Traction Lab Podcast

Hey friends 🤘You know the pattern: founders hear encouraging words, dodge the uncomfortable price conversation, and call it traction because everyone is smiling.Cute. Also dangerous.For episode 99, we put Office Hours on the podcast feed and took four founder questions that all circle the same problem: founders trying to avoid the signal that matters. Will customers pay more? Will free pilots convert? Should contractor software start narrow? Can two engineers enter healthcare without a regulatory sherpa?We get into price increases, the danger of unpaid pilots, why “everyone does things differently” is usually a reason to narrow instead of broaden, and why HIPAA probably should not be the first scary thing you fight at idea stage.Plus, frivolous thoughts include Blues Traveler harmonica heroics, aging Cards Against Humanity references, and the unsettling moment your family reveals exactly how dark they think your sense of humor is.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:15 - Low T and episode 9905:30 - Raising prices without panicking12:45 - Free pilots that never convert25:00 - Narrowing contractors and healthcare fear40:00 - Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You know the pattern: founder builds the thing, founder lists the features, founder waits for customers to notice how obviously great it is. Very compelling!But only for the founder.This week, Cameron and JDM continue the Startup Pseudoscience Series with one of the sneakiest myths in startup land: people buy products. We steelman the case first, because products are tangible. Features are visible. Specs feel objective. Money does, in fact, get exchanged for the thing.Except the thing is not the point.Customers are buying a problem solved, an outcome reached, and a future state they can actually imagine. A drill bit is not about a drill bit. It is not even about the hole. It is about getting art on the wall without creating a new problem in the process.From Command strips to Juicero to Instagram filters, we dig into why feature-first messaging falls flat, why “better, faster, cheaper” usually is not enough, and how switching costs protect the status quo.Then we get practical: jobs to be done, customer discovery, needs/wants/fears, and experience maps as a way back from product obsession to actual customer problems.Plus, in frivolous thoughts: Line of Duty, fancy Japanese whiskey glasses, spherical ice, shaken espresso, and the deeply relatable pain of paying for two Prime accounts because switching costs are real.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 Steelmanning the product myth05:30 People buy problems solved12:45 Features, outcomes, and jobs to be done25:00 Customer discovery and experience maps40:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You know the pattern: founder has an idea, founder needs a product, product needs money, so the next three months disappear into pitch deck purgatory.Very official. Very polished.Still just unfundable assumptions with pretty slides.This week, Cameron and JDM continue the Startup Pseudoscience Series with one of the more seductive founder myths: you need to raise money to get started. We steelman the case first, because capital does buy talent, speed, infrastructure, and credibility. And it is genuinely necessary—sometimes.But “sometimes capital is useful” is not the same as “fundraising is step one.”We dig into why the startup mythology machine keeps retelling the same fundraising story, how capital can become a license to delay customer learning, and why weak evidence makes your cost of capital painfully expensive.From pitch decks built on vibes to founders trying to take a giant swing before they have earned the count, we break down why traction should pull capital forward instead of capital pretending traction exists.Plus, in frivolous thoughts: Sacramento’s MLB expansion hopes, why the big swing metaphor actually works, and JDM’s endorsement of Hacks as light, sharp, excellent TV.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 Steelmanning the fundraising myth05:30 The startup mythology machine12:45 Capital, milestones, and evidence17:45 Small swings before big swings22:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You know the pattern: you launch a thing, people say they are interested, and when it is time to show up… no one does.Cool, data, I guess?This week, Cameron and JDM record from Science and Startups Live, which was supposed to be a small in-person podcast event and instead became a very public lesson in failure.Fifteen registrations. One attendee. Several empty chairs with excellent listening posture.So we threw out the planned topic and turned the Traction Lab lens on ourselves: what happened, what can we actually infer from the data, and how do you avoid blaming the customer when your offer doesn’t land?We chat about inference to the best explanation, the difference between weak marketing and weak value props, and why a free RSVP is not intent. Then we connect it to the TEAM framework — time, effort, access, and money — as ways to close the say-do gap before you bet too much on polite interest.Founder (and friend of the pod) Da’Shena Payne also joins the conversation with the best customer discovery gift possible: telling us the name “Science and Startups” sucks.Painful. Useful. Exactly the point.Plus, in frivolous thoughts: Kings draft optimism, a UC Davis summer camp, and the reminder that you can be direct, even shitty, and still be kind.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 The live event that did not go as planned05:30 Inference, hypotheses, and interpreting failure12:45 The say/do gap and the TEAM framework25:00 Naming, value proposition, and customer feedback40:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You know the pattern: founder has a big idea, founder protects the idea, founder keeps polishing the idea until it becomes too precious to test.It feels productive. It also feels safe.Which is exactly the problem.This week, Cameron and JDM kick off the Startup Pseudoscience Series by taking aim at one of the most comforting founder myths: that the great idea is the hardest part. We steelman the claim first, then put it through the same evidence-based lens we use on startup pitches.Ideas are starting points. Hypotheses. Directions to walk in a messy process where the destination probably does not exist yet.From survivorship bias and founder mythology to the very real temptation to brainstorm forever with Claude instead of talking to customers, we dig into why founders overvalue the thing that cannot hurt them yet. The stronger idea is not the one you have thought about longest. It is the one with evidence behind it.Plus: Mezcal Old Fashioneds, Michelin Guide pizza in Sacramento, and a homework assignment you will absolutely try to avoid.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:15 - Steelmanning the “great idea” myth05:30 - Evidence, survivorship bias, and founder mythology12:45 - Time to customer and the safety of ideation17:45 - Falsification: turning bad ideas into good businesses23:45 - Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋“AI native” is everywhere right now—and almost nobody using the label actually qualifies. This week, Cameron and JDM dig into what it actually means to build with AI at the core of your startup (it’s not about your workflow tools), and why the founders most excited about shipping fast are making the same old mistake in a shiny new wrapper.There’s a meaningful difference between AI compressing your build cycle and AI being the reason your company exists. Get that wrong, and you’re efficiently moving in the wrong direction—stacking assumptions on top of assumptions, measuring inputs instead of outcomes, and calling it traction.Building got faster. Validation didn’t. Customers still decide on their own timeline, no matter how quickly you ship.JDM also has some personal news this week—Emilia has arrived, and the Miller family is officially a party of four. Cameron’s growing his own crew too, but his is decidedly more… reptilian.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction03:15 What “AI native” actually means06:00 The build vs. validation gap15:00 Efficiency vs. evidence: the core mistake20:00 Sequencing violations23:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋There’s a moment every founder hits — you’re maxed out, you hate doing the thing, so you hire someone to take it off your plate. VP of Sales. Head of Product. Done. Problem solved.Except it’s not. Not even close.This week, Cameron and JDM break down the Founder Arc — the path from founder-only to founder-led to founderless — and why jumping straight from one end to the other is how startups quietly come apart. The middle phase isn’t optional. It’s where the playbook gets written, the trust gets built, and the real handoff actually happens.From a franchise SaaS founder planning to exit sales entirely before his first hire has closed a single deal, to a vet-clinic platform founder holding product hostage because “nobody understands our customers like I do” — we rate each move on our conviction scale. Two score crash-and-burn. One almost earns a pass.The third scenario? A support function that navigated the arc cleanly — but Cameron and JDM are squinting hard at the unit economics.Plus: Cameron is fresh off go-karting through the streets of Tokyo at night (no shells were thrown, unfortunately). And JDM is recording this episode on the edge of a very big life event — probably the last episode in the queue before baby #2 arrives. Wish him luck.