The "Book a Demo" Button Was Killing My Pipeline. Here's What I Replaced It With.
I used to have a "Book a Demo" button at the top of every page.
It made sense at the time. That's what SaaS companies do, right? You collect leads, you get on calls, you demo, you close. The playbook is the playbook.
Except my show rate was 38%.
That means almost two-thirds of the people who went through the friction of filling out a form, picking a time, and receiving a calendar invite, just didn't show up. And of the third who did, half of them came with questions so basic that I spent the first 15 minutes of every call explaining concepts that any decent landing page would have covered.
I was burning time. And the buyers were bouncing.
The Experiment
I'd been seeing more SaaS companies talk about "interactive product tours" those clickable, self-guided walkthroughs that let prospects explore your product before ever speaking to a rep.
My first reaction, honestly, was skepticism. Felt like a nice-to-have. A polish thing for Series B companies with a dedicated demand gen team.
Then a founder I respect dropped a number in a private community: their no-show rate dropped from 52% to 18% after they added an interactive tour to their outbound sequence. Their SDRs were booking fewer calls, but closing more of them.
That got my attention.
I decided to run the experiment for 30 days.
What I Built (And How Long It Actually Took)
I used Dale (getdale.com) because it was the fastest path from zero to shareable link. No code, no Figma, no dev time.
Here's the actual build process:
Week 1, Tuesday afternoon:
• Captured 6 product screens covering our core value flow
• Added interactive hotspots with tooltips on the 3 features our best customers use most
• Wrote personalized copy for each tooltip ("Here's where [Company] would set up their first campaign")
• Generated a shareable link
• Connected it to HubSpot so completed tours updated contact records
Total time: 1 hour 45 minutes.
What I built for which audiences:
• One tour for e-commerce founders (our primary ICP)
• One tour for marketing agencies (secondary ICP)
• One generic tour for the homepage embed
The version I shipped:
Frankly, not perfect. The tooltips were slightly too wordy. The flow had one screen that was probably unnecessary. I shipped it anyway because done beats perfect in an experiment.
The Results (Honest Numbers From 30 Days)
I'm going to give you real numbers, not "up to X%" marketing speak.
Before interactive tours:
• Demo request form conversion: 2.8% of website visitors
• Show rate on booked calls: 38%
• Average call-to-close: 19 days
After adding interactive tours (30 days, comparable traffic):
• Tour starts: 340 unique visitors
• Tour completion rate: 61%
• Follow-up demo requests from tour completers: 22%
• Show rate for those follow-up calls: 79%
• Average call-to-close for tour-warmed prospects: 11 days
The raw signup conversion from tour didn't explode. But the quality of the pipeline changed dramatically. People who watched the tour and then booked a call already knew what the product did. They showed up with specific questions, not basic orientation questions.
One prospect opened our call with: "I noticed your CRM sync goes to HubSpot but I'm on Pipedrive is that on the roadmap?" That's a different call than "So, what exactly does your product do?"
What Actually Made the Difference
Looking back, three things moved the needle:
-
Replacing the cold email CTA
My SDR (yes, it's me, I'm the SDR) used to end first-touch emails with "Would you be open to a 20-minute call?"
Changed it to: "Here's a 5-minute walkthrough I built specifically for [Company's] use case — no call needed, no form: [tour link]"
Reply rate went from 4.2% to 9.7%. The tour gave prospects something to engage with that wasn't a calendar commitment. -
Personalization
Dale auto-fills the prospect's company name into the product screens. Takes 2 seconds to set up per link. The difference in engagement data between personalized and non-personalized tours in my A/B was meaningful, completion rate was 71% vs. 48%. -
Intent alerts
When a prospect replays the pricing screen or returns to the tour a second day, Dale fires a Slack notification. I'd follow up within 30 minutes of those alerts. Those calls closed at nearly double my baseline rate.
What Didn't Work
Transparency matters here:
The homepage embed underperformed relative to the outbound use case. Cold website visitors who found us through content or search rarely completed the tour, the completion rate was 31% vs. 79% for outbound-sent tours. Context matters: an email that explains "I built this tour for your specific situation" creates intent that a generic homepage embed doesn't.
Building for too many personas at once diluted focus. My "generic" tour for the homepage was worse than both ICP-specific tours. Specificity wins.
