Startups are not small businesses.
Most people don’t actually understand what a startup is.
From what I’ve seen in discussions here -
maybe 2–3 out of 20 people think in “startup terms”.
The rest are applying small business logic.
A startup is not a small business.
It’s not about stability.
It’s not about predictable revenue.
It’s about searching for something that works.
That’s why traditional business logic fails.
In a normal business:
you optimize
you reduce risk
you plan long-term
In a startup:
you experiment
you test assumptions
you move fast
Because you don’t even know if what you’re building is right.
The biggest mistake:
treating a startup like a business.
Spending weeks planning.
Building full products.
Waiting for perfection.
Startups don’t fail because of bad execution.
They fail because nobody needs what they built.
So speed is not about hype.
It’s about learning faster than everyone else.
build → test → learn → repeat
That’s the game.
And here’s the uncomfortable truth:
distribution matters more than the product early on.
You can build something great
and still get zero users
while something average wins
just because it reaches people at the right moment
And this is exactly why Product Hunt is overrated.
It looks like a launch platform.
In reality - it’s a popularity contest.
The first 2 hours decide everything.
Not your product. Not your UX.
Just who shows up for you.
You can hit #1
and still get zero real users.
You can build something genuinely useful
and get buried with 10 upvotes.
Most of the traffic?
Other founders.
Supporting each other.
Not real customers.
Startups don’t need attention.
They need the right users.
Instead of chasing launches:
find people with the problem
talk to them directly
reach them at the exact moment they need it
I’m building something for people who deal with contracts.
If you’re signing agreements and not fully sure what risk you’re taking:
try it here - there’s a sample contract inside:
https://vidicontract.tech
Curious - did launching actually help you get real users?
I know how hard it is to find the right users. I actually know a few individuals who deal with contracts regularly who would probably be happy to answer your questions.
That's such a sharp distinction — early instrumentation often just gives you false confidence about the wrong things. Real conversations expose whether people will actually change their behavior, which no dashboard can replicate.
Once you do hit the stage where you're tracking real usage though, the signal quality depends a lot on what you're measuring. Put together some SQL diagnostic scripts to help cut through the noise and focus on metrics that actually reflect user behavior: https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/psmqnx — free if useful.
Exactly - that’s been my thinking too. Trying to stay close to actual user behavior before over-engineering metrics. Appreciate it, but I’m all set for now 🙌
Totally fair — staying focused on actual usage patterns is the right call, especially pre-scale. Good luck with vidi; the interior design problem space is genuinely underserved.
If the data side ever gets complex and you need fast diagnostic visibility, the scripts are here anytime: https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/psmqnx
Totally fair! Staying behavior-close is exactly the right call at this stage — dashboards can give you false confidence before you understand what "good" actually looks like for your users. Good luck with the build, rooting for you! When you do eventually need to dig into your data layer, I've documented my full SQL optimization process here if it ever comes in handy: https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/gwiow 🙌
The interior design angle is interesting — it's actually a stronger startup bet than most founders realize, because the problem (tracking what makes a project profitable) is deeply felt but chronically underserved by generic PM tools. That pivot instinct you described is exactly what the instrumentation is supposed to surface: when the conversion signals stop matching your hypothesis, you pivot. Most founders miss it because they're watching the wrong metrics. What's the core signal you're tracking right now to know whether vidi is finding PMF?
It depends on the startup and the market - different channels work in different contexts.
Mostly it’s just a mix of outreach and conversations where the problem already exists.
On the PMF side, I’m keeping it simple for now - just watching how people actually use it once they try it.
That's a really healthy approach to PMF — watching actual usage patterns rather than vanity metrics. The danger with early-stage SaaS is over-indexing on activation numbers before you even know what a "successful" session looks like for your specific user.
The outreach + conversation approach works best when you can tie specific conversations back to what actually changed in the product. One thing I'd add: even a simple SQL query tracking which features get revisited (not just activated) tells you a lot more about stickiness than first-touch data.
