spreadsheet

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-14

Final complete day: 2026-10-14. Attention was 0.9% — this entity appeared in 8 of 883 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (8 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-10-14 10:42 UTCComment

   i've seen this a lot in product marketing. what usually works is picking one group and being a bit stubborn about it for a few weeks, even if the others look just as good on paper. To choose, talk to 5 or 6 people from each group and listen for who already has the problem today, not who thinks it's cool. the ones already hacking something together (a spreadsheet, a zap, a freelancer) are usually the ones who'll pay, because they're already spending time or money on it. "cool idea" people say nice things and never come back. people who ask "when can i use it" or "what does it cost" are your group.

2. 2026-10-13 04:49 UTCComment

   I agree that a good product doesn't automatically bring customers. But I'm not sure struggling to get customers always means the market is saturated. One competitor that's easy to overlook is whatever people already use, even when it isn't very good. Say you're selling order management software to a shop that runs on spreadsheets and messages. Your software genuinely works better: automatic inventory updates, less data entry, fewer missed orders. But adopting it means moving data, training staff, and checking that the new process actually works. If something goes wrong, the owner has to deal with the customers. From the builder's side, it's a time-saving tool. From the buyer's side, it's also a change that could disrupt their business. Their spreadsheet might be frustrating, but at least they know where it usually breaks and how to fix it. A better system can still feel like the riskier choice. I think that complicates the idea that marketing matters more than quality. Marketing can make someone aware of your product and convince them it's good. But if migrating data and changing workflows are what's stopping them, more advertising might not solve that. Helping them migrate, letting them run both systems alongside each other, or giving them a way back if it doesn't work out could be more convincing than a longer feature list. Switching costs aren't new, so this alone doesn't prove customer acquisition is harder than ten years ago. But I'd want to understand what customers are rejecting before concluding there's no room left in the market. When you say getting customers is harder, are they usually choosing another competitor, or do they understand your product and still decide to keep doing things the old way? Those seem like pretty different problems to solve.

3. 2026-10-12 21:03 UTCComment

   Find out if other people have the same problem badly enough to already be doing something about it. If they're using a spreadsheet, a pile of apps or a paid workaround, that's a good sign. If they say "oh yeah that's annoying" and nothing else, it probably isn't a business. Then ask a handful of them to pay something, even a small amount, before you build more. People are very nice about ideas and much more honest about money.

4. 2026-10-11 15:51 UTCComment

   Dude calculated the exact percentage of time spent talking about money and it's less than half a percent, that's a massive red flag wrapped in a spreadsheet. The problem isn't the 15 hours, it's that he sees any communication as a chore getting in the way of his real work. You're not asking for daily standups, you're asking to know if the company can afford the project you're planning. If he can't handle that without spiraling about sacrifice, the 50/50 split isn't the issue, the respect is

5. 2026-10-11 13:37 UTCComment

   The filter that matters is not the tool. It is one question: would this move change what we do next quarter? Most competitor intel fails because it logs activity, not decisions. A price cut you would never match and a feature your roadmap already covers are both noise, no matter how neatly they sit in a spreadsheet. The matrix becomes a graveyard because it treats every move as information. Only the ones that would reroute your priorities are intelligence. So start from your own side. List the five decisions you are making this year. Pricing, positioning, channel, the roadmap. A competitor row exists only if it touches one of those decisions. Everything else gets ignored on purpose. And the best feed is not a tool. It is your last ten lost deals. Prospects told you exactly who they compared you to. That list is your competitor set. Everything beyond it is entertainment.