←back to thread

Ask HN: How are you acquiring your first hundred users?

559 points amanchanda | 2 comments | 13 May 25 08:41 UTC | HN request time: 0.435s | source

I am building a B2C AI SaaS with $50/month price. How would you go about getting with first 100 users and then the next 500 users.

What we are currently doing: 1) Cold outreach to power users - to convert them into affiliates. 2) Cold outreach to individuals who have target ICP communities. 3) SEO for more long term (not for the first 500)

Show context
ednite ◴[13 May 25 14:09 UTC] No.43973175[source]▶
For my SaaS, the first 100 users were almost too easy. I partnered with a company sitting on thousands of clients and offered my tool—free—to just 10% of their list. But I didn’t sell features. I asked what their clients hated most, then built a fix for that. One well-placed feature, and the doors swung open. Real users, real feedback—and we’re still building on that foundation.

Then there’s my blog. A creative sandbox, no overlap with my day job. No built-in audience. No distribution. Still waiting on subscriber #1 (Mom, seriously—now would be a good time).

Takeaways:

    Partner with someone who already has meaningful reach.

    Solve a real, hair-on-fire problem.

    Offer something free to earn early trust.

    Knock on doors, pitch relentlessly, repeat. And hope the gods of luck are listening.
As for the writing side—different beast. Slower burn, no roadmap, no shortcuts. Still wandering in the woods, but enjoying the walk. Open to ideas—and subscribers. (Mom… last chance.)
replies(8): >>43973200 #>>43973260 #>>43973330 #>>43975727 #>>43977472 #>>43978633 #>>43978810 #>>43978911 #
kats ◴[13 May 25 17:53 UTC] No.43975727[source]▶
Why did you write this using AI?
replies(2): >>43975926 #>>43975968 #
kristopolous ◴[13 May 25 18:15 UTC] No.43975968[source]▶
I think this person genuinely writes like an llm. Read the rest of their comments.

My llm radar picks it up as well.

A reverse uncanny valley

replies(5): >>43976040 #>>43976044 #>>43976060 #>>43976098 #>>43979877 #
jeffhuys ◴[13 May 25 18:24 UTC] No.43976060[source]▶
Look at his blog. 0 spelling error, 2 big articles in 1 day. A LOT of —…

This is just an LLM. I would be surprised if this guy writes like this.

Why do you think he’s NOT an LLM?

replies(5): >>43976881 #>>43977216 #>>43977256 #>>43978647 #>>43980189 #
ryandamm ◴[13 May 25 22:50 UTC] No.43978647[source]▶
Wait... not having spelling errors is now a mark of AI?

Am I the only person who proofreads emails anymore?

replies(1): >>43979125 #
1. zahlman ◴[13 May 25 23:44 UTC] No.43979125[source]▶
> Wait... not having spelling errors is now a mark of AI?

When you output long blog articles more than daily, it is. Proofreading takes time, and someone who cares enough to proofread will probably care enough to put in more time on other things that an LLM wouldn't care about (like information density, as noted in another comment; or editing after the fact to improve the overall structure; or injecting idiosyncratic wit into headings and subheadings).

replies(1): >>43980324 #
2. ednite ◴[14 May 25 03:06 UTC] No.43980324[source]▶
Please take no offense—I genuinely want to understand. I agree that my blog needs work, especially with less fluff and more value—i'm working on that.

I guess where I’m coming from is this: why is it assumed that using tools like AI or Grammarly takes away from the creative process? For me, they speed up the mechanical side of things—grammar, flow, even structure—so I can spend more time on ideas, storytelling, informing, or just getting unblocked.

I do get frustrated when ChatGPT changes my wording or shifts the meaning of what I’m trying to say. It can definitely throw a wrench into the overall story. But in those cases, I rephrase my prompt, asking it not to touch the narrative or my word choices, just to act like a word processor on steroids or an expert editor.

I’m not saying these tools replace a good human editor—far from it. If I ever get to the point where I can work with a real editor or proof reader and so on, I’d choose the human every time. But until then, these tools help me keep the momentum going—and I don’t see that as a lack of care.

On the contrary, it often takes me more time to get the output right—because I’m trying to make sure it still reflects exactly what I want to say and express.

Maybe it’s just a different kind of process?