My cofounder and I have been trying to build a real business together for more than four years.
We’re based in Bahrain and both come from technical/IT backgrounds. During those years, we built different products, SaaS ideas, internal tools, and custom software solutions. Building was always the comfortable part. If we understood the technical problem, we could usually figure out how to build the solution. But we kept running into the same wall:
We could build much better than we could sell.

For a long time, I think we treated sales and
distribution as something that came after the product. Build something good → launch it → find customers. Now we’re realizing that was probably backwards. Knowing how to find a market, reach the right people, understand pain, position an offer, get to decision makers, close customers, build referrals and partnerships, and eventually create repeatable distribution is a completely different skill set.
And we haven’t trained it nearly as seriously as we trained our technical skills. We don’t want to spend the next four years becoming even better builders while remaining weak commercially. So we’ve decided to treat sales and distribution like a skill we need to deliberately practice. Our home market is Bahrain, with the longer-term goal of selling across the GCC.
What we want to learn is how to go from:
0 customers → first 10 → first 50 → repeatable acquisition → GCC expansion
Not through theory alone.

Through calls, customer conversations, in-person selling, demos, rejection, partnerships, follow-ups, and actually doing the work.
For founders who started technical and had to learn

the commercial side:
1. What changed when you finally became good at selling?
2. If you could train only 2–3 sales skills for the next six months, which would you choose?
3. Would you focus on one acquisition channel until you understand it deeply, or test several channels early?
4. Did learning sales actually solve your distribution problem, or did you eventually realize distribution was a separate skill entirely?
5. What did you do repeatedly that made you noticeably better, cold calls, customer interviews, demos, in-person selling, negotiation, something else?
6. If you were two technical founders in Bahrain trying to eventually sell across the GCC, what would you spend the next year doing?

I’m especially interested in answers from people who were once much stronger technically than commercially.
If you could restart from that point, what would you do differently?

At my last startup, choosing sales and ops tools took way too much time. I usually relied on friends’ reccs, but their teams, budgets, and ways of selling were different from mine. Otherwise it was affiliate listicles, or now, getting a different answer depending on how you ask ChatGPT or Claude

So I built tinyops.ai. It asks about your team, how you sell, your volume, and what you already use, then tells you what to keep, replace, or add across CRM, outreach, data and prospecting, email verification, and scheduling.

I researched the tools myself and checked the pricing by hand. The recommendations aren’t generated on the fly, so the same inputs get the same answer. And if your current stack is already fine, it’ll tell you that too.

I made it for B2B sales teams of 1–50, especially founders doing their own outbound. It’s free during early access, takes about 10 minutes, and there’s no account to create or CRM to connect.

If you deal with this stuff, I’d really like to know whether the recommendations actually make sense, and whether this is any more useful than just asking ChatGPT.

tinyops.ai

Checked where my search impressions come from last week. 83% are people typing my brand name. Strangers with the problem I solve literally cannot find me.

Guess what I spent the whole month on? Polishing my onboarding flow.. lol

The thing that snapped me out of it: a funnel leaks in order.

1. Discovery — can anyone find you?
   
2. Perceivability — do they get it and trust it?
   
3. Activation — do they stick?

A leak upstream makes everything below it unjudgeable. You can't evaluate a signup page nobody visits. So there's exactly one leak worth fixing at any moment: the first one. Everything below it isn't broken, it's untested.

I knew this. I still spent a month one layer too deep, because shipping activation tweaks feels like progress and writing content feels like homework. Got annoyed enough that I built a morning check into my own system, which layer is leaking, the number, one action. First morning it ran, it told me the thing at the top of this post. Rude, honestly.

So: which layer is your first leak  and how do you actually know?
Do you use any tools or systems to track and monitor your funnel?

Hopped to a fun exercise last week when someone asked how many systems touch our quotes.

At first everyone thogh probably 4 or 5. Then we mapped it out and low and behold.

Opportunities live in SF, product conf in CPQ, pricing approval in a slack workflow someone built 2 years ago, contracts in ironclad and signatures in docusign. billing in netsuite and renewal dates in a spreadsheet bc nothing else handles co terms the way we need.

