To hire the right folks.

Or at least that’s what I believed.

Until I started noticing a pattern that had nothing to do with hiring. And everything to do with increasing the company page followers.

Nothing illegal. Maybe even low-key smart.

But it sits uncomfortably close to a dark pattern that quietly exploits user intent.

Let me break it down for you.

When you apply for a role, the final step (review) asks you to “Follow the company for updates.”

The box is checked by default.

From LinkedIn’s perspective, that’s one way to bump a brand’s social authority. And its placement works for quite a few reasons:

• The benefit feels asymmetric (“maybe, following helps my chances”).

• The candidate is already in a high-intent, emotionally charged state.

• The action (FOLLOW) required is frictionless (one click).

The outcome is predictable.

The application gets submitted, and the page followed.

Now, you wait for them to view your application and any subsequent response.

But what if there was never going to be a response, or even a look at your application?

That’s the problem.

Some brands use LinkedIn jobs to inflate their follower count, while not even hiring. Yes, they do that.

How do I know this?

Being on the lookout for relevant roles, I’ve noticed a few brands posting/reposting the same roles since ages without closing anyone.

One might argue that they couldn’t find the right person. Fair.

But what if they never reviewed any application in the first place?

Here’s the pattern:

• 100+ applications

• No visible review activity

• No role closure

• Minimal page content

• Yet a steadily growing follower count

Sounds sus now?

There’ll always be folks who misuse a tactic, but there have to be countermeasures, which are missing here.

Right now, LinkedIn doesn’t tell:

• If a role results in a hire?

• How many times was this role reposted?

• What % of earlier job posts converted to real hires?

That’s an opportunity missed, if you ask me.

Now imagine if LinkedIn showed results for each job post, like

• Hiring status: Filled/Closed

• Time-to-hire

• Source-of-hire: LinkedIn/Referral/Other

• Jobs-to-hire ratio

• Average repost count per role

• Hiring conversion rate from LinkedIn applicants

• Glassdoor-like review/rating for companies

This would add trust and improve accountability with candidates.

And sure, it would improve the hiring experience.

As for the brands, hiring is a great opportunity to boost brand value.

And the best way they can do that is by publicly closing the loop.

That means

• Publish hiring insights

• Sharing role retrospectives

• Post “why we did & didn’t hire” learnings

• Hiring BTS, etc.

It’ll only build transparency and, with that, a chance to gain better followers, improve the employer brand (big time), and build long-term trust.

Win-win-win for everyone.

These days, when I open LinkedIn, I see 3 out of 10 posts following this format.

“Comment XYZ, and I’ll send you the playbook.”
“Comment ‘interesting’ for the link.”
“Drop a 🔥 in the comments and I’ll DM you the resource.”

And these numbers keep improving, whether on LinkedIn, X, or elsewhere.

Though the posts are enticing and deliver some value, there’s nothing special going on in the comments section. Well, except an endless scroll of:

• “Interested”

• “Interested”

• “Interested 🔥”

• “INTERESTED”

• “interested pls...”

You see one of these posts, your FOMO kicks in, and you’re riding that ‘Interested’ bandwagon, too.

It feels like muscle memory now.

Sure, it does get a bit annoying, but hey, it works. It works great!

Creators are using this comment-gating or comment-to-access tactic to good effect.

And the audiences get it.

But you still won’t see it as a native feature on a platform like LinkedIn, which may treat it like an underground growth hack, when it’s not!

So, this begs the $million−dollar$ question.

Why hasn’t it been formalized as a native feature yet?

In this article, I’ll shed light on how this lesser-known distribution can become a powerful growth lever.

But first, let’s build on how comment-gating works.

How Comment-Gating Works

At its core, comment-gating is a three-step behavioural loop driven by curiosity and intent.

Step 1: Curiosity-Driven Content

Creators start by posting something that triggers curiosity or perceived value:

• A framework or playbook

• A partial insight

• A before/after result

• A teaser screenshot

• A contrarian take

The post is incomplete by design. It hints at value without fully delivering it.

For instance, here’s a LinkedIn post I engaged with recently.

Step 2: Explicit Comment Prompt

At the end of the post, the creator adds a clear instruction:

“If you want access, comment XYZ.”
“Comment LIGHTNING, and I’ll share the link.”

It initiates a micro-commitment and converts passive viewers into active participants.

Check the highlighted section in the image in Step 1.

Step 3: Asset Delivery via DM

Once the comment is posted, the creator either:

• Manually replies or sends a DM after connecting, or

• Uses automation tools/bots/scripts to detect keywords and auto-respond. It’s where the 3rd-party layer comes in. Things make or break post this step (more on it later).

The asset (playbook, doc, video, Notion link, etc.) is then delivered privately.

Here’s the link I got for Shobhit’s Maven session.

The delivery is where you’re starting a relationship.

It’s inbound, subtle, and powerful.

Comment-Gating: High-Intent Growth Lever

From a growth and lead-generation perspective, comment-gating is unusually powerful. Here’s why:

1. It filters for intent, not just attention

No cold DMs.

No, “Just circling back.”

No 7-step funnels.

People come to you.

You see, Likes are cheap. Views are passive. Even follows can be casual.

A comment, however, especially one with a specific keyword, is different. It’s them saying:

“Yes, I’m opting in. Please talk to me.”

And that’s not just engagement. That’s permission.

It signals:

• Interest in the topic.

• Willingness to engage publicly.

• Readiness to receive more information.

It’s self-qualified intent and not inferred.

2. It adds a friction that improves lead quality

Comment-gating outperforms:

• Link-in-bio

• Cold DMs

• External landing pages

Traditional lead magnets rely on users clicking links:

Click → land on page → maybe convert.

Comment-gating adds friction before access:

User reads the post → decides if the value is worth it → comments publicly → waits for delivery.

Every step filters out low-intent users.

The result: fewer leads but higher-quality ones.

And because the lead comes to you, it becomes easier to sell.

3. It strengthens Creator → Audience relationships

Because delivery happens via DM, it:

• Opens a 1:1 direct channel.

• Eases the follow-up conversation using feedback loops.

• Humanizes the exchange.

Plus, creators can invest more time in high-value assets, improving content quality over time.

And they could measure demand instantly via comments.

Trade-Offs Platforms Are Facing

You may be wondering if comment-gating is so effective, why haven’t platforms embraced it yet?

The answer lies in legitimate platform-level concerns.

1. Abuse & spam risk

Without guardrails, creators can:

• Gate low-value content → more noise.

• Over-prompt comments → annoyed users.

• Turn feeds into keyword farms → eroded trust.

2. Comment quality degradation

For platforms that value “professional discourse” (LinkedIn especially), it becomes a reputational risk.

Here’s another LinkedIn post I engaged with. Lots of comments, as you can see.