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 The Founder Arc: founder-only, founder-led, founderless05:30 Scenario 1: The too-fast sales handoff12:45 Scenario 2: The product bottleneck problem25:00 Scenario 3: A support arc done right40:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Every founder wants the J-curve — up and to the right, forever. But that chart has a boring flat part at the beginning that most founders try to skip. That’s the part where you figure out what actually works, prove it can happen again, and then pour gas on it. Skip it and you’re not scaling a growth engine. You’re just spending money faster.This week we dig into one of our core frameworks: predictable, repeatable, scalable. In that order. Always in that order. The key question: can you tell the difference between what worked and what just happened to work that one time? Because your entire engine rests on that answer.Three founders are convinced they’re ready to scale. One’s averaging two new customers a month (a number that might be doing some heavy lifting to hide the real variance). One has a genuinely tight LinkedIn playbook — but now wants to hand it to an SDR and go explore a new segment. And one had three TikTok videos go viral and wants to triple the content team to make the magic happen again. We rate all three on our conviction scale, and nothing gets above a six.Cameron recommends a detective show. JDM withdraws a previous recommendation entirely.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 Predictable, Repeatable, Scalable05:30 Scenario 1: SaaS returns processing platform12:45 Scenario 2: Warehouse safety compliance25:00 Scenario 3: Consumer fintech / TikTok40:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You know the pattern.* January: idea.* February: market research.* March: wireframes, logo, landing page.* April: four customer convos. Two said routing is a pain point.Ouch — that’s just a museum of artifacts nobody bought a ticket to.This week, we break down Time to Customer: the single most important velocity metric for early-stage founders, and the one most likely to make you squirm.It’s a simple measurement — how long from “I have an idea” to “I tested it with a real customer”? Turns out, that gap is where most founders hide. Cameron and JDM dig into why we delay, what “progressivity” looks like in the wild, and what it actually means to have a bias toward getting in front of customers.We run three scenarios through the TTC lens — from a dog grooming app that spent three months in pre-production before a single customer call, to a churn prediction startup that got a prospect to ask “what would it cost to get this every month?”, to a compliance platform that built an entire outbound playbook before sending their first cold email.tbh… conviction scores were grim, but we left every founder with a clear path forward. We hope.And in frivolous Thoughts:* Cameron caught the Buffalo Traffic Jam live at a 200-person DC venue (Bands in Town is the app you didn’t know you needed), and* JDM makes a strong case for Sofia Isella as the reigning queen of dark pop.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 Time to Customer05:30 Scenario 1: Mobile dog groomer routing app12:45 Scenario 2: SaaS churn prediction platform25:00 Scenario 3: Home healthcare compliance training40:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Here’s what a pivot is not: changing your messaging, tweaking your pricing, or trying a new ad channel.It’s also not torching the company and starting over.A pivot is what happens when data invalidates a core assumption — and there are really only three categories worth changing: your audience, your product, or how you distribute and capture value.That’s the framework this week. We map the three pivot categories, explain how the 10 named pivot types actually fit inside them, and then do what we do — put the theory through three real startup scenarios that are very much not doing it right.From an AI writing tool that quietly discovered its best customers were using it for something completely different, to a yoga marketplace simultaneously pivoting its customer, its product, and its monetization model (we both gave it a one), to a SaaS dashboard whose founders accidentally built the right feature inside the wrong product — each one gets rated on our conviction scale.In Frivolous Thoughts: Cameron barely survives a security line in Salt Lake City, and jdm goes deep on the agentic AI wild west — including a tool that lets you hire a zero-human CEO for your startup.Please don’t do that for your actual startup.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 What is a pivot? (and the three categories)07:45 Scenario 1: AI writing tool — customer need vs. segment pivot15:15 Scenario 2: Yoga marketplace — the danger of stacking pivots25:00 Scenario 3: SaaS review dashboard — the zoom in pivot34:00 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You’ve got 22 prospects in the pipeline. Eight firms said they’ll start after tax season. Five want a follow-up next quarter. Three need a case study first. And you’re feeling really good about it.You shouldn’t.“Sounds great” isn’t a yes — it’s a soft no with a future date attached. The say-do gap is real, and most founders are snorting hopium instead of closing it. This week, Cameron and JDM dig into the TEAM Framework: Time, Effort, Access, Money. It’s one of Traction Lab’s most-used tools, built specifically to separate genuine intent from enthusiasm that evaporates the moment you ask for a commitment.From an accounting startup coasting on good demo vibes (combined score: one) to an insurance SaaS asking all the right questions but still afraid to ask for money, we run three startup scenarios through the conviction gauntlet and rate each one. The third founder learned from failure and corrected course — which earns real respect, even with some method questions still on the table.In frivolous thoughts: Cameron’s deep in Justified season six, and JDM’s recommending Honey Dijon’s The Nightlife for the next time your AI agents are doing your work for you.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMPS: A mea culpa. This episode was supposed to drop on Saturday, but we had technical difficulties. We blame our AI agents for not doing our jobs better.Timestamps00:00 Introduction02:00 The TEAM Framework (Time, Effort, Access, Money)06:30 Scenario 1: Workflow automation for accounting firms12:45 Scenario 2: Insurance agent SaaS — asking right, but dodging money19:30 Scenario 3: D2C analytics dashboard — learning from failure29:30 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Six paying customers. $4,800 MRR. The founder already knows which two to discount. Same evidence. Cameron gives it an 8. JDM gives it a 6. That’s the conversation the Strength of Evidence Matrix is built for.This week, we dig into the Strength of Evidence Matrix — one of the core Traction Lab tools. It evaluates your traction on two axes: how robust is the signal (from interest to intent), and how independent is the source (from affiliated to cold). Most founders count their evidence. This framework grades it — and most of the time, the grade is a lot worse than it looks.From a pet emergency app drowning in warm surveys, to a background check SaaS with real revenue but one cold customer keeping the whole signal honest, to a B2B platform that made it from their rolodex all the way to a cold annual contract — we run three scenarios through the matrix and rate each on the conviction scale. There’s even a JDM-Cameron split on the last one.JDM’s three-year Lord of the Rings marathon is almost over. Cameron just watched the GuLP team take fifth place and $10K in Minneapolis.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMResources:* High Conviction Happy Hour, August 27th* Traction Lab Venture SchoolTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:15 - Strength of Evidence Matrix05:30 - Scenario 1: Pet emergency vet app12:45 - Scenario 2: Background check SaaS25:00 - Scenario 3: B2B CPG broker platform40:00 - Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You’ve had the good conversations. Coffee chats that ended with “this is really interesting.” Followers who DM you to say they can’t wait. And when you go to investors, they pass.Because interest and evidence are two completely different things.This week, JDM and Cameron are joined by Nikki Sims — operator, VC fund veteran, and someone who’s actually seen what happens when founders confuse the two. In a special format, we invited founders from the Traction Lab Venture School to join us on the livestream to ask their questions.We covered traction signals that matter in historically offline industries, what happens to your roadmap when you land a 227-location enterprise deal, why your TAM slide is probably lying to investors without you realizing it, what to do when your market has a literal expiration date, and how to think about funding a hard goods business when VC math doesn’t apply.Nikki didn’t hold back. Neither did the guys. It’s the kind of honest investor feedback you usually only get if you already know someone.