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
Ctruh Studio
@anna_ludwinowski Problem-first, every time. But your question surfaced something I wrestle with: what happens when the problem is easy to name but hard to feel in text?
Ours is simple to state, online shopping is stuck in 2D, so shoppers can't truly judge a product before they buy, which kills conversion and drives returns. Easy sentence. The catch is that the pain and the relief are both inherently visual. Describing "immersive 3D product experience" in words does it no justice; you have to see someone rotate, configure, and place a product in their room to feel it.
So my honest takeaway: for some products the problem statement earns the click, but the demo has to carry the emotional weight the words can't. Curious whether you think there's a category of products where "show" genuinely has to precede "tell", or whether that's just an excuse for not naming the problem sharply enough.
@sharun_kanan Yup, that's exactly the tension I'm poking at, though. Notice what you reached for- "Describing "immersive 3D product experience" in words" and "Rotate, configure, place it in your room" are still the feature tour.
What's the actual feeling on the other side of that?
What does the shopper actually get to stop worrying about? That's the sentence I'd want, before the visual even shows up.
Is it relief: "I stopped second-guessing myself", or peace of mind: "I didn't get burned by a $1500 mistake," or something else?
If you can name that in one line, I bet the problem statement gets sharper without needing the visual to do all the lifting. Appreciate your comment :)
Ctruh Studio
@anna_ludwinowski This is the most useful pushback I've gotten in a while, thank you for not letting me off the hook.
You're right, I reached for the feature tour because it's the comfortable thing to reach for. Let me actually take your challenge.
The feeling on the other side, for our shoppers, is: "I know exactly what I'm getting, so I can just buy it." No second-guessing, no returning it later because it wasn't what the photo implied. The relief is the quiet confidence of having already seen it, turned it around, put it in your space, before spending the money.
If I had to name it in one line: "Buy it knowing, instead of buy it hoping."
That's cleaner than anything on our current listing, and honestly it reframes how I should be talking about this. Feels like the visual becomes proof of the promise, rather than the promise itself. Really appreciate you dragging that out of me, this is the kind of clarity I'll actually use.
@sharun_kanan THIS: "Buy it knowing, instead of buying it hoping." That's not just a punchier way to say 3D commerce - that's the actual promise!
I did have a Client call me a Professional Nudger, which I appreciated, lol! But this is exactly why I nudge in these threads - the first answer is almost never the real one, it's just the one that's easiest to reach for.
Ctruh Studio
@anna_ludwinowski "Professional Nudger" is a title worth putting on a business card 😄 And you've earned it here, you nudged me straight past my own marketing copy to the thing that actually matters.
Taking "buy it knowing, instead of buy it hoping" back to the team today. Genuinely one of the most useful conversations I've had on here. Thank you, Anna.
We actually go live on Product Hunt on the 14th, and given you helped shape how I think about the whole pitch, I'd love your eyes on it when we launch. No pressure at all, your honest read would just mean more than most. Either way, hope our paths keep crossing.
@anna_ludwinowski I couldn't agree more.
I recently launched an Android app called Never Miss Meetings, and I learned this lesson firsthand.
At first, I found myself talking about Google Calendar sync, custom alarms, lead times, and all the features. The more I explained what the app did, the less compelling it sounded.
Then I stopped talking about the product and started talking about the problem:
"Have you ever gotten so focused on what you were doing that you suddenly realized your meeting started 15 minutes ago?"
That question immediately resonated with people—especially those with ADHD, time blindness, or just packed schedules.
The app itself is intentionally simple. You select a Google Calendar event, choose when you want to be reminded, and it creates a dedicated alarm for that meeting. That's it.
The product didn't become more valuable. The messaging did.
I think a lot of makers fall in love with their implementation because they've spent months building it. Customers don't care about implementation—they care about whether you understand their pain.
If they immediately think, "That's me," they'll ask how your product works.
If they don't, they probably never will.
@billspaced Haha I TOTALLY thought, "that's me!!" when I read your problem question!! The fact that it's a simple product is great - it removes any friction from the UX. Love this, thanks for sharing!
BetterClaw
Problem-first beats feature-first every single time.
@better_shaya Yup, agreed!
