Unlock user engagement by understanding real needs and behaviors

Why User Engagement Fails: Stop Building Products Nobody Wants

"We built it, but users aren't engaging with our product."

A founder shared this with me last week. After 15 years in product design, I've seen this pattern repeatedly. Companies rush into development without truly understanding their users.

The problem isn't your design skills or development capabilities. It's that you're solving the wrong problem for the wrong user. I've watched brilliant teams pour months into features that users ignore within days of launch. The gap between what companies think users want and what they actually need is where millions of dollars and countless hours disappear.

Here's what actually moves the needle: Skip traditional market research. Focus on real behavioural patterns. What frustrates your users enough to make them switch products? Analyse competitors differently. Don't copy features. Look for what users complain about. That's your opportunity. Talk to users properly. One good interview is worth 100 survey responses. I've seen entire product strategies pivot after just three user conversations. Test early, test often. Launch smaller features faster. Get real feedback. Adjust.

The hard truth? Most products fail not because of poor design, but because they solve the wrong problem for the wrong user.

The Real Cost of Building Without Understanding

Every feature you build costs money. Development hours, design iterations, testing cycles, deployment infrastructure—it all adds up. But the biggest cost isn't financial. It's opportunity cost.

When you build the wrong features, you're not just wasting resources on something users won't engage with. You're also not building what they actually need. That competitor who figured out the real user pain point? They're capturing your market while you're polishing features nobody asked for.

I worked with a SaaS company that spent eight months building an AI-powered recommendation engine. They were convinced it would revolutionize their platform. Launch day came. Usage hovered around 3%. Meanwhile, users kept submitting the same support ticket: they couldn't export their data in the format they needed for compliance reporting. A feature that would have taken two weeks to build.

The lesson here isn't about prioritization—it's about understanding. You can't prioritize correctly if you don't know what problems your users are actually trying to solve. And I mean really trying to solve, not what they say in surveys or focus groups.

User behavior reveals truth that surveys hide. Watch what people do, not just what they say.

Why Traditional Market Research Misleads Product Teams

Traditional market research has its place, but it's terrible at predicting actual user engagement. Here's why:

Survey responses reflect aspirational behavior, not actual behavior. Users tell you they want advanced analytics and customization options. Then they use your product and never venture beyond the basic dashboard. They're not lying—they genuinely think they want those features. But when faced with the cognitive load of actually using them, they default to simplicity.

Focus groups create artificial consensus. Put ten people in a room, and you'll get groupthink. The loudest voice dominates. The quiet person with the most valuable insight stays silent. You walk away with data that feels comprehensive but misses the individual pain points that drive real engagement.

Market reports tell you about the past, not the future. By the time Gartner publishes that trend report, your competitors have already moved on to the next thing. You're building for yesterday's market.

I'm not saying ignore all research. I'm saying don't let it replace actual user understanding. One founder I know spent $50,000 on market research before launch. The report was 200 pages of charts and projections. Three months after launch, they discovered their core assumption—that enterprise customers would adopt without IT approval—was completely wrong. One conversation with an actual enterprise buyer would have revealed this.

The Behavioral Pattern Approach That Actually Works

Want to understand what users need? Stop asking them directly. Watch what they do instead.

Start with friction mapping. Where do users get stuck in their current workflow? Not in your product—in their entire process. If you're building project management software, don't just look at what happens inside your tool. Look at the emails they send, the spreadsheets they maintain, the Slack messages they exchange. The workarounds reveal the real problems.

I helped a client redesign their onboarding by sitting in on new user sessions. We didn't ask questions during the first ten minutes. We just watched. Every single user opened a separate tab to search for how to do something that should have been obvious. The pattern was clear: our navigation terminology didn't match their mental model. We renamed three menu items and onboarding completion jumped 34%.

Track abandonment points religiously. Users who start a process but don't finish are telling you something. Maybe the feature is too complex. Maybe it requires information they don't have handy. Maybe the value proposition isn't clear enough to justify the effort.

