Build your brand before your product, or launch first and reveal yourself later?
I've always been on the personal brand side. More and more founders are building it now (sometimes even before the product is ready – while it's still in development, before seed fundraising). The CEO builds their position so the product sells more easily at the official launch.
But I have experience with people who built the product, scaled it, and only then did we discover who was behind it.
Honestly, with the first approach, I'd be concerned that people invest more in me as a person than in the product. People would idealise the founder and overlook the product's flaws (which could hurt development and constructive feedback).
+ I noticed the most common mistake that many people who started building a personal brand first, connected their product to their personal accounts (emails, social media, etc.) and started having a problem selling these things, because they cannot "give someone keys" to their personal profiles.
Which opens the question:
Which approach brings more advantages in your opinion?

Replies
building in public is the middle path imo — you get the credibility of a visible founder without the false-positive problem paige mentioned, because strangers on the internet don't care about you, they care about the problem. the "can't hand over personal accounts" point is real though. from day one separate the product entity (email, twitter, github org) from your personal self, even if you're the only voice behind it. future-you selling the thing will thank you.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@tijogaucher True, and that buildingpulic approach is good when you are starting both (personal + product brand) from scratch.
This has me thinking differently. As a marketer, I'm all for founder-led content, especially on LinkedIn. I've seen firsthand how much growth and visibility a product gains when a human is talking about it versus posting from a company page where someone is essentially interacting with a logo.
I tested both approaches with my first startup. Initially, we hid behind the product; no names in emails, no faces on the landing page. Growth was painfully slow. But by our third pivot, I decided to try something different: I owned the product publicly. I talked lightly about our progress online, showed up at events in our company t-shirt, and suddenly people had a face to attach to the brand. That human element built trust, which drove more signups and opportunities and honestly, made life easier. And this meant more data to make better decisions for future pivots. But this might have been because of the market we were operating in where people don't easily trust tech solutions.
That said, there are exceptions. I'm currently working with a founder who's growing without public visibility, purely through strong personal connections behind the scenes. Interestingly, some of his users still email asking who owns the product because they need that human touchpoint to build trust.
The real challenge I see with building in public now is the bias it creates. Founders get positive feedback not because the product deserves it, but because people have formed a connection with them as a person. I experience this myself following a founder I admire. I support what he does without always evaluating the product objectively.
So while the jury's still out for me, I lean toward visibility. When I launch next, I want people to attach a face to the product's name. But you're right to flag the risk that founders need to distinguish between personal brand loyalty and actual product-market fit.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@emmerita_ambata And did you use LinkedIn for the whole time or did you change channel for that 3rd time?
@busmark_w_nika LinkedIn was one of our channels from the beginning. The third time, my co-founder and I started using our personal LinkedIn profiles to talk about what we were building instead of solely posting on our company page.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@emmerita_ambata personal brands rule indeed. 😎
I feel like the launch first strategy provides much more honest feedback. When people don’t know who’s behind the project, they only judge the functionality and value. A personal brand often creates a halo effect that blinds the founder to real product flaws. It’s great to have audience support, but sometimes it stops you from making a necessary pivot in time. How do you balance personal opinions with actual metrics?
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@elisemartin I do not have any metrics yet (because I do not have product), but will see after I build one. :D
For me this wasn't really a choice, the product decided for me.
I'm building a consumer safety app. Users give me their dietary restrictions, allergens, and what products their kids
and pets use. That's deeply personal data.
There is no "launch anonymously and let the product speak" path for me. Nobody hands over their child's health
information to a faceless product. Trust is a prerequisite, not a growth lever.
So I've been doing both simultaneously. Building the product while showing up in communities like this one as a real
person. Not to build a "personal brand" in the influencer sense, but because in certain categories, if people can't
look you in the eye, they won't use what you built.
I think a real answer to Nika's question can be: it depends on the trust threshold your product demands. A developer
tool can launch anonymously. A product that touches someone's health or safety? You need to be a person first.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@maliikb Can you perceive that people trust your product more when they know you?
@busmark_w_nika Honestly, I'm still early enough that I'm measuring it more in the conversations than in the numbers. When I show up in communities talking about food safety data, not pitching the app, just
sharing what I've found, people engage differently than when they encounter the product cold. They ask questions, share their own experiences, and tell me what they wish existed.
I haven't A/B tested "anonymous launch vs. founder-visible launch" — but I can tell you that nobody has signed up and handed me their family's allergy data without first seeing that there's a real person behind it. That's been the signal so far.
Personally a fan of founders who build in public. Drawing from personal experience, it rewards in quite a few ways:
- Close to grassroot (your brand's actual users)
- Builds a cult following based on personality/principles
- Direct access to valuable feedback
- Higher engagement levels during product launches (nice one PH) and public events
- Instills confidence to stakeholders and potential users
At the end of the day, what really matters is being genuine and take feedback/responses in with a filtered lens to identify what really works and what the people we're building for potentially need.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@je_yue_yip Do you have this approach also with your product?
@busmark_w_nika
The brand I was building great successes with our launch and carried on throughout it's life cycle.
I'm currently working with - Sats Terminal, and it does have this approach, albeit a little differently as we're currently in growth phase with new launches focusing on product features and new verticals.
Totally agreed what you said but i think building a brand before a product launch is toughest part in an entrepreneur journey...
People follow Person not the product...if you have audience...i think your entrepreneur journey is half complete.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@vaibhav_singh53 The best combo imo is when you know how to merge those two into one :)
@busmark_w_nika yes you are right!
I wonder if the answer is “curated vulnerability” — not just sharing wins, but also sharing specific bugs, failed UI decisions, and what didn’t work in testing. That seems like a better way to earn real feedback instead of polite applause.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@justinlee020617 that is build in public but I have seen how many people stopped doing it because competitors copied 1 : 1.
the "can't hand over the keys" problem is real — building everything tied to personal accounts early on is a gift to past-you and a tax on future-you. that said, I think the brand-first approach works if the brand is about the problem space (not you personally). posting about the space attracts the right people without turning you into the product.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@tijogaucher Whent the problem is urgent and strong, and you have a good solution, product brand can overrule even your personal brand (in a good way), of course, it will help a lot to your personal brand too if you are a known maker.
honestly think the mistake is treating "brand" and "product" as sequential at all. the brand that actually helps is the one that builds an audience with the same problem your product ends up solving — so by the time you launch, you're not introducing yourself, you're just shipping what they already wanted. the trap isn't going brand-first, it's building a personal brand disconnected from the domain you want to sell into
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@tijogaucher If the product reflect the problem of the founder, it is better to present it, esp. also from the foudners perspective (he/she is more passionate about the topic) and you feel that vibe :)
It really depends on what you have in hand. If you already have a strong personal brand, use it, you'll have more leverage at launch day, more trust, more reach. But if you don't, don't force it. Go with the product first, let it speak, and the brand will follow. I'd also add, building a personal brand takes years. If you wait for it to be "ready" before launching, you'll never launch. So the real answer is: do both in parallel, but let the stronger one lead.
minimalist phone: reduce your screentime
@luka83184 also it depends what kind of product you offer, ideally, it should match your personal brand, problem and interests :)