I measured views instead of completions for the first two weeks and drew the wrong conclusions. Views are vanity. Completions are signal.
For Solo Founders and Small Teams Specifically
Here's why I think interactive product tours are especially valuable if you're building with limited resources:
You probably can't afford a dedicated SDR. Even if you're doing outbound yourself, there are only so many hours in a day. An interactive tour is the one sales asset that works while you sleep, answers basic questions without your involvement, and qualifies leads before they hit your calendar.
The tour doesn't replace the conversation. It earns the right to have a better one.
If you're pre-revenue and trying to figure out how to show your product to the first 50 prospects, build the tour first. Ship it as your first sales motion before you even think about hiring.
🚀 Start free at getdale.com
I built mine in under 2 hours. No code, no design tools, no credit card.
What I'd Do Differently
• Ship a tour-specific landing page, not just a standalone link. Give the tour context before the prospect opens it.
• Build persona-specific tours from day one. Don't start generic.
• Set up intent alerts before you launch. The timing of follow-up matters enormously.
• Track completion rate by channel from the start. I lost two weeks of useful data by not separating outbound vs. organic traffic.
Where This Goes Next
30 days in, I'm not going back to cold-email-to-call-booking as my primary motion. The combination of a great tour + well-timed follow-up + intent data is too good to abandon.
Next experiment: a tour specifically for lost deals. Send it 30 days post-loss as a re-engagement touchpoint. Curious whether the product has changed enough since we last spoke to reopen conversations.
Will report back.
If you're running experiments like this or have data on what's working in your outbound motion, drop it in the comments. Always looking for what's actually working, not just what's supposed to work.
Tools used: Dale (getdale.com) for tour building, HubSpot for CRM, Slack for intent alerts.
Experiment period: 30 days, 340 unique tour visitors.
The Book-a-Demo button is asking the visitor to convert on a calendar at the moment they have the least context. The replacement that almost always lands better is a guided dry-run the visitor watches the product solve their actual job for sixty seconds, then the meeting CTA shows up after they have already felt the value. What did you replace yours with, specifically? I am curious whether the lift is in conversion rate or in show-rate, because those two numbers point at totally different upstream problems.
We replaced it with a 5-minute walkthrough, no calendar, no form, just the product running through a real use case. The book-a-call CTA only appears after they finish it.
And to your question — the lift showed up almost entirely in show-rate, not conversion rate. Which was the tell. People were willing to book before, they just weren't showing up because they hadn't earned any context yet. Once the tour did that work first, the people who booked actually meant it.
Conversion rate barely moved. Show-rate went from 38% to 79%. That gap told us the original problem was never about getting people to say yes — it was about getting them to care enough to follow through.
That's basically what Dale does if you want to see it running — trydal.com, no call needed to get started.
Show-rate is the cleaner metric and the one most teams underweight, so this rings true. The thing the walkthrough fixed wasn't intent, it was the missing layer of context that booking-the-call was being asked to carry alone. Two questions if you have data: does show-rate decay over the first three months as the walkthrough wears off, and does the people-who-mean-it pool also convert at a higher rate after the call?
We replaced it with a 5-minute walkthrough; no scheduling, no calendar, just the product doing its thing. The CTA to book a call only shows after they've finished.
And to answer your question directly is the lift showed up in show rate more than raw conversion. Which told us the original problem wasn't that people didn't want to talk, it was that they weren't ready when they said yes.
The show rate jump from 38% to 79% is the real story here. Your calendar wasn't just slow — it was selecting for people curious enough to book but not committed enough to show. A completed product tour is a much stronger intent signal than a calendar event. The friction isn't a bug; it's doing qualification work your demo call would have done anyway, just earlier in the funnel where it's cheaper.
"The friction is doing qualification work earlier where it's cheaper" that's the cleanest way anyone has described this. Exactly right. The calendar was selecting for curious, not committed. Tour completion selects for people who actually sat with the product long enough to form an opinion.
