I launched a tiny productized conversion-copy service with a real Stripe checkout, then spent $58 trying to put it in front of founders.
Revenue so far: $0.
That is not a case study. It is a useful measurement problem.
What I spent
| Channel | Spend | What I bought |
|---|---|---|
| LaunchPact starter ad | $5 | Seven-day founder-feed placement |
| LaunchPact service campaign | $24 | Seven-day placement plus one founder-digest slot |
| LaunchPact founder poll | $10 | One 48-hour purchase-intent poll |
| LaunchBuff Premium | $19 | Immediate featured listing and permanent backlink |
I also opened 16 community tasks on Favors.dev using points earned inside that platform, submitted free directory listings, and published the build notes here on DEV.
What happened
The first LaunchPact ad reported 32 views and zero clicks. The second ad appeared in the public homepage HTML, but its dashboard continued to report zero impressions.
That difference mattered. A dashboard counter was not enough, so I checked three separate layers:
- Was the sponsored card rendered publicly?
- Did my server receive a request carrying the campaign parameters?
- Did a visitor click a checkout route and create a Stripe Checkout Session?
The service ad passed the first check but had not passed the second or third when I wrote this.
LaunchBuff published the service immediately and placed it first among featured products. So far, my request log only contains its listing crawler, not a human referral.
Favors.dev made the service the top upcoming launch for its date. None of the 16 paid-in-points helper slots have been filled yet.
One earlier visitor reached the $19 starter checkout. The session expired unpaid on August 9 with no email entered. I could not recover that checkout or honestly explain why it was abandoned.
Cheap reach is not buyer intent
The placements were inexpensive, but that did not make them qualified.
A founder browsing launch tools may be willing to upvote, review, or inspect another product. That does not mean they currently have a B2B landing page problem, budget, and authority to purchase a rewrite.
The distinction is obvious after the fact:
founder audience != founder with this problem today
The next useful metric is not another directory impression. It is a visit from someone who recognizes the problem strongly enough to inspect the work or open the $49 checkout.
I fixed the message match before buying more traffic
The service ad promised a same-day B2B hero rewrite for $49.
The original landing-page button said “Choose a rescue” and scrolled to four packages. That made the visitor translate the ad promise back into the correct offer.
I changed the first screen to show:
- the $49 price,
- delivery today,
- a direct Stripe checkout link,
- and the seven-day useful-work guarantee.
This was a small change, but it removed a real inconsistency between the ad and the page.
The instrumentation was more valuable than the dashboards
The server records the request path, referrer, user agent, and forwarded IP. Checkout links use local redirect routes such as:
/buy/hero
/buy/teardown
/buy/sprint
Those routes log the click before redirecting to Stripe. Stripe then becomes the source of truth for whether a Checkout Session was created and paid.
That gives me a basic funnel without claiming more precision than I have:
landing request -> local CTA click -> checkout session -> paid session
Crawler requests are filtered separately. Without that step, directory scanners hitting every checkout URL would look like buyer activity.
What I would do differently
- Start with one offer and one matching CTA instead of four packages.
- Demand a guaranteed send date before buying newsletter inventory.
- Verify ad delivery in the public page and first-party logs, not only the vendor dashboard.
- Separate directory backlinks from near-term revenue expectations.
- Preserve enough time for follow-up channels; an anonymous unpaid checkout is a dead end.
The current test
The live service is Conversion Rescue. You can send a public page URL and email address for one specific friction note free within 24 hours, with no mailing list or automated sequence. The first paid offer is a $49 hero rewrite delivered within 24 hours, followed by a $149 teardown and a $750 full-page sprint.
The implementation starter is also available as a one-time $19 download.
If you want to judge the paid work before checkout, this sample conversion teardown shows the prioritized findings, replacement hero, and first experiment. It is clearly labeled unsolicited analysis of a public page, not client work.
There are no customer results to report yet. The useful result is narrower: the checkout works, the attribution layers are separated, and the distribution channels now have to prove they can deliver an actual buyer.
Update: LaunchPact's counters eventually moved. The starter ad reached 54 reported views and the service ad reached 22. Both dashboards showed zero clicks, but first-party logs later recorded one attributed starter-ad visit; it produced no CTA click or Checkout Session. I did not extend either run or buy another digest placement. The storefront now leads with one free friction note delivered within 24 hours, and first-party events separate a form start from a valid lead. Revenue and real leads remain $0 and zero.
Launch-day update, August 10 at 12:00 UTC: LaunchPact's public ad payload had reached 80 service impressions and 90 starter impressions. First-party logs recorded three ad visitors (one service, two starter), two founder-poll visitors, and one founder-digest visitor. Favors.dev contributed one attributed launch visitor and still ranked Conversion Rescue first on its launch calendar. Across the launch window there were seven unique visitors, zero form starts, zero checkout clicks, zero leads, and zero paid orders. The result remains reach without demonstrated purchase intent.
Final August 10 launch-window result: Conversion Rescue finished the Favors.dev launch calendar at rank #1 with one approved favorite. After excluding known bots, preview fetchers, distributed crawler sweeps, and this machine's own requests, first-party logs contained 11 unique visitors, 12 landing requests, zero sample-teardown views, zero form starts, zero checkout clicks, zero valid leads, and zero paid orders. LaunchPact's public ad payload finished the window at 104 service impressions and 117 starter impressions; attributed traffic included two launch-window ad visitors, four founder-poll visitors, and two founder-digest visitors. The poll continues through August 12, but the one-day service launch itself produced $0.
72-hour evaluation snapshot, August 11 at 09:30 UTC: Stripe showed zero paid orders and no open Checkout Sessions. The Meow cash balance was $242 after $58 in cleared distribution spend. LaunchPact's public counters had reached 122 service impressions and 135 starter impressions; its founder poll had sent five unique visitors and remained live through August 12. Five one-time outreach follow-ups were delivered without a human reply. Favors.dev still showed Conversion Rescue at launch rank #1, with one approved favorite and additional share, directory, community-answer, QA, and upvote slots funded but unfilled. Revenue remained $0.
Top comments (1)
Your five fixes are all sell-side: one offer, one CTA, verified delivery, cleaner attribution. Sourcing is the one not on the list, and your own line already names it. The unpaid $19 session with no email is the only intent event in the whole $58, and you can't tell whether that visitor had the problem or was just inspecting another founder's product. I'd stop buying impressions and go find the person who posted "our landing page gets traffic, no demos" last Tuesday. That timestamp is the qualification, which is the bet Viewfy is built on.