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction & Nikki Sims05:00 - Traction in offline markets (AgTech / game birds)18:00 - When your market has an expiration date24:30 - The enterprise trap: SMB to 227 locations32:00 - Funding a hardware business (not a SaaS)51:00 - TAM slides: bottoms-up or bust58:30 - Biotech buy vs. build decisions1:02:30 - Channel strategy for construction tech This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You know the pattern — founder shows up with a deck, flips to the TAM slide, and there it is: $53 billion… $67 billion… any enormous number with a B at the end. And everyone in the room nods like it means something.It usually doesn’t.This week JDM goes solo (Cameron’s out representing the ecosystem and cheering at a pitch competition — we’ll forgive him) to dig into one of his all-time founder pet peeves: the TAM.Not the concept — the lazy, hopium-laced, percentage-game version that shows up in almost every pitch deck. The one that mistakes the market your customers are in for the market your product is in. The one that picks 0.1% because it makes the math look reasonable, not because it means anything.From a Slack bot claiming a slice of the wrong pie, to a procurement platform that actually did the math (mostly), to an AI tutoring app that averaged its way to a $67B fantasy, JDM runs the conviction scale on three real TAM claims and calls out every shortcut along the way.For his lone frivolous thought, he recommends Ben McKenzie’s documentary Everyone Is Lying to You for Money — a deep dive into crypto with strong opinions and receipts to match.As always, thanks for listening.—JDM & CamTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:15 - TAM: what the slide is supposed to answer (and doesn’t)05:30 - Scenario 1: The Slack status bot12:45 - Scenario 2: Food manufacturer procurement platform25:00 - Scenario 3: AI tutoring app for K-1240:00 - Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You’ve seen the email before:Subject: “Huge month!!”Body: 10,000 users, engagement through the roof, three new features shipped, featured in a newsletter. No revenue. No retention breakdown. No ask. And somehow, you think that’s an investor update.This week, JDM and Cameron break down what investor updates are actually for — and why the founders sending the flashiest ones are often the ones with the least to show.A good update isn’t a highlight reel. It’s a signal:* Here’s the one metric that matters right now;* Here’s what’s working and what isn’t; and* Here’s exactly what we need from you.That’s it.Do that consistently, and you’re building trust long before anyone writes a check.Then comes the game! Three realistic scenarios, scored on the conviction scale:* A SaaS tool drowning in vanity metrics and no ask (a very generous two).* A dental practice management startup with actual numbers, actual churn honesty, and a specific ask that almost got there (a strong eight).* A consumer mental health app with 150K downloads, no paying customers, and a premium tier with results too “encouraging” to share yet (another two).And it’s a conviction sandwich!But a Keto edition… the good stuff is in the middle.Frivolous thoughts this week: JDM got a YouTube Music recommendation he didn’t ask for and absolutely needed; and Cameron walked out of a Sacramento record shop with some Cat Stevens vinyl.Turns out the thread between grunge, riot-grrl, punk, and folk peace anthems is stronger than you’d think.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:15 What is an investor update (and why most are facades)05:30 What to actually include: the five elements13:30 Scenario 123:15 Scenario 233:15 Scenario 337:30 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You’ve got 43 customers using your product for free, a pilot converting at 4 out of 11, and a franchisor who just announced they’re building your product themselves—for free.This week’s office hours was a live collision of founders at very different stages, all running into the same underlying problem: they’re optimizing for the wrong thing at the wrong time.JDM and Cameron tackle five questions live from YouTube and LinkedIn:* a funeral home consolidator mid-pricing negotiation* a B2C wellness app chasing a launch before knowing who they’re selling to* a CrossFit gym SaaS getting sherlocked by its own franchisor* a baby sleep consultant product that discovered its pilot structure too late* a surf school booking tool trying to solve seasonality before it’s solved willingness to pay.We break down enterprise pricing psychology, the trap of logo-hunting, why “stoned beach dudes” is not a customer segment problem, and how a transaction-based revenue model might untangle a seasonal billing headache.We recorded in person again, the rain is visible through the window, Cameron’s deep into Justified, and JDM is watching Harrison Ford gracefully exit Shrinking.And, as always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Intro 02:15 Live Q: When to hold firm vs. concede on pricing10:30 Q2: Building momentum before MVP launch20:00 Q3: Getting sherlocked by the franchisor25:00 Q4: 4 out of 11 pilot conversions and what the split actually means30:30 Q5: Union workers who don’t buy their own software36:00 Q6: Seasonality, and when to charge43:30 Frivolous Thoughts: the future of TV (which is now) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You have the domain expertise. You have the product. You might have even used AI to vibe-code the whole thing in a weekend. But here’s where most technical founders hit a wall — not because the product is wrong, but because getting your first paying customer is a completely different skill set than building the thing. And it’s harder than it looks.This week, we dig into Tech Timmy — Traction Lab’s name for the technical or domain-expert founder who builds first and asks “now what?” later. We talk through what makes this archetype fascinating, the cruel irony of their situation, and why the very channels they gravitate toward (SEO, Reddit, Product Hunt launches) are almost guaranteed to fail them at this stage.Then we run three Tech Timmy scenarios through our conviction scale — a browser extension for Slack productivity, a niche inventory tool for specialty coffee roasters, and an AI cover letter generator with some genuinely alarming freemium math. One gets an enthusiastic eight. One gets a swift and unapologetic one. Cameron earns the crown.We also coined the Conviction Chasm — the space between “we’re somewhat in” and “we’re fully in” — which is immediately more threatening than it probably needs to be.Frivolous thoughts this week: Artemis II sent humans further from Earth than anyone has ever been, which is objectively incredible. And Cameron watched Better Off Ted.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:15 - The Tech Timmy: who they are and why it matters09:15 - The cruel irony of the technical founder12:45 - Scenario 1: Slack summarizer browser extension28:00 - Scenario 2: Inventory tool for coffee roasters40:00 - Scenario 3: AI cover letter generator50:00 - Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You’ve heard the feedback. You nodded along. You maybe even wrote some of it down. But are you actually listening — or are you running it through a filter that was already biased toward your conclusion?This week, we got nerdy about the cognitive machinery that causes smart founders to ignore the data right in front of them: confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and cognitive dissonance. Three overlapping traps that compound each other in ways that’ll genuinely make your skin crawl once you see it.The uncomfortable part is that your brain runs them before you consciously evaluate anything. You’re not choosing to ignore the warning signs — you just don’t see them. And the smarter you are, the more sophisticated your rationalizations get. Yay…We put these ideas to the test across three scenarios — a real estate CRM with 11% monthly churn blaming “price-sensitive agents,” a project management tool ignoring a 67% feature request because it might “bloat” the product, and a B2B sales platform insisting it has an “education problem” when the market is already full of incumbents. We rated each on our conviction scale and called out the survivorship bias and say-do gaps hiding in the data.In frivolous thoughts:* JDM recommends a definitely-not-political SNL sketch.* Cam watched Forrest Gump for the first time as an adult. It hits different.