The data story here is the real takeaway — you didn't just change a CTA, you changed which stage of the funnel you're measuring. "Demo booked" as a primary KPI hides lead quality; "tour completion + intent signal" is a much better leading indicator. The show rate improvement (38% → 79%) likely explains most of the call-to-close gains — you've pre-filtered for genuine intent before anyone hits your calendar. The next experiment worth running: segment close rate by which specific tour screens prospects engaged with most. That behavior data is where the real product-market fit signals hide. I do a lot of pipeline and CRM data analysis for B2B teams — put together some free SQL diagnostic scripts useful for this kind of funnel query work: https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/psmqnx
The funnel measurement reframe is the real shift, once you move the primary KPI from "demo booked" to "tour completed," you start seeing lead quality instead of lead volume. The screen-level segmentation idea is something we're actively building toward which screens people replay tells you more about intent than almost anything else in the funnel.
Exactly right — screen replay segmentation is one of the highest-signal behavioral datasets you can build. In data warehouse design, we call this 'event-level intent scoring' — assigning weights to interaction sequences rather than just completion/non-completion.
The screens someone replays twice are essentially a revealed preferences dataset. If you're tracking this with event + screen_id + replay_count + time_spent, you can build a scoring model that predicts demo-to-close better than most top-of-funnel proxies. The key is storing it at event grain, not session grain, so you can run windowed aggregations later without re-instrumentation.
Would love to hear what patterns emerge when you ship that segmentation. For anyone building this type of funnel event analytics, I documented query patterns for exactly this kind of windowed aggregation in my optimization handbook → https://growthwithshehroz.gumroad.com/l/gwiow
The 38% to 79% show rate jump is massive. I've been thinking about something similar for SaaS — letting people explore the product before asking for commitment.
We went a different route: a generous free tier that gives real value (not a crippled trial), so by the time someone upgrades to paid they already know the product works for them. The "try before you talk" principle is the same though.
The persona-specific tours outperforming generic ones (71% vs 48%) makes total sense. We see the same with AI-generated content — when we personalize output based on the creator's actual channel data instead of generic advice, engagement goes through the roof.
The free tier and the tour are solving the same trust problem from different angles, both saying "don't commit until you've felt the value."
The persona-specific vs generic numbers matching what you see with AI content makes sense too.
Generic = made for nobody.
Specific = feels like it was made for me.
gap compounds fast.
Really interesting read — especially the part about reducing friction before users engage more deeply with the product.
We’re currently building BlackIQ Studio, a private AI workspace, and one thing we’re already noticing is how important context and onboarding are for AI products. A lot of users don’t necessarily need “more features” first — they need clarity and confidence before they fully commit to a workflow.
The point about personalized experiences outperforming generic flows also makes a lot of sense. Feels like specificity is becoming massively underrated in SaaS again.
The clarity before commitment point lands especially for AI products where users don't always know what "good" looks like until they've seen it. Specificity in onboarding is doing more work than most teams realize. Good luck with BlackIQ Studio.
The 38% to 79% show rate jump is the headline, but the real shift in this experiment is the filtering. You stopped booking calls with browsers and started booking calls with people who had already done the work to disqualify themselves. Same volume of qualified pipeline, much less of your time wasted on orientation calls.
The "tour for lost deals" next experiment is the right move. The window I would test is 60 to 90 days post-loss, not 30. At 30 days the reason they said no is still active. By 60 to 90 days the team has either solved the problem another way (which is a real data point for you on what is winning in the market) or the original blocker has shifted. Either way you get a useful conversation, not a polite reopen.
One more channel worth testing: send the tour to ghosted prospects in active deals. Not the no-shows, the ones who went dark mid-cycle after a discovery call. In my experience that re-warms faster than any nurture sequence.
The 60-90 day window makes more sense now that you frame it that way at 30 days the objection is still warm, they're still justifying the decision. By 60-90 something has shifted. We'll push the test window out. The ghosted mid-cycle prospect angle is the one we haven't tried yet and honestly it should've been first. Those people already did discovery, they just went quiet. Tour re-engagement there is way lower friction than any cold nurture. Running this next week.
BEST RECOVERY HACKER CRYPTOCURRENCY /BANK ACCT RECOVERY/ MARK WIZARD HACKERS RECOVERY
I became a victim of a romance scam that led me to invest $654,000 in Tether USDT on a fake site. After realising I had been scammed, I felt utterly hopeless and desperate for help. I began searching for a hacker online and came across Wizard Hackers Recovery. His professionalism and expertise gave me hope. Wizard Hackers Recovery worked to recover my lost funds, and I’m thrilled to say he succeeded! I am incredibly grateful for their assistance and highly recommend their services to anyone in a similar situation or any issues you can connect with them Thank you,
Email: :Markwizard 23 @ gmailcom
WHATSAPP +4915218465599
TELEGRAM : @ wizardhackersrecovery
The "tour for lost deals" idea is sharp. A lot of teams treat lost = gone, but 30-90 days post-loss is when their context has shifted and they're actually open again. Same logic works for an email nurture sequence — low effort, runs in the background, catches the ones whose timing was just off.
