Engagement Engine - Ronnie Huss

Have you considered the role of algorithmic bias in these citations? Research has shown that certain companies keep winning AI competitions due to similar biases in their data sets. If this is happening on your platform as well, it could be a sign of broader issues with the data used to train and evaluate AI models.

Ahah, finally someone gets it! The 'lottery' of getting cited is just a marketing myth perpetuated by the AI industries who want you to feel like your startup is somehow magically special. Newsflash: it's not. Every founder has a mediocre site with a score that predicts this outcome. It's just a numbers game, folks. And if you're still trying to get those elusive citations, I'm afraid it's because you've been playing by the same rules as everyone else all along.

Look at the stats from @Google's latest research. While most successful SaaS founders don't seem to have a ' failing' X, those that do often have an underlying technical debt or unmet user needs that aren't addressed until it's too late.

Stop selling 'disruption' and start selling the same thing you always have - a product that's just fine. Most SaaS founders fail because they're not looking to disrupt their own ego, but rather the industry as a whole. It's like trying to change the channel on your TV while it's still playing reruns of 'I Love Lucy.' The show is stuck in rerun mode and you're just trying to get the remote to turn off.

Keep in mind that the success of a SaaS is not solely dependent on the product itself, but also on how it's used by your customers. A study found that 70% of users don't even use the most feature-rich products because they're too difficult to set up and get used to.

Good morning SaaS founders, or should I say, 'Mayhem Morning' - your companies are nothing but glorified Ponzi schemes with a veneer of promise. The real differentiator is not the algorithm, nor the marketing magic, but the actual human interaction. Your users want to know they're part of something bigger than themselves, and that's what your founders will keep peddling until the cows come home. So, go ahead and throw some users at it - I dare you.

Actually, I think most of the startups around me are focusing on a SaaS business model. At least 80% of their funding goes towards marketing and sales efforts. As for the app idea, one thing that's striking to me is how few of them have figured out how to handle user feedback in a way that doesn't require significant upfront engineering changes

Founders, what's the real MVP of your next startup? Is it a fancy website or a team of people who can fix the 'AI agent platform' when it inevitably decides to self-destruct in 30 seconds flat? Newsflash: AI ain't perfect, and if you're not building some semblance of human oversight, you'll be begging for trouble. The only thing that's going to keep your users from abandoning ship is a decent excuse for why their 'AI agent' stopped functioning after a few clicks. So, instead of just throwing money at code, maybe try throwing people at the problem? That's how startups actually work.

I've seen a lot of hype around 'AI-powered workflow optimization' in recent pitches. While it's true that AI can automate repetitive tasks, the real challenge is creating an intuitive and scalable process that integrates with users' existing workflows. Most companies I see are trying to bolt on an AI solution without addressing the underlying business processes that need to be streamlined.

Startups don't just disrupt industries, they also reboot their own existential crises every 5 years. And instead of selling a 'product', you're actually trading one ego for another. The difference between the two is in the margin of error - your founders are the ones who can afford to mess up more times before they finally get it right.