Ferenc Fekete

Helping non-tech Founders transform Ideas into SaaS products @ VeryCreatives | Product Agency, SaaS & MVP Development | Startups

I've watched many startup founders fail at the same exact point: turning their validated idea into actual software.

They waste months (or even years):
→ Trying to hire the right developers
→ Burning cash on poor planning and execution
→ Second-guessing every technical decision along the way

Meanwhile, competitors move faster, investors demand traction, and the pressure to deliver keeps building more and more.

After watching this pattern destroy countless promising startups, we built VeryCreatives to fix it.

But here's what makes us different:

We don't just build your MVP and disappear. We're product people who think like founders, not just developers who code to spec.

👉 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵: We start by pressure-testing your assumptions before writing a single line of code. If the market doesn't want it, we'll tell you straight.

👉 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗻𝗲: We build like it's our own startup, obsessing over user experience, scalability, and investor readiness from the first sprint.

👉 𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱: Whether you're at napkin sketch or Series B, we've been there. We've helped founders go from zero to acquisition, and we stick around for the entire journey.

For the past 14 years, we've built products for venture-backed startups, fast-growing scale-ups, and globally recognized brands like Red Bull, Nestlé, and Philips.

The startups we work with have:
✅ Launched investor-ready MVPs in under 90 days
✅ Secured funding from top-tier investors and VCs
✅ Scaled from first users to thousands of paying customers
✅ Successfully exited to strategic acquirers

Got a SaaS idea that's been sitting in your head for months? 
Let's map out your 90-day path to launch → https://verycreatives.com/book-a-call

Co-Founder

At VeryCreatives, we are a team of expert developers who create powerful SaaS apps that solve problems and drive growth for founders with initial funding. We believe in empowering our clients with innovative software that helps them achieve their goals and stand out in their industry.

Our audience consists of driven and ambitious founders who have just received initial funding for their startup. They are looking for a software development partner who understands their vision, can help bring their ideas to life, and deliver results that will help them achieve their business goals.

Founders with initial funding have a pressing need to build their product quickly and efficiently to maximize their chances of success. At VeryCreatives, we understand this need and are dedicated to creating high-quality SaaS apps that not only meet their requirements but also exceed their expectations. We are committed to delivering value and results that help our clients succeed.

VeryCreatives stands out in the market for our ability to deliver high-quality, innovative solutions that meet the needs of our clients. Our unique approach to software development, coupled with our expertise and commitment to excellence, is what drives us to provide outstanding results to our clients.

Industries our clients operate in, using the SaaS products we've built: 
- Digital marketing, Event marketing & Influencer marketing SaaS
- Foodtech & Delivery 
- Fintech, Banking & Investments
- 2-sided marketplace platforms
- Agriculture & Livestock management
- Packaging compliance & Waste

Markets we cover: UAE, EU, UK, US.

The UK is shipping world-class SaaS 🇬🇧

Here's 20 UK startups and the core feature that makes each one worth watching:

Attio (Nicolas Sharp) → AI-native CRM that auto-enriches contacts in real time. ARR quadrupling YoY.

Synthesia (Victor Riparbelli) → Text-to-video with 230+ AI avatars in 140+ languages. $180M Series D.

PolyAI (Nikola Mrkšić) → Voice AI that handles live customer calls in 45 languages. Backed by Nvidia.

Xelix (Paul Roiter) → AI agents for Accounts Payable. Processes 115M+ invoices per year.

Granola (Christopher Pedregal) → AI meeting notepad. Auto-generates structured notes and action items from calls.

Vertice (Eldar Tuvey) → SaaS spend platform that auto-negotiates your renewals. 437% growth rate.

Signal AI (David Benigson) → Real-time monitoring across millions of sources for reputation and regulatory risk.

Plain (Simon Rohrbach) → API-first support where AI agents resolve tickets autonomously. Used by Vercel and Cursor.

Griffin (David Jarvis) → UK's first full-stack Banking-as-a-Service with a full banking license.

Primer (@Paul Anthony) → Single API connecting 100+ payment processors with no-code routing.

hyperexponential (​Amrit Santhirasenan) → No-code pricing models for commercial insurers. Backed by a16z.

Raycast (Thomas Paul Mann) → Keyboard-first productivity launcher. 800+ app integrations with built-in AI.

StackOne (Romain Sestier) → One API to connect 200+ enterprise SaaS integrations. Built for AI agents.

Lindus Health (Meri Beckwith) → Runs full clinical trials 3x faster than traditional CROs.

Metaview (Siadhal Magos) → Auto-generates structured interview notes from live conversations. Used by Sony and Brex.

Sylvera (Allister Furey) → Satellite imagery and ML to rate the actual quality of carbon credits.

Robin AI (Richard Robinson) → LLM trained on 2M+ contracts. Reviews and negotiates legal docs for UBS and Pfizer.

BVNK (Jesse Hemson-Struthers) → Stablecoin payment infrastructure for cross-border business transactions.

