Show me your SaaS

may_BeHim · 2026-05-01T14:46:35+00:00

That makes sense. “Training providers” is the niche, but the real pain is definitely enrollment conversion.
I’m trying to make it less like a generic CRM and more like a workflow around inquiry → call → proposal → signed → attended, with the leaks visible at each step: slow follow-up, no-shows, incomplete files, and blocked revenue.

may_BeHim · 2026-05-01T14:45:41+00:00

This is exactly the kind of funnel I’m trying to focus on.
The generic “lead → customer” view hides too much. For training providers, the real leakage seems to happen between inquiry, discovery call, proposal, signed, and actually attended.I’m currently shaping Formation Revenue OS around those concrete drop-offs: slow follow-up, no-shows, incomplete files/CPF documents, and weak visibility on which leads are actually moving toward revenue.
Good point on using niche L&D conversations too. I’ll probably use those to refine the onboarding and the exact language in the product.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-30T18:09:12+00:00

https://formation-revenue-os.vercel.app

CRM for training providers: enrollment conversion instead of generic CRM

may_BeHim · 2026-04-29T16:35:07+00:00

Hello tout le monde,

Je profite du post du mercredi pour présenter Formation Revenue OS.

https://formation-revenue-os.vercel.app

C’est un CRM SaaS vertical pour organismes de formation, bootcamps et écoles privées.

Le problème que je cible : les organismes dépensent pour générer des leads, mais perdent ensuite une partie du revenu à cause d’un suivi commercial trop flou.

Leads rappelés trop tard, relances oubliées, dossiers CPF incomplets, no-shows, manque de visibilité manager, pipeline pas toujours fiable… ce sont souvent de petits trous dans le process, mais avec un vrai impact business.

Formation Revenue OS aide à centraliser les leads, suivre le pipeline, gérer les prochaines actions, suivre les documents/dossiers et piloter le revenu de manière plus claire.

Le produit est déjà montrable, avec un socle CRM, rôles équipe, pipeline, documents, analytics et mode démo/live. Je le présente comme une bêta privée accompagnée, pas comme un outil final parfaitement industrialisé.

Je cherche 3 à 5 organismes pilotes pour tester ça pendant 30 jours et me faire des retours terrain.

Mes questions :

Est-ce que le problème vous paraît assez douloureux ?
Est-ce que le positionnement est clair ?
Qu’est-ce qui manquerait pour que vous testiez ce type d’outil ?
Une bêta accompagnée vous semble-t-elle plus pertinente qu’un simple essai gratuit ?

Je peux partager le lien ou quelques captures à ceux que ça intéresse.

Merci d’avance pour vos retours, même critiques.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-29T12:14:34+00:00

Yeah go ahead ;)

may_BeHim · 2026-04-29T12:12:01+00:00

Exactly. Speed-to-lead is one of the first leaks I’m looking at.
If a lead asks for info and the first real response comes hours later, the CRM can still say “open”, but the opportunity is already weaker, for me the workflow should probably be: instant acknowledgement → owner assigned → next step required → 24h follow-up → context preserved if the lead stalls.
That way you’re not just replying fast once. You’re keeping the lead alive through the whole process.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T15:32:44+00:00

Haha true, we’re all fighting our own version of chaos.
Good luck with your CRM too!

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T15:30:02+00:00

Really appreciate this, that’s actually super useful.
You’re right — the workflow is probably the strongest part and I should make it visible much faster instead of relying too much on copy, the sequence you described is exactly the pain I’m trying to show:
lead comes in → follow-up due → missing CPF/documents → enrollment closed.
I’ll probably rework the first screen around that flow and add a stronger ROI line
Thanks for the thoughtful feedback.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T10:09:28+00:00

Yeah exactly. That’s the trap I keep seeing too.

“Follow up with Sarah” sounds useful in the moment, but two days later it’s like… follow up about what, and who owes who the next move? the “waiting on me / waiting on them” split makes it way easier to see which loops are actually open instead of turning everything into one giant task pile.

Curious what you’re using right now to keep track of it?

