logo
Build In Public Or Keep It Secret? The Growth Hack Entrepreneurs Miss

Build In Public Or Keep It Secret? The Growth Hack Entrepreneurs Miss

Forbes14-05-2025

Build in public or keep it secret? The growth hack entrepreneurs miss
Most entrepreneurs don't strike the right balance with building in public. They hide everything they're working on or they share random updates without strategy. They switch approaches based on mood, posting revenue figures one week then going silent for months.
Inconsistency confuses their audience and ruins their impact. While they flounder, others with clear sharing strategies build loyal followings or secure market advantages that compound over time.
I've built and sold a social media agency and seen firsthand how sharing strategies makes or breaks business growth. Some of my clients dominated their industries by carefully controlling information flow, while others thrived through radical transparency. The difference was simply how deliberately they chose their approach.
To win in business, you need to choose one clear sharing strategy. No middle ground. Build in public or keep your secrets. Each approach brings distinct advantages when executed with intention.
Let's break down both paths so you can pick one and double down.
Building in public means sharing your journey, including failures, experiments, and wins. But in a very intentional way, completely on your terms. This approach builds trust rapidly and attracts like-minded people to your world. When you document your process consistently, you create content that serves as both marketing and proof of expertise.
Share your frameworks after you've tested them. Show the thinking behind your decisions. Take people behind the scenes of your business in ways that add value to their lives. But don't air the entirety of your dirty laundry. Instead, share the details after you know the outcome and you can create a narrative around it. Don't rush to post. Neither oversharing or undersharing is the goal. The key is balance.
The proof is everywhere that this can work brilliantly. CopyAI went from $1 to $50,000 in monthly revenue by openly sharing their metrics and milestones on Twitter. Webflow rode transparency all the way to unicorn status worth $2 billion, turning their struggles and pivots into community-building fuel.
Superhuman built their email tool in public, discussing challenges openly, which shaped their product and created a rabid fan base in the process. Others like Buffer, Ghost, Gumroad and Nomad List share everything from revenue to employee salaries, making transparency a cornerstone of their success. When done strategically, building in public creates a magnetic pull that silent companies simply can't match.
But plenty of successful companies do the opposite. Apple famously keeps products under wraps until launch day, creating massive anticipation and preventing competitors from copying their innovations. Stripe, now worth $70 billion, quietly built their payment infrastructure with minimal public fanfare. SpaceX keeps many projects classified until they're ready to unveil. Even Notion grew largely through word-of-mouth rather than broadcasting their roadmap.
Strategic silence can be just as powerful as transparency when executed with purpose. Some founders move in the shadows. They focus entirely on execution without broadcasting their moves. This approach works when your edge comes from proprietary methods or you're in a highly competitive, fast-moving market. Let other people overshare and give away their next moves too soon.
Play this game by channeling all your energy into execution rather than explanation. Set clear boundaries on what you won't discuss on podcasts. Create inside-only documents about strategy and vision. Share results with your team but not your audience. Move deliberately and reveal your hand only when you've already secured your position.
Deciding whether to build in public or keep your secrets depends on your unique situation. Here are the key factors to help you decide:
Are you energized by sharing and community engagement? Do you love showing up online and talking through challenges and how you're solving them? Or do you prefer working quietly without external feedback? Choose the approach that aligns with your natural strengths.
Is your industry collaborative with plenty of room for multiple winners? Or is it zero-sum with limited opportunities? Transparency works better in collaborative spaces. You never know which doors might open by being open. You never know who might get in touch when you share your truth. But that doesn't happen in every industry.
Does your edge come from unique perspective and execution? Or from proprietary methods and insider knowledge? The more unique your methods, the more you might want to protect them. But don't focus on your competition because that keeps you playing small. Let them follow you, but don't follow them.
Your marketing mix matters. Consider how many other avenues you have available: founder-led marketing, paid ads, user-generated content, influencer partnerships. Your business might have many better options to increase exposure and revenue without sharing your journey. However, if you're running a "boring" SaaS business with limited marketing appeal, building in public might be your main opportunity to stand out. When conventional marketing paths are closed or too expensive, transparency becomes your edge.
Once you've chosen your approach, establish clear principles for what you'll share and what you'll keep private.
For the build-in-public crowd, this means determining which metrics, processes, and learnings you'll make public. When and how often to share, ensuring it resonates with the right people. Deciding where your business ends and your personal life begins. Whether you'll share the numbers or the feelings behind them.
For the secrecy players, it means establishing even clearer rules about what information stays within the circles of your business. And making sure your team knows the rules too. If you're building in private, you'll have to build your content strategy around other tactics.
Revisit boundaries regularly. As your business develops, so should your sharing strategy. What made sense to share at the startup phase might need protection as you scale. What needed secrecy early on might become your best marketing asset later. Stay intentional as you grow.
Too many founders waste time trying to play two games at once. They want the audience growth from building in public but are too afraid to share anything truly valuable. They want the competitive advantage of secrecy but still crave validation from an audience. But you can't win by straddling both approaches. The world rewards those who make deliberate choices and execute with conviction. Your move, founder.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Corbin Burnes needs Tommy John surgery. Prepare for aftershocks.
Corbin Burnes needs Tommy John surgery. Prepare for aftershocks.