For founders at this stage, the data discipline doesn't need to be complex — just consistent. If you ever want a lightweight diagnostic on what to instrument first, I put together a free pack specifically for this → https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/psmqnx
Appreciate it - makes sense. I’m trying to stay focused on repeat behavior and actual workflow value over top-line activation. And thanks, but I’m good for now 🙌
Smart approach — repeat behavior is the only PMF signal that doesn't lie. Good luck with the build! For when you eventually need to interrogate your data at the SQL level (slow queries, indexing issues as data scales), I put together a free diagnostic scripts pack that might save you hours: https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/psmqnx 🙌
The Romance of The Start-Ups.
It’s said that the definition of a start-up is an "organisation formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model that creates, delivers and captures value.” (Steve Blank-2015)
Hold on! I don’t know if that is what the general public think a start-up is!
Let’s face it: the media, TV and cinema have convinced us that a successful start-up is a dorm room of geeks with laptops, an Internet connection, the obligatory beer pong tournament and a great idea.
Well, that’s wrong!
The average founder of a high-growth start-up launched it after his 40th birthday. They are also generally married with two kids and have worked in someone else’s business for six to 10 years. These guys are simply tired of working for others and want to rise above the herd.
High profile investors have said that high-growth start-ups are founded by talented 20 year olds with a great passion minus the distractions like family and children.
They are also wrong.
Others have said a successful start-up is a bunch of very low paid young entrepreneurs who make all the right things happen by working themselves to death.
Clearly, that is wrong, too!
However, the crazy thing about start-ups is that investors, fans and even Kickstarter type groups really are drawn to this type of post-teen companies. And that is probably the number one reason investor failure rates are so high.
They believe in and continue to dwell on the hype!
Now here’s my thought about this. If you go to the track on any race day, you will see leagues of people (let’s call them Group A) mingling around the horses, enjoying a few drinks, socialising and generally having a great time. You know, like in the advertisements. “Come and join the fun and excitement of Race Day”.
So, now hold that thought.
If you go to the track you will also see the real punters, (let’s call them Group B) studying the form, checking out the barrier draws, checking the weather and even taking a look at the jockeys to see who looks fit.
Group A: They love to dabble, put on a few bets, have a fine time and go home. They often say, “I only bet for the fun of it.” They also choose horses by the colour of their jockey’s hat or their name etc.
They love long shots. Have you heard this before? “Gee if I put a hundred on that horse and it pays 150:1 I will make a fortune!”
They are known as “lazy gamblers”. No research, no study, they’re just in it for the fun and because others are doing it too.
I wonder if Benjamin Franklin was thinking of this group when he said “Laziness travels so slowly that poverty soon overtakes him”
No alt text provided for this image
Remember that thought? …the advertisements. They all say “Come and join the fun and excitement”. Group A’s love excitement and action. These are the 95% of bettors that lose money over time.
Helen Fisher was right when she said "Any kind of novelty or excitement drives up dopamine in the brain, and dopamine is associated with romantic love”
Group B: Well, they’re different. They gamble for a living, they are professionals. They look for “logical bets” “good odds” and “obvious advantages”. How exactly do they know these when they see them?
They research. They know it takes a lot of historical knowledge to make a sensible bet. They look at the track record of the trainers, the jockeys and the horses. They only gamble at tracks they know. They are wise bettors.
They also know it is very unlikely that any one race, one horse or even one jockey holds the key to a huge win. They think of gambling as long term investments.
Warren said once that "Someone’s sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago” – Mr W Buffett
So you say, What has this to do with start-ups. Like horse racing, start-ups are a “gamble”.
Backing or starting a start-up really is similar to any successful gameplay. As in Horse racing, always back a good trainer (Founder) a good team (Jockey and crew) a great Idea (Horse) in a market (Race track) that you know well.
Yes, there are some fabulous start-up stories of “Gee I put a hundred on that horse and it paid 150:1. I made a fortune!”, coming true, as in the fabled US$1Bn valued Unicorn start-ups. But they are realised in less than 0.15% of all start-ups.
