Trust is critical, but it is earned over time. The most that marketing messaging can do is buy a minimal level of trust required to get someone to try a product out. It can't buy enough trust to get actual dev customers in any real quantity.
However, a couple of the items recommended in the article immediately reduces my trust in the companies that do them:
> Here’s a missed opportunity I see constantly: developer tool companies that don’t capture email addresses from visitors who aren’t ready to convert.
Asking for my email before I'm at the point of wanting to try a product is a negative signal to me. The list of "compelling reasons" why I might want to provide an email address is the opposite of compelling -- the risk of getting stuff like that is one of the big reasons why I don't want to give my email address to companies.
> Do you have testimonials from recognizable companies? Are respected developers advocating for your tool?
The existence of testimonials in marketing materials is a negative signal to me. If the product was actually good, the company wouldn't need to provide me with them at all. I don't care what some famous dev somewhere thinks about the product anyway -- I don't know what their tastes and needs are, so I can't put their comments into the proper context. The only testimonials that matter are those from devs I personally know and respect.
> Are your founders visible and opinionated? Do they contribute to the broader conversation?
The more I hear directly from founders (particularly if they're opinionated), the more suspicious I get of the product.
Anyway, all that is a bit of nitpicking and, of course, is only relevant to how I form decisions about what I will and will not use. I'll leave this with agreeing wholeheartedly with what I think is the main point of the piece:
> Developer tools marketing isn’t about quick conversions or viral growth hacks. It’s about systematically building trust through consistent, valuable interactions with the developer community.
1. The option to leave an email for those who are interested is a huge plus, obviously without forcing it in any way. Maybe I should word it differently.
2. I’m not suggesting just slapping logos on the site, which has become the norm these days even if someone only tried the product once. But seeing an endorsement from someone like Mitchell Hashimoto on ampcode.com is a plus for me.
3. Yes, “visible founders” can absolutely backfire if it becomes performative or ego-driven. But handled with humility and substance, founder presence can actually accelerate trust-building.
This came from watching a lot of promising devtools get early traction, then stall when trust signals weren’t consistent. Would love to hear how others think about earning developer trust without over-marketing it.
However, a couple of the items recommended in the article immediately reduces my trust in the companies that do them:
> Here’s a missed opportunity I see constantly: developer tool companies that don’t capture email addresses from visitors who aren’t ready to convert.
Asking for my email before I'm at the point of wanting to try a product is a negative signal to me. The list of "compelling reasons" why I might want to provide an email address is the opposite of compelling -- the risk of getting stuff like that is one of the big reasons why I don't want to give my email address to companies.
> Do you have testimonials from recognizable companies? Are respected developers advocating for your tool?
The existence of testimonials in marketing materials is a negative signal to me. If the product was actually good, the company wouldn't need to provide me with them at all. I don't care what some famous dev somewhere thinks about the product anyway -- I don't know what their tastes and needs are, so I can't put their comments into the proper context. The only testimonials that matter are those from devs I personally know and respect.
> Are your founders visible and opinionated? Do they contribute to the broader conversation?
The more I hear directly from founders (particularly if they're opinionated), the more suspicious I get of the product.
Anyway, all that is a bit of nitpicking and, of course, is only relevant to how I form decisions about what I will and will not use. I'll leave this with agreeing wholeheartedly with what I think is the main point of the piece:
> Developer tools marketing isn’t about quick conversions or viral growth hacks. It’s about systematically building trust through consistent, valuable interactions with the developer community.