I can't stand this format and associate it with scams. But many prominent marketers consider it the key to their success. The authors of the OP appear to fall into the latter category.
After 1/3 of the way into the article, I don't know:
- what RocketChart is or what it does
- how the authors got 150 beta signups
I have, however, gained numerous insights into the emotional state of the author, friends, and family, and have been blasted with memes from here to Timbuktu.
If the article isn't long form ad copy, then it could use a thorough edit. Start with the actionable part and give me a high-level view of it in the first paragraph.
However, I strongly suspect otherwise.
Props to you for sticking with it, but you can't say you weren't warned!
"Just before turning off the light, I sent a message to my brother. I asked him to like my post to get a bit of visibility."
Ultimately, I don't think these things make a lick of difference. But it seems so common for "growth hackers" to do kinda sleazy crap like this. Why's this type of behavior so common?
What's so sleazy about asking for feedback on a fake product mockup?
Who exactly is hurt by this?
I don’t think it is sleazy to ask for feedback on a product mockup.
I do think there is an issue with claiming that the mockup is already a product that has been developed and is in use - there is no need to mislead in this way.
Imagine signing up for a service like this and the first interaction with it is a lie. How can you trust some of your company's most important financial data with a "partner" like this?
Disclosure: I run a financial modeling software company.
- Lie about user count
- Lie about product features
- Lie about your products existence?
Enough with the lies...
I mean is that 1 customer billed 10,000 bucks per month, 10,000 customers billed 12 bucks per year or (more likely) something in the middle?
More than "free" right now it is either "null" or "negative".
If the non-product (in Beta stage) is given to the beta-testers for free, it is actually "null", Beta testers get (for free) an incomplete/unusable/unuseful product. (we are talking of a "serious" product that in perspective is to be used to manage "serious" matters, i.e. company money)
If the non-product (in Beta stage) is given to the beta-testers (for free) AND it is (or even if it was at the time the testing began) in early Beta (as this seems the status from the narrative) it is actually "negative", beta-testers are spending or have already spent their time/knowledge/experience on actually making the product (not materially, but providing ideas, asking for needed features, reporting bugs and errors, suggesting enhancements or changes, etc.).
So not only the testers have spent time (if not money) on it, they actually made a bet on the whole stuff, not even knowing if the product would have been ever delivered, let alone the actual future (monthly) cost for it.
I find it extremely hard to believe anything coming from people who have lied to their customers from day one.
I agree that their initial post was deceptive, and inexcusably so. But the spammy tactic I think is outweighed by their total devotion to understanding their customers. Maintaining over 300 simultaneous conversations, just to get an insight into their users is a herculean, and praiseworthy, effort.
The takeaways and tips are useful too, if you're thinking about starting a bootstrapped company. They're not pitched as "do this and you'll succeed", they're pitched as "here's what we did, you do you", which I appreciate. I'll borrow some and ignore others when I start my own venture.
EDIT: curious why I'm being downvoted
Anyway, glad to see some useful comments that finally identify the bright side of this :)
Thanks for your 2c
Why does this not new concept need validation?
If you can get 150 people to preorder and pay an actual fee based on an idea and a mockup then I'll be impressed. And it is possible...
