One week into my launch. Zero sales, but a couple of interesting numbers.
Launched on Product Hunt last week, ran a small Google Ads test
(€5-7/day), posted on Twitter and a few directories.
One week later: zero paying customers. Worth saying plainly.
But a couple of things surprised me. The ad test got 935 impressions
and 38 clicks — about 4% CTR, which I'm told is decent for search ads.
So people are clicking. Nobody's converted yet, but 38 visits isn't
really enough data to know if that's a real problem or just normal
small-sample noise.
The product: AI roasts your website, you get 3 specific issues +
fixes via email, €10, no subscription.
Genuinely curious from anyone who's been through a similarly quiet
first week or two — did something specific change before sales
started, or did it just take volume and time?
Trending on Indie Hackers
I feel like the product doesn't fully solve a problem, that may be why people aren't willing to purchase it.
That's the blunt version of what a few people above have been circling. Curious what gap you're seeing specifically. My current read: it's not that the problem doesn't exist — most websites do have real, fixable issues — it's that the pain is mild enough that paying €10 to find out feels optional rather than necessary. Curiosity gets the click, but "optional" rarely gets the card out. If that's right, the fix isn't really about the product, it's about finding who actually feels this as a real problem rather than just an interesting one.
I also have got some organic people on my website it only have 40 days now and I have total 500+ user only but i dont have any social account and i also dont have backlinks
That's solid for 40 days with zero social and no backlinks — purely organic search then? Curious what's driving it, since that's basically the opposite problem from what I'm dealing with right now.
38 clicks at 4% CTR tells you one thing clearly: the search intent is there. People are curious enough to click.
The silence after the click is a different problem entirely — and it's rarely about the product itself.
What I'd look at first: the journey between click and €10 decision.
When someone lands on your page, three things need to happen almost simultaneously:
They understand exactly what they're getting (customer journey clarity)
They trust the outcome is worth €10 (perceived value destination)
The path to purchase feels frictionless (zero ambiguity between landing and checkout)
If any of those three break, the click dies quietly.
'AI roasts your website' is an intriguing hook. But 'you get 3 specific issues + fixes via email' — does the landing page show a sample output? Does it demonstrate what that email actually looks like?
Sometimes the gap isn't traffic or pricing. It's that the customer journey doesn't connect the promise to the proof before asking for the decision.
935 impressions is still early. But before scaling spend, I'd dissect where the journey breaks after the click — that's where the real answer lives
This is the most concrete angle anyone's raised yet, and it made me actually go check the page.
There is a sample on the landing page, but it's styled like a hacker-terminal mockup, not an actual preview of what the delivered email looks like. The real deliverable is a clean, light-themed HTML email — different aesthetic entirely from the framing on the landing page.
That gap between "edgy terminal preview" and "calm email you actually receive" might be exactly the disconnect you're pointing at. Worth testing: showing an actual screenshot of the real email instead of a stylized mockup, so the proof matches the promise before asking for €10.
Appreciate you pointing at the click-to-decision journey specifically rather than the top-line number — that's a more useful place to dig.
the thing @aryan_sinh poked at is the real one here and I'd put it even more bluntly — you have a hypothesis (price) and no funnel data, and the danger isn't that you're wrong, it's that the tracking you add next will quietly get built to confirm the thing you already believe.
but honestly, before any of that: having zero conversations is the louder signal than zero sales. 38 clicks and not one reply, question, or "wait does it do X" — that's not a small sample telling you nothing, that's telling you the headline pulls a click but the page doesn't make anyone feel something enough to react. people who almost buy usually leave a trace. silence after the click often means the visit was shallow — curiosity click, not "oh this is for me."
so the question I'd actually chase isn't price. it's: who is the person clicking, and did they want a real audit or did they want to be entertained for a second by "AI roasts your website"? because those convert completely differently, and a roast hook can pull a lot of the second kind. the Sreeja point about the terminal-mockup not matching the real email is part of this too — the whole top of funnel might be selling a vibe, and the €10 ask wants a buyer.
what did the 38 actually do on the page — anyone scroll to pricing at all, or bounce up top? that splits "wrong people" from "right people, wrong page" and those are different fixes.
