yo. i recently sold one of my AI SaaS products for $350k, exactly 7 months after building and launching it.

I hardly wrote a single line of traditional code. i used AI to generate everything, from the database architecture to the user interface.

it definitely wasn't magic on day one, though. i spent days stuck in loop-debugging and dealing with AI hallucinations before i finally cracked the system. the playbook boils down to three simple rules:

- keeping the idea insanely minimalist (a true MVP that solves one problem).

- guiding the AI step-by-step instead of asking it to build a massive platform all at once.

- launching fast to get real user feedback and traction and then apply a solid marketing system

lately, i've seen way too many non-technical founders give up at the very first AI bug, or on the marketing. it's a massive shame.

like the title says, i just launched a Skool community to share my exact prompt workflows, N8N automations, and distribution frameworks to get first users and scale it

to be completely transparent: i will likely charge for the full course later down the road. it just makes sense given the specific copy-and-paste templates i'll be sharing.

but for now, the main objective is purely to build and launch together. building alone in a silent corner is the single fastest way to give up.

if you want to join us and build or market your own AI SaaS with a group of active creators: drop a comment below or send me a dm, and i’ll send you the invite link!

Should probably start this by saying that I'm a Webflow Partner myself and regularly build Webflow sites for both my business and for the clients I work with. Naturally, I was interested to learn what answers you get when someone asks ChatGPT, Perplexity or Gemini who they should hire. Every article about it was vibes, so I measured it myself.

So, I carried out two studied (well I planned them and Claude executed the code):

Study one — how AI answers buyers. I took 39 real buyer questions ("best [X] for [Y]", the phrasing people type right before they spend money) and ran every one through ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini. 117 answers. Here's a quick summary:

• ~98% of the answers named specific companies. AI hands over a shortlist and you're either on it or you're not, and there's no page two to hide on.
• All three engines named the same brand only 56% of the time, and their full lists overlapped about 7–8%. Each engine has invented its own small elite and they barely talk to each other. Winning ChatGPT tells you nearly nothing about Perplexity.
• Pages with FAQ blocks and tables were cited 75% of the time vs 22% without (p=0.004). That's basically something you can fix in one afternoon.
• There is also no such thing as a permanent "AI visibility score." In one run I watched Perplexity cite Reddit in 87% of answers, then 18% fifteen days later. I used identical questions.

Study two — the one about this community. I took 1,464 real Webflow agencies — Experts directory listings and Clutch-listed shops — and asked the engines the questions a client actually types: "best Webflow agency for SaaS", "who should I hire to build a Webflow site", that shape of thing.

• 4.2%. Only 61 agencies out of 1,464 were ever named by any engine. The other 1,403 have, as far as three major AI engines are concerned, never existed.

The most actionable gap I found wasn't portfolio quality. It was machine-legibility... sites whose robots.txt quietly blocks the AI crawlers (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot), no structured data, no FAQ blocks. A surprising number of very good agencies are blocking the exact bots they'd want reading them. That's a ten-minute check for you.

Hope this was helpful. I'm Hesham, and I'm the solo founder of HarperFlow — a Webflow-native tool that runs a company's blog end to end (identifies a business' niche, finds keyword and topic opportunities, researches across 8–12 sources per article, writes (includes FAQs, sources, JSON-LD, images, tables, callouts, and author blocks, and 6x premium design templates, and auto-publishes to the Webflow CMS). I used to be a writer in another lifetime, so obsessing about the quality of the articles isn't exactly a surprise.

Happy to answer methodology questions, and if you want to know where your own agency landed, ask in the comments and I'll look it up. The dataset is public.

And here's a question for my own intel... is AI-search something that you think about?

The difference usually comes down to strategy.

Instead of targeting businesses that do not have a website, target businesses that already have one but clearly need a better version. The market is larger, the sales process is easier, and the value proposition is much stronger because those businesses already understand why a website matters.