Exactly! Lost doesn't mean wrong fit, it usually means wrong timing. The context shifts, budget unlocks, a competitor disappoints them, and suddenly the conversation they weren't ready for makes total sense.
The tour works well here because it's not "hey are you ready to buy now", it's just giving them something useful with no pressure. They re-engage on their own terms.
Nurture sequence with a tour link inside is probably the lowest effort version of this anyone could ship this week.
Really interesting experiment, especially because you shared actual numbers instead of generic “conversion improved” claims.
The jump in show rate from 38% to 79% stood out to me. Makes sense though — people who go through an interactive tour are already somewhat pre-qualified and understand the basics before the call even happens.
Also liked the point about changing the CTA from “book a call” to something lower friction. Asking for 20 minutes upfront can feel like a commitment, while a 5-minute walkthrough feels much easier to say yes to.
Curious — do you think the biggest improvement came from the interactive tour itself, or from better intent signals and faster follow-ups after prospects engaged?
Honest answer, it was both, but they're not really separable. The tour created better intent signals, and the better signals made faster follow-up actually worth doing.
Before, following up fast on a "book a call" click didn't mean much, the person might've clicked and immediately regretted it. After, a tour completion told you something real about where their head was at.
If the tour didn't exist, faster follow-up would've just been faster noise. The intent signal is what made the speed matter.
If you want to see how Dale tracks that completion-to-followup window, https://app.getdale.com/
free to try.
The 38% → 79% show-rate jump is the data point I'll keep thinking about this week — it isolates intent, not just volume. The "completion rate not views" note is the part most early founders need to hear; I've been guilty of the same on my small indie iOS app, celebrating downloads before checking whether anyone finished the first-export flow. The "5-minute walkthrough, no call needed" CTA reframe also works beyond SaaS: it basically lowers the activation threshold so the prospect self-qualifies. Curious whether your re-engagement tour for lost deals has run yet — did the 30-day window feel right, or have you found a sweeter spot earlier?
The downloads vs first-export-flow thing is exactly it, vanity metrics feel good until you realize nobody got to the moment that actually matters. Completion rate is the only number that tells you if the product made sense to a stranger.
On the re-engagement tour, 30 days was our starting point but honestly it felt slightly late for some deals. We're seeing signals that 14-18 days might be the sweeter spot, especially for outbound where the prospect was warm to begin with. Still running it. If you want to watch how Dale tracks that window in real time, worth a free look - https://getdale.com/
Not everyone interested or curios about the product has a future time slot of that 20 minute call sometime we are just exploring and getting the tutorial within those 5 minutes can actually help get the better understand the alignment towards the product's actual use case , great observation overall on building the industry specific tutorial that's something people often miss out on
one thing i did notice throughout this is that the gap you mentioned from 31% to 79% on the homepage embed might not be just because of the embed but the more about the positioning of it often cold user try to skim through the page trying to find what actually works for them
The skimming point is real, cold visitors aren't in buying mode yet, they're in "is this even for me" mode. The tour can't answer that if the page above it didn't earn their attention first. That 31% isn't a tour problem, it's a "what problem do you solve" problem that lives higher up the page. And yes, industry specific walkthroughs are massively underused. Most people build one generic tour and wonder why strangers don't finish it.
Do you also have transparent pricing on your website? Because apart from having a product tour and removing the book a call option, having transparent pricing makes a big difference. I have worked with some SaaS companies and that's why I can tell you what you're talking about are true and they really make a positive impact for your lead conversions.
Having transparent pricing can help you entice the regular web page viewers who come in from searches to check out your product tours, what do you think?
Honestly, you're right. Transparent pricing and product tours work the same way, both remove the "let me get on a call to find out" friction. We haven't shipped public pricing yet but it's on the list.
One thing I noticed though; tour completion data actually helped us figure out what to put on a pricing page. You see which features people replay, so you know what they actually care about.