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:45 - Confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and cognitive dissonance16:15 - Scenario 1: Real estate CRM, 11% churn, blaming the customer30:15 - Scenario 2: Agency PM tool ignoring 67% feature requests41:30 - Scenario 3: B2B sales platform with an “education problem”51:00 - Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Welcome to our weekly AMA! Every Friday, we go live on YouTube and LinkedIn to answer real questions from founders at every stage. We’re now adding that to this podcast feed every Wednesday so you can catch it wherever you listen.This week, we dug into four questions that each hit a different flavor of the same core problem: are you solving the right job for the right person?When your market feels price-sensitive, the move isn’t to race to the bottom—it’s to find the 24 people who did pay and figure out what makes them different from everyone else. That cluster is your wedge. We break down how to build that hypothesis without running to a spreadsheet first, and why “there are no facts inside the building, but there are sure as hell hypotheses” is your operating principle.From a documentary producer wrestling with per-project pricing to a med-tech founder staring down the gap between a validated idea and an actual clinical product, the through-line is always the same: price is a signal, not the problem.We also probably spend an irresponsible amount of time talking about cold brew coffee, Muppets, and which Muppet should run JDM’s coffee AI agent. And Cameron is in Las Vegas, about to run a marathon downhill from 7,500 feet. What was he thinking?!If this episode stirs up a question for you, submit it in advance at the link below (we answer every one), or join us live.See you on Saturday for our regular episode.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMLinks & Resources* 📅 Submit a question for next week’s AMA* 📺 Join us live every Friday at noon Pacific on YouTube or LinkedIn* Substack newsletter (tools + frameworks)* Traction Lab Venture SchoolTimestamps00:00 Introduction05:15 Q1: Are your pilots actually signal?13:30 Q2: Pricing a project-based customer22:00 Q3: Taking MedTech from idea to institution31:00 Q4: Mobile mechanic — pivot or persevere?40:00 Frivolity This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Minimum Viable Product. Three words every founder knows, and almost nobody uses correctly. The “V” isn’t about whether the product exists—it’s about whether you can capture value back. Whether the market will actually pay. Whether you’re testing the riskiest assumption sitting between you and a working business model. Build without that framing, and you’re just... building. Optimizing something that may never have a buyer.This week, Cameron’s recording from a hotel room in Vegas (yes, really—there’s a marathon involved), and we dig into what an MVP actually is, why the “minimum lovable product” crowd is missing the point entirely, and what it looks like when founders get the test right—then fumble the follow-through anyway.We rate three scenarios on our conviction scale: an AI meal-planning app drowning in vanity metrics, a manual marketplace test with a very uncomfortable disintermediation signal, and a fraud-detection tool that had us fully on board until the last sentence. One of them earns an 8. One earns a 2. You’ll know which is which by the end.Cameron closes with his Mt. Charleston marathon prep (7,000 feet of downhill—his knees, but not his problem), and jdm gives a very late recommendation for Hijack on Apple TV. Better late than never.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 Introduction02:00 What an MVP actually is (and why MLP is a cope)10:30 Scenario 1: AI meal planning app18:15 Scenario 2: Manual gym-trainer matchmaking marketplace26:00 Scenario 3: E-commerce fraud detection SaaS34:30 Frivolous Thoughts This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You’ve been there. The pitch goes well, the partner’s engaged, and then she says something like “we’d love to see stronger net retention before moving forward.” So you spend the next two months building a cohort analysis dashboard. You come back. She says something different. You’re still not funded—and now you’re behind.Investor feedback isn’t always what it looks like. Sometimes “fix your pitch deck” means your business model doesn’t work. Sometimes “we want to see more traction” means you’re three stages too early for that fund. And sometimes the kindest thing an investor can do is tell you a softer version of the truth—which means you walk away solving the wrong problem entirely.This week we unpack the Traction Lab Investor Feedback Pyramid—a four-layer framework for translating what investors say into what they actually mean. Then we put it to work on three scenarios: a B2B SaaS platform burning time on dashboards no investor asked for, a marketplace with unit economics that don’t pencil out, and a vertical AI tool getting asked “what stops Zillow from building this?”—and giving exactly the wrong answer.We also caught up after a week at South by Southwest, which included chasing a Waymo through a parking lot in Austin and catching Alanis Morissette before a 5:45 AM flight home.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:15 - The Investor Feedback Pyramid05:30 - Scenario 1: B2B SaaS and the retention rabbit hole21:15 - Scenario 2: Marketplace with murky unit economics29:30 - Scenario 3: Vertical AI and the defensibility dodge37:00 - Frivolous Thoughts: South by Southwest, Waymo chaos, and a canceled flight This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋You know the pattern: solid revenue, happy customers, no churn. Everything looks like it’s working. So you go to raise money to hire sales reps and scale — and investors pass. They say “we want to see more traction,” and you nod like you understand, then go burn more of your network to get more of the same sales that got you here. The cycle repeats.The problem isn’t your product. It’s that having revenue and having a repeatable sales motion are two completely different things. We dig into how to tell them apart — and introduce a stupid-simple tool called the acquisition source audit that can show you exactly where your deals are actually coming from.Three scenarios this week, each with a different relationship to this problem. A data platform swimming in warm intros with no cold evidence to show investors, a FinTech compliance tool with multiple channels but some sketchy cold outreach math, and a bootstrapped workflow automation play that somehow figured it out without ever touching their network. We run each one through the source audit and rate conviction on our scale of zero to 10.And in Frivolous Thoughts: SXSW, an obscure New Zealander entomologist, and why you can blame the Weimar Republic for your toddler’s ruined sleep schedule.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction + big news (two episodes a week now 👀)04:30 - Revenue vs. repeatable sales motion08:00 - The acquisition source audit11:30 - Scenario 1: Data analytics platform, $41K MRR, 83% warm intros19:00 - Scenario 2: FinTech compliance tool, $87K MRR, mixed channels27:30 - Scenario 3: Insurance workflow automation, $52K MRR, 100% cold outbound35:00 - Frivolous Thoughts: SXSW + the surprisingly weird history of daylight saving time This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

You’ve heard it. Maybe you’ve said it. “Nobody’s doing this.” It feels like confidence. It sounds like vision. To every investor and advisor in the room, it’s a 🚩 so bright it practically glows.This week, JDM and Cameron break down why “we have no competitors” is almost always wrong — and what founders are usually trying to say when they use it. There are shadow competitors (hint: spreadsheets count), empty rooms that signal nobody cares, and then there’s the differentiation case that founders actually mean but fumble on delivery. Learn the difference, and you’ll stop losing credibility before the pitch even lands.Then we run three startup scenarios — an AI tool for independent insurance agents, a DEI-focused catering marketplace, and a pre-purchase return prevention platform for DTC brands — through our conviction scale and make our case in real time. Two of them have a numbers problem, one of them earns a jdm rant fueled by personal experience, and Cameron and jdm swap roles as the episode’s nice guy and crusher of dreams.We close with a quick detour into bike shedding (the term, the origin, and why your startup team is absolutely doing it right now) and jdm’s experiment living with a smartwatch on one wrist and a Whoop on the other.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDMTimestamps00:00 - Introduction02:00 - “Nobody’s doing this”: the three scenarios it signals07:00 - Scenario 1: AI policy comparison tool for independent insurance agents13:30 - Scenario 2: DEI catering marketplace19:30 - Scenario 3: Pre-purchase return prevention for DTC brands32:00 - Conviction scale ratings38:00 - Frivolous Thoughts: bike shedding + the smartwatch experiment This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