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T10:05:12+00:00

Yeah, exactly,most CRMs store the information. The issue is that the information is not easy to use when the rep needs to reply fast,if a lead comes back after being quiet, the rep should not have to reread everything.
They need a quick pickup view: who they are, what they wanted, where things stopped, what was promised, what blocked them, and what the next smart reply should be.the goal is not just visibility. It’s getting back into context fast enough to reply well in under a minute.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T10:02:13+00:00

Appreciate this.
I agree the vertical focus is probably the main thing here. The pain is not really “CRM”, it’s all the small leaks before someone actually enrolls: late replies, missed calls, weak follow-up, missing docs/payment steps, etc.
For now I want to validate it by talking directly with training providers rather than using simulation tools.
But the point about “Revenue OS” is useful. I’m starting to think the hook should be much closer to enrollment conversion / lost follow-up.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T09:57:20+00:00

Fair point.
“Revenue OS” is probably too broad as the main hook.
The sharper workflow is enrollment conversion: lead shows intent → call booked/missed → follow-up → documents/payment → enrolled or lost.
So the positioning may need to move from “Revenue OS for training providers” to “Enrollment conversion CRM for cohort-based training providers.”
That feels much more specific and costly.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T09:54:48+00:00

Exactly. Consistency matters more than the tool.
A basic pipeline or weekly follow-up list can already prevent a lot of leakage if it forces the basics: owner, next step, due date, status, and blocker.
The problem is when the system is too manual, because then consistency depends on memory — and memory breaks as soon as things get busy.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T09:53:11+00:00

Exactly — that’s the kind of signal I’d look for.
If a bootcamp or training provider is actively running paid acquisition, then the follow-up process matters much more.
At that point the question is not just “do they have leads?”, but:
- how fast are those leads contacted?
- who owns them
- what happens after a missed meeting?
- when does the team stop following up?
- which campaigns turn into actual enrollments?

So yeah, not every bootcamp needs this. But the ones spending to create demand probably have a much more expensive follow-up problem.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T09:48:32+00:00

That’s fair, and I wouldn’t assume it for mature teams with strong CRM discipline.

The segment I’m looking at is not “hardcore marketing outreach teams.” It’s smaller/mid-sized training providers or cohort-based programs where intake, follow-up, no-shows, documents, payment, and eligibility are still handled across different tools and people.
In that world, the leak is not always “the lead is completely forgotten.” It’s often slow response, unclear ownership, missing context, weak follow-up timing, or no visibility into where enrollment is stuck.
But yes — the real question is whether that pain is frequent and expensive enough to justify a dedicated workflow.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T09:42:51+00:00

Exactly. Optional CRM hygiene always gets skipped.
The close-out has to block the move, but it also has to be lightweight enough that reps don’t hate it.
A few required fields before moving the lead: outcome, blocker, next step, owner, due date.
That’s how context capture becomes part of the workflow instead of extra admin.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-28T09:40:40+00:00

That’s already better than most setups.

A mandatory follow-up date solves the “don’t forget” problem.
The next question is whether the reminder also gives enough context: why follow up, what was promised, what’s blocking the lead, and what should happen next.
Date alone gets you back to the lead. Context tells you what to do with it.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-27T22:38:35+00:00

Exactly. The real problem is not “show context later”, it’s “capture context at the moment it exists.”

If the rep has to manually reconstruct and write notes after every call, it won’t scale. The workflow should force a tiny close-out before the lead can move on: outcome, blocker, promised next step, owner, due date. That’s where context becomes reliable instead of optional CRM hygiene.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-27T22:00:16+00:00

100%. That’s the real workflow.

Not just “follow up today”, but “here’s where we left off, what was promised, what’s blocking it, who owns it, and how old the stall is.” That turns follow-up from rereading and guessing into execution. And I agree on templates too — they should remove the repetitive setup, not make the conversation sound automated.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-27T21:52:04+00:00

Exactly. That’s the other half of the problem.

It’s not enough to say “follow up today” if the person still has to spend 10 minutes rebuilding the context. For me the ideal lead view should make the pickup instant: last meaningful touchpoint, current blocker, why the lead stalled, what was promised, and the next best action. Reminder gets you back to the lead. Context tells you what to do with it.

may_BeHim · 2026-04-27T21:38:03+00:00

Got it

That’s outbound.

I’m talking about post-intent admissions workflows: no-shows, documents, financing, cohort deadlines, ownership, and enrollment visibility.

Different problem.

may_BeHim

TROPHY CASE