Building a B2B Product: Why Distribution and Earning Trust Are Harder Than Development

·May 26, 2026 05:47 AM·

One thing I’m realizing building a B2B product is that distribution is a completely different skill from product development. You can spend weeks building something useful and still struggle to get even a few real people to try it. Feels like the hardest part early on isn’t building — it’s earning enough trust and attention for someone to care.

14 comments

· Sorted by Oldest

Leandro K.
·
·
B2B Physical Products
Offer samples, it works well for physical products
Localized copy is critical, work with a translation agency for any language
Leandro K.
·
·
"it’s earning enough trust and attention for someone to care." I believe this problem is not just for b2b products 😅 Unless you have a referral, you will always face this. Intent = Inward-focused data → They're showing buying behavior. → They're coming TO you (or at least looking for you). Signals/Triggers = Outward-focused data → You're forming hypotheses. → You're going TO them. Most outbound fails because teams chase "signals" that have ZERO correlation to their actual value prop. Or they wait for "perfect intent" that never comes. Do this instead: → Pick 3-5 triggers that ACTUALLY indicate your problem exists → Build campaigns around each one → Test and measure conversion → Double down on what converts
Brice E.
·
·
The intent vs signals distinction is interesting. In practice I’ve noticed most teams struggle because they either over-rely on “strong intent” (which is rare) or they chase weak signals without validating if they actually correlate with conversion. The idea of defining a small set of real triggers and testing them systematically feels like the most grounded approach here.
Leandro K.
·
·
yes, if you want to brainstorm on that, let me know
Brice E.
·
·
Yeah I’d be open to that. I’ve been thinking about this a lot especially around how teams separate “interesting signals” from signals that actually correlate with conversion. A lot of systems seem to generate data, but not necessarily clarity on what truly drives outcomes. Would be interesting to compare what you’ve seen working in real outbound setups.
Pat H.
·
·
“One thing I’m realizing” is becoming a telltale sign. We see it in almost every 3 new posts. What are you trying to build?
Brice E.
·
·
I’m building DocMetrics a platform focused on post-proposal buyer engagement intelligence for B2B sales teams. The core idea is helping salespeople understand what’s actually happening after proposals or pricing docs get shared internally instead of relying purely on follow-ups and gut feeling.
Pat H.
·
·
That already exists in 10 different flavors. What's different about your platform compared to all the others?
✅1
Brice E.
·
·
Yeah, that’s fair. Most existing tools stop at document analytics opens, views, time spent, signatures, etc. The area I’m exploring more deeply is deal momentum intelligence after internal sharing starts happening. Things like:
secondary viewer detection
identifying when proposals spread beyond the original champion
engagement shifts across stakeholders
trying to surface signals that indicate internal buying activity rather than just document activity
Still early, but that’s the direction I find most interesting because most teams still lose visibility once proposals start circulating internally.
Valiantsina H.
·
·
100% agreed. We've seen this with dev shops too — building is the easy part (technically). Getting the right clients to trust you with their complex .NET/Azure project is a whole different game. What worked for us: case studies. Showing not telling. "We rebuilt Aquarium Insurance from legacy mess to microservices on Azure" opens more doors than any cold DM. Good luck with the distribution grind — it gets easier once you have one or two wins to point to.
Brice E.
·
·
That makes a lot of sense. I’m starting to realize distribution is less about convincing people with explanations and more about reducing perceived risk with proof. One real success story probably carries more weight than 100 feature descriptions.
Pat H.
·
·
Distribution is a complex word for PMF (product market fit). Find a customer. Find a dozen more like them. Sell like crazy to that ICP and keep building. Stop over thinking it.
Brice E.
·
·
That’s fair honestly. I think I’m starting to realize that distribution feels “complex” mostly when the ICP and pain point still aren’t tight enough yet.
Ozan D.
·
·
this resonates. the thing that finally clicked for us was that distribution isn't a separate phase from building — it's a feedback loop. the conversations you have trying to get people to care end up reshaping the product itself. if distribution feels impossible, it might mean the framing is off more than the product is wrong

Leandro K.
·
·
B2B Physical Products
Offer samples, it works well for physical products
Localized copy is critical, work with a translation agency for any language
Leandro K.
·
·
"it’s earning enough trust and attention for someone to care." I believe this problem is not just for b2b products 😅 Unless you have a referral, you will always face this. Intent = Inward-focused data → They're showing buying behavior. → They're coming TO you (or at least looking for you). Signals/Triggers = Outward-focused data → You're forming hypotheses. → You're going TO them. Most outbound fails because teams chase "signals" that have ZERO correlation to their actual value prop. Or they wait for "perfect intent" that never comes. Do this instead: → Pick 3-5 triggers that ACTUALLY indicate your problem exists → Build campaigns around each one → Test and measure conversion → Double down on what converts
Brice E.
·
·
The intent vs signals distinction is interesting. In practice I’ve noticed most teams struggle because they either over-rely on “strong intent” (which is rare) or they chase weak signals without validating if they actually correlate with conversion. The idea of defining a small set of real triggers and testing them systematically feels like the most grounded approach here.
Leandro K.
·
·
yes, if you want to brainstorm on that, let me know
Brice E.
·
·
Yeah I’d be open to that. I’ve been thinking about this a lot especially around how teams separate “interesting signals” from signals that actually correlate with conversion. A lot of systems seem to generate data, but not necessarily clarity on what truly drives outcomes. Would be interesting to compare what you’ve seen working in real outbound setups.
Pat H.
·
·
“One thing I’m realizing” is becoming a telltale sign. We see it in almost every 3 new posts. What are you trying to build?
Brice E.
·
·
I’m building DocMetrics a platform focused on post-proposal buyer engagement intelligence for B2B sales teams. The core idea is helping salespeople understand what’s actually happening after proposals or pricing docs get shared internally instead of relying purely on follow-ups and gut feeling.
Pat H.
·
·
That already exists in 10 different flavors. What's different about your platform compared to all the others?
✅1
Brice E.
·
·
Yeah, that’s fair. Most existing tools stop at document analytics opens, views, time spent, signatures, etc. The area I’m exploring more deeply is deal momentum intelligence after internal sharing starts happening. Things like:
secondary viewer detection
identifying when proposals spread beyond the original champion
engagement shifts across stakeholders
trying to surface signals that indicate internal buying activity rather than just document activity
Still early, but that’s the direction I find most interesting because most teams still lose visibility once proposals start circulating internally.
Valiantsina H.
·
·
100% agreed. We've seen this with dev shops too — building is the easy part (technically). Getting the right clients to trust you with their complex .NET/Azure project is a whole different game. What worked for us: case studies. Showing not telling. "We rebuilt Aquarium Insurance from legacy mess to microservices on Azure" opens more doors than any cold DM. Good luck with the distribution grind — it gets easier once you have one or two wins to point to.
Brice E.
·
·
That makes a lot of sense. I’m starting to realize distribution is less about convincing people with explanations and more about reducing perceived risk with proof. One real success story probably carries more weight than 100 feature descriptions.
Pat H.
·
·
Distribution is a complex word for PMF (product market fit). Find a customer. Find a dozen more like them. Sell like crazy to that ICP and keep building. Stop over thinking it.
Brice E.
·
·
That’s fair honestly. I think I’m starting to realize that distribution feels “complex” mostly when the ICP and pain point still aren’t tight enough yet.
Ozan D.
·
·
this resonates. the thing that finally clicked for us was that distribution isn't a separate phase from building — it's a feedback loop. the conversations you have trying to get people to care end up reshaping the product itself. if distribution feels impossible, it might mean the framing is off more than the product is wrong