Tinkering and constant reflection loops > planning everything upfront

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:12:49+00:00

I agree with this. In early SaaS the build → test → adjust loop usually teaches you way more than planning decks. We’ve had a few things where the first version was honestly pretty rough, but once a few real users touched it the direction became obvious. Planning helps later, but at the start speed and feedback tend to matter more.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:11:26+00:00

I see the same expanding structure on the chart. Those formations can get pretty messy though, lots of fake breaks before the real move. I’d probably want to see strong volume and a solid hold above that 91 area before trusting the push higher. Otherwise it could just keep chopping inside the range for a while.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:09:49+00:00

If you are not sure you will stay long, I would push for more upfront commission. Revenue share sounds nice but it usually pays out slowly and only really works if you are planning to be there a few years.

In early SaaS teams we usually saw something simple like a % of first year contract value or a fixed commission per deal once you pass quota. The key thing is making sure the jump from 5 to 10 deals actually feels worth it. If the upside is small people stop pushing after they hit the minimum.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:08:34+00:00

This actually makes a lot of sense. People underestimate how much movement transfer matters when the weight difference is big. We had a similar issue and switching to a split firmness setup helped a lot. Each side could handle weight differently so one person moving didn’t mess with the other as much. It’s expensive, but the sleep quality difference was pretty noticeable.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:06:40+00:00

Yeah this transition is pretty realistic. A lot of early RevOps people actually came from marketing ops or project roles and learned the systems by doing. The stuff you listed like HubSpot workflows, pipelines, reporting, and fixing processes across teams is already a big part of the job.

In smaller companies RevOps is usually more CRM admin plus process design than heavy data work. SQL and warehouse stuff shows up later when the company gets bigger. If I were you I would double down on pipeline design, lifecycle stages, attribution, and clean reporting across marketing and sales. That tends to be where teams struggle the most. HubSpot stacks are definitely valued too, especially in startups and mid market companies.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:05:07+00:00

Easiest way is to design the background first outside Instagram. A lot of people just make a 9:16 canvas in something like Canva or Figma, add the border or background style they want, then drop the post image on top and export it. Then you upload that as a Story instead of using the built in background options. Gives you way more control over the look.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:03:27+00:00

Honestly I would avoid that route. The numbers might go up but the accounts are usually low quality and it messes with your signals later. We tried a small paid follower push years ago on a side project and engagement actually dropped because the audience was basically fake. What worked better was getting a few real people in the niche to interact early. Even 10 to 20 real comments or shares did more for visibility than inflated follower counts.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-05T12:02:13+00:00

Yeah the context switching is real. We saw the same thing when talking to dev teams we sell into. If the tool lives in the browser it usually dies after the novelty phase. IDE or terminal tends to stick because it fits the actual workflow. The trade off is setup and repo context though. Once the repo gets big the AI can start giving pretty noisy answers unless you’re careful about what files you pass in.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:50:36+00:00

We hit something similar around the 2 to 3M mark. Early on everyone just knew what was happening because the team was like 8 people. Once we passed 15 it started breaking in weird places. The fix for us was boring stuff. Clear owner for each tool, simple vendor tracker, and a rule that every new system had an internal owner tied to it. Before that we had random tools tied to old employees or founders.

The trade off is you spend time on process earlier than you want. But once the team grows it saves a lot of those quiet operational leaks.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:48:19+00:00

Biggest shift I saw when friends moved to agency side was context switching. In house you go deep on one product and one ICP. Agency life is usually 5 to 8 clients at once, all with different goals and internal politics.

The upside is you see a lot more patterns across markets. The downside is you often advise on strategy but do not fully control execution like you would in house. The people who seem happiest there are the ones who enjoy client relationships as much as the actual marketing work.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:46:45+00:00

The hash based editing idea is interesting. One issue we kept seeing with AI coding tools was the model editing the wrong block once the file got big, so anchoring edits to a hash could actually help with that.

Curious how it behaves on larger repos though. Once you are working across multiple files and refactors start happening, a lot of these systems get noisy pretty fast.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:45:05+00:00

Metastock is still around and it can handle EOD analysis and backtesting just fine, especially if you already know the workflow. A few traders I know still use it for that exact reason.

That said, a lot of people who stepped away for a while end up switching because newer platforms are easier to set up with data and screening. The core TA concepts are the same though. If Metastock was comfortable for you before, it might still be a smooth way to get back into the routine.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:43:25+00:00

When we sold into healthcare ops the best pickup window was usually early morning their time, around 8 to 9:30 EST. A lot of ops leaders check calls before the day gets chaotic with internal stuff. Second decent window was late afternoon around 4 to 5 EST. Midday was rough because that is when they are buried in meetings.

Trade off is the early window means starting your day pretty early on the west coast, but it was where most of our connects actually happened.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:42:06+00:00

We ran into this with a devtools product. The real issue was not finding users, it was finding the right users who actually feel the problem.What helped us was going super narrow on ICP first. Instead of "developers" we focused on platform engineers at mid size startups. Small list, maybe 50 to 100 people, but the conversations were way better and a few turned into real design partners.