No alt text provided for this image
The odds of someone winning the lottery twice in a row are arguably better.
OK, so now we’re all wiser, can you please tell me why junior start-ups get all the attention?
I’ll tell you why, because it is a romantic notion that a start-up is a dorm room of geeks, laptops, with an internet connection that go on to become billionaires. Apple, Facebook and one or two others have created this notion and the entrepreneurs’ families, casual investors and some angels want to be part of it.
Of course when it comes to the first round of serious funding, they find that more au fait investors, understand that Unicorns are very elusive and for the most part come from well-resourced, well-equipped and experienced teams.
So what happens to the juniors? Some falter, leaving behind a trail of lazy gamblers. Well, actually most fail. Don’t believe me? Read the statistics on start-up failure rates.
After the money has gone, many of the team members will give up and go to work for someone. Others will go back and try again and again. These are now the more experienced entrepreneurs, who have worked through their junior years and are now more “backable”.
Yes, they are the same people, but now no longer fuelled by a romantic notion, they work towards creating an organisation formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model that creates, delivers and captures value.
Funny that, don’t you think?
I don’t think it comes down to psychology or avoidance that much.
There are a lot of different cases - it’s not one pattern.
From what I’ve seen, it mostly depends on where and how you’re reaching people, not on whether founders are avoiding discomfort.
Different situations play out differently.
I completely agree with this. with so many variables it all plays out differently.
The distinction matters a lot for how you make decisions. Startups optimize for learning velocity and market capture; small businesses optimize for margin and sustainability. The mental models really are different.
The problem I see is most tools and advice online are built for startups (move fast, scale or die) but most of the people asking for help are running small businesses. They apply VC startup thinking to a $50K business and end up over-investing in growth while neglecting the operational basics that make $50K businesses valuable: retention, referrals, pricing power.
What's the most common specific mistake you see people make because they're applying startup logic to the wrong context?
There are a lot - honestly too many to list.
But the common pattern is people optimizing for growth before they even know if anyone really needs what they built.
They jump into scaling, tools, funnels, “strategy” - while the core problem and real demand are still unclear.
So they end up building on top of noise instead of something solid.
This is a strong opinion piece, but it becomes much sharper if you separate what Product Hunt is from what founders expect it to be.
Right now, the real insight buried in your post is this: most “launch platforms” optimize for attention velocity, not user intent quality. That mismatch is what creates the disappointment — not the platform itself.
Product Hunt isn’t really broken; it’s just doing what it was designed to do:
reward early momentum
amplify network effects
surface “interesting new things”
But none of that guarantees problem-aware users, which is what startups actually need.
Where your argument gets stronger is when you contrast distribution types:
A launch platform gives you:
high visibility
low intent alignment
short-lived traffic spikes
Direct distribution (communities, search, cold outreach) gives you:
lower volume
higher intent
compounding learning loops
The uncomfortable truth is that Product Hunt can still be useful — just not as a primary acquisition channel. It’s more like a signal amplifier, not a customer engine.
The key mistake most founders make isn’t launching there — it’s believing the launch itself is the strategy.
A more grounded framing of your message could be:
That’s the real tension you’re pointing at.
And your CTA actually fits better when it’s less about “try my product” and more about “if you already feel this problem, here’s something relevant,” because that aligns with the very argument you’re making.
I see what you’re saying, but I think that framing still overestimates the role of the platform.
In practice, it’s not really about “low intent vs high intent channels” - it’s about whether you’re reaching people who actually have the problem at that moment.
Even outside Product Hunt, you can have “high intent” in theory and still get no real usage if the context is off.
So to me the issue isn’t misaligned attention - it’s that most of the attention, regardless of channel, isn’t coming from real demand in the first place.
The "build → test → learn → repeat" framing is right, but I'd push back on one thing: most early-stage founders I've worked with skip the "learn" step because they have no instrumentation to learn from. They ship, watch the launch, see some signups, and then guess about why people churned.