When comments become transactional (“XYZ”, “interested”, emojis), the signal-to-noise ratio drops.

Though these threads look busy, they aren’t insightful.

It doesn’t really shout thought leadership.

3. Engagement inflation without depth

Aka fake engagement.

From an algorithmic perspective, though the comment volume spikes, the semantic value declines.

It’s a classic case of distorted ranking signals.

But I’m not sure if LinkedIn cares about it, considering they also have their Puzzle games, which arguably offer little to no value, except boosting vanity metrics.

All said, it’s kinda ironic how comment-gating despite its concerns keeps users on the platform longer.

And this ensures platforms, like LinkedIn get what they secretly want:

• More interactions

• More DMs (which platforms love)

• More session depth

This directly aligns with platform goals, and it’s the part where platforms should go:

“Wait… this helps us too, no?”

Yes. Yes, it does.

Why Comment-Gating Should Become an Official Feature?

It’s ironic how comment-gating keeps users on the platform longer.

And the platforms, like LinkedIn, get what they want:

• No outbound clicks

• More interactions

• More DMs (which platforms love)

• More session depth

This directly aligns with platform goals, and it’s the part where platforms should go:

“Wait… this helps us too?”

Yes. Yes, it does.

The behaviour is already entrenched.

The tooling is already being built, just outside the platform.

That’s usually a strong signal that product-market fit exists, but the product hasn’t caught up.

What a Native Feature Could Look Like

Imagine a built-in “Comment-to-Access” module:

• Creator uploads an asset.

• Selects a trigger comment or button.

• The platform handles comment detection, asset delivery, rate limiting, abuse prevention, analytics, and more.

It would:

• Replace spammy keyword comments with a clean UI.

• Preserve comment quality.

• Give platforms visibility into better intent signals.

• Create new monetization surfaces (creator analytics tools, premium distribution)

It would turn chaos into infrastructure, which is kinda the platform’s job.

But moving ahead from the basics, there are still a few problems that require attention.

There’s:

• No structured follow-up prompt.

• No native conversation thread tied to the post.

• No feedback on whether the user even opened the asset.

• No nudge to continue the interaction.

So the system defaults to:

Trigger → Deliver → Exit

Efficient, but shallow.

And this is what a native feature could fix instantly.

If platforms productized this properly, they could open a ton of feedback loops:

• Add optional post-delivery prompts (“Ask the user what they’re building”)

• Surface DM threads back to the original post context.

• Let creators tag conversations by intent.

• Encourage lightweight follow-ups without feeling spammy.

• Reward conversation depth, not just comment volume.

In other words, you turn this into a new kind of distribution channel.

Until these platforms wise up, here are some housekeeping rules for using this growth tactic.

Best Practices for Creators (Until Platforms Catch Up)

1. Gate only high-value assets

If the asset isn’t genuinely helpful, don’t gate it.

Comment-gating works because it respects the user’s effort.

That comment comes from a place of trust.

Break that trust once, and it stops working.

2. Be explicit about what they’ll get

Specific is terrific.

Avoid any vague promises.

A bad ask looks like, ‘Comment XYZ for something cool.’

And a better one looks like, ‘Comment XYZ, and I’ll send you a 12-page onboarding teardown with real screenshots.’

Clarity improves intent quality.

3. Don’t overuse it

If every other post is gated, you’ll see user fatigue set in.

FOMO works only when used sparingly, when used for:

• Deep resources

• Playbooks

• Templates

• Case studies

Not for shallow content.

4. Close the loop publicly (and open a direct channel)

After delivering the asset:

• Reply to comments.

• Thank users.

• Occasionally, summarise insights publicly.

This keeps the ecosystem healthy and human.

It can get overwhelming if the post goes viral, but still try to close loops.

5. Open a clean direct channel

Once you’re DM’ing, act like a human.

You don’t need a sales pitch.

A simple:

“Hey! Here’s the resource you asked for. Hope it helps.”

Goes a long way.

Dwight Schrute said it best…

6. Avoid the silent drop off

One drawback to this tactic, and the only way people usually fail with this, is by not following up.

Comment captured, link sent, and then?

And then… nothing.

No reply.
No follow-up.
No conversation.
No relationship.

Just a link floating in a DM thread like:

“Here you go 👍”

Fatigue might set in due to the overwhelming response, and creators might feel the job is finished.

But if there are no feedback loops, the bigger opportunity window closes.

And it’s where this system quietly fails.

7. Ask a low-effort, open-ended question

It’s where most people mess up.

They either:

• Ask nothing (conversation dies), or

• Ask something heavy (“What are you building?”) too early.

Instead, ask something easy to answer and directly related to why they commented.

Example DM: Soft engagement question

Out of curiosity, what made you interested in this?
Are you working on something similar right now?

This does three things:

1. It respects context

2. Filters intent naturally

3. Invites conversation without forcing it

If they reply, do not jump into a pitch. Mirror first.

Example Response

That makes sense. A lot of people run into that exact issue.
Which part has been the trickiest so far?

You’re diagnosing, not closing.

And it keeps the interaction functional, safe, and non-threatening.

8. Only offer help when it’s earned

You earn the right to offer something after:

• They explain a problem.

• Ask a question.

• Signal curiosity.

When you get that nod, that’s the time to strike.

Here’s an example transition

If it helps, I’ve seen a couple of ways teams solve this.
Happy to share what’s worked if you want.

But remember, permission first. Always.

And when they do, don’t continue the conversation on a different platform, like email, before asking. It destroys what you’ve already built on one platform.

You don’t want to start from scratch on another.

Final Thoughts

Comment-gating works because it creates a warm, inbound, permission-based conversation.

And it’s a user-invented feature waiting to be legitimized, which is precisely why platforms should start building it properly.

The first platform to formalize it properly won’t just clean up feeds.

They’ll own high-intent engagement in the creator economy.

It feels inevitable, no?

What say you? I’d love to read your thoughts on this.

And if you found this article interesting, comment INTERESTING. 😅

The other day, I was scrolling through my LinkedIn feed and saw an exec share a post about a SaaS startup shutting down.

It's always a sad sight when you hear a startup going down.

But what caught my eye was that he blamed AppSumo.

'AppSumo is a curse for 99% of SaaS founders,' he said. Harsh words.

Frankly, it wasn't the first time I saw someone push AppSumo under the bus for a startup failure. And it probably won't be the last.

But there's always a pattern, as I've found to be the case.

Having had some experience launching lifetime deals (LTDs) for a SaaS startup on similar marketplaces like AppSumo, I am sharing my 2 cents.

And in that, I hope to analyze and answer the million-dollar question.

Is AppSumo at fault for a startup's failure? If yes, to what extent?

But first, let's drop some introductions.

Oh, and there’s a surprise right at the end of the article.