Shop Circle (Luca Cartechini) → AI-powered suite for Shopify merchants. Inventory, SEO, analytics in one dashboard.

Tessl (Guy Podjarny) → Forces AI coding agents to write specs before generating code. Prevents hallucinations.

Every one of these started with a sharp product decision: solve one problem exceptionally well, then expand.

What UK startup has caught your eye recently?

Launch products customers love, then exit | 5x exits, $100M ARR created for founders

I’ve developed products for 5x exits

Shock: Don't hire a developer in 2026

Every week, a non-technical founder asks me: "Where do I find good developers?"

My answer: "Why do you need one?"

Usually they don't. Not yet.

Before you hire a developer, you need:

1. Validated problem

→ Real people willing to pay. Not just "interested."


2. Clear scope

→ What are you building? What are you NOT building?


3. User journey mapped

→ Every screen. Every interaction. Every edge case.


4. Prioritized features

→ What's V1 vs V2 vs never?

Without these, you'll waste $15-20k per month while you "figure it out."

If you DO need a developer:

Red flags:

→ Promises fast/cheap (you'll pay later)
→ Doesn't ask about your business model
→ Jumps straight to coding
→ Can't explain trade-offs in plain English

Green flags:

→ Asks more questions than you expect
→ Pushes back on features
→ Talks about users, not just tech
→ Shows similar work (not just "we can do that")

The best developers will tell you what NOT to build.

"The project will cost $50k." - Developer
 
3 months later: $120k. Sh*t. What happened?

Every non-technical founder has heard this: "It will take longer than expected."

But you can prevent it (with some high-school math)

Here's how to build an accurate cost forecast:

Step 1: Break it down absurdly small

Not "user authentication: $5k"

But:

→ Login page design: $500
→ Login backend: $1k
→ Password reset flow: $1.5k
→ OAuth integration: $2k
→ Security testing: $500


Step 2: Add complexity multipliers

→ Simple feature: 1x
→ Medium complexity: 1.5x
→ Complex/uncertain: 2x
→ Integration with third parties: 2.5x


Step 3: Add the "unknown unknowns" buffer

→ New team: +30%
→ Existing team, new domain: +20%
→ Experienced team, known domain: +10%


Step 4: Phase the budget

→ Phase 1: Core features (40% of budget)
→ Phase 2: Secondary features (30% of budget)
→ Phase 3: Polish and optimization (20% of budget)
→ Buffer: (10% of budget)


Step 5: Define cut points

If Phase 1 goes over, what do you cut from Phase 2?

Decide BEFORE you're in crisis mode.


The rule:

If you haven't scoped it in detail, you haven't scoped it.

And if you haven't scoped it, any number is a guess.

So…

Maybe pause that developer project.

Mixpanel is the only company I've seen do this 🔥

They’re putting client logos directly on each pricing tier. 

I think this is smart for a few reasons:

1. Trust at the decision point

You're comparing plans. You're about to pick one.

That's exactly when you see the logos. Trust increases right when it matters most.


2. Self-comparison kicks in

When you see "Uber uses the Growth plan" and "CNN uses Enterprise," you start asking yourself:

→ Which companies are like mine?
→ What plan are they on?
→ Should I be on that too?


3. The proof matches the buyer

→ Startups see startup logos on the Starter tier.
→ Enterprises see enterprise logos on the Enterprise tier.
→ Each plan has its own social proof. Not one generic "10,000 companies trust us" claim.

Small detail. Probably moves conversions more than most people realize.

Have you seen other SaaS companies doing this?

I've been part of 5 SaaS acquisitions.

Here's what buyers discuss privately:

When a company gets acquired, founders focus on revenue, growth metrics, and the pitch.

But after the presentation, when the acquirer's technical team goes back to their office, the conversation shifts completely.

I've seen this happen five times now. The questions they ask each other are almost always the same:

→ "Can we maintain this code without them?"

If the answer is no, the price drops or the deal dies. One of our clients got acquired by Adesso ($1.3B IT company) and one of the deciding factors was code quality. Their team reviewed the codebase and actually kept us as the development partner post-acquisition.


→ "How much technical debt are we inheriting?"

Every shortcut the original team took becomes a line item on a spreadsheet. They calculate what it costs to fix and deduct it from the offer. This can knock six figures off valuations.


→ "Can this handle 10x the current load right now?"

Not after a rebuild. Right now, as-is. If the answer requires re-architecting, that's another cost they subtract.


→ "Is the data clean enough to migrate?"

Messy data means months of integration work on their side. They price that in aggressively.


→ "What happens when the founders walk away?"

If all the product knowledge lives in two people's heads with nothing documented, the acquirer just bought a risk.


Most non-technical founders don't think about any of this until they're already in due diligence. By then the damage is done.

Build like someone's reviewing your codebase tomorrow. After 13 years, I've watched acquisition offers show up when founders least expect them.

What would you want to clean up in your tech stack before a buyer looked at it?

I run a 28-person agency. I used to feel guilty about an ‘empty calendar’ on a Monday. Now I try cancel all of my meetings:

And it’s helped us grow revenue 30%+.

