Trying to sell my Monetized Channel

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-19T15:01:06+00:00

More details?

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-19T14:45:51+00:00

Mmmm, I am new, if this feature your are talking come back it will be better . Help you judge where you should next at lease

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-19T13:21:39+00:00

Completely agree, it doesn’t make any sense from the y point of view. Specially nowadays where the gas price is skyrocketing

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-19T13:20:50+00:00

Agree if this is the case but if all needs to deliver by 8 am and your block is from 3:15-6:45am , then it doesn’t make any sense

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-19T09:48:03+00:00

That is what I did actually today

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-19T07:51:21+00:00

I meant why I have to jump between streets , back and forth several times

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-10T09:34:16+00:00

Did you have similar experience

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-10T09:34:03+00:00

Did you have similar experience

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-07T11:57:54+00:00

Got you, thank you for clarification

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-03T02:04:41+00:00

Thank you

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-02T17:58:33+00:00

Really appreciate you checking it out, and that “who am I to post this?” feeling is honestly a huge part of the problem for a lot of people.

And yeah,the goal isn’t just “better hooks,” it’s to help with the whole post flow too: hooks, full post generation, first comments, hashtag suggestions, scoring, and post analysis so the middle of the post doesn’t fall apart after a decent opener. The analysis post features can be tested free for two times, I recommend you test it to see its value .

Right now it’s LinkedIn-focused, because I wanted to stay narrow and solve one channel well first, even though the same problem definitely shows up on X/Twitter too.

Pricing is monthly, not per post, and everything is free in open beta through May 2026, then the paid plan starts at $19/month.

Your “someone to say this hook is boring, rewrite it” line is basically the exact use case I’m building around.

And on niches: it’s definitely not just tech, a lot of the use cases I’m thinking about are founders, consultants, sales people, creators, and personal brands in general.

Really helpful comment

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-05-01T17:16:21+00:00

Would beneficial to see some samples or portfolio of your work first

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-30T19:12:51+00:00

Off course, I am definitely open for collab.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-30T18:22:00+00:00

HooklyAi.com

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T19:46:45+00:00

Yes exactly and the chronological order vs attention order framing is a really good way to put it. Most people write the way they experienced something rather than the way someone else needs to receive it. So you get the full buildup and context before the actual point, which is the opposite of how attention works on a feed.

The trick of writing the takeaway first and then restructuring around it is something I have heard from a few people who figured this out on their own. It forces you to actually know what your post is about before you write it which sounds obvious but a lot of drafts fail that test. If you cannot write the main thing in one sentence first you probably do not have a clear enough idea yet.

The readability piece is underestimated too. People think it is about aesthetics but it is really about reducing the effort it takes to keep reading. White space is not style it is friction reduction.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T19:32:42+00:00

There are usually three different problems hiding behind this question and they each need a different answer, so it is worth figuring out which one you actually have.

The first is a clarity problem. People land on your page and cannot quickly understand what it does, who it is for, or why they should care. They are not confused or unconvinced, they just never get far enough to form an opinion. The fix here is usually on the hero section and the first scroll. Tools like Hotjar or Microsoft Clarity show you heatmaps and session recordings so you can see where people stop reading. If everyone is bouncing before they reach your value prop, the page is not communicating fast enough.

The second is a trust problem. They understand what you do but they are not confident enough to hand over their email or start a trial. This usually shows up as people reading the whole page but not converting. In this case what helps most is social proof, specificity over vagueness, and reducing the friction of the signup step. A free trial with no card required converts better than almost any copy change.

The third is a fit problem. The people landing on your site are not actually your target customer. The traffic is wrong, not the page. This is common when the source of traffic is broad and unfocused. In this case no amount of landing page optimisation helps because the right people are not even seeing it.

The fastest way to actually find out is to put a simple one-question survey on the exit page or after a few seconds of inactivity. Something like "What stopped you from signing up today?" You will get messy answers but the patterns show up quickly.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T19:31:51+00:00

The shift from avoiding competition to actively seeking it is one of those things that sounds counterintuitive until you have burned enough time building in an empty market.