Introducing the Suspects

There are three parties in the equation. You've got

• AppSumo (intermediaries)

• Product (sellers), and

• Sumo-lings (buyers)

AppSumo is THE MARKETPLACE for folks to buy and sell software on a lifetime deal.

Though they sell courses, PDFs, plugins, ebooks, templates, etc., they're better known for their affordable software lifetime deals.

Lifetime deals (or LTDs) mean you buy once and use them forever.

LTDs are like Black Friday sales happening all year round.

Users (or Sumo-lings) go nuts for these steal deals. Who doesn't like an alternative to the pricey category incumbent for a nominal one-time fee?

AppSumo gets a cut from the sales. Users get crazy deals. And startups get some money and users.

A win-win-win, right?

Well, that's what it's supposed to be. But there's more to the story.

To understand things better, you'll need to understand the context of these three parties.

Startup Traits launching on AppSumo

As the talk is about SaaS startups, here are some insights about an average startup launching LTDs on AppSumo.

• The founders of these early-stage software startups are usually first-time founders looking for PMF or user validation.

  • Choose your audience carefully, and not just anyone, for the sake of survival. Your first users shape your product.
    

• Almost all of these up-and-coming software startups have one thing in common: Marketing is not their strongest suit. They don’t have a product-channel fit. Because of that, they rely on AppSumo for traction to acquire their initial set of users.
  

• They have limited pricing control on AppSumo listings.

AppSumo User (Sumo-ling) Traits

AppSumo users are like characters in a TV show with an untouchable character plot.

Here are some insights about an average AppSumo user, sumo-ling.

• Most AppSumo users are freelance marketers and small agencies hunting for ‘value for money’ deals they can re-sell to their customers.
  

• Their reviews (or taco ratings) can make or break your product launch. Good taco ratings, and you’re flying.
  
  Here’s a review of a rising SaaS tool launched in the marketplace.

  

• The majority of sumo-lings are supportive. They’ll help you refine your product and features. But you'll need to face the burden of their expectations in the long run. You'll hear queries about feature limitations, roadmap, feature requests, etc. It will get annoying if your vision has pivoted. And if you oblige, you might have to deal with feature creep.
  

• Users might push startups to offer more credits or team seats through various license tiers to derive more value from the deal.

  • Users don’t respond to subscription-based upsell tactics post-purchase.
    

• Most LTD buyers will barely use the service. They buy, thinking it might be helpful for them in the future, but end up not needing or forgetting about it.

  

  I am no different. Here are some of my LTD purchases from AppSumo. And as you might have guessed, I have only used a handful of these.

AppSumo Characteristics

Here are a few things about the AppSumo platform.

• The marketplace is more user-focused than seller-focused.

  • AppSumo offers a 60-day money-back guarantee to ensure the right fit for users.
    
    You’ll find this notification for almost all paid deals on AppSumo. There are no hidden tricks here.

    

  • They also have a ‘We Got Your Back’ guarantee, which ensures you get a store credit in case a tool shuts down within 1 year of purchase.
    

  • Rather than value-based pricing in sellers' interest, the deals are pushed at a nominal one-time fee to attract more buy-ins from sumo-lings.
    

• AppSumo offers two programs: Marketplace and Select.

  • AppSumo Marketplace is the free version based on the self-serve model.

    • Organic searchability is very low.
      

    • Your product will likely get lost in the competition, which means no sales, revenue, or growth.
      

    • The founder has to work to get shoutouts, mentions, reviews, etc. It's a lot of work, usually to no avail.
      
      But if you do well, your product will be shown in a section on the Homepage, 5-6 folds below. Here’s an example of the rising stars of the AppSumo Marketplace.

      

  • AppSumo Select, their premium gated version, provides more visibility and assistance to your product.

    • It's what you see when you go to their website.
      

    • AppSumo team does your bidding by promoting your product through ads, organic boosts, and a spotlight. 
      
      You can find select products on the first five folds of AppSumo’s Homepage, as shown below.

      

    • They charge much higher for Select than their free version on the sale of a deal.
      

• For the Select program, AppSumo takes around 75% of the sales revenue, subject to negotiations. That leaves around 25% of revenue with the startup.

Sure, it sounds bad.

It makes anyone ask questions about the sustainability of the startup.

And that's what most folks highlight as the death claw of AppSumo.

The argument is that the revenue sharing is so misaligned that it affects the startup's sustainability.

This begs an answer to the question, if the situation is so bad, why would startups want to launch on AppSumo?

Why do Startups prefer AppSumo?

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out why startups would choose to launch on AppSumo.

The answer lies in the numbers. With AppSumo, you get access to

• 3 million + users worldwide.

• 500k+ combined social subscribers and followers.

• A vast affiliate network to promote products.

If that's not enough, big-name launches like Lemlist, Crello, Zapier, Shopify, Dropbox, and Intercom add to AppSumo's credibility.

Startups come for visibility and to take advantage of the platform's enormous exposure.

It's a golden ticket for those who wish to bootstrap and not deal with VCs.

But there's a catch. As there always is.

To leverage AppSumo's exposure, startups must compromise on the revenue share to get users.

This means being okay with getting just 25% sales revenue and a few users.

And we go back to the shouts of startup sustainability.

This 25% might make sense for a product needing little to no maintenance.

But what if there are costs involved for servers, data storage, support, etc?

It won't be long before that 25% goes down to single digits, and eventually, you end up paying from your pocket.

It all comes down to the opportunity costs.

That said, things might make sense if you find relevant users to validate and improve the product.

Some might easily compromise on short-term revenue for the bigger picture.

But if it's just for survival, without any goal or direction in mind, you're just delaying the inevitable—another statistic on the chart.

It’s time to answer the main question.

What blame lies with AppSumo for a startup’s failure, if any?

Is it right to blame AppSumo for a startup's failure?

Jumping straight into it, the answer is probably not.

Here are a few reasons why.

• Nothing Personal. Just Business.

Like themselves, AppSumo is also running a business. And because they're arguably the best among their peers (Dealify, PitchGround, etc.), they charge a premium.

• Cost of Outsourcing Marketing.

Since most startups launching on AppSumo lag in their marketing efforts, they rely on AppSumo for traction.

That's the price you pay for not having a product channel fit. If startups had this figured, they probably wouldn't need AppSumo in the first place.

• Unfair Revenue Sharing?

Sure, a 25-75 revenue split sounds quite scandalous. It makes no business sense.

But nobody talks about how AppSumo does the bulk of the work promoting your product. Of AppSumo's 75% sales cut, they spend quite a proportion on ads, videos, and other promotions. And then there are also platform fees for the platform.

What they’re left with is way less than the 75% cut.

Startups probably aren’t aware of this, or even if they are, due to lack of transparency, this eventually becomes a value perception issue.

