In July 2026, the backlash was predictable, and useful. Founders were once again asking whether posting product updates on X, LinkedIn, Reddit, or Medium actually drives customers, or whether it mainly earns applause from other founders.
The hard answer is simple, build in public is not a distribution strategy. It is a trust asset. That distinction matters because trust and distribution are not the same thing, and they do not convert at the same rate.
If your audience is full of peers, investors, and other builders, public shipping can help. If your buyers are operators with a painful job to do, and they do not live in the same feeds, public updates may create visibility without demand.
The July backlash
The recent wave of criticism was not abstract. It came from active founder chatter. Jacob Counsell argued that many people skip the actual building and perform the motion of progress instead, which gets rewarded socially, not commercially. Lumir S Vinod warned that failed public projects can leave a visible trail, and that the internet remembers. In a Reddit thread on r/buildinpublic, one founder asked whether anyone had actually marketed a SaaS successfully this way, which is the right question.
That question cuts through the noise. Does building in public work? Sometimes. But only when the audience you are building in front of includes people who can buy, fund, recommend, hire, or otherwise move the business forward.
Engagement is not demand. Audience is not market. Visibility is not distribution.
What it is
Build in public means sharing progress, decisions, lessons, and metrics while you are still building. The format can be weekly shipping logs, product screenshots, revenue updates, founder diaries, or lessons learned posts.
Used well, it does three things.
- Creates familiarity, so your name and product feel less risky.
- Signals competence, so prospects see how you think.
- Documents momentum, so investors, candidates, and partners can track you over time.
That is useful. But it is not the same as a channel that reliably produces customer acquisition.
Mercury’s balanced guide frames the decision as public versus private, and that is a helpful start, but it skips the more important question founders actually face, are the people watching also the people buying? See their framework here, Building in public: Is this the right approach for your startup?
Audience matters
The mismatch is common. A founder posts a revenue update, gets 200 likes from other founders, then wonders why signups did not move. The answer is usually not that the post was bad. It is that the audience was wrong.
There are two different loops at work.
- The peer loop, founders, indie hackers, and operators reward transparency.
- The buyer loop, actual users reward relevance, timing, and proof of solved pain.
Build in public works best when those loops overlap. That is rare in B2B software, but not impossible.
The mismatch test
Ask three questions.
- Do my buyers actually spend time on this platform?
- Do they follow accounts like mine when they are problem aware?
- Will my posts appear beside content that signals my category, or beside other founders talking to themselves?
If the answer is no, you are not really doing distribution. You are doing reputation work.
When it works
There are situations where building in public is strategically sound.
Devtools and infrastructure
Technical buyers often respect depth. If you are shipping a developer tool, an API, or infrastructure software, public build logs can demonstrate real competence. The content can also help future users understand your architecture and roadmap.
Founder-audience products
If you are selling to other founders, indie hackers, freelancers, or small teams that live on X and Medium, the audience and buyer may be the same person. In that case, public building can shorten trust creation.
Hiring and fundraising
Public work can help with recruiting and investor diligence. It shows pace, clarity, and consistency. That matters because many early-stage decisions are made under uncertainty, and visible execution reduces perceived risk.
But even here, the value is indirect. Public building makes you easier to trust. It does not remove the need for product-market fit.
The hidden risk
Most frameworks ignore reputation downside. They should not.
Lumir S Vinod’s critique points to a real issue, failed public projects are legible. The internet creates a durable record of half-built products, abandoned roadmaps, and optimistic claims that aged badly. For some founders, that is a feature. For others, it becomes a credibility tax.
Investors, customers, and candidates do not all read the same signal, but they do all read some signal. A stream of public experiments can make you look active. It can also make you look unfocused if the narrative lacks discipline.
That is especially true when the content is mostly updates about your process, not evidence of customer value.
Five questions
Before you spend five to ten hours a week posting, answer these questions honestly.
- Is my ICP here? Not vaguely online, specifically on this platform, in this format.
- Do I have buyer overlap? Are the people who engage also able to purchase, refer, or influence purchase?
- Can I show useful work? Will my posts help a buyer understand their own problem better?
- Do I have a real distribution thesis? Or am I posting because visibility feels safer than outreach?
- Can I measure conversion? Do I know what a good post should produce, replies, demos, signups, referrals, or pipeline?
If you cannot answer at least three of those with confidence, build in public is probably not your best use of time right now.
What to do instead
If the test fails, do not confuse that with failure. It simply means your trust work should happen where your buyers already pay attention.
Use the same five hours differently.
- Write one sharp problem page for your site.
- Publish one customer-specific teardown or playbook.
- Do ten targeted outbound messages to accounts that match your ICP.
- Join the communities where buyers ask for help, not where founders share shipping logs.
- Talk to customers and turn those conversations into sales collateral.
For many technical founders, the better path is not louder posting, it is tighter positioning. That may mean founder-led sales, a more useful AEO-first content system, or a smaller set of channels that face the market directly. Better Marketing works with founders on exactly that kind of trust channel selection, because the channel only matters if it reaches people who can act.
FAQ
Is building in public a good idea?
Yes, when your buyers are likely to see it and when your content creates trust that can convert later. No, when you are mostly collecting validation from other founders.
What does building in public mean?
It means sharing the process of building a product, not just the polished result. That can include metrics, lessons, product decisions, and failures.
Does build in public get customers?
Sometimes, but usually only indirectly. It can help if your audience contains buyers or strong referral sources. If not, it is more likely to build reputation than revenue.
What is the build in public approach?
It is a transparency strategy. The best version helps people trust your judgment. The weakest version turns into a weekly performance for peers.
Takeaway
Build in public is not a distribution strategy. It is a trust asset that can support distribution when the audience includes buyers, not just observers.
If your ICP is not where you post, and if your posts do not move people closer to a purchase, you are not doing marketing. You are documenting progress for a crowd that cannot convert.
Use public building when it compounds trust with the market you serve. Use something else when it mainly compounds attention from the wrong one.