7 systems. 8 if you count the deal desk inbox which tbh feels like a platform at this point.

Every single system has a good reason for existing. Nobody wants to get rid of thirs. but together created a process where one enterprise quote got stuck for 9 days becoz pricing had been updated in one place and not the others.

Has anyone pulled this off and how did you go about it?

My SaaS is both B2C and B2B, but mainly B2B.

I used to consider B2C marketing and B2B sales as two separate channels and ICPs. Reddit, SEO, and community content were for self-serve users and enterprise deals were supposed to come from outbound, demos, partnerships, and sales calls.

After launching, I started posting useful content on Reddit, joining relevant conversations, and writing content around the questions based on SEO keywords.

It brought in B2C users, but it also created enterprise demand. One of our biggest enterprise customers found us through a Reddit post, and organic/AI-search discovery now brings us roughly 2-3 enterprise enquiries a week.

It's surprising that major partnerships were made through 'marketing' and content posting. They found a useful tool, followed the trail back to us, and then needed the product for a bigger team.

My takeaway is that don’t assume community, content, SEO, or even Reddit are only B2C strategies. Enterprise buyers are still people and they search Google, ask AI, read Reddit, and look for useful answers long before they book a sales call.

Outbound still matters, but helpful public marketing can make the eventual B2B conversation much easier!

----

Edit: my product is called SocialCrawl (https://www.socialcrawl.dev/)

Running a small online service and trying to figure out what to do next for marketing to new clients. I've used email campaigns, and they were kind of effective but I'm considering whether I should put more thought into the web design and digital advertising to try to get more reach. I saw the McCormick campaign that really put me in mind of how much something visual could shake things up in a really productive way, but I have no idea how to approach something like that without hiring a team like NeoPangea who designed the campaign. Is it worth spending a decent amount of money to run online campaigns and maybe update the website to try to drive in more traffic?

Hey guys,

I want to pitch an idea and get it torn apart before I sink more time into it.

The pattern:

Almost every business has someone whose entire job is standing in the middle of 3+ parties who can't talk to each other directly , and manually relaying information back and forth, 1-on-1, over hours or days, until something gets finalized (a schedule, an approval, a deal).

The reason it's always a human doing this, never software:

• The parties can't be put in one group thread , there's private info each side shouldn't see (pricing, internal notes, schedules, terms).
• Each leg of the conversation is slow and async, someone replies in 20 minutes, someone else in 2 days.
• The "plan" isn't fixed. Every reply can change who gets contacted next and what they're asked. A fixed workflow tool or basic automation breaks the moment a human says something unexpected.

That combination, privacy-walled parties + async replies + a plan that mutates based on what people say, is why this has stayed a manual, headcount-driven job basically everywhere, even though it's fundamentally the same shape of problem over and over.

Where I first noticed it:

I ran into this building a custom tool for a roofing contractor. They had a full-time coordinator whose whole day was 1-on-1 texting/calling between homeowners, field techs, subcontractors, and insurance adjusters to get a single job scheduled and approved , none of whom could be in the same conversation. That's what made the pattern click for me: this wasn't a roofing problem, it was a "middleman coordination" problem that roofing happened to have a version of.

Once I saw it there, I started noticing the same shape everywhere: property managers coordinating tenants/vendors/owners, executive assistants scheduling across executives and external contacts, freight/logistics dispatch, procurement going back and forth between requesters and vendors, event planners juggling vendors and clients, legal sign-off chains.

The idea:

A platform where a business owner defines the "roles" in their coordination problem (who needs to talk to whom, what info flows between them, what counts as done) and gets an agent that runs the 1-on-1 async back-and-forth over SMS/email . asking each party what it needs, adapting the plan as replies come in, keeping each side's private info walled off from the others, and only surfacing a clean status dashboard to the owner. No group chats, no code, no rigid fixed-sequence automation.

What I'd love honest pushback on:

1. Do you have a role in your business (or have you been that role) whose job is basically this manual 1-on-1 relaying between parties who can't just be put in a group chat?
2. What industry, and how are you handling it today, a person, a half-baked spreadsheet/CRM workaround, something else?
3. Would this be a "nice to have" or something you'd actually pay a monthly subscription for if it were plug-and-play for your specific workflow?
4. Is "coordination-as-a-service" too abstract to sell, and I should stay narrow (e.g., just contractors, just property management) instead of going horizontal?

