What's the PROBLEM your product solves?
In the month that I've been here, I've been noticing a pattern in a lot of launches - strong demos, polished UI, clear outputs of "what it does."
But when I ask myself "What problem does this solve?" I sometimes have to dig for the answer. (I come by that thinking honestly - I've spent 33 years building and fixing businesses, so this is the lens I can't turn off.)
The products where the problem is obvious are the ones people actually buy - you see it, you go "oh, that's exactly my issue," and you're sold on it.
It also makes pitching easier. If you're clear on the problem, explaining your product to anyone - buyers, other makers, whoever - gets a lot simpler.
And it's a small tweak with a big payoff - naming the problem clearly in your launch messaging can be the difference between people scrolling past and people stopping to actually look.
Curious what others think: when you're checking out a launch here, do you look for the problem first, or does the demo/output usually sell you on its own?
Replies
My first thought is usually, "What gets easier if I use this?" If I can't answer that quickly, the quality of the demo doesn't make much difference.
@brandon_chase Yup, that's a great question to ask. Do you look at it through a particular "easier" lens when you ask that? Just curious if you're looking for faster, simpler, cheaper, something else or nothing in particular?
I agree in most cases, but some products succeed because they create new behaviors rather than solve obvious problems. In those cases, the demo can be more persuasive than the prob statement.
@hudson_reid You make a solid point and one I hadn't considered when I wrote this - I guess it could be solving a future problem, right? So a problem solve AND a demo would be a powerful combo!
@leighton_lauton Ha, a GREAT problem to solve! I'm sure a lot of people can relate to that problem. Do you include that pain problem in your messaging?
@leighton_lauton Oh yeah - THAT'S going to make people sit up and take notice!! Having testimonials that showcase the problem your product solves is GOLD!! Only thing better is a video testimonial ;)
@leighton_lauton Haha, yes, you do - you weren't really that busy, were you?! lol
@leighton_lauton HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
The problem Fluxerv solves: you build something with AI, get code back, then have to copy it somewhere, run it, and keep track of which version matched which note. The output and the thinking behind it live in different places.
Fluxerv puts them on the same page. The note and the working tool are one document.
To your question: I always look for the problem first. A demo without a problem is just a feature. When the problem lands, the demo becomes evidence.
@mpanpalli That last is spot on. And you sharing this point made me realize a problem I didn't know I had yet so thanks for that!
@anna_ludwinowski Glad it resonated! Sometimes articulating someone else's problem helps you see your own more clearly. That's the best kind of conversation.
@mpanpalli Agreed!
I look for the problem first.
If I can’t tell what gets easier, cheaper, or less messy in the first few seconds, I usually move on no matter how polished the demo is. A good launch doesn’t just show what the product does. It makes me feel the friction it removes.
That’s something we’ve had to keep reminding ourselves while building DukieX. The tempting version is to talk about content, memberships, community, products, livestreams, all the moving parts. But the clearer version is usually just: creators get tired of running their business across too many separate tools, and that fragmentation starts costing them time and money.
Once the problem is obvious, the product makes a lot more sense.
@adrian_witaszak Yes, you've clearly put the problem-solve front and centre! Leaning into that friction, making the Prospect FEEL the pain, is what gets them stopping and taking notice. The flip side to that is SHOW what the relief looks like - how will their life/business/whatever be better after they use your product/service.
@anna_ludwinowski Totally agree, and that's the harder half to get right. Naming the pain is easy. Painting the relief without it sliding back into a feature list is the tricky part.
For DukieX the "after" we keep coming back to is boring in a good way: a creator opens one place in the morning and sees who booked, who paid, who's in their community, and what they sold, without stitching five dashboards together or digging through DMs for context. The relief isn't a feature, it's the mental load that quietly disappears. They get to go back to making the thing people actually showed up for.
Honestly that's become our internal test too. If a relief story sounds like a feature, we haven't found the real one yet.
@adrian_witaszak Ha, boring but convenient! Having all that important information in ONE convenient place saves time and bandwidth, which in turn saves $$$.
Have you launched DukieX yet?