It leaves startups wondering how that makes sense. And that becomes a talking point.

But in reality, there are bigger risks that are unaccounted for.

Like the one where AppSumo only earns after a user purchases a software deal. So, they invest in marketing at their risk before seeing any monetary results.

Also, since not all products are winners, AppSumo’s margin further narrows down.

Maybe this business model is necessary for AppSumo's survival. Food for thought.

That said, not everything is black and white.

However, one certain thing is that startups and AppSumo need each other for survival.

And being the big brother, the responsibility falls into AppSumo's lap to ensure startups don't just survive but thrive in the long run.

And why not? AppSumo's success lies in the success of its partners.

You can't easily change user habits, but there are a few actionable stuff both AppSumo and startups can do to ensure maximum success.

Share Bhavik's Startup Creed

What can AppSumo do to ensure that startups win long-term?

Here’s how AppSumo can create a supportive environment for startups, fostering long-term startup success beyond the initial product launch.

1. Help startups set sustainable launch goals

AppSumo needs to help onboard and offboard startups the right way.

Startups need realistic goals focusing on their long-term game rather than just initial sales.

Sure, any startup would want good coverage to initially get more users.

But you need to know when and how much is enough. Or it can quickly become too much to handle.

If a startup isn't ready, more users mean more problems in the shape of bugs, feature requests, UI/UX faults, etc.

And they suffer badly through this vicious cycle that they aren't ready for.

So, setting sustainable goals means you know the right time to unleash and go from an early-stage product with an MVP to a proper product that can support users and itself.

AppSumo can limit the number of codes available to users depending on the startup’s capacity.

And when the goal is achieved, startups need to offboard with clarity.

Finding that balance to grow is what sustainably is all about. And goals help find that balance.

2. Build a community

AppSumo can create a community ecosystem for startups to discuss challenges, share insights, and collaborate on projects.

Startups can benefit from exchanging ideas and receiving feedback within a like-minded ecosystem.

Creating feedback loops through this direct communication channel helps AppSumo refine its product offerings and align with market demands. Also, it helps enhance user engagement and foster loyalty among its partners.

3. Continuous learning and skill development

AppSumo could offer exclusive webinars and access to industry experts.

In addition, they can develop a library of online courses focused on essential skills such as marketing, fundraising, and product development.

4. Offer Transparent Pricing

AppSumo can improve its pricing models in relation to user offerings.

For starters, the two-month refund period for users can be halved if other guarantees, like ‘we got your back’ assurance.

As for the revenue split, AppSumo can share the actual split percentage after running promotions and other associated costs.

It would improve the value perception and not leave people guessing.

Final Thoughts

People can blame AppSumo all they want for the failures of a software startup.

However, the reality of the situation is not that simple.

That said, no startup should feel hard done for their AppSumo launch experience.

Startup founders need to be savvy enough to know what they need from this collaboration. That means setting the right goals and understanding that AppSumo is the means to get to the goal, not the goal itself.

As for AppSumo, its success lies in the success of its partners.

So, they must create a robust ecosystem that hinges on the collective responsibilities shared amongst themselves, startups, and users.

And possibly, we might see a win-win-win scenario.

Edit 1: Chief Sumo, Noah Kagan read my article, and wrote out to me on LinkedIn and X to share their side of things. I was low-key surprised he read and replied. Here’s a screenshot of one of his message.

Very well thought out and executed. Admirable stuff.

Bravo! Honestly, Bravo!

Although, I can't shake the feeling that it's low-key a scam for its collaborators.

Okay, it's not an actual scam, but it sure feels that way when you look at the ROI.

And now, with their latest development, this return sees a new low. If there were a TL;DR version, it would read, 'Terrible before, hopeless now.'

Being an early collaborator, I thought I’d highlight the good, bad, and ugly sides of the game.

So, let's explore what makes LinkedIn's collaborative articles a brilliant growth tactic. And how they've dodged suspicions of a clever scam.

But first, some groundwork for the hero of this piece.

Introducing LinkedIn Collaborative Articles

When you think of articles published on LinkedIn articles, there are essentially three types, including

• User-generated and user-distributed articles, just like this one.

• LinkedIn News, which is company-generated and distributed by the LinkedIn team and users.

• Collaborative articles, which bring together both parties (LinkedIn and users) for content generation and distribution.

LinkedIn's collaborative article tag-teams AI efficiency with community expertise to create informative and reliable articles.

The keyword is expertise, and the LinkedIn algorithm decides who the expert is.

You get a notification inviting you to contribute.

Something like this.

The topics are suggested based on your profile preferences. If you’ve mentioned you’re interested in content marketing, like I did some time back, you’ll be suggested the same.

But herein also lies one of the flaws. More on that later.

But Wikipedia vibes, much?

You open the notification, and you end up on the article draft.

This AI-content draft, courtesy of LinkedIn's editorial team, is primed for SEO.

There, you have the Expert Contribution section, which might have no contributions, or you might see other experts share their points.

As a contributor, you expand the initial draft, offering unique perspectives and knowledge.

And if you do it well enough, regularly, you get rewarded. Or you used to get rewarded.

Here’s the stakes LinkedIn presents for contributing to the articles.

Enticing?

Hold that thought.

First, here's why I admire their strategy so much.

LinkedIn's Collaborative Articles Growth Strategy

Let me start by saying it’s Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!

LinkedIn's collaborative articles use content content loops to acquire new users and engage existing users.

The beautiful thing about it is the scale at which they have done it.

Here's what it looks like...

Acquisition using Content Loops

LinkedIn's collaborative articles use content loops to attract users by leveraging SEO.

LinkedIn uses AI to publish a half-cooked, draft-like article and invites users (community experts) to expand on it with their insights and knowledge.

Every published article follows a template optimized for on-page SEO, with optimized header tags (H1, H2, and so on), meta tags, etc.

Programmatic SEO on display.

Basically, everything is set for the articles to get indexed and rank on Google.

Any random person searches for a specific query related to his profession, sees the article, finds it helpful, and signs up for LinkedIn. And sooner, he’s contributing to these articles, too.

That’s the loop.

But why do I call it brilliant? Here’s why.

Why is LinkedIn’s collaborative article’s UGC loop special?

What sets LinkedIn’s whole operation apart is its contributors. And their valuable contributions.

Search engines, like Google, use 200+ ranking factors to push the best content at the top of SERP.

One such critical ranking factor by Google is E-E-A-T.

E-E-A-T stands for Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness.

You can find the dots connecting here.

LinkedIn possesses all the right tools to leverage these factors via contributors.

And that's what we see with the Collaborative articles. It's just professionals sharing

• thought leadership content

• their experiences and anecdotes

• industry insights and expertise

• advice for peers and newcomers

• results of their experiments

That checks their boxes for E-E-A-T.