In my consulting work with funded FinTech and SaaS startups, the single biggest unlock pre-PMF is usually just having 4-5 events instrumented properly: signup, first activation moment, first "aha" action, drop-off point, and reactivation. That's it. Not a 200-event taxonomy. Founders who do this tighten their feedback loop from weeks to hours — they can run an experiment Monday and know by Wednesday whether to kill it.
Fully agree on Product Hunt being more of a popularity contest than a real distribution channel. The startups I've seen actually scale post-launch are the ones that found one specific niche community where their target users already complained about the problem.
Question: when you say "talk to them directly," what's worked for you for finding 10-20 actual users with the problem before you've built anything? Cold outreach, communities, something else?
For me it wasn’t really about finding users before building.
I launched with a simple one-page version and used that to start conversations.
From there it’s mostly direct outreach (LinkedIn, some communities) and seeing who actually engages when the problem is real.
Feels more reliable than trying to “learn” from instrumentation too early - real usage gives clearer signals.
That actually validates the point I was making — a one-pager + direct outreach IS instrumentation, just done with conversations instead of analytics tools. You're getting qualitative signal (who replies, who pushes back, who lights up) which is exactly the stuff dashboards can't tell you pre-PMF.
The failure mode I see in funded startups is the opposite: they skip the conversation phase and go straight to building elaborate event tracking on a product nobody asked for. Your sequence is right — talk first, build a thin slice, instrument once you have real users using it for real reasons.
Curious how many of those LinkedIn outreach conversations did it take before you felt confident the problem was real?
Yeah, I think that’s just how it tends to play out across most early-stage products.
Once you start talking to real users, you end up getting that signal naturally - regardless of whether you call it instrumentation or not.
Different approaches, but the pattern is pretty similar.
Exactly this. Knowing your core problem deeply enough to keep iterating when things don't work, that's what separates the ones who pivot well from the ones who just give up.
I'm an interior designer building an AI platform with no technical background. The domain knowledge is the asset. The excitement and belief matter too, but they have to be attached to something real you understand , otherwise you can't tell good feedback from bad.
Yeah, that’s a good point.
Domain understanding makes a big difference - especially when it comes to filtering what feedback actually matters.
Otherwise it’s easy to react to the wrong signals early on.
Most people get this wrong — but I think there’s one gap in your take.
Speed and distribution only matter if you’re pointed at a real problem.
I’ve seen founders move fast, launch fast, distribute hard… and still fail because they were solving something nobody cared enough about.
Product Hunt is a good example — it gives visibility, not validation.
The real game early on isn’t just build → test → learn
it’s talk → understand → validate → then build
Because if you skip that, you’re just optimizing how fast you can be ignored.
I get what you’re saying, but that’s already covered.
The whole point is reaching people with the problem - otherwise nothing works, no matter how fast you move.
Just framing it differently doesn’t really change the core.
a good founder is then not just someone who knows how to identify real issues, but also where to find users with these issues.
is there a name for such skill?
It’s less about a specific “skill name” and more about experience.
After a few years you start recognizing where real problems show up and where they don’t.
In my case it’s been around 6 years - you just learn to see the difference faster.
How do you handle the balance? Going fast v/s Having a solid MVP?
I don’t really see it as a balance.
Going fast with something simple is usually enough - you don’t need a “solid” MVP upfront.
The clarity comes from real usage, not from polishing before that.
This is a strong point, especially “startups don’t need attention, they need the right users.”
I’m researching this exact problem for Tradi right now: how early-stage founders figure out what tools to use, what advice to trust, and whether they’re solving a real problem before spending too much time or money.
Curious, when you’re testing a new idea or tool, what gives you more confidence: talking directly to potential users, Reddit/IH feedback, founder friends, or seeing people actually try the product?
From what I’ve seen, talking to users or getting feedback isn’t as strong of a signal as people think.
What matters more is how people behave when they actually need the product - that’s where you get real confidence.