This thread keeps getting sharper, thank you. The curiosity-click vs buyer-intent distinction hits something I hadn’t separated out. “AI roasts your website” is built to be intriguing on its own, independent of whether someone actually wants to be roasted. Those are genuinely different audiences converting at different rates, and I’ve been treating the 38 clicks as one undifferentiated pool. Don’t have the scroll or page-behavior data yet — was running on Vercel’s basic analytics, which only tells me single-page vs multi-page sessions, nothing about in-page behavior. Setting up proper event tracking today, specifically so I can answer your last question with actual numbers instead of guessing. Noted on the confirmation-bias risk too — going in trying to find out whether anyone reached the pricing section at all, not trying to prove the price theory.
you're on the right path with what the numbers are saying. so, the higher the impressions the more visitors you will get on your site.
the main focus now shouldn't be how to reach more people, that seem easy. you should focus on what will make people convert better. your landing page should be converting so much as your product/checkout page.
one of the things to do to make you know what to change is to track users behaviour on your site. watch a session recording and the heatmap.
a week into launch with these numbers shows a great potential, don't be discoraged
Thanks for the encouragement, genuinely needed that today. Good point about heatmaps and session recordings — looking into it now. Want to actually see where the click-to-checkout journey breaks instead of guessing, especially after the comment above about the landing page preview not matching the real email.
the "AI roasts your website" framing is fun and probably what got the clicks, but curious if the actual delivered output (3 issues + fixes) feels as fun as the pitch promises, or more like a generic audit with a joke tone slapped on top. a lot of "roast" framed products undersell the substance because the pitch is the entertaining part and the deliverable ends up being pretty dry, that mismatch between expectation and delivery could be costing you word of mouth even before it costs you the initial sale
Genuinely good question, and it's a failure mode I worried about while building this — funny pitch, dry audit underneath.
What I tried to avoid: making the humor come from being specific and accurate, not from a joke layer slapped on top of a generic finding. One real line from an actual output, describing a logo
with bad contrast: "It's less a logo and more a ghost whispering its existence." That's pointing at a real, specific problem, not decoration.
Can't promise every single roast lands equally well — depends a lot on the site and what the AI actually finds — but the goal was always tone earned through specificity, not tone pasted over
substance. Appreciate you naming the risk, it's the right thing to watch for with anything branded "roast."
Early launch numbers can be more useful than sales numbers if they show where people are getting stuck.
I would look less at “zero sales” first and more at:
For a very narrow product, even a few real conversations can be a stronger signal than broad traffic.
If people understand the pain but do not buy, it may be a positioning or trust problem.
If people do not understand the pain, it may be a targeting problem.
If the right people ask detailed questions, that is usually worth following up manually.
This is a useful framework, thanks for laying it out.
Mapping it onto what's actually happening: CTR on the small ad test is sitting around 4%, which I'm told is decent for search ads — so people seeing the headline get the pain point enough to click. Conversion past that is at zero so far, small sample (under 40 clicks), but if that holds with more volume, your framework points pretty clearly at positioning/trust rather than targeting.
Haven't had any real conversations yet though — no replies, no questions, nothing to dig into. That's probably the bigger gap right now compared to the sales number itself.
What stood out to me is that the post seems to assume the next useful lesson comes from more data.
That may be true.
But sometimes the first few users are interesting because of what they fail to tell you, not because there aren't enough of them.
I'd be curious what conclusions you've already ruled out.
Honestly — not much ruled out yet, mostly because I don't have visibility into where those clicks dropped off. Bounced on the headline? Scrolled past the form? Hit the price and left? Don't know yet.
What I can rule out: the checkout itself works, I've tested it with real payments.
What I haven't ruled out: price sensitivity, unclear value prop, or a real mismatch between who's clicking the ad and who actually wants this. Don't have granular funnel data yet to say which — that's the next thing to set up.
That makes sense.
I think the reason I asked is that sometimes a lack of visibility creates a temptation to treat the first explanation that appears as the right one.
Then better tracking arrives and ends up answering a different question than the one people thought they were asking.
Curious what you end up finding.
Good point, and a slightly uncomfortable one to sit with.
Honest risk: I already have a hypothesis (probably price), and
adding tracking could just dress that up as fact instead of
actually testing it. Going to try to look at the funnel without
deciding upfront what I expect to find — easier said than done,
but worth naming out loud.
Will share what actually shows up once there's enough data to
say anything real.
That's actually the part I'd be most interested in.
Not the tracking itself.
The fact that you already have a candidate explanation before the visibility exists to support or reject it.
I've got a few thoughts on that dynamic, but it's probably more than I'd try to unpack properly in a thread.
What's the best email to reach you on?
Totally fair — that's probably a better conversation over email
than in a thread anyway. [email protected] works, genuinely
curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Just tried emailing you and it bounced back.
Mind sending over the correct address?
Weird, just tested it myself and it went through fine both ways. Could you paste the exact bounce error you got? That’ll tell us exactly what’s going on. And just to rule out a typo — it’s [email protected], all lowercase.