Plus, these articles answer very specific questions that people might be looking for an answer to.

Who better to answer than subject matter experts?

These specific queries might not have huge search volumes, but high user intentions, yes. That makes it easier to rank.

And that's why contributions from relevant folks make these articles helpful.

These points are enough to set LinkedIn's organic content game on another level.

Add LinkedIn's high domain authority score to the mix, and you'll find they're cooking!

You're looking at LinkedIn ranking for a ton of keywords. Maybe not now, maybe not soon, but they'll be there.

And here are some numbers to tell you the scale at which they are operating.

LinkedIn Collaborative Articles in Numbers

• Wide Range of Categories

As per my calculations, LinkedIn covers a mammoth 2097 categories for its collaborative articles.

And every category has again a ton of topics inside. Talk about their content tree and keywords for which they want to rank.

Here are some topics for the B2B marketing category.

You can explore all the LinkedIn collaborative article categories in alphabetical order, starting with the letter A.

• # Indexed Articles

As for the number of articles on Google, we have 326k articles indexed between 3 March '23 and 30 September '24 (577 days).

• # Average articles published daily

  If my numbers are correct, that averages around 565 articles published daily. Imagine the cost and time of doing it yourself.

And a cool thing about these articles is that they'll keep getting edited by an expert who wishes to enhance it. So, the average number of words per article keeps increasing.

These content loops don't just drive new users in. They engage the existing users, too. Here's how...

Engagement (and Retention) using Habit Loops

LinekedIn's collab articles use manufactured habit loops amplified by the network effects.

The user gets an in-app notification requesting contribution on a topic.

This cue triggers the user into action.

The users contribute with their expertise on the topic.

And then the community takes care of things, ensuring guaranteed viewing, reactions, and even content sharing.

In the end, there’s the reward of being seen as an expert in your category.

And, of course, boost the personal brand.

If nothing, there’s always the selfless valor of a volunteer. The unappreciated messiah.

But let's be honest, the primary motivation for the majority has always been earning the Community Top Voice (Gold badge).

It makes your profile special. And looks good.

Getting the badge is a work.

To attain the badge, you must contribute regularly to earn a chance at it. And it does take a while if you're at it.

But there's a twist.

Even after you do get one, you'll still need to contribute regularly to maintain it on your profile. No lifetime guarantees.

Talk about the returns...

If it feels like a scam, you might be right.

Despite that, people contribute happily. As did I. It was all about the badge. The bloody badge!

Honestly, it's such a clever growth loop.

And it gets even better.

As I mentioned earlier, I was also a collaborator. While writing this piece, I thought I'd check out my earlier contributions. And this is what I see.

Touché, LinkedIn! Touché!

Top 6%, yeah, right!

It almost enticed me (an inactive contributor) enough to jump back into the game. I even wrote a post about it because I was going all in. And then I had to scratch that because of what I found soon after.

It makes you feel like that dog who salivates when he hears the bell ring. And it all comes down to these loops.

Anyhow, off we go to the big reveal ahead!

It's time to lift the curtains...

Why the Big No to LinkedIn Collaborative Articles?

Here are some reasons I find the collaborative articles a scam.

1. Where’s the Motivation?

It was never collaborator-friendly.

When you think about the biggest motivation for contributing to the articles, there's only one correct answer.

It's the Community Top Voice Badge. Your credibility slogan. Your bragging rights source on your profile. A happy place for some.

Here’s Jim Carrey describing what it means to get the Community Top voice stamp.

Now comes the problem.

If you think earning the badge is a challenge, which is quite the case, retaining it is a whole other battle.

And if that doesn't help, the badge is valid for 60 days only.

Then, it gets re-evaluated to see if you're still worthy.

If you wish to keep the glorious badge, you must contribute regularly, even after earning it.

Or it's back to square one.

It's like feeding a hungry wolf that's always coming for more. And once there's no food, you're the food.

You're trading your experience and knowledge for an opportunity to get a badge.

The odds are stacked highly against you.

And that's the reason it feels so scammy.

But none of this matters after I found out about this latest development.

As it happens, the LinkedIn team is scrapping the ever-desirable Top Community Voice badge. Gone in the wind. Just like that.

It makes me wonder, where's the motivation now?

2. Who Owns it?

The platform doesn't belong to you. You're a resident encountering algorithms. Just a number to their stats.

Even the content you contribute kinda belongs to LinkedIn.

You're essentially doing a free internship.

It's because you write, they get free content, and they acquire new users. There is only one winner here, especially now.

And so, the question arises. Are you getting enough returns for your efforts? Think about it.

The answer for me is no.

And that's why I started my website. The content belongs to me. I'm the sole owner of the badge. I control the platform. And it helps build my brand.

But all’s not gloomy. There's always something you can take away.

And it's one of the best things to come out of this mess.

You get access to the content tree, which has a ton of topics you can write about. LinkedIn has done the homework for you. Just plug in and play.

3. Cases of folks Gaming the system

As I've found to be the case, you might be competing with some folks who are contributing to these articles using just ChatGPT.

Talk about garbage in, garbage out.

What you’re left with is a ton of subpar content that’s useful to nobody. Think of it like feature creep.

I’d like to coin this term as content creep.

As for you, your good stuff might get lost in the pile of average contributions.

There's that risk.

It's also one of the reasons why LinkedIn retired the Community Top Voice badge.

Here’s the official announcement.

It’s quite frustrating for some members.

Here's one of my connections venting one out while raising a good point.

You're not alone, brother! You're not alone.

Life After Community Top Voice Gold Badge

The community's top voice gold badge is gone.

Long live that beautiful badge. The source of the bragging rights for many...

As the dust settles, one might wonder what the future looks like for LinkedIn's collab articles.

Here's a look at what comes next and the potential ramifications for LinkedIn and its users.

1. Losing Face

LinkedIn losing the contributor's trust is the worst thing to come out of this fiasco.

Contributors, especially the ones holding the badge, can be considered the power users of the platform.

With the time they've spent on contributions, hurting them hurts the platform, too.

Most users will think twice before engaging in any such future activity, but engagement should fall in the short term.

2. Drop in User Engagement

Naturally, we should see a significant dip in user engagement, which relied heavily on the badge's charm to drive participation.

The primary motivation for the majority has always been to gain visibility through the badge.

Without that incentive, LinkedIn faces challenges in maintaining a similar engagement level.

This brings me to the first positive thing that came out of this.

3. Improvement in Content Quality

As the adage goes, 'There is nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer.'

Though most users might disengage, there'll always be those who contribute nonetheless—love for the game, I guess.

With the biggest incentive out of the picture, it should also remove the imposters. And if you recall, contribution quality (and auto badge rewarding) was the main reason LinkedIn retired the badge.  