I completely agree with your logic here. Its about finding or creating something that fixes a problem, not hitting "benchmarks". Like your product too. Currently in the process of a launch and haven't attained real users just yet. Trying to find ways to get my product out there and just started using IndieHackers.
I don’t fully agree with that framing.
It’s not that users don’t know what they want - it’s that they describe it differently.
If someone has the problem, their behavior is usually very clear.
I also think it's important to remember that the customer doesn't always know what they want. Henry Ford famously said, "If I've asked the people what they wanted, they'd have told me faster horses."
The age of ai is on us and I wonder how many of our customers are asking for faster horses. The leaders of tomorrow will give them something better.
I don’t think it’s just about confusing startups with small businesses.
A lot of it comes down to where the feedback is coming from - wrong context leads to wrong conclusions.
Such true. Sometimes we confuse startups with small businesses
I wouldn’t say it’s that simple.
Even if you understand the difference, it’s still easy to focus on the wrong signals early on.
I agree. It's a dangerous business looking at your early numbers and thinking you see a trend.
Agree on distribution being underrated early on.
But I think there’s a third layer:
timing + trust.
You can reach the right user —
but if it’s not the moment they feel the problem, they won’t convert.
Especially true in finance apps.
Curious — how are you identifying “right moment” users?
I get the timing point, but I don’t think that’s the main constraint.
From what I’ve seen, if someone actually has the problem, they’ll engage pretty quickly - you don’t need to perfectly “time” it.
The bigger factor is just getting in front of those people fast and starting conversations. Speed matters more than trying to catch the perfect moment.
Totally agree with this. Most people confuse startups with small businesses and end up overplanning instead of validating.
Startups are just structured learning loops, build, test, learn, repeat. And yeah, distribution + timing usually beats “perfect product” early on.
Also agree on Product Hunt, visibility ≠ real users. Real traction comes from solving a real pain where users already are.
I wouldn’t say distribution + timing beats product.
It’s more that if you’re reaching people who already have the problem, even a simple product works.
If you’re not, even a great product + distribution won’t convert.
Yeah that’s a better way to put it. it’s less about distribution alone and more about reaching the right people at the right time.
Feels like most of the struggle is actually figuring out where those people are and how to access them early. curious how you usually approach finding that first group?
It depends a lot on the market.
Usually if someone is already building something, they already have at least some assumptions about where those people are.
From there it’s more about testing those assumptions and seeing where you actually get a response.
yeah, figuring out where people actually respond is half the game
Yeah that makes sense, most of it starts with assumptions and then reality reshapes them. I’ve seen though that even when people find where users are, the harder part is figuring out who to actually engage with and build around.
Been exploring this space a bit lately. how do you usually validate that you’re talking to the right people, not just getting responses?
A lot of it depends on the startup and the market.
Usually the difference shows up pretty quickly in the conversation itself - people who actually have the problem talk about it very differently than people just giving opinions.
I definitely needed to hear this.
I’m very new in this space and have been working on my first product for a while, trying to make it the best it can possibly be. I’m now finally at a point where I feel comfortable shipping it.
Chasing perfection for so long and focusing so much on the build has left me with something I’m proud of—but no users and zero real feedback.
Finding people with the problem and actually talking to them is a vital step I missed. But it’s all part of the learning curve, and it’s clear where I need to focus my time going forward.
Yeah, that’s a very common place to get stuck.
The shift usually isn’t “make it better” - it’s “put it in front of someone who actually needs it.”
Even rough versions start making sense once they’re used in a real situation.
This post hits hard. I made the exact mistake – built a product first, validated never. Spent 6 months building something nobody wanted. That's literally why I built TrendyRevenue (AI idea validation tool). Now I validate demand, competitor gaps, and revenue potential before writing a single line of code.
Your point about 'distribution > product early on' – painful but true. I launched quietly, got zero paying customers. Now I'm doing what you said: finding people with the problem and talking directly. No more chasing Product Hunt popularity contests.