If you're curious, you can poke around Dale at https://getdale.com/pricing/
Strong agree on the direction. "Book a demo" asks for the biggest commitment (a scheduled call, on your terms, with a stranger) at the moment of least trust. It filters for people who are already sold, and silently loses everyone who's curious-but-not-there-yet — which is most of your future customers.
What's worked for me is replacing it with a "do something useful right now, alone" path: a free tier, an interactive thing that returns a result, a teardown/audit they can run themselves, even just a really good async FAQ. The async version of "talk to us" — they get value, you get a warmed-up lead who reaches out when they're ready. Did you find that the replacement also changed who you ended up talking to (more self-serve, fewer tire-kickers)?
"Do something useful right now, alone" - yeah, that's exactly it. We didn't set out to replace the demo call, we just wanted to stop losing people who were curious but not ready to talk. Turns out when you give them a tour first, the people who do book a call already know what they want to ask. Way better conversations.
And yes, the tire-kicker ratio dropped noticeably. If you want to see how the handoff from tour behavior to sales context works, that's basically what Dale does.
The insight about tracking completions vs views is a pure data discipline issue - two weeks of wrong conclusions from vanity metrics is a pattern I see constantly in BI implementations. Teams wire up dashboards first and define what "conversion" actually means second.
The number that stands out most is call-to-close dropping from 19 to 11 days. That's a 42% reduction in sales cycle length, which in CAC payback math translates directly to cash flow: shorter cycles mean faster revenue recognition and better unit economics at scale.
One thing worth adding to your tracking: segment the 11-day cohort by tour completion depth, specifically which screens they hit. My bet is prospects who replay the pricing screen close disproportionately faster - that intent signal is a leading indicator worth modeling. I cover how to build pipeline funnel tracking in SQL and Power BI in my BI handbook: https://gum.co/dyipm
The 42% number surprised us too when we ran it. Your point on pricing-screen replays is spot on, we see the same signal, people who go back to the pricing step close faster. We're tracking it more intentionally now.
Dale actually sends tour engagement events straight to your pipeline tools so you can build that funnel view without extra work.
The fact that Dale ships events straight into pipeline tools is the part most teams underestimate. On the BI side I see the opposite problem constantly — product events in one place, CRM stages in another, and nobody can build that "pricing-page-revisit → closed-won" funnel without a week of stitching. If you're solving that wiring upstream, you're saving teams real analytics-engineer time.
That "pricing-page-revisit → closed-won" funnel is exactly the gap we kept hitting, the data existed in two places and nobody could connect them without a week of manual work. That's precisely why we built the event piping directly into Dale. If the signal is already in your pipeline tool when the rep picks up the phone, they don't need an analyst to tell them who's hot.
Data is genuinely useful. But the homepage embed gap (31% vs 79%) deserves more attention, that's not just "context matters," it's a positioning signal hiding in the data.
Cold website visitors don't complete tours because they haven't decided what problem they're trying to solve yet. Outbound recipients have the problem framed by the email. The tour is doing positioning work the homepage hero should be doing. The 31% completion isn't a tour problem, it's a "your homepage doesn't qualify the visitor before the tour starts" problem.
The pattern we see at Hivemind: founders bandage positioning gaps with tactics (tours, demos, popups) when the actual fix is making the homepage do its job. A tour with 79% completion only works if the prospect arrived already convinced they have the problem. Outbound primes that. Cold traffic doesn't, and no tour fixes that without the hero earning the click first.
This is probably the most honest critique we've gotten and it landed. You're right the tour can't fix a homepage that didn't qualify the visitor first. We've started using drop-off points in the tour as a feedback signal for hero copy. If people consistently bail at step 2, that step is showing you what the homepage failed to say.
Dale surfaces those drop-off spots, if you ever want to test it on a client, there's a free trail at Dale's website. Would actually love to hear what you see.
The strongest insight here is that the tour did not just improve conversion. It changed the quality of the sales conversation.
That matters because “interactive product tour” by itself can sound like a nice-to-have demo asset. The sharper positioning is closer to a pre-call intent layer: the prospect self-educates, reveals what they care about, then sales follows up based on behavior instead of guessing.
The outbound use case feels much stronger than the homepage embed because the context is already personal. A tour sent inside a specific sales motion has intent built in. A generic homepage tour still has to create intent from zero.