With the bad apples gone, some good might also leave the picture.

However, those who remain will likely be genuine experts passionate about sharing wisdom.

Over time, this could increase trust among LinkedIn users, who can confidently rely on the expertise shared on the platform.

Plus, it reinforces LinkedIn's reputation as a genuine thought leadership content hub.

But there has to be some return down the line for contributors.

Here are some things LinkedIn can do in that direction.

4. Improving Engagement Strategies

LinkedIn may need to develop new strategies to counterbalance the decline in potential participation while encouraging contributors to stay.

This could be as simple as

• Increasing organic impressions of article contributions to 2nd-degree and 3rd-degree connections of the contributors.

• LinkedIn team creating and nurturing experts from various niche communities.

• Rewarding the blue Top Voice badge (the only available badge that's invitation-only and curated by LinkedIn's editorial team) to individuals/contributors who consistently contribute insightful content.

What other things do you think LinkedIn can do to keep users engaged?

Conclusion

LinkedIn's collaborative article combines AI efficiency with a highly relevant human touch.

The model fosters community engagement and highlights thought leaders within specific domains, promoting authoritative dialogue and knowledge sharing on the platform.

What sets it apart is that it targets relevant folks for answers, which fulfills Google's EEAT algo requirement.

This puts their pSEO efforts in the winning zone, doubled by their domain authority.

However, this raises a big question because the model relies heavily on users to contribute.

And why would someone write for them? Is the incentive enough for a user to contribute? Or it’s not about the game anymore?

For some, the answer might be a yes. For most, maybe not.

But it has to be said that incentives do add a fun element to it.

What's your take on this?

"What if we create a product with lots of cool features that solve all our users’ problems? An all-in-one solution. A one-stop-shop kinda thing. They won't have to go to any other places. Trust me, people will thank us while paying for a subscription. Think big!"

– Founder of a statistic startup (aka failed startup)

While it's a whole other story of what happens when you widen your audience and create an all-in-one solution, this one is limited to just the features.

Specifically, the effects of too many features on your product. And your users. And your team.

Welcome to another article in the startup noob series.

This one talks about one of the leading causes that kill products – Feature Creep.

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that more features equal more value.

But this treacherous path only leaves your users biting off more than they can chew.

And it all starts with shipping out ‘just one more’ feature.

Let’s explore what one more feature does to your lineup – introducing feature creep.

Feature Creep: The Slow Boil 🥵

Definition

Feature creep involves gradually adding features beyond the original project scope.

And that's why it's also called scope creep.

This is often done without proper alignment with core objectives, eventually causing a bloated product.

The slippery slope of the feature creep leads your product to the infamous 'complicated to use' tag.

And so, anything not adding to a positive product experience or the core value proposition contributes to feature creep.

Once you realize the nature of feature creep, you’ll not find it limited to just the features.

You’ll notice overwhelming messaging on the website, social platforms, emails, basically everywhere…

But all's not bad. At least not initially.

The backdrop of a feature creep starts with the best intentions.

How does Feature Creep Happen?

1. Customer Demand

“So, I talked to our user, and they said if we add these features, they’ll definitely purchase a subscription.”
"We should listen to that user and create the said feature."
"Well, if he’s gonna pay…”

The customer is always right, right?

Naa… Not always.

Especially if they don’t fit your target audience profile.

And even those who do fit the bill, you can’t always take their suggestions. The user request should align with your core vision and make business sense.

You can start by understanding the actual problem the user is trying to solve.

PRO TIP: The best feedback comes from paid users and not all subscribers (including free users). Even from that group, the input from the newest paid users is more valuable. That's because you keep refining your strategic vision as you grow, and this new group is best aligned.

2. Team Enthusiasm (and Intuition)

Anton Ego from Ratatouille once said, 'Not everyone can share great ideas, but a great idea* can come from anywhere.'

The *asterisk represents ideas backed by proper research.

PRO TIP: Build a culture of research and testing the hypothesis. Intuition is the enemy of data. And data is king!

3. Competitive Pressure (and FOMO that comes with it)

   

"Our competitor added this new feature, and it’s really cool.”
"I feel we should, too, or we’re potentially leaving money on the table for them.”
"Yeah, definitely. Their last one was a hit, too; we can’t miss this one.”

Here's a classic example of how peer pressure can lead to silly product decisions.

Seeing rivals push out feature after feature forces you to do the same without a strategy.

It stems from the fear of missing out on the glory if you don't include that 'one more thing.'

Soon, you're left with a bulky, commoditized product that users will ignore.

Consequence of Feature Creep

• User Churn
  When the user sees a lot of features that they don’t use, they feel like they aren’t getting their money’s worth. Nobody wants to pay for features they don’t use.
  
  As such, your product’s overall perception of value goes down. And that’s when users might leave.
  

• Diluted Vision

  It always starts with that one bad feature, and if ignored, it spoils the whole experience. Eventually, the real you and your story get lost.

  

  PRO TIP: Define and stick to your vision when building features. If they don’t match, drop that feature like it’s hot.
  

• Complex User Experience

  Too many options only confuse the users. Minimalism FTW!
  
  Even if there’s just one lousy feature, your 5-star product loses a star in reviews.
  

• Resource Drain

  

  Naturally, development and maintenance costs will skyrocket. Team burnout will become a theme.

Examples of Feature Creep

• Originally celebrated for its electric cars, Tesla began incorporating more tech features like autopilot, in-car gaming, and AI-driven enhancements. Why even?

  

  This distraction from its primary mission has occasionally landed it in hot waters over quality and safety concerns. However, an avid gamer might argue that Witcher 3 is worth it.
  

• Snapchat originally captivated users with its unique disappearing messages.
  
  However, trying to compete with Instagram, it started adding many new features, from augmented reality filters to news channels, that left users feeling overwhelmed and even alienated some of its core base.
  

• LinkedIn’s puzzle games are another example. Do these games add to LinkedIn’s core value prop? Not really. So why are they here? Features added without much thought or a clear goal are doomed.
  
  PS: I enjoy playing Queens…

  

Feature Creep Irony

You might argue that launching new features presents bigger opportunities than threats.

Fair enough! There’s always an opportunity.

But what if it's dipped with an irony that happens to be the hard reality of the game?

And here lies my itch with this.

Users don’t even use all the features.

At best, they’ll use only 15-20% of available features. Again, at best.

Drawing from the Pareto principle, 80% of users use only 20% of these available features.

Using the Pareto principle again, we see that 64% of people use only 4% of the features.

These numbers indicate how most users come for only a small percentage of specific features.

These 4% features are the real money makers.

Yet, we keep diluting the value.

Nobody comes for an all-in-one solution but the solution to one particular problem.

Feature Fatigue: The Weariness 😩

Definition 

Feature fatigue occurs when the end-users become overwhelmed with the sheer number of features available.

