4 ms·

For now I'd focus 100% on improving the product. You're building a social network of sorts, which means the network effect is your big hurdle. You're in a land

For now I'd focus 100% on improving the product. You're building a social network of sorts, which means the network effect is your big hurdle. You're in a land rush. Forget about anything other than winning that land rush right now. Build a network so populous and engaged that even if someone builds a better site (and if your growth keeps going, they will) it won't matter. If the server bill gets too high, toss in the least amount of Adwords you can to pay for it. Or just ask your users to donate. Or come up with some premium features that are just compelling enough to keep the lights on. Or raise money from angels. Again, keep the lights on while you improve the product and grow your userbase.

pud 15y ago
This is probably the correct answer (focus 100% on improving the product). The product is at a state where people like the idea of it so they sign up en masse -- but I'm not sure the site lives up to the expectation yet.
- staunch 15y ago
  Focus on engagement. Sign ups are almost meaningless if the users bounce and never return. The reason Facebook is so amazing is not just that they have a billion users, it's that they have 80% of them checking the site 5x per week (or whatever). See how many users you can get into the habit of coming back to your site on a regular basis. That's the number that ultimately will drive everything: revenue, long term network effects, etc. BTW, there's no reason in hell it should cost you $2500/mo already. Obviously you can afford it to some extent but that's just a waste of money. You should be able to run it for < $500/mo easily.
  - pud 15y ago
    I hear you regarding user engagement. However when I first built the site, I envisioned more of a LinkedIn-type thing where engagement is relatively low but the value is in the database. In other words, I don't use LinkedIn very often. But when I need to, it's a godsend (or at least, better than anything else that does what it does.) Interesting.
    - kami8845 15y ago
      i would say, don't let what you envisioned the product to be hamper its' evolution.
  - majani 15y ago
    'Engagement' is overrated. Some sites , e.g Google and Wikipedia probably have super high bounce rates, because they solve your problem on the first page you see. What if people start entering his site mainly from band pages, get all the necessary info and leave? That wouldn't be a bad thing for users.
    - staunch 15y ago
      Engagement doesn't mean time on site. Millions of people check Reddit 10x per day for <5 minutes per visit. That's a great kind of engagement.
    - AznHisoka 15y ago
      Actually, that would be a bad thing for his site. If he gets one-time visitors, he will need to keep growing to offset the churn rate. That means he'll probably need to rely a lot on search engine traffic, and for the viral growth to continue. If both go away, his site is dead.
- Sujan 15y ago
  Ask them what they expect - and see if you can and want to match their needs. Profit will come natural.
redguava 15y ago
I think it is sad that this is probably the correct answer. I would love to refute it and say "no, you need to monetize it, don't just get users and hope". However, recent history has shown that gaining traction and losing money every month is enough to earn yourself a heavy payout later.

pud 15y ago

This is probably the correct answer (focus 100% on improving the product). The product is at a state where people like the idea of it so they sign up en masse -- but I'm not sure the site lives up to the expectation yet.

staunch 15y ago
Focus on engagement. Sign ups are almost meaningless if the users bounce and never return. The reason Facebook is so amazing is not just that they have a billion users, it's that they have 80% of them checking the site 5x per week (or whatever). See how many users you can get into the habit of coming back to your site on a regular basis. That's the number that ultimately will drive everything: revenue, long term network effects, etc. BTW, there's no reason in hell it should cost you $2500/mo already. Obviously you can afford it to some extent but that's just a waste of money. You should be able to run it for < $500/mo easily.
- pud 15y ago
  I hear you regarding user engagement. However when I first built the site, I envisioned more of a LinkedIn-type thing where engagement is relatively low but the value is in the database. In other words, I don't use LinkedIn very often. But when I need to, it's a godsend (or at least, better than anything else that does what it does.) Interesting.
  - kami8845 15y ago
    i would say, don't let what you envisioned the product to be hamper its' evolution.
- majani 15y ago
  'Engagement' is overrated. Some sites , e.g Google and Wikipedia probably have super high bounce rates, because they solve your problem on the first page you see. What if people start entering his site mainly from band pages, get all the necessary info and leave? That wouldn't be a bad thing for users.
  - staunch 15y ago
    Engagement doesn't mean time on site. Millions of people check Reddit 10x per day for <5 minutes per visit. That's a great kind of engagement.
  - AznHisoka 15y ago
    Actually, that would be a bad thing for his site. If he gets one-time visitors, he will need to keep growing to offset the churn rate. That means he'll probably need to rely a lot on search engine traffic, and for the viral growth to continue. If both go away, his site is dead.
Sujan 15y ago
Ask them what they expect - and see if you can and want to match their needs. Profit will come natural.

redguava 15y ago

I think it is sad that this is probably the correct answer. I would love to refute it and say "no, you need to monetize it, don't just get users and hope". However, recent history has shown that gaining traction and losing money every month is enough to earn yourself a heavy payout later.