing with dropoff" is the language. Sorting by the churn and retention threads rather than trying to find people who match a demographic description is the smarter approach. Appreciated this changed two things in the plan.
Glad it landed. One thing worth setting up before churn-thread engagement: what to do with the wince story once you have it.
Most founders collect great discovery stories, then default to a generic product pitch. The wince story is the buyer's exact language — mirror it back. "You said your last user dropped after they couldn't find the export — Release Log catches exactly that moment and lets you nudge them in-app." Reflection of their specific story in product terms. Different conversion math than generic pitch.
This kind of buyer-language-becomes-positioning work is what HiveMind does (myosin.xyz/hivemind) — useful as you scale the discovery motion.
The “wince story” point is strong.
Most founders waste discovery by collecting stories, then pitching the same generic value proposition anyway. The real leverage is using the buyer’s exact language as the bridge into the product.
If someone says, “we shipped export, but the users who needed it never saw it,” the pitch shouldn’t be “we help with release notes.”
It should be:
“You already shipped the retention moment. The product failed to make that moment visible to the right user.”
That reframes Release Log from a changelog tool into a system for rescuing missed product value.
I’m in a similar spot today. We also launched on Product Hunt, and I’m not expecting the launch itself to magically solve distribution. I’m looking for people with a very specific pain: folks who spend a lot of time in work calls and worry about speed, missing important details, or losing context across conversations. So I’m basically doing the same thing now: talking to a narrow group and trying to get the product into their hands for testing while it’s still free.
Yeah, that’s pretty much where my head is at too. Product Hunt felt more like a visibility spike than an actual customer acquisition channel. I’m starting to think the real work is finding a very specific group of people who already feel the pain badly enough to actively look for a solution.
Your approach makes a lot of sense. I think getting the product into the hands of a narrow group while it’s still free is probably the fastest way to learn what actually matters to users vs what we think matters. Especially for products tied to workflow habits like meetings/calls, context switching, and information overload.
I’m trying to shift from “launch mindset” to more of a “continuous conversation with potential users” mindset. Feels slower, but probably more real.
The thing that actually helps at the first-few-customers stage: separate "I have this problem" from "I've already spent money trying to solve it." That second group is where your first paying customers usually are.
We ran into this at Waitrocket when validating whether the pre-launch experience mattered for conversion. The people who converted weren't the ones who said "yeah, that's a problem" — they were the ones who could describe a specific moment: they'd already bought some tool, it didn't kill the friction, and now they were looking for something else.
Practical filter for the IH / X / Reddit threads you're searching: look for "I tried X but…" or "switched from Y because…". That's active pain in motion, not just awareness — those are the people worth your first 20 conversations.
the "warm relationships don't become customers, they become warm relationships" line is the most honest post-launch thing i've read in a while tbh. q for you though: of the warm-but-silent people, are any of them in the painful version of the problem you solve? sometimes warm just means they like you, not that they need it. whos the one person youd bet money would pay?
The strongest line here is that warm relationships don’t become customers by default.
I’d turn this into a 3-part first-customer route:
The missing step is not another launch. It is the bridge from “this is interesting” to “I would pay to fix this specific problem.”
I think Product Hunt works best when you already have an audience waiting for the launch. For first-time founders, it sometimes feels more like a visibility event than a customer acquisition channel. What are you planning to try next?
"warm relationships don't become customers, they become warm relationships" — this is the most honest post-launch line i've seen all year. you're already 1 reframe ahead of most founders here.
q for you: of the warm-but-silent people, are they silent because the product doesn't fit, or because the ask was "want to try?" instead of "want to be one of my first 10 founding users?". very different conversation.
side note i run groundwork — we help founders convert that silent warm list into 10-30 paying "founding users" who put real money in upfront. could be relevant given where you are.
Respect for putting this out there so transparently. I have been on the other side of this like running community and retreat pre-sales, and the "warm relationships don't convert automatically" line hit hard because it was exactly my lesson too.
One thing that shifted my results. Instead of waiting for people to come to me in threads, I started proactively DMing people who posted about their problem. Not with a pitch, but with a specific insight related to their situation. That is where the first paying sign-ups came from.