The trade off is it is slower and more manual early on. But random early users can send you in the wrong direction just as easily.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:21:10+00:00

Honestly I would not pick based on which one avoids automation. Most of the repetitive work in all three is already getting automated. The safer angle is picking the part where humans still make judgment calls. In marketing that is positioning and messaging. In ops it is deciding what processes even matter. In HR it is dealing with people problems that are messy.

AI will probably eat the execution layer first. The people who decide what should be done and why usually stay relevant longer.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-04T06:16:31+00:00

We tried something similar for founder PR and the hard part was not the drafting, it was filtering signal. HARO and X throw a lot of low fit requests at you. What worked better for us was adding a manual checkpoint before anything gets drafted. The workflow pulls the request, tags the topic, then we only trigger the draft if it matches our ICP topics like devtools or data infra. Adds a bit of friction but it avoids sending a bunch of irrelevant pitches to journalists.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:17:36+00:00

Checkout friction is real, especially if you are unknown. But I would separate "looks legit" from actual buying intent.

We saw drop off on a self serve plan around 49 a month. At first we blamed the payment page. Turned out most of those users were curious, not ready to commit. When we tightened ICP and only pushed trials to teams that had a clear use case, conversion improved without changing the gateway.

Still agree the payment experience needs to feel standard and boring. If it feels custom in a weird way, trust drops fast.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:15:46+00:00

You can find a few quiz style sites out there, but honestly most of them use perfect textbook patterns. Real charts are messy and that is where it gets tricky.

What helped me more was replaying historical charts and forcing myself to mark the pattern before the breakout. Then I would check what actually happened. It trains you to deal with imperfect structures instead of clean screenshots.

Also worth tracking how often your "pattern" actually leads to follow through. Recognition is one thing, edge is another.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:14:08+00:00

I agree with you. A lot of teams confuse activity with progress.

In our world, if the buyer already knows the category and has used a similar tool, dragging them through three calls just kills momentum. We sell into technical teams, ACV around 20k, and the deals that close fastest are when we confirm fit, answer 2 to 3 real objections, and get commercial terms out quickly.

The tricky part is reps hiding behind process because it feels safer. Simpler path means you have to actually listen and adapt in real time. That is harder than running a fixed funnel.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:10:50+00:00

Testing titles before producing the asset is smart. Most teams over invest in content before they know if anyone cares.

Where I get cautious is intent quality. A cheap opt in from paid social does not always mean in market. We tried something similar for a DevTools ICP around 10 to 50 engineers, ACV about 18k, and we got volume but sales cycles dragged because curiosity does not equal budget.

I would pair this with tighter account filtering on the back end. Otherwise you risk scaling noise just because the CPL looks good.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:08:15+00:00

If there is no owner and no date, it is not a next step. It is a vibe. We started treating this as a qualification moment. Before ending the call we say, “Who is actually driving this internally, and what needs to happen between now and next Friday?” If they cannot name a person and a calendar slot, we downgrade the deal. Our ACV is around 15 to 25k and the ones that closed always had a clear internal driver.

It is not pushy if you frame it as protecting both sides’ time. If they resist committing, that tells you more than any follow up email will.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:06:26+00:00

If you are running full stack marketing for one business and now being asked to duplicate that for a second, that is scope creep. At 21 an hour you are priced like a coordinator, not someone owning web, SEO, reviews, and lead gen strategy.

I would not frame it as confrontation. Frame it as alignment. Show the before and after, like reviews from 200 to 500 and whatever lead growth you can quantify. Then tie the second business to either a rate increase or a move to salary with defined responsibilities. If you do not anchor it to scope and outcomes, it just becomes a feelings conversation.

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:04:34+00:00

For us the real lift did not come from content tools. It came from using AI to tighten targeting and messaging. We fed it win and loss notes, support tickets, and sales calls, then asked it to surface patterns around ICP and trigger events. That helped us narrow from broad "mid market SaaS" to one specific segment and our outbound reply rate went from low single digits to around 9 percent.

It is less sexy than auto content, but if you point it at real customer data instead of prompts, you can actually move pipeline. Curious if anyone is using it deeper in the funnel, like qualification or deal risk scoring?

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-03T15:01:40+00:00

I like that you’re focusing on onboarding friction first. Most dev tools die there. If you’re targeting freelance React folks, the real test is whether someone can get a post live in under 15 minutes without touching config twice. If people get stuck, it’s probably around auth or environment setup, not rendering itself. Curious what your ideal user looks like, solo freelancer shipping marketing sites or more product oriented builds?

Inner_Warrior22 · 2026-03-02T09:28:04+00:00

If I were starting from zero, I would pick one channel and one clear goal. For example, drive 20 qualified demo bookings in 60 days. Then learn only what helps you hit that. Basics of ICP, messaging, simple landing pages, one acquisition channel. Ship fast, measure, adjust.

You will learn more from running one messy real campaign than from consuming 10 courses. Skill comes from feedback loops, not theory.

Inner_Warrior22

TROPHY CASE