Previously I was in every delivery meeting, every project review, every standup at VeryCreatives.

I thought I had to be in the room for things to run.

Now, our fantastic Head of Delivery meets with the PMs directly. 

And an ‘empty calendar’ means brain space to strategise on growth.

Here's what my Monday looks like now:

1. Strategy session with my co-founder Mate
→ Previous week, pipeline, finances, what's planned
→ Keeps us both aligned so neither of us needs to check in again all week

2. Sales sync
→ New leads, who handles what, timing

3. Afternoon: wide open
→ This is the whole point
→ We use that time to plan new internal tools, shape future services, figure out where we're going next

By lunchtime, the operational part of my day is done.

Everything after that is thinking time.

What's one meeting you could delete from your Monday to create space?

I've helped 5 SaaS products exit. 

Here's what acquirers actually looked at:

5 years ago, a product we developed sold to Adesso ($1.3BN/year IT business).

One of the things they noted was that technical build was a factor in acquisition.

Main problem:

Non-technical founders MOSTLY don’t think about how to build the technical foundation for exit from day 1.

Then in the event of acquisition they scramble to make the product "acquirable" and wonder why due diligence takes forever.

Here's what acquirers evaluate:

1. Code quality

Can they maintain it without you?

I've seen acquirers keep the original dev team post-acquisition specifically because the code was clean. 

Red flags they look for:

→ No documentation
→ No tests
→ Spaghetti architecture
→ Single points of failure


2. Technical debt

How much will it cost to fix?

Every shortcut you take today becomes a negotiating chip against you later.


3. Scalability

Can it handle 10x users?

Not "can we rebuild it to handle 10x." Can it handle 10x NOW?


4. Data integrity

Is the data clean? Structured? Portable?

Messy data = massive integration costs = lower valuation.


5. Team dependency

What happens if founders leave? Is knowledge in heads or in docs?

My ‘exit-ready’ lesson;

Build like someone's going to buy your company tomorrow.

Because if you do it right, they might.

Think about this while building the roadmap for your v1.

My 6-year old son tells $100M private equity firms if product ideas are ‘good’ (I’m serious).

If you can't explain your product to a 6-year old, I’ve got $100,000 on the fact that no one else will get it either.

I sit through dozens of product pitches every year.

The pattern is always the same:

Founder: "So basically, we're building a platform that leverages AI to optimize cross-functional workflows while integrating with existing enterprise systems to enable seamless collaboration and data-driven decision making."

Me: "What does it actually do?"

Founder: "...It helps teams share files."

The 6-year old test:

Can someone who has never heard of your product understand:

1. WHO it's for
2. WHAT problem it solves
3. WHY they should care

In 5 seconds?

If not, here's the formula that works:

"We help [specific person] [do specific thing] so they can [achieve specific outcome]."

Examples:

→ "We help freelancers send invoices so they get paid faster." 
→ "We help HR teams track applicants so they hire better candidates."

Trust me… my 6-year old is a great product idea validation filter.

Can you explain your product in one sentence?

Clay is one of the only companies I’ve seen do this 🔥

When you open the dashboard:

→ There's an AI chat text box.
→ It asks: "What do you want to build?"
→ You type your goal. It takes you to a chat screen. 
→ Then their AI (Sculptor) builds the workflow for you.

I think this solves three problems at once:


1. The blank canvas problem

Clay is powerful but notoriously hard to start with (lot’s of features).

Beginner users will open it, see an empty table, and don't know where to begin.

This prompt box removes that moment. 


2. Slow learning curve

A lot of tools teach you their features via an onboarding. 

But then over a few years they launch 10+ other features you have no clue how to use.

This Clay feature speeds up the learning curve:

→ You describe the outcome
→ The product figures out which features to use
→ You learn by watching it build


3. HUGE time and cost savings. 

For a lot of large products such as Clay, there are off shoots of service based agencies that build with the product for you.

Now you literally do not need to hire an agency.

The product builds what you need for you.

Making it more fun to use.

-

Have you seen other tools do this?

Why US innovation labs pay $500K for what Hungarian teams build for $100K (and get better results):

I just watched an enterprise innovation lab spend $500K on a product that never saw a single real user.

Then in same quarter, we shipped a similar concept for a German client. 

It took six weeks, it cost much less…. and in the end was live and taking payments vs the US one (zero payments).

The problem is US labs have been trained to solve every problem with a 20-person team.

Think about what happens when you have a massive budget:

→ You hire a product manager.
→ You hire three designers.
→ You hire a scrum master.
→ You hire eight developers.
→ You hire two QA engineers
→ And a DevOps team.

Everyone needs to justify their role. So they build. And build. And build.

👉 The PM adds features to show progress
👉 Designers polish screens nobody asked for
👉 Developers architect for scale you don't have
👉 QA tests edge cases that won't exist for years

Six months later, you have a beautiful product that solves nothing particularly well.