BetterClaw
problem first, always. the launches I stop scrolling for are the ones where I read the first sentence and think "that's exactly my issue." the ones I scroll past lead with a feature list and make me work to figure out why I should care.
that's actually how we think about it at BetterClaw too. the problem we solve is simple... deploying and managing AI agents is still way too complicated. most teams spend more time on infrastructure, security, and server management than on what the agent actually does. we exist so they don't have to deal with that part.
the best performing content I've ever made wasn't about what the product does, it was about the pain it removes. if you can name the problem better than your customer can, they'll trust you to solve it
@tina_chhabra Oh yeah, you KNOW how this works - lead with the problem you solve. You're giving your Clients peace of mind knowing that they can focus on what they do best! This leads to the next question: what's peace of mind worth to someone with this problem? Often we don't fully realize the benefit we bring to our Clients and undercharge for our services/products ;)
BetterClaw
@anna_ludwinowski that's such a good point and honestly something we think about a lot. the peace of mind of knowing your agents are running securely without worrying about infrastructure is hard to put a price on because the alternative isn't just money, it's the hours your team spends babysitting servers instead of building. and you're right about undercharging... most founders price based on what it costs them to build, not what it's worth to the customer. the gap between those two is usually massive
@tina_chhabra Yes, massive! Many don't factor in those HOURS spent babysitting, which are $$$ tied up doing nothing when they could be earning revenue. And THAT'S worth $$$!
I look for the problem/need first.
However, note that some products are solving the problem of a bad existing UX and user interface (think about the goal "to manage virtual private servers" and solutions — via the terminal VS via a cloud panel with a convenient UI), that's where the appearance of the user interface and its presentation matters.
@wvitalik Good point and a problem, no matter what it is, is still a problem. And I suspect that UX problems are very common. Building a solution is one thing for the developer, but making it easy to understand for the user (and non-developer) is quite another.
"Why does it take so long to sift through our database and find the video footage I need and edit it together?"
That is the problem we are addressing. But it is much more internal, for us to always remember and understand. For the user/customer the demo/output would need to sell.
@sean_mcfadden That's a real problem to solve and important internally, for sure. But you still want to include it in your messaging and demo - Prospects still need to know the problem you're solving for them. They may also not always understand what the root of the problem is - they're just focusing on a symptom.
@anna_ludwinowski I usually look for the problem first. A strong demo can make me curious, but if I can’t quickly understand who is struggling and what gets better after using the product, it feels harder to trust the value. The best launches make the problem obvious before they start showing features.
@alpertayfurr Exactly - if it's not clearly obvious, people will move on. Our attention spans are getting shorter - make it clear and capture their attention!
@anna_ludwinowski I agree you Anna, again Congratulations :)
TAM Network solves the keyword filter problem in hiring. a recruiter types react, typescript, aws. a builder who shipped exactly that but wrote frontend, javascript, cloud never makes it past the filter. the resume is a vocabulary test. the work is invisible. our fix is a receipt. one peer signs that the work shipped. one customer signs that it landed. the recruiter reads who signed off and what changed. not keyword strings. v2 launches aug 12.
@thenameisarian This isn't an area I'm well-versed so I'll default to you on this. The only thing I'd really make sure of is whether this is a genuine problem that affects how someone does their work. We want our products to be a must-have not a nice-to-have!
this is the right test. the must have moment hits in three places. one. the candidate side. in 2026 9 of 10 resumes filter on keywords not work. a candidate with the right work but the wrong words gets rejected at the door. that is a must have problem for the applicant. two. the employer side. 30 to 40 percent of new hires fail probation because credentials lied. each bad hire costs over 200k. must have problem for HR. three. the 92 percent of work that linkedin never covered. plumbers, nurses, electricians have never had a portable record. that is the most must have segment because the alternative is no record at all. when receipts replace resumes, all three solve at once. that is the wedge.@anna_ludwinowski
@thenameisarian Well, those are three real problems, but three different buyers with three different urgency levels - that's a lot of wedge for a v2 launch.
If you could only lead with ONE on Aug 12, which one would it be?
Remember, you can always add in more as you gain traction. But we want it to be clear for the Prospect - less friction, more clarity!
For Cova, the problem is specific: fitness apps plan your training as if you always show up at 100%.
They count reps and macros but have no idea of your actual state. Sleep 5 hours, take on work stress, have a heavy week outside the gym, and the plan adds weight anyway. You push through. A few weeks later you plateau or something gives.
Natural lifters past the beginner stage feel this more than most. The margin between enough stimulus and too much gets smaller the more trained you are. Beginners absorb almost anything. Intermediate and advanced lifters cannot.
The product answer is a daily recovery check-in and a plan that responds to what it finds. I built Cova around that one idea.