🚨 NEW: Cameron and I are super happy to be launching the Traction Lab Venture School, a new program to help founders of early-stage startups find paying customers. Kicks off March 23rd. Only 20 spots. You in?Hey friends 👋It’s almost a cliché. Some VC tells you to “go bigger” on your fundraise, another investor says to keep it small, and you’re stuck in the middle.So in this episode, we tackle one of the most confusing decisions founders face: how much money should you actually raise? We break down the false dichotomy of “go big or go home” and why ego has no place in fundraising decisions.We dive into three realistic scenarios where founders are wrestling with round size—from a bootstrapped SaaS founder being pushed toward a $2M round when they only need $500K, to a profitable fintech debating whether to raise at all, to an AI startup running out of runway with thin traction.The key insight? It’s all about capital efficiency and what you’re actually buying with that money. In early stages, you’re buying learning, not growth—and 10x the money doesn’t mean 10x the learning.Our hot take: raising too much too early can actually screw you over when it comes time for your next round. We also get into why you need to understand investor business models—their “right size” round might not match your stage at all.In our Frivolous Thoughts segment: JDM battles his display link monitor (send help), and Cameron updates us on the Kings’ ambitious 16-game losing streak. Yes, he said ambitious. 😅—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

🚨 NEW: Cameron and I are super happy to be launching the Traction Lab Venture School, a new program to help founders of early-stage startups find paying customers. Our first cohort kicks off on March 23rd, and spots are limited. Learn more →Hey friends 👋Ever had a big enterprise prospect come knocking and suddenly your entire startup strategy is up for debate?Yeah, we see this all the time…So this week we’re tackling the seductive allure of enterprise deals. You know the ones—big logos, bigger contract values, and that intoxicating feeling of “legitimacy.”But it’s never that simple, is it?Most enterprise plays are distractions dressed up as opportunities.Long sales cycles (6-18 months vs. weeks), customization demands that kill repeatability, and the classic trap of pausing your working sales motion to chase a single whale.We dive into three real-world scenarios in which founders are considering an enterprise pivot. From cybersecurity tools chasing Fortune 500 pilots to legal tech crushing it with small firms but tempted by big logos, we break down each move and rate it on our conviction scale.Sometimes, selling to enterprise really is the right move. The key? Evidence over ego. Paid pilots over promises. And never, ever betting your last 11 months of runway on a sample size of one.And then, Frivolous Thoughts:* JDM finally finds his new EDC backpack (the near-perfect Simon Sinek Optimist bag from Solgaard).* Cameron shares his Sacramento theater adventures with some unexpected horror movie tie-ins.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋We’re coming up on 75 episodes (yes, we’re calling that a win), and this week we’re tackling the decision every founder faces: should you pivot, persevere, or pack it in?It’s easy to confuse “hasn’t worked yet” with “never going to work.” But the difference between those two things is where smart founders separate themselves from the pack.We break down the evidence-based framework for making these calls. Not the hustle culture “never quit” nonsense, and not the “fail fast” hand-waving either.The real question is when should you go all in, and when should you cut your losses while you still have resources left?Then we put it to the test with three realistic scenarios: an AI cold email tool competing with ChatGPT, a freelancer management platform debating focus, and a social book app burning through runway with no revenue model—and, yeah, we had thoughts on that one!For each startup, we rate them on our conviction scale and show you exactly what evidence we’re looking at. Think of it as strength training for your decision-making muscles.Seth Godin nailed it in The Dip: winners don’t win because they never quit. They win because they quit everything else and go all in on the right thing.Frivolous Thoughts:* JDM discovers a criminally underrated Muppets show from 2015* Cameron reveals the surprising origin story behind Claude AI’s name…and it deserves a podcast by itself.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋This week we’re tackling one of the hairiest questions in early-stage startups: when do you stop doing everything yourself?JDM’s calling in from 30,000 feet (but not really), and we dove deep into the psychology behind premature delegation. You know the pattern: founder gets scared of sales calls, hires a “head of sales” at 28 customers, then wonders why growth stalls.We break down the progression from founder-only → founder-led → founderless work. And… most jobs need to stay in founder mode WAY longer than you think. Because you’re not just selling or building—you’re gathering evidence about what actually works.Delegate too early and you speed up your burn while slowing down your learning.We put three startups through our conviction scorecard. One founder was “focusing on product and vision” (red flag alert) while their sales guy closed deals and engineers built whatever customers asked for. Yikes.Another had both co-founders deep in the trenches, documenting processes before hiring. Night and day difference.The episode gets spicy when we make Claude generate revenue numbers in real-time for a marketplace startup, and Cameron calls out JDM’s bias.Plus, frivolous thoughts: JDM’s master plan to game toddler psychology with wheeled luggage, and Cam mourns another Kings losing streak.—Cam and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋This week we’re tackling something we see constantly in pitch decks: impressive growth charts that hide their broken unit economics.We dive into the real math behind customer acquisition cost (CAC), lifetime value (LTV), and payback periods—and why your revenue numbers might be hiding a ticking time bomb.Our core question: If you stopped acquiring customers tomorrow, would your existing customers actually pay back what you spent to get them? Or are you just scaling debt?We break down three real scenarios (okay, realistically contrived):* A coffee subscription bleeding money on every box* A B2B SaaS company betting everything on year-two renewals* A meal planning app in “land grab mode” (our response: 🤯😤)The pattern we keep seeing is a founder focusing on MRR growth while ignoring the fact that each customer costs more to acquire than they’ll ever pay back. That’s not growth—that’s buying your way out of business.We get into the weeds on cohort analysis, retention curves, and why “brand awareness” is usually code for “we haven’t figured out profitable acquisition.” Plus, JDM does actual math in real time. It gets messy, but that’s the point… you get to hear exactly how we process these numbers (perfect for an audio podcast 🙃).In Frivolous Thoughts:* JDM confesses his addiction to productivity gadgets served up by an eerily accurate algorithm* Cam discovers the joy of supporting artists through Patreon.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋This week we’re tackling something every founder obsesses over but few actually understand: burn rate and runway. But we’re going way deeper than just how many months you have left.Runway isn’t just a countdown clock. It’s actually about what you’re buying with every dollar you burn. Are you learning? Growing? Building infrastructure that matters? Or just... burning to feel productive?The episode gets real when we throw down three startup scenarios and rate them on our conviction scale. One’s spending $85K/month with only $18K in MRR (yikes). Another’s blowing $28K/month on Facebook ads in a single city. The third? Actually seems to have figured something out.We break down why team size against customer count matters, why “investing in growth” often means “gambling on growth,” and how to think about your next major milestone in terms of evidence, not just revenue targets.Plus, we get into the distinction between default alive and default dead—because where you land on that spectrum changes everything about how you should be spending.And, of course, we have frivolous thoughts: JDM discovers a Lord of the Rings fitness challenge (walking from the Shire to Mordor), and Cameron explains why loan data is called “tape.”