FounderPulse
One action a day. The one that grows your business.
I kept rebuilding the same three spreadsheets every time I needed to sanity-check a number, so I turned them into web tools and put them online for free. No account, no email gate.
They're in the footer of founder-pulse.com — MRR calculator, churn simulator, pricing calculator.
The churn one is where I'd start. Most founders I talk to underestimate what 5% monthly churn does over a year. It doesn't feel like much month to month, and it quietly caps your growth no matter how many customers you add at the top. Seeing the curve is more convincing than reading the formula.
They're free because it's the honest version of a lead magnet. You get the whole thing. If the thinking behind them is useful, you'll find the rest of what I do on your own.
What's missing? If there's a fourth calculator you keep rebuilding by hand, tell me and I'll build it.
I've been talking to solo founders for months and I keep hearing the same three answers, never the same one twice in a row.
Some can't get anyone to look at them. Some get attention but nobody signs. And some — this is the group I'd underestimated — have leads, have a working offer, and still lose their week because they can't decide what to work on today.
I'm curious which one is actually dominant, because most advice online assumes the first.
So: right now, this week, which one is costing you the most?
Not enough people know I exist
People look, nobody buys
I have the inputs, I just can't pick the right action
And a follow-up if you're up for it: what did you try last that moved the needle on it, even slightly?
I'll reply to everyone.
-
1For me right now it’s mostly #1, but I’m starting to think #1 and #2 are much more connected than they look. When you don’t have much traffic yet, every visit feels important, so it’s tempting to keep changing the landing page or product because a handful of people didn’t convert. What I’m learning instead is that the first problem is often just getting enough relevant people into the funnel to learn anything useful. A small number of targeted conversations on LinkedIn, Reddit or niche communities has been more useful to me than posting broadly and hoping something takes off. The difficult part is staying disciplined enough to keep doing that before the numbers become exciting. So I’d probably answer: not enough of the right people know I exist yet.
-
2
The point about changing the landing page after a handful of visits is the sharpest thing in this thread so far. You can't learn anything from five people not converting, but the sample feels huge when it's all you have. So you rebuild the page, and now you can't even compare the next five to the last five.
And the discipline part you mention is the whole thing, isn't it. Targeted conversations are slow, unglamorous, and produce nothing you can put on a chart for weeks. Posting broadly at least gives you a number that moves that same day. It's the safer-feeling action every time.
One thing I'd push back on gently: you're calling it #1, but what you're describing sounds more like #3 wearing a #1 costume. You know the answer — targeted conversations in niche communities. You've watched it work. The hard part isn't identifying it, it's choosing it again tomorrow when it produced nothing yesterday.
-
1That’s a fair pushback. I think you’re right that I’m partly framing a prioritization problem as an acquisition problem. The uncomfortable part is that the higher-signal work often looks like no progress in the short term. Broad posting gives you a number immediately. Targeted conversations might give you nothing visible for days — and then one good conversation changes how you think about the problem or position the product. I probably need to judge that work over a fixed batch instead of after every individual attempt. Something like: 20–30 genuinely relevant conversations before deciding whether the channel is working, and no rebuilding the landing page unless the same objection shows up repeatedly. Thanks for the pushback — “#3 wearing a #1 costume” is probably a better description than I gave it.
-
1
The batch idea is the right instinct, and the number you picked matters less than committing to it before you start. 20 or 30, either works. What kills it is renegotiating the number at conversation 12 when nothing has happened yet, which is exactly when you'll want to.
Two things I'd add.
Write down what a working channel looks like before you begin, in a number. Not "it feels like it's working" — something like 3 replies out of 25, or 1 call booked. Otherwise you'll judge the batch by how it felt, and it'll feel bad regardless, because 25 targeted conversations spread over three weeks always feels like nothing while you're inside it.
And your landing page rule needs a threshold. "Same objection repeatedly" becomes "twice" the moment you're tempted. Pick the number now — three people, same objection, unprompted — and it stops being a judgment call later.
The thing you're actually building here isn't a channel test. It's the ability to keep doing work that gives you no feedback for two weeks. That's rarer than it sounds, and it's most of the game.
-
-
-
-
2Hey Kevan, I'm on the team behind Powerup, a self-driving inbox that picks up the work piling up behind you, invoices, replies, admin, and hands it back for a one-click approval. Would love to connect, what's your LinkedIn?
-
2The third group seems harder to measure but potentially more valuable. Do you have examples where a founder had enough leads and a working offer, but choosing the wrong next action actually delayed or lost a meaningful commercial outcome?
-
2
ConvertKit is the one I'd point to. October 2014, 22 months in, Nathan Barry was at $1,207 MRR and Hiten Shah told him to kill it. But he had leads. He had a product people wanted. He says it himself somewhere in his sales writeup: he'd email someone, get a real reply, get excited about it, and then just never follow up. Trail goes cold, he moves on to whatever he was building. What fixed it wasn't a new channel. He put every conversation on a Trello board so he physically couldn't forget to follow up, and then emailed around 100 authors on LeanPub and Udemy. Got 5-7 customers out of that. $5k MRR by March, $10k by June, $97k by December. So the cost was 22 months. Not one blown deal, just a long stretch where he had everything he needed and kept picking the task that couldn't reject him. That's why it's hard to measure. Nothing shows up as a loss.
-
2That’s a strong example of the cost of choosing the wrong next action. I’d be interested in digging into how you think about that problem today. If you’re open to it, what’s the best email to reach you on?
-
1
Happy to. Short version, since it's useful in the thread anyway. he way I approach it now is to make the choice a fixed step instead of something I do while opening my laptop. Every morning: one action, and it has to be one that produces a yes or a no from someone outside my business. Then I write down the number that will prove it worked before I start — not "reach out to prospects" but "8 emails sent, 3 replies." If I can't name that number in advance, the action is too vague and I've picked the wrong one.The part that actually changed my behaviour is logging what I got against what I said I'd get. I thought I was consistent. The log said otherwise, and there's no arguing with your own numbers. Contact section on the site is the best way to reach me.What's the context, out of curiosity?
-
1
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.
-
-
-
-
I build alone.
Not by circumstance — by choice. I'm entirely self-taught, and I've shipped B2B SaaS, conversational AI agents and industry-specific tools without a co-founder, a team, or funding. What that taught me had nothing to do with technology.
It's this: the thing that separates founders who move from founders who stall is never the idea, and it's never the execution ability. It's knowing which single action matters on Monday morning, and following through on it.
I watched myself lose weeks to that gap. Ten possible priorities, no ranking between them, and a day that quietly went to whichever task felt safest. Nothing on the market fixes it. Task managers hand you more lists. Courses hand you theory. Coaches charge hundreds a month, priced out of reach at exactly the stage a founder needs one most.
So I built FounderPulse.
You give it your business context once — stage, offer, target, 90-day goal. Every day it returns one priority action, sized to a time budget you'll actually respect. Then it records what you promised against what you delivered, and shows your real execution rate over time.
That last part is what changed how I work. I believed I was consistent. The ledger said otherwise, in numbers, and you can't argue with your own data.
I gave myself a hard financial target for the end of 2026. FounderPulse is what holds me to it — which means I'm not testing a hypothesis on my users. I'm running on the same system I'm asking them to trust.
Comment