And yes, PH is overrated. Got 2 upvotes (one my own). Real conversations > fake launch hype.
Anyone here sitting on an idea but unsure if it's worth building – TrendyRevenue has a free tier. No card needed. Validate first, build later. Trust me, it's cheaper than 6 months of wasted effort.
Meirambek, VIDI Contract looks solid – signing blind is scary. Good luck with it. Following.
Appreciate that - sounds like you learned it the hard way.
I’d just be careful with the “validate before building” part though.
From what I’ve seen, validation outside of real usage can still be misleading - people say things, but behavior is different when they actually need it.
That’s why I’ve been focusing more on getting it in front of people in real situations and seeing if they come back.
Games are an important part of entertainment and learning in today’s world. They can be played on mobile phones, computers, consoles, or even outdoors. Video games improve skills like problem-solving, quick thinking, and hand-eye coordination. Online games also help people connect with friends around the world. At the same time, physical games like football and cricket keep the body active and healthy. However, too much gaming can be harmful, so balance is important. Games bring joy, reduce stress, and provide a fun way to relax. Overall, games are a powerful mix of fun, learning, and social interaction.
Not sure how this relates to the discussion about startups and distribution.
Feels like a different topic entirely.
right
Solid insight. New to this sphere but the network angle keeps showing up across every "rules of success" framework.
The piece I'd add: a network of people willing to give you a hard no. As in, "No, this wouldn't help in any way." A hard no is 100% better than a maybe. Maybes are how you delude yourself for months. A hard no tells you exactly who you're not for, which is half the work of figuring out who you ARE for.
Most of the early signal I've gotten on what I'm building came from friends willing to say "this isn't for me." That feedback is more useful than a stranger upvoting on Product Hunt.
The "talk to them directly" part of your post lands. The harder part most people skip: having the kind of network that'll tell you the truth before you've built the wrong thing for six months.
I’m not sure you need a network for that.
From what I’ve seen, you get much clearer signals just by talking to people who actually have the problem - they’ll say no pretty quickly if it’s not relevant.
It’s less about having a network that tells you the truth, and more about being in the right context where the truth shows up naturally.
Good distinction—startups are about searching, not optimizing.
I’d only add: execution still matters. Even with real demand, weak distribution or messaging can kill a good idea.
Curious how you’re finding your target users now.
I get the point, but I don’t think execution is the main constraint that early.
From what I’ve seen, the bigger issue is whether you’re actually reaching people who have the problem in the first place.
If that’s off, improving messaging or distribution tactics doesn’t really fix it - you just get more noise, not real usage.
I’ve been focusing more on finding people in that exact context rather than optimizing execution early on.
Hasn't Product Hunt become less relevant?
Feels like it’s lost a lot of its impact.
It can still give a short spike of visibility, but in practice other channels are much better for actually reaching people who need the product.
Is it possible to know what channel's you have been using other then Product Hunt?
It depends on the startup and the market.
Mostly it’s LinkedIn, some communities, and a bit of direct outreach.
The main thing is just being where people already have the problem - the channel itself matters less.
Understandable, Its my first Product, so i am kind of trying to understand my short comings, Thanks :)
most people move fast, but they’re still learning from the wrong signals
Exactly - speed alone doesn’t help if the signal is off.
You can move fast and still optimize for noise instead of real demand.
That’s why where the feedback comes from matters more than how quickly you react to it.
Solid take. Many people confuse startups with small businesses. Speed of learning really is everything. Curious how you’re approaching distribution beyond Product Hunt.
Appreciate it.
I’m focusing less on platforms and more on reaching people directly when they’re already dealing with the problem - conversations, targeted outreach, and showing up where that context exists.
Still early, but that’s been more useful than relying on any single launch.
One thing I’ve been noticing:
most “launch traffic” ≠ real users.
People check it out, maybe upvote - but they don’t actually use it.
The only signal that started to matter for me:
→ someone comes back without being reminded
That’s when you know there’s real value.
Everything else feels like noise.