—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Ever had a customer ask for a feature and felt that immediate pressure to say yes?This week, we’re tackling something every founder faces: the difference between scope creep disguised as customer validation, and high-conviction feature development.We break down why customer requests aren’t always worth building, even when they come from your biggest accounts.The stakes?It’s not just wasted time and money—you’re building technical debt that turns your nimble pirate ship into a slow-moving container ship. Every feature you add based on weak signals makes it harder to pivot when you need to.Through three real-world scenarios, we show you exactly how to evaluate feature requests. We dive into what separates “nice to have” from “urgent pain point,” and why you need to move customers from *saying* they want something to actually putting resources behind it.The key: look for patterns, validate willingness to pay, and understand if you’re solving a real bottleneck—or just being nice.Our conviction scale ratings ranged from “absolutely not” to “get an LOI first”—and we explain exactly why.Plus in Frivolous Thoughts: JDM’s quest for the perfect backpack and Cameron’s love for “The Pitt” on HBO Max.As always, thanks for listening!—Cam & JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋We’re kicking off 2026 with a reality check that could save you months of wasted effort: getting amazing feedback from users means nothing if they can’t sign the check.In this episode, we dive into the critical difference between users (who love your product) and economic buyers (who actually pay for it). This is where most B2B founders burn precious time—running pilots with enthusiastic users while completely missing the person who controls the budget.We break down the ecosystem of pain and why the person using your solution might experience completely different problems than the person purchasing it. Just because your Slack bot saves a product manager hours every week doesn’t mean their VP will pay $750/month for the team.Through our game format, we evaluate four real-world scenarios from compliance training platforms to AI code review tools. You’ll see exactly how we assess whether founders are validating with the right people or just collecting feel-good feedback that leads nowhere.Key insight: If your pilot doesn’t involve the economic buyer from day one, you’re prioritizing making it work over making it sellable.That’s fundamentally backward.We also talk about the “four asks” framework, paid pilots vs. free trials disguised as validation, and why “saving time” is usually a weak value prop (it’s what that time unlocks that matters).In Frivolous Thoughts, Cameron shares his new vinyl collection journey and how it’s changing the way he experiences music, while JDM recommends the sharp writing and cinematography of “Wake Up Dead Man” on Netflix.Thanks for spending another week with us. Time is the one resource you never get back.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Can you believe this is our last episode before 2026?(We feel like we’re aging in dog years over here.)Since everyone’s buying gifts on marketplaces right now, we figured—why not talk about the business of marketplaces? Specifically, the #1 killer of early-stage marketplace startups: lack of liquidity.This is what most founders miss: a marketplace only exists to make transactions more efficient. That’s it. If you don’t have buyers and sellers who actually want to do business together, there’s nothing to optimize.No efficiency = no marketplace.We break down what liquidity actually means and why it matters more than your tech stack or your fancy matching algorithm.Then we dive into three real-world scenarios—a handyman marketplace, a fractional sales consultant platform, and a video editor marketplace. We rate each one live on our conviction scale, pulling apart completion rates, transaction volumes, and the dreaded “managed service” red flag.And then sh*t gets weird… JDM gets surprisingly generous with his holiday spirit ratings while Cam channels full Scrooge energy.In Frivolous Thoughts: JDM splurges on a cinema-grade camera for his “little entrepreneurship videos” (sure, buddy), and Cam gets a sunrise alarm clock that might actually help him wake up like a human.See you in the new year!—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋This week we’re diving into the metric that separates high-conviction founders from everyone else: time-to-customer (TTC).Most startups die slow deaths because they’re testing the wrong things at the wrong time.* They spend 12 weeks building a marketplace platform when they could validate demand in 12 days.* They build elaborate paywalls when a simple conversation would tell them if anyone will pay.We break down why TTC is really about the pace of learning: the faster you get validated data back from actual humans willing to part with actual money, the faster you de-risk your startup.It’s not about building faster—it’s about testing smarter.This week, JDM and Cameron walk through three contrived (but painfully realistic) scenarios: a B2B SaaS company planning an 8-week feature build before talking to customers, a marketplace building for 12 weeks before getting both sides on board, and a freemium app that waited way too long to test pricing.The pattern? Founders who front-load feasibility (”can we build it?”) instead of desirability (”will anyone actually pay for it?”).And, yeah… the order matters.We also get into the weeds on rapid prototyping, fake door tests, concierge MVPs, and why you should almost never spend months building something before getting it in front of customers.Plus, why 200 free users might actually be worse than zero users.And in Frivolous Thoughts—JDM nerds out over a slow-burn Scottish cop show while Cameron drops a bomb about how the University of Utah just turned college sports into a $500M private equity play.As always, thanks for listening.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋We’re back from our turkey coma with a high-stakes game that every founder needs to understand: what does high conviction actually look like?In this episode, we break down the framework we use at Traction Lab to separate startups that are actually working from those just spinning their wheels. We’re talking clear economic buyers, urgent problems, evidence over assumptions, and the willingness to kill your darlings when the data tells you to.Then we put our money where our mouth is by rating three contrived examples live—from a Slack summarizer Chrome extension to healthcare compliance software to a screen time tracking app. We don’t hold back on what separates a “nice feature on someone else’s roadmap” from a venture-backable business.The big themes? Stop confusing worry with urgency. Your MAU doesn’t matter if nobody’s paying. And if you’re saying “we’ll figure out monetization at 50K users,” what you’re really saying is “we’re building a hobby first, then hoping it becomes a business.”We also dive into why freemium can mask fatal problems, how to know if you’re scaling a leaky funnel, and the one phrase that always makes us nervous: “we think we can convert...”In Frivolous Thoughts: Cameron teaches us the Scottish art of “hurl-durling” (lounging in bed way too long), and JDM recommends A Man on the Inside on Netflix for your brain candy needs.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋This week we’re coming to you live from Global Entrepreneurship Week, and we’ve got some news - we’re officially the Traction Lab Podcast now! After counting eight different brands between us (yeah, we know), we’re consolidating everything under one roof.We dive into the biggest mistake we see founders make: perfectionism. Honestly… if you’re asking yourself “is this good enough?” the answer is almost always yes... for the next step at least. The real questions are: good enough for who, and good enough for what?Cameron walks us through the three things that trip up founders, while I share our infamous fake door test story from Chico (we eat our own dog food at the Lab). Nothing says “learning in public” quite like getting called out on your own methodology.We also break down the Four Rights of traction science (doing the right thing, the right way, at the right time, for the right investment) and why most founders bet way too big, way too early. Think poker, not all-in.Plus we tackle live questions from founders about building without tech skills, when to manufacture products, and the art of the sandbagger (etymology included).Oh, and in Frivolous Thoughts: JDM’s toddler yelling “PEOPLE, I need more ketchup!” at restaurant staff. Parenting wins all around.—Cam and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋This week we’re breaking down why the common “you need to be 10x better than the competition” advice is dangerously misleading.Everyone says you need to be 10x better than the competition to overcome switching costs. But they’re missing a key factor: it’s not about being 10x better at something.It’s about the ratio between the value you create and the friction of switching.We dig into three real scenarios where founders chase this mythical 10x:* A construction scheduling tool that’s literally 10x faster, but customers still won’t pay.* An e-commerce support platform stuck at small customers who can’t crack mid-market.