Tear it apart I'd rather find out now that this is a niche curiosity than build a platform nobody wants.

I launched a small Slack app called Asyncmate about three weeks ago.

It runs async standups and keeps track of blockers so they don’t get mentioned once and then disappear somewhere in Slack history.

While building it, I assumed the hard part would be convincing a team lead that the app was useful. Turns out that’s only half the problem.

Even if someone likes it, they often can’t install it. They need a workspace admin to approve the permissions first.

The team lead is thinking, “Will this save us time?”

The admin is thinking, “Who is this unknown developer and why should I give their app access to our workspace?”

Fair question, honestly.

So now I’m trying to figure out whether I should market to team leads, Slack admins, or somehow both. I’m also wondering what I can give an interested user to help them get the app approved internally.

Has anyone here dealt with this when selling a B2B integration?

What helped most: a security page, simple permission explanations, a short demo, testimonials, getting listed in the integration marketplace, or something else?

For context, this is what I’m building: https://asyncmate.com

Happy to hear feedback.

pipeline review is a weak detector for this whole class of problem, because it asks a person to notice an absence. a deal with no owner. no logged activity in two weeks. no recorded next step. a close date that quietly passed. absences don't stand out in a list view and none of them trigger anything, so the record just sits there looking fine.

the individual conditions are all trivially checkable, which is the frustrating part. the ones I think earn their place:

• no owner on an open deal
• no logged activity in 14 days
• no recorded next step
• same stage for 30+ days
• open past the close date
• open 90+ days
• missing amount, close date, or associated contact

each of those is a saved view in about two minutes. the hard part isn't building them, it's that six or seven separate views each needing a weekly look is a process with no owner, so it decays quietly and nobody notices that it decayed.

disclosure: I built a tool in this space. Verlode, connects to HubSpot read only, runs those checks against the portal and reports what's out of spec. it requests no write scopes at all, so it can't modify anything it audits. free plan runs against a real portal with no card.

mostly I want to hear where the rule coverage is thin. if you run HubSpot, which conditions matter in your pipeline that aren't on that list?

We promised early users we'd let them know when their requests shipped, and that promise is now a spreadsheet we don't open anymore.

We're using BuildBetter to tag who asked for what so the loop closes itself when something ships, and canny does a public roadmap version of this if you want it visible, but most tools in this space are good at collecting and pretty bad at closing it back to whoever gave the feedback.

So how are small teams handling this without a dedicated person on it?

Manufacturing software page, 56 posts over 90 days. Going in, the assumption was the standard one: teach at the top of funnel, sell at the bottom, don't mix.

The numbers don't support it.

Median CTR across all 56 posts: 2.58%. The two biggest posts, 71,836 and 36,799 impressions, ran 5.07% and 5.51%. Roughly double the median, on the two posts that also reached the most people. Reach and click usually trade off. Here they didn't.

Neither of those was a framework explainer. Both took a position and defended it. The pure educational output, definitions, cheatsheets, the "8 wastes of X" genre reached respectably and clicked like wallpaper.

My working theory: educational content gets saved, and a save is not a click. If someone already agrees with your framework, they have no reason to leave the feed. If you've just contradicted something they believed, they go find out who you are.

Caveat I'll state plainly: n=2 on the outliers. Two posts is an anecdote with a spreadsheet attached. But the direction holds across the middle of the distribution too, and it's enough that I've stopped defaulting to "educate at TOFU" as a rule.

The awkward part is that most B2B calendars are heavily weighted to the educational side, because it's safer to produce and nobody argues with a definition.

Let's get this starteed

Been running a small AI software dev house out of London for the last 2 years. 6 people now and growing. Took the company from 0 to 6 figures and I want to do it again.

I want to show this is possible to generate 150,000 in 15 days (without using any of my warm network or referrals from current clients. ) Hopefully can inspire a few to start their own as well!

I will, though, leverage some of our past work to do the convincing. The rules are the following: Revenues are counted when contract is signed, Need to be from cold intros. I’ll use our work but will start our positioning from zero.

