Week 1 of Clowd in public — full honest recap.
What I shipped:
→ Launched clowd.host publicly
→ Posted 3x/day across Twitter, LinkedIn, Peerlist, IndieHackers
→ Expanded positioning from dev/designer tool to 7 audience segments
→ Wrote the origin story publicly for the first time
What I learned:
-
Origin stories outperform feature announcements every time. The post about a dead client link embarrassing me in a meeting got 3x the engagement of any feature post.
-
The real objection isn't another product — it's "I already have a system." Even when that system is broken, people don't see it that way. My job is to surface the pain, not attack the tool.
-
Unexpected users found the product. Restaurant owners. Event planners. Job seekers. I built for developers and designers. The primitive — permanent link, always current — turned out to be universally useful.
-
Building in public is distribution, not just documentation. Every post is a chance for the right person to find the product. The IH post about multi-segment PMF drove more genuine conversations than anything else I wrote.
What's coming in week 2:
→ More targeted content per audience segment
→ First case study from a real user
→ Testing paid acquisition alongside organic
If you're building something and want to swap notes — reply here. I'm genuinely up for it.
→ https://clowd.host — free to try, no credit card.
Respect for building in public 👏
From what we’ve seen, the first weeks are less about traction
and more about understanding where users drop off.
Did you track where people hesitate or leave the flow?
In one case, fixing a single step (rescheduling friction)
reduced drop-offs way more than adding features.
This is interesting because it started from a personal pain.
We noticed something similar when building small tools —
the strongest ideas usually come from “missed moments” like this.
Out of curiosity:
did other users actually have the same problem,
or was it more of a niche case?
Sometimes distribution becomes harder than the product itself.
Point 4 landed for me the hard way. 8 weeks of build-in-public at 94 followers = basically talking to yourself. Build-in-public as distribution only works once there's enough existing reach for people to actually find the content.
Your IH post getting traction suggests you already have the base. Worth tracking which channel drives actual discovery vs which just documents the work.
The origin story beats feature announcement finding lines up with pretty much everything I've seen too. Features explain what something does. Stories explain why it exists. People connect with why.
The unexpected users thing is worth thinking about for longer than week 2. Restaurant owners finding a "permanent link" tool built for designers aren't wrong, they found the actual primitive, not the positioning layer you put on top. That's the product telling you something. The question I'd ask is, are those unexpected users converting better or worse than the original ICP? Sometimes the people who found you despite your positioning are the most motivated buyers.
One thing that helped me early on with build-in-public was tracking which posts generated real signups versus which ones just got engagement. The vanity vs. intent gap can be brutal to discover.
The "real objection isn't another product" framing is the thing worth unpacking. Restaurant owners and event planners showing up when you built for dev/designers is classic unexpected pull, and those segments often convert better because they have a concrete pain with no existing habit to break. The 3x/day posting across four channels in week 1 is ambitious. Curious whether you're tracking which channel sends users who actually try clowd.host vs just engage with the content, because that gap tends to show up fast.
The origin story vs feature announcement finding is something I keep seeing proven right too. People connect to why you built it, not what it does. That gap closes fast once they feel the story.
The unexpected users thing is the signal worth sitting with. Restaurant owners and event planners weren't your ICP but they found real value. That's usually the product telling you something. Curious whether week 2 leans into those segments or pushes harder on the original dev/designer positioning.
The unexpected users thing is genuinely one of the more interesting early signals you can get, and I think you're right not to dismiss them as noise. Restaurant owners using a "permanent link" tool built for designers means the primitive — not the framing — is what resonated. That's actually the more durable thing.
The "I already have a system" objection is brutal because it's invisible. The person doesn't think they have a problem. The dead link story works precisely because it makes the failure moment concrete and embarrassing — that's the kind of thing that makes someone reconsider their workaround. More of that, less feature-explaining.
Curious whether the week 2 case study is from one of the unexpected users or the original ICP. Might be interesting either way but for different reasons.
Point 3 about unexpected users hit home. I'm in Week 1 of my own build-in-public and had the same experience this weekend — I built for a specific ICP and the first two people who actually engaged were completely outside it. The instinct is to dismiss them as "wrong fit," but they're actually telling you something about the primitive you built. If restaurant owners are using a permanent link tool built for designers, the primitive is probably "a URL that never dies," not "a design portfolio tool."
The "I already have a system" objection framing is underrated. Most competitors try to win on features. But if someone's mental model is "I have a working system," no feature wins — you have to surface a moment when their system visibly failed them. Your embarrassing meeting story does exactly that.
Would genuinely swap notes. Also Week 1, also trying to figure out which content angle has the most pull. DM open.
The observation about origin stories vs feature announcements is real and keeps getting proven right. There's something about a founder admitting "a dead client link embarrassed me in a meeting" that makes people immediately understand why the product exists — way better than any positioning copy could.
The bit about unexpected users is interesting too. Restaurant owners and event planners weren't the ICP, but they found a real use for the primitive. That's usually a signal worth paying attention to — either the core value prop is broader than the initial framing, or there's a completely separate product hiding inside the same mechanism.
Curious what the plan is when you encounter those users: do you talk to them and let them pull the roadmap in unexpected directions, or do you stay focused on the original ICP and treat the unexpected use cases as noise for now? Both choices have tradeoffs and I don't think there's a right answer, but it's an interesting fork to be at in week 1.