* A freelancer financial app with great reviews but terrible conversion rates.The common pattern is they’re all solving for the wrong equation. You need to either make switching 10x easier OR deliver 10x more value on the things that actually matter to your economic buyer.We walk through the hidden switching costs most founders miss (and it’s not integrations), why “we’re happy with [incumbent]” is always code for something else, and how to figure out if you’re targeting the right person in the organization.Plus: the etymology of “chip on your shoulder” and why Slow Horses is the best spy show you can watch right now.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋We’re going deep on something that’s probably killing your startup right now: untested assumptions.Fresh off workshops with David Bland and our GrowTECH Fest session, we’re breaking down the assumption-to-evidence cycle that separates fundable startups from wishful thinking.Here’s what you need to know: A startup is literally just an organization searching for a business model. And this cycle—identify, define, design, measure, decide, repeat—IS that search. Master this, and you’ve cracked the code on what actually determines startup success.We walk through three real-world scenarios (okay, Claude made them up, but they’re painfully realistic):* The marketplace founder building supply before proving demand exists* The SaaS team building integrations instead of validating their go-to-market* The subscription service doubling down on “quality” without understanding why customers actually churnEach one shows how reasonable-sounding decisions can hide fatal assumptions.The pattern? Founders building solutions to problems they haven’t proven exist, for customers they haven’t validated will pay. Sound familiar?We break down exactly how to proportion your effort to your evidence, why customer interviews beat surveys every time, and how to spot the difference between interest and intent.Plus: Our Frivolous Thoughts segment covers barn burners, the Kings’ victory, and JDM’s questionable Dodgers fandom (Cameron is NOT pleased).Join us for a live recording on November 19th at the Carlson Center during Global Entrepreneurship Week—bring your toughest questions!—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋We’re diving into one of the most dangerous traps in early-stage startups: the say-do gap. You know the one—where 41 out of 47 customer interviews say they’d “definitely use this,” so you rush off to build... only to find crickets when you launch.This week we break down the Four Asks framework: time, money, effort, and access. These are the commitments that separate real intent from polite interest. Because here’s the thing: feedback is free, but commitment isn’t.We walk through three real scenarios (okay, Claude made them up, but they’re painfully realistic):* The AI procurement tool with suspiciously perfect interview results* The compliance reporting SaaS running “feedback pilots” instead of paid ones* The kitchen marketplace getting feature requests from “power users”Each one has signals mixed with noise. We show you exactly how to separate them.Key insight: You literally cannot achieve product-market fit without charging money. If you’re not asking customers to pay, you might just be building “product freeloader fit” instead.Whether you’re in customer discovery or running pilots, this episode gives you the tactical playbook to close that gap and validate real demand.Also: We finally offboarded Cass (he’s on “mandatory sabbatical”), welcomed Claude as our new co-host, and Cameron mourns the end of Slow Horses season 5.See you in your ears next week,—Cameron and JDMP.S.: Join us November 19th for a live recording during Global Entrepreneurship Week. Bring your questions. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋This week we’re tackling something we see constantly: founders confusing motion with traction. You know the pattern—you’re “crazy busy” but somehow not making any real progress.We dive into what JDM calls “procrastivity” (productivity + procrastination), where you’re doing things that feel productive but are actually just clever ways to avoid the scary work that actually matters. Think: rebuilding your onboarding flow before anyone’s even used it, or spending a week redoing your pitch deck because one advisor said it needs to “pop more.”Here’s the reality check: Your startup won’t live or die based on your visual brand guidelines. It’ll live or die based on whether you can get customers to pay you money. Period.We walk through real scenarios of founders caught in what we’re calling the “Over-Optimization Olympics”—endlessly polishing things before they’ve proven there’s anything worth polishing. From the two technical co-founders hiding in Figma instead of doing sales, to the founder pivoting between customer segments because they haven’t put a real offer in front of anyone.The pattern? Founders retreat to technical work (the safe stuff) instead of adaptive work (the scary, ambiguous stuff that actually moves the needle). But here’s the thing: customers can’t tell you “no” while you’re color-coding swim lanes in Notion.Key insight: Most procrastivity is just unprocessed fear wearing a productivity costume.In Frivolous Thoughts, JDM shares his existential moment taking a tarmac bus at LAX and wondering if he’s living in the movie Speed. Cameron laments the Kings’ season outlook and battles with Xfinity’s AI bots (who clearly need better churn detection).Bottom line: If it feels productive but doesn’t involve talking to customers or testing your assumptions, you’re probably just procrastinating with extra steps.— Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋We’ve all been there—telling ourselves stories that feel true but are really just comfortable lies keeping us from the hard work of validation.In this episode, Cameron and I tackle 8 of the most common lies founders tell themselves. Things like “our users say they love it, so we’re on the right track” (spoiler: interest ≠ intent) and “we just need a few more features before we can start charging” (you’re optimizing for freeloaders, not customers).We dig into why these lies feel so good—fear of rejection, perfectionism, overconfidence — and, more importantly, how to overcome them. Because here’s the thing: a little delusion helps you start, but data is what gets you to product-market fit.Some of our favorite reality checks from this one:* “Nobody buys technology. People buy outcomes.”* “Validation over vibes. Intent over interest. Data over dogma.”* “Winners don’t never quit—they quit everything that doesn’t work.”We wrap with Frivolous Thoughts about marathons, perseverance, and Seth Godin’s “The Dip” — because knowing when to quit is just as important as knowing when to push through.Stop lying to yourself. Start shipping. Get the data.— Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Ever see a startup pitch with a “$120 billion TAM” and think... wait, what? This week we’re diving deep into Total Addressable Market calculations and why most founders get them hilariously wrong.We break down the difference between top-down TAMs (”if we just get 1% of this massive market...”) and bottom-up approaches that actually mean something. From college fridge rentals claiming 50% market capture to legal platforms confusing their customers’ TAM with their own, we rate some truly wild examples.Key insight: Your TAM should be the market you’re actually playing in, not your customer’s market. That DIY legal platform? Your TAM isn’t the entire legal services market - it’s what freelancers spend on legal tools.We also share tactical tips for building credible, data-driven TAMs that impress investors and help you understand your real growth potential.Plus: Cam’s history of the Boston metro, and JDM’s epic Reno road trip disaster involving flat tires, beef jerky dinners, and a Starbucks with literally zero chairs. Because sometimes startup life mirrors your TAM calculations… messier than expected.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Ever catch yourself nodding along to customer interviews where everyone says “yes” to your idea? Yeah, we’ve been there too.This week we’re breaking down the classic founder trap: leading customers to tell you exactly what you want to hear. Coming fresh off our Startup Challenge (and maybe slightly sleep-deprived), we dive into the art of unbiased customer interviews using the Mom Test framework.We play “Did they say that, or did you?” with three startup scenarios — from AI insurance tools to pet travel platforms. No surprise… most are accidentally offering customers a “magic wand” and wondering why their beta launches flop.Key insight: Ask about past behavior, not hypothetical interest. “Tell me about the last time you...” beats “Would you use a tool that...” every single time.Plus, in Frivolous Thoughts: the surprising origins of origami (hint: it started in China, not Japan) and why we say “telltale signs.”Stop building products nobody wants. Start asking better questions.