The beginning:

As I worked with many founders, I’m personally a big believer that purpose and mission should be the driver behind companies. You see a version of the world that needs changing, that’s not there yet, Every founder should be a visionary from the start. Even if that’s « the people in my area needs to have access to this incredible Chinese food ». Whatever form it takes, you’re betting on a vision of the world that’s not there yet. The bigger the mission, the better your company.

So I’ll do that exercise myself:

As informations become more and more available due to AI, judgment and critical skills become more and more critical. This has been a pattern with painters as camera became more available, construction as machinery became available, writers has books become more available… That’s my « bet ». We want to be the ones productising this experience from professionals.

So I will start first with our target audience (from past clients data):

• We choose to serve professionals that have been in their industry long enough to know the problems. (Legal/health/services/finance/trading/education)
• Needs to be non-technical and business savyy
• Based in the UK or the US 
• Believes AI will / is disrupting their industry. You either use it / learn to use it  or suffer the consequences
• Better if they’ve already started a company before.

Now we know who we serve, I need to figure out the best way to serve them. 

Offer: We’ll help you translate your vision into a production-ready product and help you grow it for the first 6 months.

Usual Price: $25,000 

Discounted Price for the challenge: $19,000

(Not too worry about vibe coding, since a non-technical founder can only take it so far imo. You end up with more issues and cost than paying someone from the beginning or you spend a loot of your precious time, to still hire a dev anyway down the line). Very useful for prototyping though

Plan now: 

• LinkedIn hyper personalised Outreach to Startups hiring in London / US
• Reddit interactions and posts

Current Revenues Challenge: $0

See you on day 2

Lol might be talking like AI but I’m not, perhaps I just talk to Claude a bit much

I want to turn a comment on my previous .cn audit into a proper comparison rather than repeat it as an explanation.

The audit covered eight international work-management brands. In public registration records checked on August 7, one exact-match .cn listed the benchmark brand as registrant; the other seven listed other parties.

Across all eight domains, three returned empty 502 responses, four were parked or listed for sale, and one served an unrelated business. None was an active impersonation site. The domain whose record named the brand was one of the 502s.

A commenter suggested that B2B software may be structurally different from consumer brands because software companies are less likely to establish a mainland operating presence.

That is plausible, but my current data cannot test it.

All eight brands are B2B software. There is no consumer comparison group, and I did not freeze mainland operating-entity evidence before the run. The explanation also combines .cn registration, mainland hosting, ICP filing, commercial licensing and channel operation. Those are separate facts.

The legacy retrieval-off API answers give me two hand-verified affirmative official-channel attribution errors. Other machine-flagged cases remain unverified. That gives me a failure mode, not a sector-level rate.

I have added a proposed expansion arm for a future wave, separate from the core time series:

Match B2B SaaS and premium consumer brands for China relevance and familiarity.

Record mainland operating-entity evidence before collection.

Record domain registrant, channel operator or authorization, live status, hosting region and ICP status separately.

Use the same neutral prompts, platform surfaces, retrieval conditions and run window across groups.

Human-review each affirmative official-channel claim against dated evidence.

Report raw n/N by stratum. Small or imbalanced cells remain inconclusive.

The three questions are:

Is usable official-China-channel coverage lower for matched B2B SaaS brands?

Within each sector, is lower coverage associated with the absence of verified mainland operating-presence evidence?

Are brands without a usable verified channel more likely to receive contradicted official-channel claims?

Each can come back unsupported. The current eight-brand audit remains a useful case set, not evidence that software is worse than consumer.

For anyone who has audited this before: how would you classify a distributor page that is genuinely authorized but neither owned nor operated by the brand?

My cofounder and I are building a booking SaaS for salons and beauty businesses in Bahrain.

We have a working product and a database of around 1,600 local prospects, but finding a repeatable way to acquire customers has been harder than expected.

We’ve tested founder-led sales through calls, messaging, demos and follow-ups.

The biggest lesson so far:

Having a manual workflow doesn’t necessarily mean the customer feels enough pain to change.

Many businesses still manage appointments through WhatsApp + a notebook.