Instead of being excited by all the possibilities, users get exhausted.

They can't take it anymore.

If lucky, they stick (for a while) to a few features, solving their use case.

Worse, they abandon the product entirely.

And leave you a parting gift of poor reviews.

How does Feature Fatigue Happen?

Though bad UI/UX adds to the plot, it’s essentially the unwanted features that raise the flag.

Imagine opening an app and being bombarded with a ton of information.

That’s cognitive overload in action.

Your first reaction probably is Nope!

A braveheart like yourself might try navigating through this mess before calling it quits.

But if you’re like me, you’re signing out, never to return. And the reviews, of course.

Consequence of Feature Fatigue

• User Dissatisfaction
  Engagement drops if users have to make extra efforts to sift through unnecessary stuff to find what they need.
  
  And that’s just the problem at your end. Imagine if the users have bad internet.
  

• Decreased Adoption
  New users may feel intimidated or put off by a complex product, hindering activation efforts.

  

  The first impression is the last impression, after all…
  

• Usage Decline
  Even loyal users might abandon the product if navigating it becomes a chore.

Examples of Feature Fatigue

• Consider Microsoft Office, which evolved from a groundbreaking suite to a labyrinthine mega-tool. The advent of features like Clippy, the animated paperclip assistant jumping on your screen every few minutes, added complexity and annoyed users more than it helped.

  

• Canva is another case of Feature fatigue now. With so many app integrations and AI at the front, there are so many features that it feels like they are shoved in the faces.
  
  And they keep coming up with more. I feel I want only a few of them.

  

• Spotify is facing user fatigue as it keeps layering on new features like podcast recommendations, video content, and social sharing options.
  
  Long-time users looking for a simple music-streaming experience often express frustration over the platform's increasingly cluttered interface.
  

• When I talk of movies, whenever I hear about a new Fast & Furious movie, my first reaction is, ‘Another one? Aren’t they tired yet?’
  
  You might be a fan, but that series should’ve stopped many movies ago.

  

Feature Overload: The Avalanche 🗻

Feature overload is the tipping point where the sheer number of features makes the product overly complex and difficult to use.

User experience? What user experience?

Your product is trying to do too much. It no longer feels about solving the user's problems but showing off what it can do.

The fate is pretty much decided—game over (soon)

How does Feature Overload Happen?

Feature overload often results from a lack of clear prioritization over a period.

This lack is not a one-off thing but a series of issues accumulating over time.

It's the product equivalent of hoarding—collecting features without purging what's unnecessary or less valuable.

Consequence of Feature Overload

• Steep Learning Curve

  Existing users might need help navigating lots of features.
  

  You open the app and feel all these features shoved in your face. It adds to the product friction or -ve Psych.
  
  Users will leave for less.

  For new users, aim for a low TTV (time to value), which ensures they get value faster after signing up.
  

  PRO TIP: For newly acquired users, you solve one big problem. Don't show your armory; just one big trick. You usually have a 5-minute window, maybe less, to show what you can do. Put your best foot forward.
  

• Performance Issues
  An overloaded product can be slower, buggier, and more prone to crashes.
  
  As for the developers, there'll be too many fires to put out. And though it’ll feel alright initially, in the long run, you’ll see burnouts.

  

• Burnout
  Your teammates will get mentally drained, putting fires out constantly. This is usually followed by them jumping ship.

Example of Feature Overload

• The feeling of finding hundreds or thousands of unopened emails in your inbox. Yep, that draining feeling.

  

• This Microsoft Word doc feature set gives me PTSD…

  

• If you think the Microsoft team is a menace, here’s a look at some of the Google apps, such as video conferencing, file sharing, app integrations, and more.

While this makes it a comprehensive tool, users frequently comment on its steep learning curve and the overwhelming number of functionalities, which can be counterproductive in fast-paced work environments.

• Slack made its name as a simple, effective workplace communication platform.
  
  However, as it added integrations, automation, and complex settings, users began finding the platform cumbersome and confusing, reducing its usability.

  

To summarize it all:

Feature creep is the cause,

Feature fatigue is the user reaction, and 

Feature overload is the product's overly complex state.

How to Solve the Issue of Feature Creep

Since everything starts with feature creep, solving it will help us navigate all these problems. Easy…

We’ll look at two scenarios.

A common theme for both involves acknowledging the issue. Own it.

There's never been any problems with products that don't know what's wrong with them. And so, acknowledging it is the first step toward navigating the mess.

Avoiding Feature Creep when Starting

1. Define and Stick to Your Core Vision

   Always begin by asking if the feature aligns with your core vision. Your core vision is your North Star, your guiding light in the storm of feature requests.
   

   Every new feature should pass the "alignment test." If it passes, proceed with caution. If not, toss it into the "nice-to-have" bin.
   

2. Data-Driven Decisions

   Numbers don't lie. Use analytics to find what features genuinely add value. Implement analytics and heatmaps to see which features customers use.
   

3. Feature Prioritization Frameworks

   Implement readymade frameworks for prioritizing features, like

   • RICE (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) framework,

   • MoSCoW (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have) framework,

   • Eisenhower matrix (Urgent/Important).
     

4. Customer Feedback Loop

   Customer feedback is crucial, but not all feedback is the same.
   

   Balance qualitative insights (like customer testimonials) with quantitative data (like usage metrics) to determine if a feature request is a need or a nice-to-have.
   

   Use the Icebox method to store all non-critical feature requests in an "icebox" for future consideration. It's you saying, "Sure, we'll think about it," but not right now.
   

5. MVP Mindset

   Aim to iterate your product, keeping releases minimal and impactful. The goal is to launch early and often but never half-baked.
   

6. Prioritize User Experience

   Focus on how features improve or complicate user interactions. Bad UX makes the best of features rot and gets you bad reviews.
   
   It’s one of the ‘could a 5-year-old do…’ scenarios.
   

7. Resource Check

   Always ask if you have the resources in terms of money, time, and people before green-lighting additional features.
   
   Going for multiple features at a time stretches your team thin.

Dealing with Existing Feature Creep

Here’s how you can get out of quicksand.

1. User Testing

Conduct usability tests to see which features are actually used and appreciated.

Send users through the gauntlet of your bloated product. Identify which features they find essential and which they'd gladly toss overboard.

It’s like doing a Max Diff Analysis to find the best ranking features. The rest can be pruned.

2. Feature Pruning

Ruthlessly cut down features that don't add significant value. Nobody will miss them.

Or you can hide them where only few can find.

3. Refocus

Revisit your original mission. What was your North Star? Has something changed?

If yes, Pivot! Realign your product to this guiding light.

Conclusion

Feature creep, or scope creep, involves gradually adding product features that go beyond the original scope of a project.