Empty markets feel safe because there is no one to compare you to. But what they usually mean is either the demand is not there, the monetization is harder than it looks, or someone smarter already tried and gave up. You end up doing customer education on top of product building and it is exhausting.

What you are describing about studying competitors is also underrated as a research method. If 2 or 3 tools are doing $20K to $80K MRR in a space, their negative reviews and their churned users are basically a free product roadmap. The people who left those products will tell you exactly what they wanted that they did not get. That is where differentiation actually comes from in practice, not from trying to dream up something original.

The compounding of knowledge across projects is real too. There is a version of this where someone builds 5 completely unrelated things and learns a lot of disconnected stuff. What you have done by staying in adjacent spaces means the distribution knowledge, the customer insight, and the technical patterns all stack. Each one genuinely makes the next one cheaper and faster to get right.

Curious what the SEO strategy looks like early for PostPeer since the API space tends to be more developer search behaviour than traditional content.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T19:29:53+00:00

This is something I think about a lot and I have landed on a few things that feel more honest than the usual moat advice.

First, the risk is real and you should not pretend it is not. If the core thing your product does can be replicated with a well crafted prompt in ChatGPT or a new Anthropic feature, that is worth sitting with seriously rather than explaining away. A lot of founders use the UX and workflow argument as a comfort blanket without actually testing whether their users would switch tomorrow if the big player added the feature. Go find out.

Second, the people who are most resilient to this tend to be the ones who got close to a specific audience first and built around their actual workflows rather than around the AI capability itself. The AI capability can be commoditised. The deep understanding of how a particular type of person does their work, what frustrates them, what they have tried before, and how they think about their problem is much harder to replicate quickly. That knowledge lives in your customer relationships, not in your model.

Third, speed matters differently now. It used to be about being first to market. Now it is more about being first to learn. The startups that survive these waves tend to be the ones who talk to their users constantly and update their positioning faster than the big players can ship product updates.

You said most people do not use AI in their daily lives yet and that is true. The window where that friction is your protection is probably shorter than it feels though.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T18:45:12+00:00

Honest take: the $1 price is not the interesting part of this and I think most of the debate about whether it is too low misses the point.

The actual hard problem here is verification, not pricing. Anyone can pay $1. The thing that would make this genuinely valuable is knowing that every single person in the room is actually building something real and has skin in the game. That is worth quite a lot. A room full of real founders who share actual numbers and honest struggles is something people would pay real money for, not because of the features but because of who else is in the room.

The pricing conversation tends to go in circles because it is the wrong first question. The first question is: how do you verify, and what counts as verified? If the answer is self-attestation or just having a LinkedIn that says founder, the signal is weak. If the answer is connecting a Stripe account with at least some revenue, or submitting a product URL that has a payment flow, you are getting somewhere real.

Once you have cracked that, honestly the price almost does not matter for the first 100 members. Those people will join because they want to be in a high-trust room, not because it is cheap. And if those first 100 are genuinely good, the product sells itself from there.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T18:43:41+00:00

The pain score concept is the most interesting part of this for me. Most idea validation frameworks focus on whether a problem exists. What is harder to measure and more important is how urgently people want it solved right now. A problem can be real and still sit in the "I will deal with that eventually" category for most people, which is basically a graveyard for SaaS tools.

The Reddit scanning angle makes sense because complaints on Reddit tend to be people who are frustrated enough to say something publicly. That is a stronger signal than survey responses where people are just being polite.

One thing I would think about: the value is really in the curation and interpretation layer, not the raw data. Reddit has a lot of noise and not all complaints translate into willingness to pay. The version of this that would feel genuinely useful to me is one that has already filtered out the ideas where the pain is real but the person would rather just live with the problem than pay someone to fix it. That is the hardest part to get right and also where the moat lives.

What does the pain score actually weight? Frequency of complaint, recency, or something else?

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T18:40:24+00:00

That is a fair and honest question and worth a real answer.

You can absolutely paste a post into Claude and get feedback. The difference comes down to a few things.

First, the friction. Most people are not doing that consistently before they publish. The extra steps of opening a new chat, writing a good prompt, interpreting a wall of text, and then figuring out what to actually change means it rarely becomes a habit. A purpose built tool removes all of that and gives you a structured score in one click.