OR-

With that same $500k budget, you could run 10 separate validation sprints at $50k each. Even if 8 fail completely, you still walk away with 2 validated concepts to scale.

Compare that to putting the budget on one product that takes six months to discover nobody wants.

Agree or disagree?

Most churn stories I hear are really activation stories in disguise:

Churn comes up in almost every advisory call I do.

The instinct is almost always the same:

We need more value, more features, more reasons to stay.

Then we look at the data.

Signups are healthy.

Most users never make it to a meaningful action in the first few days.

The people asking for advanced features are a tiny percentage who pushed through confusion on their own.

The roadmap is quietly optimising for survivors.

One founder I worked with was ready to build a reporting module because power users kept asking. Turns out 60% of signups never completed onboarding.

So we break the problem into simple time windows.

First seven days → can a busy person reach a clear outcome in one sitting?

Next three weeks → do they have reasons and prompts to come back?

After that → does usage spread inside their team or stay with one person?

Only after we know where the drop lives do we talk about new features.

Often the "feature" we need is a clearer path, better defaults, or one well timed message.

It is less glamorous than a big new module, but it moves the right numbers.

Where is the real drop happening in your product?

Fireflies.ai hit a $1B valuation.

How to copy their MVP strategy:

Founders Sam Udotong and Krish Ramineni would dial into calls as "Fred from Fireflies.ai", sit silently, take notes by hand, and send them 10 minutes later.

They did 100+ meetings like this. Completely manual. 🤯

→ Zero development cost to validate
→ Learned exactly what users needed (by doing the job themselves)
→ Proved people would pay $100/month BEFORE investing in code
→ Only automated after hitting $750/month revenue

What I take from this:

Before you scope features, before you wireframe, before you hire anyone:

Can you deliver the core value manually? Without hiring any developers?

If yes, do that first. Talk to those customers. Understand the problem deeply.

Then build.

-

P.s.

We use Fireflies.ai at VeryCreatives.

We switched from Fathom because it felt more complete and could even log our internal calls in Hungarian. 🇭🇺

Could you imagine Fred joining your call to take notes?

What's stopping you from delivering your product's value manually this week?

Most launches fail in the handoffs. Here's the 20-minute test that catches them.

If we work together on a launch, I will ask you to do one thing that feels annoying:

Close Figma.

Forget your test accounts.

Take a brand new signup and do one complete job in one sitting:

👉Invite the teammates you expect them to invite.

👉Import the messy file they will actually import.

👉Hit the permission edges you are secretly hoping they never hit.

What I keep seeing is the same:

Teams test features in isolation because it feels faster.

Users live in journeys.

Journeys fail in the handoffs.

So, pick one job that really matters.

Time yourself doing it end to end on a fresh account.

Write down every time you pause, swear, or ping someone for help.

Fix the three worst moments before you celebrate anything.

It is not glamorous work, but it has saved more launches for us than any marketing campaign.

When's the last time you did a full journey test on a fresh account?

Hiring a developer is the most expensive mistake a non-technical founder can make. Do these 7 things to save $50k+ for your MVP (avoid Upwork/Fiverr):

1. Define your product strategy first

→ Spend 2-3 days defining exactly what you're building and why. 
→ Don’t scroll Upwork/Fiver for a developer.


2. Create detailed user journeys

→ Every screen. Every interaction. Every edge case.
→ If you can't draw it, you can't build it.
→ Otherwise you’ll end up trusting a developer with the entire thing.


3. Prioritize features ruthlessly

→ What's your V1? V2? Never?
→ Cut 50% of what you think you need.


4. Wireframe everything

→ Before design and before code. Do wireframes.
→ It’s cheap to change (trust me on that one). 


5. Weekly demos with the developer

→ See progress. Catch misunderstandings early.
→ Fast feedback loops save thousands.


6. Fixed scope, not fixed time

→ Tell the developer "Build these 10 features" not "work for 3 months."
→ Not "work for 3 months." or "work for 10 hours this week."


7. Kill features that aren't working

→ Sunk cost fallacy kills startups.


The math:

A few days of product strategy work upfront can prevent $50k-$100k in wrong features.

I've seen founders spend $80k building the wrong thing. Then start over.

Don't be that founder.

The fastest way to make $100k MRR with SaaS 

Copy all of your competitors features:

No, seriously.

But only once you take this into account.

Your competitor has 50 features. 
They’re proven over 5+ years.
They’re clearly making revenue.

Just copy them all right?

Here's the problem:

Your competitor built those 50 features over 5 years.

They added most of them because:

→ A big customer asked for it
→ Someone on the team thought it was cool
→ They were trying to justify a price increase

They probably regret half of them.

What to do instead:

1. Identify their core value proposition (usually 2-3 features)
2. Find which features their customers actually use (check G2 reviews, Reddit, support forums)
3. Identify what they do poorly (read 1-star reviews)
4. Build that. Better.

Don't compete on feature count. 

You'll lose.

Compete on solving one problem exceptionally well.

What's the one thing your competitor does that you could do 10x better?