Washington Post

time24 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Corbin Burnes needs Tommy John surgery. Prepare for aftershocks.

When Arizona Diamondbacks ace Corbin Burnes left a pitch up to CJ Abrams last Sunday and immediately motioned for trainers, everyone at Chase Field understood what it might mean. And when cameras caught Burnes appearing to express concern about his elbow, there was little reason to doubt his self-diagnosis. Burnes has been one of the game's most durable starters since the start of the 2021 season. He knew this would change that. Diamondbacks Manager Torey Lovullo on Friday confirmed what Burnes and others had already suspected: The ace to whom Arizona committed $210 million over the next six years will miss the rest of the 2025 season and most of 2026 because he needs Tommy John surgery. Burnes, 30, will have the procedure next week. All injuries spur ripples — sometimes through a team's active roster, sometimes deep into an organization's minor league depth. But an injury to Burnes, one of the game's preeminent starting pitchers anchoring the rotation of a would-be playoff team fighting for its life, will have aftershocks near and far. The first jolt, of course, will be felt in the desert, where the Diamondbacks are hovering around .500 while trying to steady a pitching staff that was disappointing even with Burnes. Their other ace, Zac Gallen, has been uncharacteristically mediocre. Promising righty Brandon Pfaadt has been getting pummeled and lefty Eduardo Rodriguez only returned from injury Friday, meaning the Diamondbacks cannot be sure what he will give them. As such, if they intend to contend, they will likely need to add a starter at or before the trade deadline. Demand was already high, and with several teams still weighing their commitment to 2025, supply remains limited. But the Burnes injury could also change more than just the Diamondbacks' 2025 calculus; Arizona's owner, Ken Kendrick, has invested in winning recently but could seize the whiff of mediocrity to balance his recently bloated budget. If the Diamondbacks fall out of contention — and without Burnes, the chances of that increase — they could seek trades for first baseman Josh Naylor (making $10.9 million this year), third baseman Eugenio Suarez ($15 million), Gallen ($13.5 million) and right-hander Merrill Kelly ($7 million), all of whom would represent significant savings even with just the post-deadline portions of their salaries gone. Any savings could be crucial, because Burnes's injury also complicates Arizona's offseason. Gallen will be a free agent for the first time, and he will almost certainly want to test the market. Kelly will be a free agent, too. So is Jordan Montgomery, who also underwent Tommy John surgery this year. That leaves Arizona with only three sure things in next year's rotation: Rodriguez, Pfaadt and Ryne Nelson, who was in Arizona's bullpen but has started three games for the Diamondbacks this year. They will need more to contend in the National League West, which means they might need to be major players in this year's offseason starting pitching market, even though they just gave Burnes the largest pitching contract in their history. Fortunately for anyone seeking starting pitching this winter, options abound. Gallen, Framber Valdez and Dylan Cease headline a class that will also include Ranger Suárez, Chris Bassitt and Zach Eflin, not to mention the dozen or so strong starters who could opt out of deals if they so choose. But one more team on the prowl increases demand this winter — just like one more seller changes the entire trade deadline a few months earlier. For that reason, the aftershocks of the Burnes injury will also be felt in New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and beyond. If the Diamondbacks do decide to sell, even an underperforming Gallen would be one of the more coveted assets available — a potential fate-alterer for any postseason team. Suarez, too, offers the kind of clubhouse pep and on-field power that would make him a highly sought after deadline option. The Yankees, for example, have been hunting for a third base solution all year. Naylor has plenty of pop and postseason experience, too. Kelly has proven himself to be as tough as they come. If the Diamondbacks sell, any one of those players could change a team's October trajectory, if the stars align. Arizona is currently one of several teams that expected to contend and are underachieving. The Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, Baltimore Orioles and Texas Rangers are all hoping to stave off a deadline sale by rejuvenating their chances over the next two months. The more that do so, the higher demand for Arizona's assets will be. The Diamondbacks have not been ones to cave in recent years, in large part because few teams know better how quickly fates can change. In 2023, they found themselves two games under .500 on August 11. They ended up in the World Series. But rallies like those are hard to engineer even with an annual Cy Young contender in the rotation. Without one … well, the contending vultures are starting to gather in the desert.

Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?
Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?

Yahoo

time24 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?

It's never a good idea trying to second-guess the Oracle of Omaha. Warren Buffett sold a huge chunk of his Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock last year. It wasn't the first time he trimmed his position in the tech giant. Back in 2021, he admitted selling was 'probably a mistake'. But, amid recent share price weakness, I doubt he will repeat the same line this time. Recent soundings from Apple CEO Tim Cook seem to indicate he has taken a leaf out of Buffett's playbook. In a recent earnings call, he pushed investors to be patient as it attempts to roll out AI features in the iPhone. 'Not first, but best' was how he put it in an interview last year. In an investing landscape measured in quarterly earnings, though, many don't have much patience. In some respects, he is right. Three years into the generative AI revolution and not one consumer product has emerged, other than ChatGPT, of course. And that's despite the industry spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and with the might of the media hyping the technology on an almost daily basis. Recently, Jony Ive, the architect instrumental in the design of the iPhone, sold his company to OpenAI for $6.5bn. At the not-for-profit startup, he is working on what has been described as a 'screen-free' device. Some reports highlight that mass production could start as early as 2027. The threat is clearly on Apple's radar. During the ongoing Google anti-trust trial, one of Apple's senior executive stated: 'You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now, as crazy as that sounds.' Given the present state of hardware technology and the extremely vague statements that have come from Sam Altman regarding no-screen devices, I'm not willing to give much credence to these remarks. But, of course, that could change in the years ahead. Apple has a history of not rushing into a new technology, until its full potential is understood. It was a little-known company when General Magic invented the first smartphone. It didn't invent the music player, either. The biggest short-term risk to the stock is tariffs. Apple has undoubtedly been the biggest beneficiary of outsourcing manufacturing to China. It has certainly been a major contributor in pushing the valuation to $3trn. Trump's ambition of seeing the iPhone mass produced in the US is unlikely to ever happen, in my opinion. With consumers being squeezed from all directions these days, I don't believe they would ever stomach paying up to $3,000 for one. Tim Cook has already guided to expect $900m in additional costs over the next quarter. A tiny figure, yes, but I can't see it ending there. Without price increases, the frothy valuation looks unsustainable. As I just said, I'm not sure that consumers will be as obliging as in the past and accept such increases. As for Buffett, he still holds a significant chunk of Apple stock. But with a trailing price-to-earnings of 32, I'm not sure the risks are fully priced in. Therefore, I won't be investing. The post Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Andrew Mackie has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Apple. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store