Feature fatigue occurs when users become overwhelmed with too many features, leading to dissatisfaction and disengagement.

Feature overload is when the sheer volume of features makes the product overly complex, impairing usability and effectiveness.

All three present unique challenges, but their prevention lies in a unified strategy.

By staying focused on your users, mission, and brand, you can build a feature-rich product that users will value.

Anything that adds to the core value of your product is good. Everything else can go away.

Less is more when quality bids quantity.

Your users don't need a product that can do everything. They need a product that can do the relevant things exceptionally well.

What’s stopping you now?

Leave a comment

PS: How can I end this one without one of my all-time favorite songs, Creep by Radiohead? Here’s my favorite version of the song by Korn.

Until next time…

If there were ever a startup noob mistake 101, this is it.

And it sounds like...

"Our product is unlike anything else. It solves everyone's problems. So, we target everyone."

Sounds cute, doesn't it?

Six months later, you’re left scratching your head, wondering why you haven’t sold anything.

And so, a word to the wise: choose your target audience wisely, or you're doomed!

The first step towards that wisdom is not going after all.

Because if you cater to all, you cater to none.

If everyone is your audience, you're already a stat for businesses that didn't make it. You just don’t know it yet.

You can have the best product and a ton of resources at your disposal, but all that goes to the bin if you don’t focus and go after everyone.

If anything, it’s a mirage at best.

The ‘Everyone’ Trap

When starting out, it's pretty tempting to think, "Why not sell to everyone?"

The bigger the TAM (Total Addressable Market), the more dollars you can earn, right?

Money! Money! Money! 💰💰💰

Not so fast.

It might sound simple, but things don't work that way. This is what they like to call in Bizz, the ‘everyone’ trap.

When you try to appeal to everyone, you end up appealing to no one.

In addition, you position yourself to compete against everyone– a battle you can’t win.

Your message becomes so diluted that it's now more of a noise.

It’s so bad that some people even pay to phase out that noise. I did it with YouTube Premium.

Now, if by some miracle, even if you get users in, they won't do you any good.

You're looking at loops of bad feedback.

Your costs will increase. Your users will churn. Your motivation will drop. And eventually, your product will fail.

Disaster after disaster.

That’s my attempt to paint a grim picture of this ‘what if’ scenario…

But that’s just what happens on the outside.

This broad market fallacy also portrays a similar picture for your internal team.

Spoiler: your team will leave you faster than a cat at a dog convention.

Internal Effects of Choosing a Broad Audience

Here's what happens internally when you don't go after the right audience.

• Product Marketers (PMM)

Forget about targeting everyone; even if you choose the wrong target audience, your customer liaisons will find your positioning and messaging not resonating with anyone. Low-quality random MQLs and SQLs will follow.

• Growth Team

They'll find that customer acquisition costs (CAC) skyrocket and lifetime value (LTV) plummet. Users who do sign up won’t activate, and if they do, by any chance, it’ll be a churn-fest.

• Product Managers (PM)

They’ll look at a mix of good and bad requests/suggestions, though mostly the latter. This will only lead to a poor product roadmap where you deprioritize the vital stuff. What follows is pivot after pivot to regain a sense of vision.

• Engineers

Wrong inputs mean they'll create features that nobody will use. Soon enough, you're left with feature creep, leading to a bloated product.

• Sales

Sales folks would find it hard to personalize paint points to sell because of user variety, each needing solutions to different problems with a different story. Conversions drop… if there are any.

• Customer Support

They'll be looking at so many problems that they won't know which thread to follow.

Problems galore!

You don't have to guess what happens when so many things go wrong.

But it usually starts with people getting fired or abandoning the ship.

And that’s why less is more. But why?

Why Less is More ft. Target Audience

Call it the magic of specificity, but focusing on a narrower audience enables you to tailor everything to meet user needs.

Personalized marketing >>> Generic marketing.

When you talk directly to your target audience, you can speak their language, address their pain points, and offer better solutions.

Your resource allocation improves as there aren't too many fires to extinguish.

Oh, and in case you find something is not working, you can quickly pivot.

Here are some brands who've been there and done that.

• Facebook (now Meta)

In its initial days (2004), Facebook was limited to only Harvard students. By 2012, they had 1 billion MAUs. Imagine if they went global on day 1, we'd still be using MySpace.

• Uber

Uber launched in San Francisco, and city by city, they went global. And it took them just three years. Imagine if they launched globally on day. We’d still be standing on street corners, waving frantically for cabs that might never show up.

• PayPal

Before finding a product-market fit with eBay sellers, PayPal only had around 10k random users. After they switched focus to only eBay sellers, their user base grew to more than 5 million within a year (1999-2000).

So, it's all about finding your niche and zeroing in on your best-performing segment.

Targeting all is the worst.

Targeting many is a close second (worst).

Generally, the narrower the target audience, the better.

Of course, there needs to be potential in the market with users willing to pay if you decide to go narrow.

So, how do you conquer the world when just starting out?

How to Capture Broad Audiences When Starting?

The answer to that question is simple.

Wedge!

Wedging means that to win the whole market, you must first capture a tiny part of it, enabling you to win it all.

This small part of the larger audience should have enough potential, with users willing to pay for your product or service.

So, what does a wedge look like?

This can be a product wedge, like PayPal becoming a consumer fin giant after initially focusing only on creating an online payments ecosystem for eBay sellers.

It could also be a market wedge, like Facebook, starting at Harvard before expanding globally. You can think of other examples, like Uber, Amazon, and Airbnb, that started locally before expanding.

Simple.

Though some might argue it’s no piece of cake.

Once you understand this, you’ll realize all your favorite brands initially catered to a small section (wedge) before expanding.

Here are some top brands and their wedges from Lenny’s article on picking a wedge.

So, to go to level 100, you'll need to grind the lower levels.

This grind finds its way through market and customer research, building feedback loops, and experimenting to the top.

Eventually, you’ll build something that a segment will appreciate and be willing to pay you enough to expand to a different segment as you grow.

And repeat.

Here’s a video of what wedge looks like in real life. It’s from the Sasquatch Music Festival 2009.

So, focus on one before going after many.

That’s why the great business sage Confucius once said,

The journey (of becoming a unicorn) of a thousand miles begins with that first Wedge.

Conclusion

The biggest disservice you can commit when starting is going after everyone.

By trying to appeal to a broad audience, you end up pleasing no one.

You must be meaningful to a few before you can serve many.

You do that by wedging!

Magic happens only after you identify and deeply understand a specific target audience.

That said, some folks still like to learn from their own experiences and still go after everyone. I believe there’s a meme that goes with it.

Get cooking!

PS: This is my first post on Substack. Phew! It just took me a couple of years. I’d try to do better than George R.R. Martin’s publishing strike rate.

Leave a comment