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Ever wondered why investors ghost you after seeing your cap table? This episode might have the answer.We dive into the messy world of founder equity splits and why most of them are recipe for disaster. From the CEO hoarding 60% while the CTO builds everything, to the “fair” 50-50 splits that avoid hard conversations, to advisors walking away with 15% for making a few intros.Key insight: “Equity is about future value, not past value” - and most founders get this backwards.We break down:* Why contribution-based splits beat “vibes-based” decisions* The vesting cliff mistake that kills deals* What your cap table signals to Series A investors* Real examples of equity splits that make investors runPlus, we play “Founder’s Pie or Founder’s Crumble” - our game analyzing startup cap tables and predicting their Series A fate.Frivolous Thoughts: JDM discovers a drag king named Oliver Clothes Off on Bake Off (seriously).— Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Ever catch yourself making massive moves based on tiny evidence?Yeah, we've all been there.This week we dive into the classic founder trap: escalating way too quickly on way too little evidence, from hiring three engineers because "investors said we need a mobile app" to dropping $25K on PR before you even launch (ouch).We break down why startups can't afford awareness campaigns, when founders absolutely must stay in sales mode, and how to spot the difference between a logical next step and a delusional leap.Key insight: "Never make big product changes based on what investors tell you. Only make them based on what the market tells you. And when those two aren’t aligned, don’t take the money."Plus, our rating game gets spicy when we encounter some truly questionable strategic moves. Spoiler: we had to invoke the full Billy Madison treatment.In Frivolous Thoughts: JDM's eternal productivity tool addiction strikes again, and Cameron loses his Whoop in a river (but gets amazing customer service).— Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Your retention problem might not be a retention problem at all.This week, we dig into why founders obsess over keeping users who were never the right fit to begin with. Through three real-world scenarios, we explore how viral TikToks and fluffy pilot programs can mask fundamental acquisition and positioning issues.We dive into the parent app trap, the chamber of commerce pilot problem, and why "educating customers" is usually founder-speak for "our product isn't valuable to them."Key insight: Before you redesign your onboarding flow or add more AI features, ask yourself if you're solving the right problem for the right people. Sometimes the best retention strategy is better acquisition.In Frivolous Thoughts, JDM teases the upcoming Traction Lab Academy (scaling venture science beyond geographic boundaries), and Cameron shares fascinating insights about Kenya's Kalenjin tribe and their marathon dominance at high altitude.— Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Most founders think landing an LOI or pilot automatically equals traction. Spoiler alert: it usually doesn't.In this episode, we break down the difference between real evidence and validation theater. We dive into what makes an LOI actually worth something (hint: it's not the logo on your slide), why unpaid pilots are often just expensive consulting gigs, and how to front-load your sales process instead of kicking the can down the road.Then we play "LOI or Lie?" — rating real examples from zero (pure vibes) to ten (shut up and take my money). From Fortune 100 logos that mean nothing to mid-market customers willing to pay upfront, we show you exactly what investors are really thinking when you pitch that "enterprise momentum."Key insight: "Signal is found in specificity, so define all those terms in specificity. Leave them all vague, and all you have is noise."Plus: Cameron shares safari etymology while JDM connects space elevators to Joseph Conrad. Because… why not?Time to turn those validation theater tickets into real traction.— Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Hey friends 👋Got a viral LinkedIn post? Closed a $60k pilot? Three signed LOIs? Cool story, but that's not product-market fit — that's just one hitAnd one hit doesn't make you the Beatles.In this episode, we break down the unfortunate truth about mistaking flukes for signals. We dive into why scalability requires repeatability, which requires predictability, and how most "validation" moments are actually just expensive theater.We put three real startup scenarios under the microscope: a B2B SaaS platform banking on one marathon deal, a productivity app riding LinkedIn virality to fundraising, and a FinTech compliance tool betting $2M on three LOIs. Spoiler alert: they all get roasted.Key insight: You can't scale what you can't repeat, and you can't repeat what you can't predict. Before you pop champagne on that one big win, ask yourself—can you get the same customer through the same channel to take the same action with the same outcome? Consistently?Plus, we get frivolous about Formula One movies and why The West Wing feels like sci-fi now.—Cameron and JDM This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Founders love to sweat over pitch decks, but investors don’t fund gradient backgrounds or perfectly kerned fonts—they fund evidence.In this episode, JDM and Cam rip into the startup habit of treating slides like mood boards instead of proof of progress. They introduce the idea of the “validation stack”—replacing pitch deck fluff with experiments, traction, and testable evidence—and play their favorite game of sniffing out whether common slide claims are legit validation or just polished BS.In This Episode* Why “slide deck” energy kills momentum (and what a stack deck should look like)* How to turn assumptions into experiments instead of Canva slides* The trap of performative pitches vs. actual learning velocity* Startup examples tested:* HR engagement AI tool with “seven leaders said it’s interesting” → Not traction.* AI email reply Chrome extension → Users, yes. Dollars, no.* 3D render generator for architects → Pilots and polish requests, but still no buyers.Frivolous Thoughts* Cam reviews Foundation on Apple TV (while sweating on the elliptical).* JDM rants about wanting another season of Rings of Power and praises the gritty world-building of Andor. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

Founders love to polish their pitch decks, but sometimes all that shine is just… baffling. In this episode, JDM and Cam dig into the difference between an investment story that gets funded and one that just gets eye-rolls. Your investor narrative isn’t about runway math, vibes, or brand awareness — it’s about evidence, milestones, and a credible path to ROI.To make the point, they play a spicy round of Backable or Baffling, roasting real startup “asks” and debating whether they’d fund, fix, or flee.In This Episode* Why investor stories should be strategy recaps, not fairytales* How to ground your “ask” in validation instead of vibes* The two most common “use of funds” mistakes founders make* Why community, Instagram followers, and brand awareness are not milestones* How oversized asks set you up for future fundraising painFrivolous Thoughts* JDM finishes Severance and debates the ending with his wife—satisfying vs. unsatisfying cliffhangers* Cam continues the Sacramento Kings trade rumor watch, speculating on big moves in the coming week* Bonus banter: recording from Starbucks instead of the fancy studio, proving that even podcasting is an experiment This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com

It’s our 50th episode — so first, thank you for listening, sharing, and occasionally heckling from the sidelines. To celebrate, we’re tackling one of the most common founder slip-ups: mistaking a shiny pitch deck for a solid business model. Investors rarely pass because of your storytelling — they pass because slide 5 reveals you don’t actually have the goods.In this milestone episode, JDM and Cam roast a selection of bad slides, then show how to “clean them up” by grounding them in evidence instead of ego. Along the way, they unpack the Startup Core — the four critical business model questions (Who, What, How, and Why) — and show how almost every slide fail is really a strategy fail in disguise.In This Episode* Why pitch deck “polish” can’t fix a broken business model* The Startup Core: four questions every founder should answer cold* How to turn TAM-from-space into a realistic wedge market* Why problem and solution slides must be perfectly in sync* The dangers of fantasyland five-year projections and the “Delusion J-Curve”* The metrics investors actually want to see (and they’re not all revenue)Slide Makeovers* Market Slide – From “We’ll take 0.1% of a $4.2T industry” to a $48M wedge grounded in customer interviews* Solution Slide – From vague “wellness engagement” buzzwords to a crisp feature–pain match for solo therapists* Financials Slide – From an imaginary J-curve to real CAC, payback, and live traction metricsFrivolous Thoughts* JDM experiments with a stripped-down “10 tasks a day” analog productivity habit* Cam recommends a TikTok/Instagram creator who skewers over-the-top business gurus This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit zerototraction.substack.com