@oshylabs YES, this is exactly the kind of problem statement this thread is about! You've nailed the specifics and why-it-matters part. My only question would be: do intermediate/advanced lifters know they have this problem? Or do they just experience it as "I stopped progressing" and chalk it up to bad luck or genetics?
Because that gap [between diagnosing the problem and someone realizing they have it] can have a huge impact of the success/failure of a product.
@anna_ludwinowski Honest answer: most do not name it. They feel a stall and reach for the usual levers first, add volume, change the split, blame genetics or age. The recovery and fatigue angle is the last thing they suspect, because every app and influencer has trained them to think in sets and macros. So the job is not to sell a recovery solution, it is to reframe the stall they already feel: you are not undertraining, you are not recovering enough, and here is the signal you missed. Get that reframe right and the problem looks obvious in hindsight. Get it wrong and you are shouting about a problem nobody thinks they have. That gap you flagged is the whole challenge, not a detail.
@oshylabs That gap you flagged is the whole challenge, not a detail - honestly, that's the clearest I've heard anyone put it. Good luck with the reframe!
Problem-first, every time. For OsmO it's almost too easy to name because everyone feels it: your phone has quietly become a source of stress — spam and robocalls burying the calls that actually matter, plus the ones you dread making (the 40-min hold, rebooking a doctor, chasing a refund).
The wrinkle I didn't expect, though: for some problems people have given up on a fix existing. They've normalized the pain — 'phones just suck now, that's life.' When a problem is that normalized, naming it isn't enough; the job becomes giving people permission to expect it solved. 'Your phone can feel calm again' lands harder than 'AI call screening' — the first one challenges a belief they'd stopped questioning.
So my add: name the problem AND the resignation around it. The strongest launches don't just say 'here's your problem,' they say 'you were right to be annoyed — and no, you don't have to live with it.'
@getosmo Oh, yes, you've added the emotional permission layer, which is fantastic and the part I think most Founders miss. Naming the problem clearly is table stakes, but you're right, half the work is making people believe it's solvable again.
Another question to sit with though is: when does giving that permission potentially backfire? Like, is there a scenario where saying "you don't have to live with this" actually makes someone more defensive about their current workaround, or makes them feel judged for having accepted it? It's a delicate dance!
@anna_ludwinowski Great question — yes, it can, and the mechanism is a little brutal: giving permission to hope RAISES the bar from 'resigned' to 'expectant.' A resigned user who never hoped churns quietly. An expectant user you let down churns angrily — you didn't just fail, you broke a promise you talked them into believing.
So I treat the permission as a debt: only grant it for the part the product genuinely nails. I'm comfortable saying 'spam calls can finally feel handled' because that's rock-solid. I'm far more careful implying 'every call, perfectly,' because a miss there lands on trust I just manufactured.
Rule of thumb I've landed on: grant emotional permission only in proportion to what you can actually deliver. Over-grant and you don't create a customer, you create a betrayal; under-grant and you stay invisible. The art is matching the size of the promise to the size of the certainty.
@getosmo That's great - you're further along than many!
But that's the hard part too, right? Because the calibration is internal - YOU know what you can deliver, but the customer doesn't know if you're under-promising or being honest about the limits.
So when you say "spam calls can finally feel handled," how do you show people this? Do you have to be explicit about what won't change (like, "this won't eliminate all spam, but it will stop the ones that actually matter to you")?
Or does the product itself communicate the limits naturally through use? Because I think that's where most products mess up - they grant the permission but don't create a mechanism for the customer to understand the actual scope. So they either never believe it, or they believe it and feel betrayed when it's not a total fix. Neither of which is desirable.
@anna_ludwinowski Exactly the right place to push. Honest answer: don't communicate scope with disclaimers — nobody reads 'this won't eliminate all spam.' Communicate it through the product's first honest moment.
The mechanism that's worked for us: every action comes with a receipt. The AI doesn't say 'I handle your calls,' it shows you 'here's the call I just screened, who it was, and why I let it through or blocked it.' You calibrate from a real instance, not a promise. The receipt IS the scope.
The underrated half: the product has to admit uncertainty out loud. When it's not sure, it says so — 'I wasn't confident about this one, so I let it through.' Admitting a limit in the moment builds more trust than a flawless-looking result, because it teaches the real boundary without a caveat nobody believes.
So the mechanism you're after isn't messaging — it's transparency-by-default in the product: narrate every action, flag your own low-confidence calls. It turns 'trust me' into 'watch me, and judge for yourself,' and you can't feel betrayed by something that never over-claimed.