The next part is outreach. A regular outreach tool is not enough if all it does is send the same message to thousands of people. You need something that can analyze websites at scale and turn real issues into personalized emails.

I use Swokei for that. It helps find businesses with existing websites, analyzes each site, and turns problems with design, SEO, speed, layout, and mobile optimization into personalized outreach emails. That means you can contact a large number of businesses without sending generic messages or spending hours manually researching every website.

When someone replies interested, I always offer a free mockup. I use Claude, Lovable, or Base44 to build it quickly. It becomes much easier to sell when the client can already see what a better version of their website could look like.

Web meetings should also be a major part of the process. I would never just send the website through email and hope the client likes it. I present it live on Google Meet, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams, explain the value, show what has been improved, answer their questions, and try to close the deal during the meeting.

The less back and forth there is after the meeting, the better. Present the website, show the value, close the client, and move on to the next project.

That is the type of process that can help an agency scale much faster.

MCP 2.0 was released yesterday, and I noticed the same pattern we see every time a new AI feature launches.

Some people are excited.

Some are already saying it's limited, doesn't work, or isn't worth using.

Almost every AI tool I've used (Claude, ChatGPT, Codex, etc.) required a bit of learning before it started producing consistently good results. A lot of the output depends on how you set it up and how you interact with it.

One thing I really appreciated is that Webflow released a free course explaining how their MCP workflow is supposed to be used. I went through it today, and I think it sets much more realistic expectations before you start experimenting.

Another thing I'd recommend, especially if you're using AI to build Webflow projects, is spending some time setting up your Instructions, Skills, and project rules first.

I've found that giving the AI context about:

• your project structure
• naming conventions
• coding preferences
• reusable workflows

makes a huge difference in the quality of the responses.

I'm still at the beginning of experimenting with MCP 2.0, but I'm excited to see how it fits into my Webflow workflow over the next few weeks.

Curious to hear from others:

• Have you tried it yet?
• What's working well?
• Any workflows you've discovered that are worth sharing?

I think we're all still figuring out the best way to use these tools.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been selling Webflow templates for a while, but over the past few months my sales have dropped significantly. I’m trying to figure out if this is just the current state of the Webflow marketplace or if it’s a sign that I should start focusing on something else.

For those of you who sell templates:
How are your sales compared to last year?

Are you still investing time into Webflow templates?

If you decided to pivot, what did you move to instead?

I’d really appreciate hearing your experiences before deciding where to invest my time next. Thanks!

Welp, we're officially here.

The bridge apps are mostly gone, agents can now work across multiple sites simultaneously, you can feed them your design system and brand guidelines as context, and they can analyze your site traffic conversationally... I mean this is genuinely crazy.

But it got me thinking about the governance side too...

AI agents can now make changes directly to the live site, with practically full CMS access, role enforcement, and activity logging so you can track exactly what was touched and when it was touched.

I think that Webflow made good guardrails. Branches mean agents can iterate in isolation before anything goes live and permissions are enforced down to individual pages and CMS collections, which from personal experience is great.

So technically the safety infrastructure is in place.

However I'm not sure how many teams are actually ready to hand that kind of access to an agent on a site that's driving real pipeline...

I mean we're also having that conversation on our side as I write this.

What do you guys and gals think? Does the 2.0 update change how much you trust the MCP with production work? Does it fully convince you?

Kann ich mit Webflow bedenkenlos Website für deutsche Gesundheitsanbieter erstellen z.b. Praxen, Gesundheits Coaches, Rehas, Therapeuten, Fitness und Wellnes???

Ist Webflow hier eine bedenklose Lösung hinsichtlich DSGVO, IP Drittlandstransfer, weil die IP Adresse ja zu Webflow, also auf US server, fließt?

Formulare sicher ich mit Formspark ab (EU Server), + Datenschutzerklärung und AVV mit Webflow.

Was meint ihr?
Sollte ich eine Alternative lernen für Websites für deutsche Kunden?

LG