@anna_ludwinowski Exactly. And the strange part is that after two years of building, you become the person least able to feel that pain. You get so deep in the features that the friction you started from goes invisible. Our first DukieX customers landing this week has been the reset. What lands with them isn't the feature list, it's the simple fact that running a creator business across five different tools gets exhausting and expensive. That's the thing worth leading with.
I’ve noticed the same pattern.
The products that scale fastest usually don’t start with “what it does” they start with a problem people already feel daily.
In our case, the strongest response we see isn’t from explaining features, it’s from naming the gap: leads are not the problem, speed-to-conversation is.
Once that clicks, the product almost becomes secondary.
Curious, do you think most teams struggle more with unclear problems, or just too many competing problems in their messaging?
@moeez1 That's a keen observation! I'd say it's both - some Founders build without truly knowing what the problem is they're trying to solve for. OR, they're trying to be everything to everyone, solving all the problems. Neither one is sustainable, practical, or profitable.
Solve the ONE problem first. If your audience has other problems you can solve for, that becomes another conversation, product, marketing campaign, company, whatever. If we muddle the message, our Prospects get confused, they don't buy, and no one wins.
@anna_ludwinowski Exactly. Dialbotix does a lot under the hood. AI calls, qualification, booking, CRM updates, but none of that matters if we don't first communicate the core problem: sales teams are spending too much time trying to reach leads instead of talking to qualified prospects. The features only make sense after that.
@moeez1 Ok, that's good but dig a little deeper - what's the deeper pain for those sales teams spending too much time trying to reach leads instead of talking to qualified prospects? What aren't they doing as a result? Why does that matter? What does using your product give them instead?
@anna_ludwinowski The deeper pain is lost revenue. Every hour reps spend chasing unanswered calls is an hour they're not talking to qualified buyers, and many leads go cold before anyone reaches them.
Dialbotix changes that by contacting leads immediately, qualifying them, and booking meetings automatically, so reps spend their time selling instead of chasing.
I built my SaaS to solve two practical problems that cause friction for non-technical teams.
Security. A friend's site was defaced. Securing admin panels is crucial, but forcing non-tech staff to configure complex VPNs or ZTNA creates too much friction.
Migrations. Asking a non-technical user to edit their local hosts file just to test a staging server is confusing and impractical.
@zapimir Those both sound like big problems for those experiencing them - who defaces someone's site?! That's crazy and I honestly didn't even know that was a thing! I'd imagine anything around security is a concern for most of us and we have little understanding of how to protect ourselves. Sounds like a valuable product, Volodymyr.
WebCurate.co
I completely agree with this. Whenever I check out a launch, the first thing I try to understand is the problem it's solving. A polished UI and nice demo can definitely grab attention, but if I can't quickly understand why I would need it, I'll probably move on.
In fact, I think products with an average design but a very clear problem statement often perform better than products with amazing design but unclear value.
@hosseinyazdi I'd agree with you on that - I had a Client spend $30k on a really slick marketing campaign that looked great but didn't bring in any business (she did this before we worked together). And why didn't it work? She wasn't clear on the problem she solved - it was all about her and her credentials, trying to convince people she was the right person to hire - but they didn't know for what!
A sharp problem statement also tells the wrong customer to keep scrolling. That's not a failure, it's the point. The best launch messaging I've seen usually sacrifices broad appeal for instant recognition from the people who actually have the problem. More clicks is easy. Getting the right users is harder.
@jared_salois Great point and one that I see many Founders struggling with. They want to cast a wide net, hoping to catch more Prospects. But it goes back to the saying: when you talk to everyone, you end up talking with no one. Wrong customers scrolling past is what you want - you're not wasting each other's time, which leaves you to help those who really need it!
Receiptor AI
For @Receiptor AI the problem is dead simple but widespread: businesses, finance teams, accountants are wasting time, money and nerves chasing receipts and invoices for bookkeeping, tax returns, and audits.
In one sentence, you have my ICP, the pain we address, and the use cases!
@luigi_receiptorai You NAILED it - that's having CLARITY on the problem you solve!
But here's what I'm wondering: if the problem is that clear and that widespread, why are most businesses still doing it manually? Is it a "we don't know a solution exists" problem, or is there something about the switching cost/behavior change that keeps them stuck even after they know better?