This is a solid breakdown — especially the part about people thinking “I already have a system.”
I feel like that’s one of the hardest barriers early on. It’s not about competing with other tools, it’s about competing with habits people have normalized, even if they’re inefficient.
Also interesting how your core primitive ended up being more universal than your initial audience. That seems like a strong signal that the problem is bigger than the niche you started with.
I’m currently working on something in the trust/verification space, and I’ve been noticing a similar pattern — the challenge isn’t just building the solution, it’s making people realize why they need it in the first place.
Curious — how are you planning to “surface the pain” without making it feel forced or obvious?
The origin story outperforming feature posts makes total sense. I saw the same thing with DictaFlow, the post about how dictation kept breaking inside Citrix/VDI environments got way more traction than any feature announcement. People connect with the problem, not the solution. The restaurant owners and event planners finding your product is a really good sign too. Unexpected users are usually the ones who tell you what your product actually is. Good luck with week 2.
the "I already have a system" is the hardest objection - it's not laziness, it's identity. people defend broken workflows. origin stories probably cut through because they validate the pain without threatening anyone's existing setup
🌟 Is Your Child Eating Enough to Grow Healthy and Strong? 🌟
Many parents don’t know if their kids are getting all the nutrients they need. Even small gaps in nutrition can affect growth, energy, and immunity. 🥦🍎
With the Poshan Calculator, you can quickly check if your child’s diet is enough.
✅ See daily calorie & nutrient needs
✅ Get tips for balanced meals
✅ Make sure your child is growing healthy
No more guessing — keep your child healthy the easy way! 💡
👉 Check it now: Poshan Calculator
💬 Share with other parents who want their kids to grow strong!
4 good replies a week beats 21 launch-style posts. learned this the hard way.
one permanent link is a tight pitch. protect that clarity, the temptation to broaden will be real.
rooting for clowd.
Omni-directional posts will suggest to me which channel is better, as no time to try 1-by-1.
Rather, thinking of doing it for 2 weeks for all channels will give me proper data on where to focus
Also, one permanent link is the USP I am bullish on, so that's not fading at all
2 weeks on all channels is fair, at least you'll have data. just watch for the busy but no signal trap, that's where most people burn out before the data speaks.
bullish on the usp makes sense if you're seeing pull from one segment already. good luck.
Three posts a day across four channels is a distribution lab, not a vanity grind. Week 1 data usually shows one channel pulling 60-70 percent of the qualified visits. The trap is spreading effort based on reach numbers instead of intent signals. Which channel converted any traffic into an actual conversation?
Omni-directional posts will suggest to me which channel is better, as no time to try 1-by-1.
Rather, thinking of doing it for 2 weeks for all channels will give me proper data on where to focus
Two weeks across four channels is a spread trap, not a test. 42 posts per channel won't separate signal from variance, and same copy everywhere teaches nothing about native format.
Kill three channels in week 2. Go all-in on the one where someone replied. Conversations beat impressions at this stage.
For some time I was thinking that people are looking for emotions as much as they are looking for answers.
The real human story behind why something was built is a differentiator now and I think this will never be replaced.
As for your product, this looks really nice! I am a graphic designer and I was thinking about going freelance at some point and a tool like this would actually be useful.
Good first week, good luck!
Thanks for this. Hope you will like the product and use it for your needs
This is a strong week 1 — especially the shift from building → distribution thinking early.
The “unexpected users” part is interesting. That usually ends up being the real opportunity if you lean into it instead of correcting back to the original audience.
Curious — are you planning to double down on those segments, or still trying to force-fit the initial dev/designer positioning?
Actually, the platform is for sharing anything with 1 permanent link applicable to everything. Though it is a website or file sharing with clients
I am concentrating on a few segments to start targeting them individually rather than going for all at once
Makes sense — starting focused usually works better than spreading too thin.
The “anything with one permanent link” angle is interesting, but it also feels quite broad — which might be why different segments are picking it up in different ways.
Sometimes the segment that “gets it fastest” ends up shaping the product and positioning naturally.
Are you seeing any one group using it more consistently yet, or still early signals?
It is still very early to conclude something.
Yeah — makes sense it’s early.
But honestly, this is exactly where things usually go wrong.
“Anything with one permanent link” is flexible, but it’s also hard to latch onto — different users project different use cases, which sounds good, but usually kills clarity early.
The products that break out here tend to feel very obvious for one group first, even if they expand later.
Right now it feels like:
– the value is real
– but the entry point isn’t sharp enough yet
That usually shows up as:
people try it → but don’t stick or don’t immediately “get it”
And this is where even small things like how it’s framed (and even the name/domain) start affecting how seriously people take it or how quickly they understand it.
If one segment is already leaning in (like event planners / restaurants), I’d honestly push hard there and make it feel built just for them first.
Trying to stay broad this early usually slows everything down.
Agreed. It's too early to grab onto early signals. Spreading the canvas, giving attention to people's understanding.
Then going in deep niche to target individually.
That’s fair — but this is exactly where most products lose momentum.
“Spreading the canvas” sounds right, but in practice it delays clarity.
If no one segment feels “this is built for me,” you end up with interest but no real pull.
The teams that win here usually pick one group early, go all-in, and let everything else come later.
Right now the value is there — but it still feels like users have to interpret it themselves.
That friction compounds fast.
This comment was deleted 6 days ago.