Look for switching behavior. What makes someone leave a competitor for your product? What makes them leave you for someone else? These moments of decision reveal what truly matters. Price matters less than you think. Convenience matters more.

The behavioral data doesn't lie, but it does require interpretation. Context matters enormously.

How to Analyze Competitors Without Copying Their Mistakes

Your competitors are not role models. They're experiments you can learn from without spending the money.

Most product teams do competitive analysis backwards. They list out competitor features and add them to their roadmap. This is how every product in a category becomes identical. It's also how you inherit your competitor's mistakes.

Here's the better approach: Read your competitors' negative reviews. Not the one-star rants from people who never actually used the product. The thoughtful three-star reviews from people who wanted to love it but couldn't. These reviews identify the real gaps in the market.

I spent two hours reading negative reviews of a competitor's product before a strategy session. The same complaint appeared 47 times: the product was powerful but required constant maintenance. Users felt like they'd hired a high-maintenance employee, not bought a tool. This insight shaped our entire positioning: powerful and hands-off. We automated what they made manual. Our competitor had the technology to do this too—they just never listened to why users were leaving.

Look for the workflow gaps competitors force users to fill. Check the integrations section. If everyone integrates with the same three tools, users are compensating for something your competitor doesn't do well. That's your opportunity.

Study their pricing page with fresh eyes. The way they tier features reveals what they think is valuable. But then check forums and community discussions. What features do users say should be in a lower tier? That's the gap between perceived value and actual value.

The Art of User Interviews That Actually Reveal Truth

One good interview is worth 100 survey responses. But most people conduct terrible interviews.

The biggest mistake? Asking users what they want. Users are terrible at this. They'll tell you they want faster horses when they need a car. Your job isn't to take feature requests. It's to understand the problem they're trying to solve.

Here's my interview structure: Start with recent behavior, not hypothetical scenarios. "Tell me about the last time you tried to [accomplish relevant task]" gets you real stories. "What features would you like to see?" gets you fantasy wish lists that won't drive engagement.

Listen for emotional language. When someone says a process is "frustrating" or "annoying," you've found a pain point. When they say something "takes too long," dig deeper. Too long compared to what? What's the opportunity cost? What do they give up to do this task?

Ask about workarounds repeatedly. "How do you handle that today?" reveals the jobs your product needs to do. Users who've built elaborate spreadsheet systems or multi-tool workflows are showing you the exact shape of the problem. Build to that shape.

I interviewed a user who mentioned he kept a notebook next to his computer for one specific task in our product. This seemed minor. I almost moved on. Instead, I asked why. Turns out our export feature produced data in the wrong format for his reporting needs. He'd copy numbers by hand into the notebook, then type them into another system. This "minor inconvenience" cost him three hours every week. We fixed it. He became our biggest advocate.

Three interviews with the right users will teach you more than 300 survey responses from random prospects.

Why Launching Smaller Features Faster Beats Big Releases

Perfect is the enemy of shipped. And shipped is the enemy of wasted effort.

The traditional product development cycle kills engagement potential before launch. Spend six months building something in secret, polish it until it's perfect, launch with fanfare, and… crickets. Users don't behave like you predicted. The feature you thought was core turns out to be irrelevant. The one you almost cut becomes the most-loved.

You cannot predict user engagement from inside your office. You need real people using real features in their actual workflow. This means shipping earlier than feels comfortable.

I'm not advocating for shipping broken features. I'm advocating for shipping the smallest viable version that solves one clear problem. Get it into users' hands. Watch what happens. Listen to what they struggle with. Then iterate.

A team I advised wanted to build a comprehensive analytics dashboard. Charts, graphs, custom date ranges, export options, comparison views—the works. I suggested they start with one metric displayed one way. They resisted. Eventually, they shipped a minimal version to 5% of users. Those users only looked at one metric anyway. The rest was noise. We'd almost spent three months building features that would actively hurt engagement by adding cognitive load.