Acquiring Inbound Leads for B2B Founders with Personal Content Programs • Explaining Content, one Ugly Drawing at a time

Content steals focus, I know. Writing, formatting, visuals, posting cadence, and keeping up with comments. It becomes a weekly tax, then it gets dropped, then inbound stays unpredictable.I build an Authority Engine for B2B Tech Founders. It turns your existing knowledge into consistent content that makes you look like the category leader, without you writing a word.What you get:1) 100% custom AI voice cloneWe extract your voice from your real materials. Whitepapers, sales calls, internal docs, Slack messages, past posts, and anything else that reflects how you think and speak. No generic templates.2) LinkedIn Autopilot5 high converting posts per week, ghostwritten, formatted, and ready to publish. You do not write, format, post, or search for visuals. You approve drafts with a simple yes or no.3) Search Dominance pack2 SEO optimized long form articles per month, derived from your LinkedIn content, so your authority compounds beyond the feed.First week of content can go live within 48 hours of onboarding. You can see engagement on day 1. Your only job is approvals.I will write 3 posts for you for free using your data, so you can see the voice match before you pay. If the first week does not sound exactly like you, or better, I rewrite it until it does, or you do not pay.Best for founders who have real insight and a real product, but do not want content creation to compete with building, selling, and hiring.If you want to test the voice clone, message me: “3 posts”.

Kuba Czubajewski

IMO, this is the only realistic "future" of content marketers:

Every week, I see here new tools popping up that promise my clients they can let all their content team go because AI can do it all for them.

Not once have I seen it actually work, btw.

Content is a much deeper thing than writing a bunch of paragraphs that sound good or an infographic that looks nice.

For me, it's all about connecting the dots that are usually VERY far apart and turning it into a fresh, impactful message.

This is why I'm in love how Dropbox Dash is approaching AI for creatives.

Instead of proposing yet another "I'll do it for you" tool, they're solving one major pain most of us feel:

Not being able to connect the dots because the dot you're looking for is in a file you forgot the name of.

Sounds trivial, but OH MY GOD, the amount of time I used to spend on scrolling through my G-drive is embarrassing.

And this is where I think the whole AI for content conversation should land.

AI is incredible at recall.

Humans are still the best at judgment what matters, what’s true, what’s new, and what’s worth saying out loud.

You won't win because you can generate 50 posts a day.

But if you can pull the right inputs fast, then make a call on the angle, and ship a message people actually remember, you will win.

PS. this is not sponsored by anyone, I just saw their launch and loved it.

I’ll write 3 LinkedIn posts for free, in your voice. If it sounds like you (or better), we install your AI Authority Engine in 90 days.

100% inbound leads from LinkedIn. No ads. No outreach. Just content.

I tracked every lead for months:

Every single one came from LinkedIn posts.

I don't use paid traffic.
Or cold DMs.
Or endless connection requests.

Here’s how I built it:

→ Strategy first

I stopped chasing “viral.” I focused on what founders care about – real problems, clear wins, ugly truths.

→ Story + education

My posts mix lessons with personal stories (and a few embarrassing memes). B2B buyers want to see you, not just your tips.

→ Consistency + intention

I post when I have something useful to say. I track what works, double down on what lands.

Strategic, personal content can still be a decent alternative to outreach.

You can mix both (that's what I'll be doing this year), but when you're busy AF founder, you might want to focus on nailing the inbound first.

Because content helps you clarify everything about your:

• Offer
• Process
• Audience's pain points and goals
• Voice that triggers your customers to act

Most B2B founders still spend hours sending cold emails, running ads, or praying for referrals.

But when your LinkedIn posts actually speak to the pain your buyers feel (and show a bit of your own face), inbound leads show up.

You just need a system that works.

Curious about building a LinkedIn engine that attracts buyers? DM me “INBOUND.”

No alternative text description for this image

Your content has no job. It just vibes and leaves. Let’s fix that today:

Most people post, wait for magic, and get nothing but a like from their mom after three days.

Then they do it again.

The fantasy is simple: If I keep sharing valuable stuff, clients will show up in my inbox asking for a six-month retainer.

But content without a job is just noise.

It shows up, hangs around, and disappears. There’s no clear step between “I saw your post” and “I want to pay you.”

Here’s what works for B2B founders and teams who want clients, not likes:

Every piece of content needs one clear job in your funnel.

I use demand packets for this. They are mini stories that turn expertise into something a buyer can understand in 10 seconds.

A demand packet has:

- A trigger: A moment your buyer knows well. Not “digital transformation,” but “everyone on the ops team is one dashboard away from crying.”

- A job: What they are trying to do. Not “improve analytics maturity,” but “turn data from four systems into something the VP can read.”

- A constraint: The villain. Tool chaos, no in-house skills, a boss who thinks Excel is enough.

- An outcome: One sentence, one number. “Cut reporting time by 35% in two weeks.”

- Proof artifact: Two slides, one screenshot, a checklist. Something they can forward in Slack.