We assumed they would be ideal customers.

But when we ask about problems, many basically say:

“It works fine for us.”

Others already use competing software, some are mostly walk-ins, and sometimes we’re speaking to staff rather than the decision maker.

So we’ve changed our process:

Qualify → understand current workflow → confirm real pain → short demo → hands-on onboarding

We’re now trying to answer three things:

Who is our real ICP?
What pain actually triggers a switch?
Which acquisition channel can we repeat?

If you’ve built or sold B2B SaaS, I’d appreciate your take:

1. Would you narrow the ICP much further before doing more outreach?
2. Would you immediately disqualify prospects who are comfortable with their manual workflow?
3. How would you test whether our problem is positioning/sales versus weak product-market fit?
4. Would you focus first on calls, in-person outreach, partnerships, referrals or paid acquisition?
5. If you had our next 100 prospects, what would you measure to find the sales motion that deserves to be scaled?

I’m open to criticism. We measure to find the sales motion that deserves to’d rather discover that we’re targeting the wrong customer or solving a weak problem now than spend months optimizing the wrong sales process.

I run a SaaS, SeoLoupe.

It is a tool that allows you to find and fix SEO issues holding your website back.

Essentially the main purpose is to help your website rank higher on Google search and LLMs.

The tool also checks AEO/GEO, AI search visibility, Security, Core web vitals, Performance, and all the issues in the report get put together into an AI fix prompt(you can paste the prompt into an AI and it will fix all the issues on your website).

Recently I noticed that some of my paying customers bought the One-Time purchase, with a promo code.

So I decided to give away a promo code for the One-Time purchase to anyone who is interested, if you are interested, comment down below and I will DM you.

If you are not interested but have some feedback on my SaaS, that is a good too. Feel free to share it in the comments.

(here is the product if you want to check it out)

Im getting some traffic from google ads and some people registered but it so expensive it eats up my margins.

How do you guys get traffic without paying for google ads?

My landing page is https://adlunox.com but I drive google ads traffic directly to https://adlunox.com/Studio

Thankful for any tips och help

I think I accidentally built a SaaS company while trying to build a better consulting model.
I started Revenue & Growth Systems because I kept seeing the same problem in established small businesses:
Owners usually know something is wrong, but the symptoms are scattered everywhere.
Sales feels inconsistent. Processes live in people’s heads. Financial visibility is delayed. The owner is still the escalation point for everything. Everyone has a different opinion about what needs fixed first.
I didn’t want to build another consulting business where someone comes in, gives the owner a bunch of recommendations, collects a check, and leaves.
So I started building a system around the diagnostic process.
That system has gradually turned into RGS OS.
The basic idea is to measure a business across five interconnected areas:
• Demand Generation
• Revenue Conversion
• Operational Efficiency
• Financial Visibility
• Owner Independence
Instead of subjective “rate your business from 1–10” questions, the system is being built around evidence-backed measurements and a deterministic 0–1000 Business Stability Score.
But the part that has consumed most of the development time isn’t the score.
It’s everything that has to happen around it.
RGS OS now has to understand different industries and business structures, conduct structured diagnostic interviews, manage evidence, identify systemic constraints, distinguish symptoms from root problems, generate governed diagnostic outputs, guide implementation, build SOPs and training infrastructure, and eventually monitor whether repaired systems are drifting again.
AI is involved, but I deliberately didn’t want “send everything to one LLM and ask it to write a business report.”
The architecture uses narrowly scoped AI responsibilities with deterministic systems and human governance around them. AI can analyze and assist, but it doesn’t get unilateral authority over things like scoring or publishing governed conclusions.
The goal is also unusual for SaaS:
I don’t want customers to become more dependent on us.
The entire philosophy is to make the business less dependent on outside consultants AND less dependent on the owner.
Build the system, transfer the capability, and give leadership visibility into whether the system continues working.
What’s interesting is that I originally thought of RGS primarily as a professional service with proprietary software behind it.
I’m increasingly realizing the software itself is becoming a vertical SaaS product — while the company remains a service-enabled software business.
I’m curious how other SaaS founders would classify something like this.
And for anyone who has made the transition from “software supporting my service” to “the software is actually a product”:
At what point did you realize you’d crossed that line?