Your users don't want more features. They want their problem solved. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best one. You only discover what "simplest" means by putting something real in front of real users.

Launch, learn, iterate. Repeat until engagement climbs.

Testing Early: The Prototype Mindset That Changes Everything

Testing isn't a phase. It's a mindset.

Most teams think of testing as something that happens after development. You build it, then you test it, then you launch it. By the time you discover users don't engage, you've invested too much to scrap it. You launch anyway, hoping it'll find its audience. It rarely does.

Test before you build. I know this sounds obvious, but few teams actually do it. They test designs, sure. They run usability studies on prototypes. But they don't test the fundamental assumption: does this problem matter enough to change behavior?

Here's a method I use constantly: The smoke test. Before building anything, create a landing page that describes the feature as if it exists. Drive some traffic to it. See who clicks "Learn More" or "Sign Up for Beta." This isn't about deceiving users—be clear it's coming soon. It's about validating demand before investing resources.

I worked with a founder convinced their audience needed white-label capabilities. Complex feature. Months of development. Before they started, I suggested a smoke test. We added "White Label Options" to their pricing page with a "Contact Us" button. Over three months, four people clicked it. Four. That feature would have cost $150,000 to build. The test cost nothing and saved everything.

Test with real context, not lab conditions. Users behave differently when they're in your office watching you watch them. They behave differently in usability labs. They behave differently still in their actual work environment with real deadlines and real stress. Get your product into real contexts as early as possible.

Remote testing tools help here, but nothing beats actually sitting with users in their environment.

The Problem-User Fit Framework

Before product-market fit comes problem-user fit. Are you solving a problem that your specific users actually have?

This sounds stupidly simple. Yet it's where most products fail. They solve a real problem for the wrong user. Or the right user's third-tier problem. Or a problem users have already solved satisfactorily another way.

Here's how to evaluate problem-user fit: Can you clearly articulate whose problem you're solving, what that problem costs them, and why existing solutions fail? If any part of that sentence feels vague, you haven't achieved problem-user fit.

"We help businesses be more efficient" doesn't cut it. "We help logistics coordinators at mid-size distribution companies reduce mis-shipments that cost them $3,000+ per error because their current system requires manual data entry between three different tools" is problem-user fit.

The specificity matters enormously. Vague problems lead to vague solutions. Vague solutions lead to low engagement. Users don't adopt tools that solve problems "sort of" or "in general." They adopt tools that solve their specific, painful, expensive problem right now.

I've seen companies pivot their entire positioning without changing their product, just by getting specific about whose problem they solve. A B2B tool was marketing to "sales teams." Engagement was mediocre. They narrowed to "outbound sales teams at Series A SaaS companies selling to enterprise customers." Same product. Different positioning. Engagement doubled because the marketing spoke directly to a specific pain point that specific user felt acutely.

Test problem-user fit before you worry about anything else.

When to Pivot vs. When to Persist

You've launched. Engagement is low. Now what?

The hardest decision in product development: Is this a messaging problem, a positioning problem, or a fundamental product problem? Do you need better marketing or a different product?

Here are the signals that suggest you need to pivot: Users sign up but never complete onboarding. This usually means the product doesn't match the promise. They completed onboarding but don't return. The "aha moment" never happened—your core value proposition isn't valuable enough. They use it briefly then abandon it. You solved a symptom, not the underlying problem.

Signals that suggest you should persist: Users complete onboarding and return, but growth is slow. You might have a distribution problem, not a product problem. A small segment uses it heavily while others don't. You've found problem-user fit with a niche—double down there. Users say they love it but don't use it often. You've built a painkiller for infrequent pain—that's fine if you price and position accordingly.

I worked with a company that had 50 active users after nine months. Most would call that failure. But those 50 users used the product daily and said they couldn't work without it. That's not a failed product. That's a successful product that hasn't found its full market yet. We focused on understanding what made those 50 special. Turned out they shared a specific workflow. We repositioned the product for that workflow, and growth took off.