If you don’t have big results yet, use:

- Personal stories: “If I were you, here’s how I’d fix this in 30 days.”
- Tiny pilots: Run a test with one friendly company.
- Honest hypotheticals: “I’m looking for two companies to test this with.”

Then, attach a utility CTA. Make it easy. “Comment ‘brief’ for insights.” Give, don’t ask.

One good conversation beats 200 likes from random marketers.

Random content gets likes. Strategic content gets customers.

Let me know if you use demand packets or want to see a real example from my work.

I started with no money, no contacts, no fancy city office.

Picture this:

A small apartment in Poland.
No team.
Nothing to “show off.”
No one backing me up.

Every day – me, my laptop, and clients who didn’t know my name.

Most days felt like:

Write posts.
Wait.
Hope for an inbound lead.

(Usually nothing.)

B2B tech leaders... yep, tough crowd.

I’m creative, talkative, maybe too much for some.

Every call made me sweat.

Every pitch was incredibly awkward.

Sometimes I wondered if I was nuts for picking this path.

But I couldn’t quit.

I learned to spot what they really needed.

I tried new ideas - most failed, a few worked.

I worked with scraps.

Fixed broken things.

Built trust, one honest message at a time.

I got used to hearing “no.”

I got used to waiting.

But I kept sending, kept building, kept showing up.

Then, slowly...

A “maybe.”
A client who said, “you get what we need.”
A few more.

Then referrals.

All because I'm too stubborn to stop.

Now, I help B2B teams turn strangers into real leads.

One content system, built from scratch.

Starting with nothing makes you sharp.

You learn what matters FAST.

If you feel lost in your work, or your niche feels impossible, keep at it.

Your “weirdness” or “wrong fit” could be the thing they need most.

PS. What did you learn from your first clients when you started from zero?

Here's a 10-min flow I use with founders to create weeks of content for them:

The goal is to create one small, high-integrity narrative object that can survive multiple contexts without losing its meaning. 

The easiest way to do that is to start with a 10-minute CEO video (use Tella or Loom), because spoken answers preserve something writing tends to bleach out: conviction, nuance, and those small qualifiers that signal real experience. 

I beg you, don’t ask for “thought leadership.” 

Ask one tight prompt that forces specificity, like what buyers are getting wrong about a problem right now, what that misunderstanding costs them, and what they should do instead.

Once you have the Loom, the extraction step matters more than the editing. 

You’re looking for a structure:

Pull out:

- one contrarian claim that creates tension
- one vivid symptom that makes the claim relatable
- one constraint that makes it believable
- one before/after framing that makes the shift obvious
- one proof detail that anchors it in reality

That proof detail can be lightweight. It can be “we heard this on 12 calls this month,” or “this showed up in every deal we lost last quarter.” 

Now you take those five ingredients and you write one “source paragraph” in plain language. Don't think of any platform yet. 

Just articulate the idea clearly as if you were explaining it to a smart friend over coffee. This paragraph becomes the anchor. Every other asset is a translation of it, not a reinvention. That’s how you keep integrity when you repurpose.

From there, I like to create three outputs that each do a different cognitive job:

First, a short text post that opens with the contrarian claim and immediately explains the symptom. 

The mistake people make is opening with the claim and then drifting into abstraction. Don’t. 

Earn the reader’s trust by describing what they already see in the wild, the call snippets, the internal debates, the marketing copy that “sounds right” but doesn’t move anything.

Second, a simple carousel where each slide is a single unit of meaning. Not “tips,” but progression. The before model, the cost of that model, the constraint that keeps people stuck, the after model, and then one practical move they can try this week. 

If you can’t fit the idea on five slides without it turning into fog, the idea isn’t ready yet.

Third, a longer form piece where you unpack the constraint and the proof detail. 

This is where nuance belongs. Why the obvious fix fails. What tradeoff you’re making. What to watch out for. 

This is also where you can safely include a real example, even if it’s anonymized, because you have space to set context.

Two quality checks before you hit publish:

• If the post could apply to any company, it’s too generic. 

• If the reader can’t repeat your point in one sentence, it’s too complicated.

If you want, reply with your niche and I’ll give you 5 tight CEO prompts that reliably produce these “weeks of content” anchors.

I recently changed my banner to this one below and you might think I went insane:

This is not a typical path content people choose for their businesses.

“Free value” beyond a regurgitated ChatGPT lead magnet is a rare thing here.

My thinking is this:

I built an Authority System for copying B2B founders’ voice with AI.

It’s GOOD. Took me about a year to get here. 

And the easiest way to prove it is to show my potential clients how it works.

Yes, building a sample assistant is harder than posting fancy carousels and “vulnerable” fake-ass stories

But I’ve always been more of a show-don’t-tell kinda guy and not planning to stop now.

Curious how it works? Dm me “3 posts”

You don’t need to show up in the feed every single day to build your B2B content presence.

It took me a while to realize this.

You see loads of advice like:

“Post daily.”
“Be everywhere.”
“Never miss a day.”

But over the last few months, I learned something that changed my process.