The "5 paying customers before building more features" rule is solid. Curious, what is your daily cadence looking like between outreach and building right now?ir
Honestly "get them to try" is usually a selection problem wearing an activation costume. If you incentivize the trial itself — discounts, "just try it" — you pull people motivated by the incentive, not the product, and they bounce. What's worked better for me is making the thing they unlock something they already wanted, so finishing the step self-selects for real interest. (Building in this space right now — happy to share what I'm seeing if useful.)
I went through a more expensive version of this. I built a whole marketplace (Demofi) on the assumption that if I got people to actually engage with a tool — watch a real demo — the interest was real. Turns out paying for attention just attracts people who'll happily relate and never convert. Same lesson as your warm-relationships line, except I spent weeks building the wrong selection mechanism before I felt it.
What reframed it for me: the filter isn't really the question — it's the action you ask for. A question is cheap. Sympathetic founders will say "yeah, I've lost users like that" because it costs them nothing and they're being nice. What sorts buyers from relaters is having a small costly action ready for anyone who pauses.
For me that became "let me run it for you, free, and send you the numbers" instead of "would you want this?" Everyone says yes to the second. The ones who actually wire up the link and share their data are feeling the pain right now — the rest quietly evaporate, which is exactly the signal I wanted.
So one layer on your plan: keep the question as the opener, but have a tiny costly ask staged behind the pause. The pause tells you they relate. What they do next tells you they'll pay.
Rooting for the 5 — I'm in the same distribution-before-product trench right now.
This is a really valuable distinction.
I think a lot of early feedback loops accidentally optimize for emotional agreement instead of buying intent because agreement is frictionless. Especially in founder communities where people genuinely want to be supportive.
“What sorts buyers from relaters is having a small costly action ready behind the pause” is probably one of the most important things in this whole thread.
Because you’re right the meaningful signal isn’t “they resonated with the problem.” It’s whether they’ll spend time
The "5 paying before features" rule is the one I'm stealing. I set a softer version of this for FindAlert and already feel the pull to build instead of distribute.
One thing your thread surfaced for me: the founders who already have a workaround — the spreadsheet, the manual Loom, the hand-written nudge — are further along the buying journey than the ones who just nod at the problem. The workaround is proof the cost is already showing up in their week.
Your filter question works because it separates nodders from buyers. The follow-up that sharpens it: "what are you doing about it right now?"
Yeah, the workaround signal is huge.
If someone already has a spreadsheet, Loom flow, or manual system, they’ve already “paid” for the problem in time and effort. At that point it’s less about validating pain and more about seeing if your solution is clearly better than what they’ve hacked together.
And agreed on the follow-up — “what are you doing about it right now?” is strong because it forces real behavior, not opinions.
I’m starting to see the same pattern: behavior beats sentiment every time.
Solid approach! I've been learning similar lessons with my project VoiceAI Studio. Building AI tools for Indian developers/creators with UPI as primary payment. The Indian market needs friction-free onboarding and local payment rails. Keep going!
This hit home — I'm at almost exactly the same spot (1 paying user, post-launch quiet), and the line about warm relationships becoming "warm relationships" instead of customers is painfully accurate.
One thing I keep wondering about your filter: I suspect the people who pause and the people who act are two different groups. Nodding at "have you lost a user to silence" is cheap — recognizing a pain costs nothing. My working hypothesis is that the stronger signal is whether they've already tried to fix it and failed, because that's when the cost becomes real to them. But I genuinely don't know if that holds yet.
How are you telling apart "interesting problem" from "problem I'll pay to solve" in those conversations? That's the exact gap I keep hitting too.
Yes you’re exactly right! Founders who have noted the problem, and took time to fix it, but can’t find a good solution / time spent fixing it is costing them more then just signing up, would almost guarantee a sign up, to atleast my free paid plan. I think the problem for me right now is actually finding those people, building trust with them, and explaining how my product could really be of value to them. What’s your product ?