If Dale keeps moving in this direction, I’d probably avoid framing it only as product-tour software. The bigger category is more like demo intelligence or buyer-intent infrastructure for small SaaS teams.
That is also where naming may matter later. Dale is friendly and simple, but if the product becomes the serious sales-intent layer behind outbound, a sharper platform name like Xevoa.com may carry the category better.
"Pre-call intent layer" that's a better description than anything we've written in our own marketing honestly. The outbound numbers being stronger than homepage embed matches exactly what we're seeing too, and your reasoning on why makes sense. We're still figuring out how to talk about the category.
"Product tour software" undersells it but we haven't landed on the right words yet. Anyway if you want to see the intent layer actually running, https://getdale.com/,
free trial, no call needed to get started.
That makes sense.
I think the reason “product tour software” undersells it is because it describes the artifact, not the job it does in the sales motion.
The tour is not the real product. The real product is what happens before the call: the buyer self-educates, shows intent, and gives sales a cleaner reason to follow up.
That is why the outbound use case is probably the sharper wedge. It already has context, timing, and a known prospect. The tour just becomes the intent-capture layer inside that motion.
If I were tightening the category language, I’d stay closer to:
pre-call intent layer
demo intelligence for outbound
buyer-intent layer for SaaS sales
interactive demo follow-up system
Dale is friendly, which helps early. My only question is whether it can carry the product if you move from “nice demo tool” into “serious sales-intent infrastructure.” That is the naming ceiling I’d keep pressure-testing.
The "artifact vs the job it does" framing is exactly the gap we keep falling into. We describe what it is, not what it changes in the sales motion.
Pre-call intent layer is the one that keeps sticking for us internally. It's accurate the tour is just the mechanism, the real output is a warmed-up prospect with a behavior trail sales can actually use.
On the naming ceiling fair pressure. Dale works right now because we're talking to founders who want something that doesn't feel like enterprise software. But you're right that if the product becomes serious sales infrastructure, the name has to carry more weight. We're not there yet but it's worth keeping an eye on as the use cases get more complex.
Genuinely useful thread, this is the clearest the category thinking has gotten for us.
That makes sense.
Dale probably works well at the founder-led stage because it feels approachable and non-enterprise, which is useful when people are tired of heavy sales tools.
The thing I’d watch is the buyer profile shift.
If the user is a founder trying to make demos easier, Dale feels friendly.
But if the buyer becomes a sales leader thinking about pipeline quality, outbound intent, demo intelligence, and rep follow-up behavior, the name may start feeling lighter than the job it performs.
That is usually the moment when naming starts to matter more.
Not because Dale is bad, but because the product may be moving from “helpful demo tool” into “sales-intent layer.” Those are very different weight classes.
I’d keep pressure-testing one question:
When someone hears the name before seeing the product, does it make the category feel more serious, or do you still need the demo to do all the work?
That last question is the right one and honestly we don't have a clean answer yet. Right now the demo still does most of the work, someone hears "Dale" and it doesn't immediately signal sales infrastructure. It signals something approachable. Which is fine when your buyer is a founder who's tired of heavy tools. But you're right that the moment the buyer becomes a sales leader evaluating pipeline quality, "approachable" starts feeling like a gap. We're watching that buyer profile shift closely. When the name starts costing us conversations instead of opening them, that's probably the signal to act on it.
That’s exactly the risk.
The tricky part is that a name rarely starts “costing conversations” in an obvious way. Most buyers will not tell you, “this felt too light for what we need.”
They just place it in the wrong mental category.
That is why Dale can be both useful and limiting at the same time. It lowers friction for founders, but it may also make sales leaders process it as a friendly demo helper instead of a serious pre-call intent layer.
The product direction you’re describing is heavier than the name suggests.
If the category is becoming demo intelligence, outbound intent, and behavior-based follow-up, then the brand probably needs to carry more trust before the demo does all the work.
That is why Xevoa.com came to mind. It feels more like a modern sales workflow/intelligence layer than a friendly tool name, without becoming cold or enterprise-heavy.
I would not force a rename immediately, but I would not wait until the name is clearly costing conversations either. By then the product may already be training the wrong category in people’s minds.
Happy to connect on LinkedIn if useful. This is exactly the kind of naming/category shift worth pressure-testing before the buyer profile moves further upmarket:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/aryan-y-0163b0278/