You can grow with smart engagement.

Sometimes, I have zero energy for new posts.

Sometimes, my mind is in setup mode, refining a content system or onboarding a new AI assistant for a client.

Those days, I do one thing: I get active on other posts.

→ I drop detailed comments with tactical insight
→ I join B2B content discussions
→ I connect with founders who share their stories
→ I pay attention to what my network is sharing

And my reach keeps going up.
My network is expanding.
My brand feels strong.

Being visible isn’t only tied to publishing.

It comes from being intentional when you engage.

I block a “golden hour” every day for this:

30–60 minutes inside LinkedIn - adding context, supporting creators, offering actual value.

That is what keeps me top of mind for clients and the right audience.

You can skip a post here and there, and still build a reputation.

What matters in B2B content is consistent presence, not consistent posting.

If you want to create a pipeline instead of just filling the feed, build your system around showing up - not burning out.

"comment on other creators' posts" is sh!tty advice:

I used to spend 2 hours per day here commenting on probably all of them big creators.

Most of them don't give a rat's a*s about me or my content.

And that's perfectly fine. Why would they?

Not once have I reached out to them in a DM, they have no reason to see my comment and think:

"I wonder what this guy is about?"

But the folks I exchanged DMs with are consistently showing up under my posts.

Because we established a more meaningful connection than a [put an insightful comment here so they see you're trying hard]

See what I'm getting at?

Connection > tactics.

Build the first one and you'll never need to think about the second one again.

You want an experienced marketer? I got you.

(testimonials from Cleopatra available on the website. Go and see)

A year ago I thought I had it figured out:

Build a content agency for B2B founders. Use AI to do the heavy lifting. Keep costs low, scale fast. Simple.

What actually happened: 

I spent months building something nobody wanted to pay for.

The first version of the system was basically:

1. take the founder's old posts
2. dump them into a prompt
3. generate something that kind of sounded like them

The output was fine. Technically competent. The kind of content that gets 15 likes and zero leads.

I wasn't impressed with myself tbh. Neither were my clients.

So I overcomplicated everything:

A 12-step onboarding process, 5 different content formats, a pricing page that looked like a software feature comparison matrix...

I was trying to cover every possible use case for every possible client, and the result was that nobody could figure out what I actually did.

The solution was so stupidly simple, I facepalmed when I finally got there:

I started interviewing founders instead of just ingesting their existing content.

Turns out the best content a founder can publish isn't what they've already written.

 It's what they say when someone asks them the right questions:

- the unguarded takes
- the specific stories
- the things they'd never think to write down but say out loud constantly

Once I built the system around that – extract the thinking first, then write – the output stopped sounding like AI trying to be human and started sounding like the founder on their best day.

That took about a year to nail.

The offer got simpler too:

Interview you -> Write it up -> Publish it -> You approve the drafts. 

That's the whole thing.

If you want to see what it looks like, DM me "3 posts" – I'll write them for free before you spend anything.

I had a chat with a B2B founder that told me he struggles with referrals because his clients "can't explain his value." Here's how I'd fix it with content:

When clients can't explain your value, it usually means one of three things:

1/ You solved a problem they didn't know they had.

2/ You fixed something so complex they can't see the full scope.

3/ You delivered value that's invisible until it breaks.

Your content needs to make the invisible visible.

Instead of writing about what you do, write about what breaks when you're not there.

"What happens when your data pipeline fails during your biggest sales quarter"
"The hidden cost of manual processes that only surface when you try to scale"
"Why your competitors can respond to market changes faster than you"

This type of content does two things:

1/ It helps prospects recognize problems they didn't know they had.
2/ It gives current clients language to explain why those problems matter.

When clients forward your content about "hidden operational risks," they're not just sharing an article.

They're explaining why they needed you without having to understand the technical details.

Your content should make the case for your category of work, not just your company.

The better prospects understand the problem you solve, the easier it becomes for clients to refer you.

AI for content is fast. But it's not designed to think like you. Here’s how I built an AI-Content Engine that does both:

Every high-performing B2B content program I create runs on a four-part system. Not a random pile of AI hacks. Not a “hit publish and hope” workflow.

Here’s the engine:

• Strategic Content Ideation
• Voice-Trained AI Assistants
• Human Editorial Layer
• Automated Distribution

Each part plays a role.

Strategic Content Ideation means you plan topics that actually move your pipeline. No more “guess and post.”

Voice-Trained AI Assistants write in your tone. I build custom bots for LinkedIn posts, carousels, newsletters, editing – each one trained on your best content, not generic data.

Human Editorial Layer = the “taste” filter.

AI is fast, but it’s not flawless.

Humans check for context, nuance, and those tiny details only you know.

The worst thing you can do is hit “publish” without reading the AI output.

Automated Distribution gets your work in front of the right people.

No endless copy-paste. No burnout.

The system publishes, tracks, and learns – so every post gets smarter.

This results in content that attracts real buyers, builds trust, and actually converts.