It's called Obliqo — basically AI that argues with your draft instead of agreeing with it. Most AI writing tools flatter you; this one runs four different critical "voices" over your text in parallel and tells you what holds up and what falls apart. Built for writers and anyone who publishes and doesn't want to find out the weak spots after it's live. Quick overview here if you're curious: https://obliqo.pyragogy.org/what-is-obliqo
And honestly — same boat as you. Solo, pre-revenue, hunting for the first real paying users. So your "how do I find those people and build trust" question is exactly the one keeping me up too. The thing I'm betting on is the slow version: get found in search and through conversations like this one, rather than chasing a launch spike. No idea yet if it's the right call — ask me in a few months.
What's your read on it — are you going to keep hunting one-by-one in threads like this, or try to build something that pulls them in?
This is a useful way to think about it.
A launch can tell you if people are curious, but it doesn’t really tell you who has the problem badly enough to pay. I like the idea of using one sharp question as the filter.
The “5 paying customers before new features” rule feels painful but probably right.
Have you built anything?
Yup, it’s all about executing now
This is the right question after Product Hunt.
I would avoid treating PH as a verdict and use it as a list of clues: who clicked, who understood it, who ignored it, and which promise got any response.
For the first paying customer, I would go narrower than "more distribution." Pick one buyer type, one painful moment, and one concrete offer you can manually help with if needed. The first sale often comes from making the offer painfully specific, not from making the launch bigger.
This hits close to home. I'm in almost the exact same spot — just launched YTubViral (AI toolkit for YouTubers), got my first organic sign-up from someone I don't know, and now I'm staring at the "what next" question every day.
One thing that's working better than I expected: genuine participation in niche communities. Not dropping links — actually helping people with the problem my tool solves. Reddit threads where creators ask "how do I find better keywords" or "why is my CTR so low" — I answer with real advice, and my profile does the rest.
The PH spike is nice for morale but it's not where long-term users come from. You're thinking about this the right way. What niche are you going after?
That approach makes a lot of sense, honestly. The more conversations I have, the more it feels like trust compounds faster when you’re solving the problem inside the conversation itself instead of trying to redirect people into a pitch immediately.
And I think your Reddit point is important too people asking “why is my CTR low?” are already emotionally inside the problem. You’re meeting them mid-frustration instead of trying to manufacture awareness from scratch.
Right now I’m narrowing toward founders shipping quickly (weekly/daily) who are starting to feel the gap between “we built improvements” and “users actually noticed or cared.” Especially smaller SaaS founders in that 10–50 user range where churn still feels personal instead of just analytical.
Also congrats on the first organic signup from someone you don’t know that’s honestly one of the best feelings early on because it proves the problem exists outside your own circle.
That line “warm relationships don’t automatically become paying customers” really hit. It’s such an honest realization.
I think a lot of founders expect a launch to bring traction, but the real work probably starts after the launch. Talking to people with a very specific problem feels like the right move.
Also, respect for sticking to 5 paying customers before building new features. That takes discipline 😅
Rooting for you to get those first 5 customers soon.
Appreciate that — and yeah, I think the launch mostly just exposed the real work waiting underneath it.
It’s surprisingly easy to confuse visibility with traction early on. People can support you, upvote, encourage you, even genuinely like the idea… and still not feel enough pain to change their behavior.
That’s part of why I’m trying to stay disciplined with the “5 paying customers before new features” rule. Not because the product is perfect, but because I know I’ll naturally drift toward building if I don’t force myself into the uncomfortable distribution side for a while.
Really appreciate the support 🙏
The price tag on those first 5 is where founders usually get tripped up. Discounting aggressively to land the yes works for the headline but a $5/mo customer tells you almost nothing about whether your real $40/mo plan will hold. The 5 you want are people paying close to your intended ICP price, even if it means walking away from 20 people who only said yes at half-off. Otherwise you hit your number with the wrong people, and the buyers who matter never validated your real offer.
I think this is a really important distinction.
There’s definitely a temptation early on to optimize for “someone paid” because psychologically it feels like proof. But if the pricing is too disconnected from the actual intended value, you can end up validating a different product-market fit than the one you’re actually trying to build.