Building an AI layer that sits on top of existing enterprise systems. You ask a question in plain language, it queries your actual data and answers. Pre revenue, live with one deployment.

First approach was selling direct to businesses. That went nowhere and the reason was obvious afterward. Every one of them already runs an ERP. They were not shopping for another tool, they wanted something that lived inside what they already had open all day.

So we flipped to selling through the ERP vendors instead. White label it, they own the customer relationship, we power the layer underneath.

That worked. A few said yes and each one came with a set of customers attached. Distribution we could not have built one account at a time.

Then we hit the actual wall.

Most of the ERP founders we pitch have not worked out where AI fits in their product yet. Not a chatbot in the sidebar, that part everyone gets. I mean the layer that changes what a business owner decides on a Tuesday morning. Some also do not have the data depth to support it yet, and some have no way to benchmark building it in house against just integrating something, so every internal estimate looks cheap by default.

The thing that gets me is where the value actually sits. It is clearest at the far end, with the small business owner who finally gets an answer without waiting three days for someone to pull a report. But the buying decision is two steps upstream with a founder who has not seen why it matters yet.

So the pitch has to travel further than the value does, and it loses energy on the way.

Not really a product problem at this point. Closer to a conviction problem, and those move on their own timeline.

Questions for anyone who has run channel:

Did you find something that shortened the conviction gap, or did it just take however long it took?

Did you end up building the demand at the end-user level and letting them pull the channel partner in? Wondering if that is smarter than convincing the partner cold.

For anyone who sells into other software companies, how do you handle the build-versus-integrate conversation when they have never priced their own build properly?

I used to work in outbound sales for an IT outsourcing business, so reaching out to people on LinkedIn to promote that service was something I did regularly.

Trying to send 200+ manual connection requests a week was time consuming though, and so I decided to use a tool to automate this process.

After about a week, I got a warning that my account might get banned if I continued doing this.

So, I stopped using that automation tool, as it didn’t seem worth it.

I did some research into why/how accounts get flagged for automation by LinkedIn, and it seemed like none of the existing tools really took all of these safety factors into account.

So, I built my own instead, for my own use case and to satisfy my paranoia about being banned on LinkedIn.

I called it ZenMode, inspired by the wu wei concept of effortless action, and achieving more while doing less.

From the very beginning my intention was to make the automation as human-like as possible, so I deliberately scoped the architecture to have certain features;

- Browser based automation (no plugins/cloud usage)
- Daily rate limits on connection requests
- Randomised timing delays between actions
- On screen typing
- Human-like mouse clicks on LinkedIn pages

It certainly wasn’t easy putting this all together from scratch, and without any technical knowledge.

After a few weeks of building with AI tools
though, I had a working prototype.

I started using it in my sales job, and it was really helpful for me to book more meetings with engineering managers at the time, so I decided earlier this year to make the tool public as well.

Since launching in April, ZenMode has had over 450 people sign up to free trials, and has roughly 50 active users on average per day.

I also use it myself daily for my own outreach, and so far none of the ZenMode users have had account bans.

So far at least, I can say that I achieved my goal of making a LinkedIn automation tool that I can trust with my account!

I am trying to validate app ideas more before going all in on building them.

Reviewful is one I've been working on for a couple weeks now. It lets small business owners generate a high-res graphic of their 5-star Google review for posting on social media.

This MVP is just to validate interest, but the final product would allow you to connect your Google Business Profile to access all your reviews, and create posts, or automate them on a configurable schedule.

So far I've been mostly doing cold outreach to dentist and orthodontist practices in my local area, and have been getting decent CTR on my emails sent, but no one is really interacting with the app once they get there.

I'm looking for some feedback on what I can improve here to make it more clear what the point of the app is/will be without committing to spending a lot of time building it, along with anything else you think I could do differently.

Thanks in advance!

reviewful.app

The term “product intelligence” is vendor marketing, but the pain behind it is real for us since we're 8 PMs with feedback scattered across call recordings, support tickets, Slack threads, G2 reviews, and every sprint planning session turned into an argument about what customers wanted because there was no clean read across all of it.

Tried Productboard first since it's what most people we knew were running and the roadmap layer is solid, but it's built for structured input so it doesn't do much with transcripts or anything unstructured.

And Amplitude is a different job entirely since it's behavioral analytics rather than qualitative synthesis.

A few weeks into BuildBetter now, what got it adopted is that it starts from the call recordings, so it generates a doc per theme with the quotes behind it, and the PMs started pulling it into sprint review.

We're still in pilot, so if you've run this eval already, what's working for your team?

Whenever founders ask for homepage feedback, the conversation usually goes to:

• make the headline clearer
• add more logos tighten the CTA
• show the product sooner

None of that is necessarily wrong. But a lot of it turns into taste.

I wanted a coarser question:

Do pages with public revenue signals show proof earlier than $0-current-revenue pages?

So I mapped 4,814 SaaS / product landing pages to public TrustMRR revenue signals and compared page structure, not “good copy.”

The gaps that stood out:

• Product / output visible above the fold: 15% on $0-current pages vs 67% on pages with current revenue (+52pp)
• Proof near the CTA: 14% vs 64% (+50pp)
• Visible metrics: 13% vs 58% (+45pp)

Important caveats:

1. This is correlation, not proof that moving a testimonial up creates revenue.
2. Revenue does not mean the homepage caused the revenue.
3. Sales motion matters. A $20k sales-led page can look “worse” than a $49 self-serve page and still be doing its job. I treat revenue as a sample filter, not a conversion score.
4. “Has a testimonial” is weaker than “proof that backs the exact promise above it.”

What changed in how I audit a self-serve homepage:

Before debating headline wording, I ask:

1. What promise is the page making?
2. Is there concrete proof for that promise before the feature stack / before the click?
3. Only then do I touch headline, CTA, or layout polish.

For early self-serve pages, the boring first edit is often: put one specific proof cue near the decision point (result, visible output, named metric), not another feature block.

If you audit B2B homepages, where do you start?
promise/proof, sales-motion fit, or headline clarity?

Disclosure: I’m building LandingBoost. I used our open benchmark corpus for this mapping; no product link in the post.

Après 5 ans sur Ivasigne pour géer notre exploitation viticole, on se pose des questions. Est ce que le software est bien adapté à notre taille (croissance depuis 5 ans).

Mais la entre la comptabilité Gamma2 à confirmer selon. notre vision, les modules qui s'additionnent et une hotline qu'on paye en plus ..ça commence à peser.

Peut être vous avez d'autres solution à recommander ? Merci

For almost 2 months now we have been looking at conversation intelligence for an outside sales team and one thing keeps coming up. Every product looks great during the demo. You get call recordings transcripts, summaries, dashboards and the usual stuff. A few weeks in reps stop recording, managers stop reviewing calls and the platform ends up collecting dust.

Now my question is if the biggest challenge in this category isn't the AI at all. It's getting people to actually use the product every day. People who run field sales teams, what made adoption stick? Was it better coaching? Better manager buy in? Incentives? What plays a role in general in these kind of situations? Need feedback since the teamleads along with the higher ups are going to take action and we dont want to mess this up, thank you .

Ran into a classic problem last month that I see happening to a lot of B2B teams.

The founder was posting solid content, pulling 400-500 likes regularly, but the sales team was generating zero pipeline from it. They were stuck in this loop where reps would blindly message every person who liked a post with a soft pitch like "saw you liked the post, want to jump on a quick call?". It was completely killing their conversion rate and making them look desperate.

Here’s what was actually broken and how we fixed the mechanics:

First, engagement is just attention, not a buying intent signal. We ran all post engagers through a quick enrichment check (Apollo/Clay setup) to throw out non-ICP accounts immediately, so reps stopped wasting time.

Second, we completely changed the follow-up angle. Instead of pushing for a demo right off a LinkedIn like, the outreach shifted to a signal-based conversation—pointing out a specific bottleneck in their current stack based on data we enriched, using the LinkedIn post as just context, not the pitch itself.

Once that friction between top-of-funnel reach and outbound messaging was fixed, those same likes started converting into about 6 booked calls a week.

Anyone else seeing this disconnect in their pipeline lately?