The difference between pivoting too early and persisting too long often determines success or failure. Base the decision on behavioral data, not vanity metrics or gut feelings.

Quick Takeaways

• Watch behavior, not surveys: What users do reveals more truth than what they say they'll do—track friction points and workarounds in their actual workflow
• Mine competitor complaints: Don't copy features; study negative reviews to find genuine market gaps and opportunities your competitors miss
• Interview for stories, not wishes: Ask about recent specific experiences rather than hypothetical scenarios to uncover real problems worth solving
• Ship small and iterate: Launch minimal versions to real users quickly instead of building comprehensive features in isolation for months
• Test assumptions before coding: Use smoke tests and prototypes to validate demand and problem severity before investing development resources
• Define problem-user fit first: Get specific about whose exact problem you solve and what it costs them—vague problems create vague products with low engagement
• Know when to pivot: Low engagement after launch signals either poor positioning or fundamental product mismatch—let user behavior patterns guide your decision

Stop Building Features, Start Solving Problems

Most products fail not because of poor design, but because they solve the wrong problem for the wrong user.

If you're experiencing low engagement, the answer isn't better marketing or more features. It's better understanding. Until you truly grasp what problem your users need solved, what it costs them when it goes unsolved, and why current solutions fail them, you're building in the dark.

The good news? Understanding doesn't require massive budgets or months of research. It requires talking to real users, watching actual behavior, and being willing to hear uncomfortable truths. It requires shipping smaller things faster so you can learn in real contexts with real stakes.

I've seen companies transform engagement by making one simple change based on one user insight. I've also seen companies chase feature parity with competitors for years without moving the needle. The difference isn't resources or talent. It's whether they're solving problems that actually matter to users who actually need them solved.

Start small. Pick your three most engaged users and ask them detailed questions about how they use your product. Where do they struggle? What tasks do they avoid? What workarounds have they created? Then pick three users who abandoned your product. What were they trying to accomplish? Where did the product fail them?

These six conversations will teach you more than any amount of speculation. They'll show you what to build next, what to fix first, and possibly what to stop building altogether.

User engagement isn't a mystery to be solved with growth hacks or viral loops. It's the natural result of solving real problems for real people. Do that, and engagement takes care of itself.

Ready to understand what your users actually need? Start with one good conversation today.

FAQs

How many user interviews do I need before I understand my users?

Quality matters more than quantity. Three interviews with the right users—people who represent your core audience and deeply experience the problem you solve—will teach you more than 50 interviews with random prospects. Look for the point where you stop hearing new information. That's usually around 5-8 interviews per user segment.

What if users can't articulate what they need?

They can't and won't. That's why you don't ask "what do you need?" Instead, ask about recent specific experiences. "Tell me about the last time you tried to [accomplish task]" gets them telling stories. Listen for frustration, workarounds, and time wasted. The problem lives in those stories, not in their feature requests.

How do I know if low engagement is a product problem or a marketing problem?

Look at the user journey. If people don't sign up, it's probably positioning or awareness. If they sign up but don't complete onboarding, your product doesn't match your promise. If they complete onboarding but don't return, you haven't delivered enough value. If a small segment loves it while others don't, you've found problem-user fit with a niche—focus there.

Should I copy features that seem to work well for competitors?

No. Your competitor's most visible features aren't necessarily their most valuable ones. They might have built them for strategic reasons that don't apply to you, or they might be legacy features they can't remove. Instead, study what users complain about in competitor products. That's where your differentiation opportunity lives.

How quickly should I expect to see engagement improve after making changes?

Depends on your product cycle. For daily-use tools, you should see behavioral changes within a week. For weekly-use tools, give it a month. For monthly-use tools, you need at least a quarter. But you should see early indicators sooner—watch completion rates, time spent, and return visits. If those don't shift within two typical usage cycles, your change didn't solve the real problem.