And you’re right that heavily discounted users can sometimes behave differently too — lower urgency, lower expectations, lower retention pressure.
I still think there’s a place for early flexibility if the goal is learning fast, but ideally the first paying customers should validate both the problem and the pricing logic at the same time.
Otherwise you risk hitting the milestone without proving the business model underneath it.
The PH honeymoon ending at $0 MRR is more common than founders admit. Product Hunt traffic is mostly other founders — not buyers. 0 conversions from that cohort tells you very little about whether the product has legs.
What tends to actually move the needle at this stage: direct 1:1 outreach to people who have the exact problem, not community launches. If you can name 10-15 specific companies or roles where your tool saves real time or money, a short personalized message to each will tell you more than 1,000 upvotes.
One framework that helped me early on: define the sharpest possible version of who your first customer is (industry, role, pain, urgency) before any outreach. The narrower the ICP at this stage, the better the signal.
What does your target customer look like — specific industry or role?
The PH honeymoon ending at $0 MRR is more common than founders admit. Product Hunt traffic is mostly other founders not buyers. 0 conversions from that cohort tells you very little about whether the product has legs.
What tends to actually move the needle at this stage: direct 1:1 outreach to people who have the exact problem, not community launches. If you can name 10-15 specific companies or roles where your tool saves real time or money, a short personalized message to each will tell you more than 1,000 upvotes.
One framework that helped me early on: define the sharpest possible version of who your first customer is (industry, role, pain, urgency) before any outreach. The narrower the ICP at this stage, the better the signal.
What does your target customer look like specific industry or role?
The question is well chosen. The follow-up that turns interested into paying is asking what they're doing about it right now. If the answer is 'nothing yet' you have a curious founder, not a buyer. If they tell you about a spreadsheet they're maintaining, a Loom they send to power users, or a manual email they fire off when someone goes quiet, that's the person who pays. Pain only converts when the cost of doing nothing is already showing up in their week. 5 paying customers is the right gate. I'd add a second one: don't build a single requested feature until 3 different paying customers ask for it independently.
This is the key distinction.
A founder saying “yes, churn is a problem” doesn’t mean much. But if they’re already maintaining a spreadsheet, sending manual nudges, writing Loom updates, or chasing quiet users by hand, the pain has moved from theoretical to operational.
That’s usually where payment intent starts.
I’d probably treat the first conversation less like “do you want this product?” and more like:
“What are you already doing manually to stop users from going silent?”
If there’s no current workaround, there may be interest but probably no urgency. If there is a messy workaround, that’s the buyer.
The difference between “this is a problem” and “I’ve built something around this problem already” is basically the line between abstract interest and actual budget-level pain.
And I like your framing a lot more than mine here shifting from “do you want this?” to “what are you doing manually today?” immediately changes the type of answer you get. It stops being opinion and becomes a description of current cost.
The workaround signal has been the most consistent indicator in these conversations too. Once there’s a spreadsheet, manual nudges, or Loom-based hacks, the problem isn’t hypothetical anymore it’s already consuming time every week, which is usually where willingness to pay starts to show up.
I’m going to lean more into that angle in the next conversations.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and I appreciate the feed back, that’s good and makes sure I’m building directly for my user, not just because I think it could help. What are you working on?
This comment was deleted 11 hours ago.
I think that’s part of what I’m slowly realizing through these conversations. The surface-level problem sounds like “users didn’t see the update,” but the deeper issue is probably closer to “the product stopped feeling alive or evolving in a way that mattered to them.”
“Psychological continuity” is a really interesting way to frame it. Especially because a lot of SaaS products don’t fail in one dramatic moment — users just gradually disengage, stop checking back in, and eventually disappear without saying anything.
And you’re right that by the time churn shows up in metrics, the disconnect probably started way earlier. That’s part of why I’ve become more interested in engagement patterns and user perception instead of just shipping velocity alone. A team can ship constantly, but if users don’t emotionally register those improvements as progress relevant to them, the updates might as well not exist.
This thread has honestly shifted the way I’m thinking about the problem quite a bit.