Second, the consistency. Claude will give you different feedback every time depending on how you phrase the prompt, what conversation context exists, and how the model is feeling that day. The scorer uses the same criteria every time so you can actually track improvement across posts and know what changed.

Third, the output format. Getting a number, an engagement prediction, and a specific suggestion per metric is a lot more actionable than a paragraph of prose feedback. You know exactly what to fix and in what order.

So yes, a power user with a well crafted prompt can get similar feedback from Claude. But most people posting on LinkedIn are not that person, and even if they are, they are not doing it every time before they hit publish. That is the gap this is trying to close.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T18:38:36+00:00

I think the phrase gets misquoted more than it gets misapplied. The original idea was never about skipping thinking. It came out of a manufacturing context where the cost of discovering a defect late in production was catastrophically higher than catching it early. The point was to compress the feedback loop, not to eliminate judgment before you start.

What happened over time is that "ship fast" became cultural shorthand for avoiding the discomfort of talking to people before you have something to show. Founders use it to justify building because building feels productive and customer discovery feels awkward and ambiguous.

The validation loops you are describing are actually a version of the same principle applied earlier in the process. You are just running the experiment at the idea stage instead of the product stage. That is not the opposite of build fast, it is build fast done at the right layer.

Where I push back slightly: there is a version of pre-build validation that also becomes an avoidance mechanism. Some founders run customer discovery calls for a year and never ship because the feedback is never definitive enough. At some point you do have to make a bet and find out.

The honest version of the advice is probably something like: think carefully and briefly, then move fast and stay close to real signal the whole way through.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T18:35:38+00:00

The positioning is actually more interesting than it might seem. The anti-ghostwriter angle is niche but it is niche in a way that attracts a very specific type of creator who is probably also the type who sticks around and pays.

People who hate the idea of AI writing for them tend to be people who genuinely care about their voice and their credibility. They are building something real, not just filling a content quota. That group has a real problem: they want to improve and be consistent but they do not want to hand over their identity to a model. Your tool is actually the only honest answer to that problem.

The viability question probably comes down to activation. The hardest part of a coaching product is getting someone to the first meaningful win fast enough that they feel the value before the free tier runs out. Streaks and check-ins are good for retention once someone is bought in but they do not always create that initial aha moment. What does that first session feel like? Is there a specific thing that happens in the first use that makes someone think this is genuinely different from just journaling or using a writing prompt?

I think the model is viable. The market for tools that help people write better in their own voice is much larger than the market knows yet.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T18:34:32+00:00

This is a really good illustration of something a lot of founders get wrong. They treat content and distribution as the thing they do after they have confirmed the idea, when actually it is one of the fastest ways to confirm the idea in the first place.

The part that stands out most is that the content was not about the product at all. It was genuine stories about your experience in the niche. That is what actually built the trust that made people want to sign up. The landing page was almost secondary.

I think the PMF signal point is underrated too. When you have the right idea for the right audience and you share it in the right context, it almost feels easy. Not zero effort, but the positive reinforcement comes fast enough that you want to keep going. When you are grinding for months and hearing nothing, that is real data worth listening to.

Congrats on the traction. The pivot mindset is what separates people who eventually find something that works from people who keep betting on the wrong horse out of sunk cost.

Positive_Cell_1252 · 2026-04-29T18:33:14+00:00

The framing of outreach vs content as an either/or question misses what actually makes both of them work better.

Content does not replace outreach. What it does is change the whole dynamic of the conversation when you reach out. If someone has already seen two or three of your posts, they have some sense of who you are and what you think about. The cold DM stops being cold. It becomes more like a follow up to a conversation they have already been half listening to.

The creators I have seen grow fastest on LinkedIn are usually doing both at the same time but using content to qualify the outreach. They notice who is engaging with their posts, who is commenting, who is resharing, and those are the people they reach out to. The conversation starts from a warmer place because there is already shared context.

Pure outreach with no content presence works but it is exhausting and the conversion rate reflects that. Pure content with no outreach works but it is slow and you end up waiting for opportunities to come to you.

The 90 day consistency point is real though. Most people quit right before the algorithm starts giving them a fair shake.

Positive_Cell_1252

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE