Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does “building in public” work?

laike9m.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 225 posts

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#41

Post by andyjohnson0 »

pembrook wrote: post #10

Anecdotal, but it seems like all the people who “build in public” end up trapped by their chosen distribution strategy. What I mean by this is, if you’re building in public there’s a 99% chance you’re going to end up building products for other indiehackers who are interested in following people who build in public. This means you’re probably going to end up building yet another micro-Saas dev tool (Saas boilerplate,…

> What I mean by this is, if you’re building in public there’s a 99% chance you’re going to end up building products for other indiehackers who are interested in following people who build in public.

Sounds a bit like a variation on Conway's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#42

Post by axegon_ »

The way I see it, those are just a spin on "I did X for Y months and here's what I learned" articles. Clickbait at best but mostly those are just articles that fill void with words. Whenever I stumble upon those, I am never really buy into them. I am a huge believer in the idea of the American dream but in a functioning economy, this can only work a handful of times. Over the years I've attempted creating a startup and bootstrap it on my own or with a small team of friends and the one thing I've learned from those attempts(see what I did there...) is that it's practically impossible, even if you have the right idea and you get the timing right. Arguably I didn't get the timing right on a few occasions and I was way too early for the party. Had I waited for a few years, those might have picked up but the truth is, I sincerely doubt it. At this point, whenever I land on one of those indie gigs, I instinctively roll my eyes and click away.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#43

Post by voiceblue »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #6

I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now. 1. Being a hacker means walking the world being constantly dissatisfied by all of the inefficiency you see on a daily basis and wanting to fix it. 2. Being a hacker means feeling like most of the software world is fraudulent and you are going to build a solution that actually works. 3. Being a hacker means building something because it is fun or cool.…

> I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now.

I don’t think that’s hacker culture. It’s just the mainstream adoption of hacker culture, don’t let it replace the real thing in your mind. When lots and lots of people started playing candy crush on phones, it wasn’t gamer culture that changed, just the public perception of gaming.

There are still people out there who conform to the description you laid out. Are there lots and lots of them? No. It does seem to be a growing segment though.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#44

Post by bdw5204 »

charlie0 wrote: post #27

If I have to think on first principles, the reason why people are building things in public is because that's just a form of marketing and self-promotion. We're way past tech being the hard part of launching a product. The harder part is building the audience and trying to stand out. Building in public is probably the easiest way to build buzz, gain an audience, and name recognition.

I don't think there was ever a time when you could succeed in the marketplace on the merits of your tech. Once the tech reaches the relatively low bar of "good enough", the rest is sales and marketing. In the most lucrative enterprise market, the "good enough" bar is even lower than in the much less lucrative consumer market because the people who will actually have to use your tech aren't the ones buying it. Technical quality likely matters the most to "customers" who don't pay anything such as users of popular open source projects.

If you want to make money from a good product then becoming a social media influencer who talks about your product is the most straightforward way to advertise without having to pay for ads.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#45

Post by danenania »

pembrook wrote: post #10

Anecdotal, but it seems like all the people who “build in public” end up trapped by their chosen distribution strategy. What I mean by this is, if you’re building in public there’s a 99% chance you’re going to end up building products for other indiehackers who are interested in following people who build in public. This means you’re probably going to end up building yet another micro-Saas dev tool (Saas boilerplate,…

I see your point, but I would disagree with you somewhat.

Every new startup needs to navigate the transition from early adopters to bigger names and/or more mainstream users who give you credibility and higher revenue potential. But it’s almost always done as a stepping stone approach. You need to get the early adopters first or else none of the rest matters.

Doing this is not easy so any conceivable advantage is worth considering. Of course targeting build in public and indiehackers are not the only possible strategies for getting early users, but if it’s working for you, don’t underestimate how valuable that is.

Of course I do agree about going into it with both eyes open and knowing that if you’re successful enough, you will likely have to evolve somehow toward another customer segment. But again, this is almost always the case no matter what your early adopter channels are.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#46

Post by eirikbakke »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #38
sokoloff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no one will pay for the solution, the problem might not be that important.

Well, that pretty much rules out email, maps/navigation, messaging, and quite a bit more. Somehow, this suggests that perhaps your rubric needs amending.

I'd amend it to: "If no one will pay for the solution, the problem might not be that important, or the solution is already commoditized."

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#47

Post by CM30 »

pembrook wrote: post #10

Anecdotal, but it seems like all the people who “build in public” end up trapped by their chosen distribution strategy. What I mean by this is, if you’re building in public there’s a 99% chance you’re going to end up building products for other indiehackers who are interested in following people who build in public. This means you’re probably going to end up building yet another micro-Saas dev tool (Saas boilerplate,…

This is an issue with a lot of online creator communities and people using them for marketing too. Way too many would be authors, artists, game developers, YouTubers, musicians, etc end up marketing their work in communities for their choice of art/project rather than in places their actual audience visits.

Unfortunately as you point out, while that can work to a limited degree, it will usually cap off pretty quickly. Gotta market to customers, not other creators.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#48

Post by chongli »

sokoloff wrote: post #8
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #6

I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now. 1. Being a hacker means walking the world being constantly dissatisfied by all of the inefficiency you see on a daily basis and wanting to fix it. 2. Being a hacker means feeling like most of the software world is fraudulent and you are going to build a solution that actually works. 3. Being a hacker means building something because it is fun or cool.…

If no one will pay for the solution, the problem might not be that important.

Lots of people won't pay for journalism anymore. You'd have a hard time convincing me (or most other people on here) that journalism is no longer important.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#49

Post by goosejuice »

charlie0 wrote: post #27

If I have to think on first principles, the reason why people are building things in public is because that's just a form of marketing and self-promotion. We're way past tech being the hard part of launching a product. The harder part is building the audience and trying to stand out. Building in public is probably the easiest way to build buzz, gain an audience, and name recognition.

Hard part of launching _most_ products. But I agree, I'm not sure content marketing, regardless of topic, can have an actual downside in the majority of circumstances. Maybe just the opportunity cost.

Marketing a product seems easier than ever with social media, however the ocean is much larger.

Moreover the author could have easily written this post as "it's time to rethink 'thoughtleader blogging' and it would fit just as well. Most people don't write this stuff for their own pleasure, they write it for eyeballs. They write it for their readers. In that sense I suspect building in public works as well as blog posts like this for gaining a following. There's no one fits all answer to this.

Re: Does “building in public” work?

#50

Post by switchbak »

sokoloff wrote: post #8
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #6

I really dislike that so much of hacker culture is $$ focused now. 1. Being a hacker means walking the world being constantly dissatisfied by all of the inefficiency you see on a daily basis and wanting to fix it. 2. Being a hacker means feeling like most of the software world is fraudulent and you are going to build a solution that actually works. 3. Being a hacker means building something because it is fun or cool.…

If no one will pay for the solution, the problem might not be that important.

Or: you've built 67% of a solution, and it only really crosses into financial sense for most buyers once you pass 89%.
Post reply on HN