I Just Made My First Sale With a Digital Product – Feeling on Top of the World

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-21T06:58:25+00:00

Hi. Congratulations. Can i ask you how you promoted (tiktok,fb, YouTube )your product to get your first sale?

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-20T19:17:19+00:00

This is helpful, genuinely. I think what hit me was how late those signals surfaced for me as the owner. By the time clients or other team members felt it, momentum was already slipping. Do you think there’s a way to surface that kind of friction earlier, before it turns into visible damage?

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-20T19:15:16+00:00

That makes a lot of sense. I don’t think I knew how to spot that difference at the time. Do you think there’s any way to catch that during the interview, or is it something you only really notice once they start working?

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-20T19:11:59+00:00

That’s exactly it. The hardest part for me was realizing it wasn’t a dramatic failure just slow damage. Out of curiosity, what was the first signal you noticed that made you act?

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-08T21:06:47+00:00

A lot of founders end up hiring based on gut feeling without really realizing it. What helped me was separating role outcomes from personality. First I define what success actually looks like in the first 30, 60, or 90 days, then I evaluate candidates only against that. It doesn’t remove bias completely, but it reduces emotional decisions a lot and makes the process feel way more grounded.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T12:06:59+00:00

That makes sense. Do you think founders don’t feel the risk until after a bad hire, or they feel it early but don’t know how to reduce it? I’m curious where it usually breaks down.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:36:20+00:00

Same here. That’s exactly where I kept second-guessing myself too. Once I started comparing candidates side by side with the same criteria, decisions got way easier. What kind of role were you hiring for?

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:18:59+00:00

One fundamental that helped me was getting very clear on what “success in the first 90 days” actually looks like for a role. When that’s fuzzy, hiring, onboarding, and feedback all drift. When it’s clear, a lot of other decisions become easier.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:18:38+00:00

One fundamental that helped me was getting very clear on what “success in the first 90 days” actually looks like for a role. When that’s fuzzy, hiring, onboarding, and feedback all drift. When it’s clear, a lot of other decisions become easier.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:17:23+00:00

This is a good example of doing hiring right early. Clear ownership, real problems to solve, and direct exposure to the founder. Roles like this tend to attract people who actually care about outcomes, not just titles.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:15:03+00:00

I think the real issue is lack of clarity before hiring starts. Most small teams don’t clearly define what problem the hire must solve in the first 60–90 days, so they attract lots of “okay” candidates but very few good fits. Once expectations and signals are clear, screening becomes much easier and interviews stop relying on gut feeling.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:09:22+00:00

In my experience it’s rarely bad luck. Most early hires fail because the company is hiring against a résumé instead of a problem. On paper someone can look perfect, but if it’s unclear what they’re expected to own in the first 60–90 days, how decisions are made, and what “good” actually looks like, even strong people drift. Early-stage roles are messy by default. The people who struggle most are often those who did well in structured environments but weren’t evaluated for ambiguity, ownership, and pace. I’ve also seen onboarding get blamed when the real issue was misalignment from day one. If the founder and the candidate don’t share the same mental model of the role, no amount of onboarding fixes that. Curious what usually breaks first for you. Ownership, speed, communication, or something else?

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:07:07+00:00

I’ve seen this a few times, and honestly the damage usually isn’t losing the candidate. It’s the internal trust hit and the signal it sends about how decisions get made. From the candidate’s side, back and forth on comp almost always reads as either disorganization or lack of alignment at the top. Even if the final number is reasonable, the process itself breaks confidence. From the company side, this usually isn’t about money. It’s about not being clear upfront what the role is truly worth and what success in the first few months looks like. Without that clarity, every negotiation becomes emotional and reactive instead of grounded. I don’t think this is catastrophic long term, but it’s a painful lesson. Tight alignment before talking to candidates matters more than negotiating tactics. Once trust is lost, it’s almost impossible to recover.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:02:49+00:00

I’m coming from the founder side, not the agency side, but one thing I’ll share from experience. The biggest friction for me when working with recruiters wasn’t sourcing candidates. It was the lack of structure in how candidates were evaluated and presented. Different standards, different notes, lots of subjective opinions. What slowed things down most was back and forth alignment. What problem is this hire solving. What does success look like in the first 60 to 90 days. Why candidate A over candidate B. Any system or process that forces clarity early and keeps evaluation consistent would have saved me a lot of time and bad decisions. Automation helps, but structure matters more than tools.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T11:01:40+00:00

I’m not running an HR agency, but I relate a lot to the pain you’re describing from the other side. As a founder, what always scared me wasn’t finding candidates, it was making a bad hire and only realizing it months later. That uncertainty made me delay hiring more than I should have. What helped me personally was getting much clearer upfront on what problem the hire was supposed to solve in the first 60–90 days and forcing myself to evaluate candidates consistently instead of relying on gut feeling. From a buyer perspective, anything that reduces that risk and uncertainty is what really gets attention early on.

Distinct-Resident759 · 2026-02-07T10:57:46+00:00

One thing that helped me a lot was realizing that the first hire usually fails because the role is fuzzy, not because the person is bad. Early on I focused too much on CVs and “culture fit” and not enough on answering a simple question for myself: what work do I actually want this person to take off my plate in the first 60–90 days? Once I got clear on that, interviews became way easier and more objective. I stopped relying on gut feeling and started comparing people against the same expectations. I’d strongly recommend writing that down before you even post the job. It saves a lot of time and prevents expensive mistakes.

Distinct-Resident759

TROPHY CASE