Generic AI tools can’t do this. You need a custom, hybrid engine built for your niche.

That’s how you scale creativity AND quality.

Want to know how this system could fit your business? DM me. I’ll walk you through it.

A thing we rarely discuss in marketing is how customers perceive our narrative through preloaded meanings:

We think we’re publishing a simple story about a benefit. They’re interpreting a signal about power, intent, and control. 

That gap is what Ring ran into with its Super Bowl ad about a lost dog found through a neighborhood camera network. The creative aimed for warmth and community. 

The audience, already saturated with years of privacy discourse and surveillance headlines, watched the same 30 seconds and didn’t primarily evaluate the plot. They evaluated the infrastructure implied by the plot. 

“AI + cameras” isn’t a neutral prop anymore. It’s a symbol, and symbols arrive with cultural baggage attached.

This is the real mechanism behind “losing the narrative.” It’s rarely about execution quality but about the interpretive surface area. 

When a story leaves room for people to fill in the blanks, they will. And they’ll fill them with the strongest available frame in their mind, usually the one that best matches their anxieties. 

In this case, the counter-frame was waiting in the wings, mass surveillance disguised as safety. 

Once that frame establishes itself, everything that follows stops being “new information” and becomes “supporting evidence.” 

That’s why Ring’s sudden move away from a planned partnership with Flock Safety was immediately absorbed into the same storyline. Regardless of internal motives, it read like validation, not coincidence.

The takeaway isn’t “be careful with your messaging.” That’s too shallow. 

The takeaway is that narrative is not a message you transmit. It’s a negotiation between your intent and the audience’s prior beliefs. 

And prior beliefs are not something you overcome with a nicer tone. They’re something you have to design around. If your product or campaign touches an area where trust is already fragile, you should assume your audience will run an adversarial interpretation, even if they like you, even if the ad is well made.

A better move is to treat messaging like you treat product design:

Reduce ambiguity. Anticipate misuse scenarios. Make the boundaries legible. 

Don’t just tell a heartwarming story about what your system can do at its best. Show that you’ve thought seriously about what it could do at its worst, and what you’ve done to prevent that. 

In 2026, “we’re doing this for safety” is not a persuasive claim by itself. People want to know who gets visibility, who gets veto power, and what recourse exists when the system is wrong.

Curious how you think about this. When was the last time you watched a brand’s “feel good” story and immediately felt the darker subtext the audience would attach to it?

How I helped a B2B consultancy business (very niche) start showing up in AI search:

We focused on turning their LinkedIn content into long-form SEO articles built around real opinions, specific frameworks, and language that maps to actual buyer problems.

AI tools cite sources that are clear and substantive. Since their LinkedIn content had this already, expanding it into articles became much easier.

The results measured over the last 90 days:

Overall: 1,619 AI bot hits → 4,163. That's 3x.
Homepage: 514 → 946. Almost 2x.

Every hit is ChatGPT or Perplexity pulling from their site while a buyer is actively researching. That's pipeline you'd never see in a cold outreach report.

If you want to see what this looks like for your niche, reply ENGINE and tell me what you sell.

200,000 people just watched a creator get stood up by a brand's AI chatbot:

Reformation used AI to manage its influencer outreach. It confirmed a collaboration, set up a store visit, and ran weeks of back-and-forth with a creator.

She drove an hour to the store, shot video in the dressing room... The manager had no idea who she was.

TikTok called it "an AI bot that went rogue." Reformation sent her a sweater as an apology.

Here's my read on what actually happened: 

AI made commitments nobody at the brand had authorized. And no human was watching the inbox it was running.

The bot did exactly what it was built to do - respond, confirm, follow up. 

But nobody told it where to stop. That's a systems failure.

AI doesn't know when it's overstepping. The tool runs until you build a stop - and plenty of AI marketing setups skip that step entirely.

There are places where automation works well: segmentation, sequences, content drafts.

And then there are contexts that require a human in the seat: real commitments, real relationships, anything a creator or partner will hold you to.

I put a lot of emphasis on that while working with my clients on their content assistants.

First draft can (and should) come from the AI. But the human editor before anything goes live is a must. 

Doesn't matter how good your AI tool is. If there's no one monitoring what it's agreeing to, you're one post away from a mess.

The CEO of impact put it well: "Human credibility becomes more valuable, not less."

That's the thing marketing teams running AI tools aren't accounting for right now, imo.

Quick tip if you hate when AI says "It's not X, it's Y..."

This rhetorical device is called "contrastive reframing using antithesis structure."

Hard-prompt it into your content assistant to avoid it (example below).

Also, from my tests, Claude 4.6 is much better at this that GPT models.

PS. Let me know any other annoying things AI uses - I'll show you how to remove them from the outputs.

taplio

The Battle

Ferenc Fekete

Kuba Czubajewski

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreFerenc Fekete's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreKuba Czubajewski's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Ferenc Fekete

Kuba Czubajewski

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Ferenc Fekete's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreKuba Czubajewski's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreFerenc Fekete's LinkedIn Performance