Building in public: Is this the right approach for your startup?

In the earliest days of building a company, one choice surfaces early: whether to build in public or operate in stealth mode. This decision affects engagement, trust, and competitive exposure.

Some founders are drawn to openness, sharing updates and lessons as they go. Others prefer to work under the radar until the product or traction is clearer. Both approaches can be strategic, but each comes with trade-offs that shape how your company grows. Making the choice intentionally can help you avoid misalignment later, when changing course is harder.

In this article, we’ll break down what it means to build in public as a startup: the pros, the cons, and the times when staying stealth might be the smarter move.

Building in public means sharing parts of your startup’s journey openly as you go, inviting people into how your company is built from the start. That might include product decisions, milestones, metrics, lessons learned, or even mistakes. The opposite approach, building in private, keeps most of that internal until there is something more finished or proven to share.

There is no single right answer. The goal is not visibility for its own sake, but alignment between how you build and what your business actually needs at its current stage.

What it looks like to build in public

People often frame building in public as a single decision, but in practice, it spans a spectrum. For some founders, it means high transparency, such as sharing revenue figures, churn rates, or roadmap priorities. For others, it might look more like narrating the process without revealing sensitive details.

Common build-in-public examples include choices like:

• Sharing progress updates or lessons learned on social platforms
• Publishing product roadmaps or feature experiments
• Talking openly about early mistakes or pivots
• Documenting customer feedback and how it shapes decisions

Importantly, this approach does not require sharing everything. Most founders who take this path still draw boundaries around what stays private, especially when it comes to revenue numbers or sharing details of failures.

When done intentionally, building in public can create real leverage for an early-stage company in the first steps of building its brand.

One of the biggest advantages is distribution. Building in public is a way for young startups to generate interest well before launch, since sharing progress gives people a reason to follow along before you have a finished product. Over time, that audience can turn into early users, partners, or advocates. 

There is also a learning advantage. Publicly articulating what you are building and why can attract feedback earlier than you might otherwise get it. Some of that feedback may not be helpful, but some of it can surface blind spots and sharpen your thinking.

Trust is another benefit, because transparency can make a young company feel more human and credible. This is especially true when the product itself is still evolving. People often trust builders who are willing to show their work.

And for some founders, public accountability is motivating. Knowing others are watching can help maintain momentum during the slow, uncertain early phases.

The same openness that makes founders want to build in public can also introduce risk. Sharing too much too early can expose strategic thinking to competitors, especially in crowded markets. Even if others cannot copy your team’s execution perfectly, you may unintentionally give away positioning or timing advantages.

The development of a company in the public eye can also create pressure. When progress is slow or messy, founders may feel compelled to project consistency or confidence that doesn’t match reality. Over time, that mismatch can become emotionally draining and might come off as inauthentic.

There is also the risk of distraction. Maintaining a public narrative takes time and energy. If it starts pulling focus away from core work like talking to customers or improving the product, the cost may outweigh the benefit.

Finally, not all feedback is useful. Public channels often amplify loud opinions, not necessarily informed ones. Founders need strong filters to avoid being pulled in unhelpful directions.

Building in private offers a different set of advantages. It allows teams to experiment freely without external scrutiny. Ideas can change without explanation, and mistakes can stay contained.

This approach is often appealing in highly competitive markets, regulated industries, or situations where timing and confidentiality matter. It can also be healthier for founders who do their best thinking without an audience.

The trade-off is that private building usually requires more intentional effort to create distribution later. Without an early audience, launches can feel quieter, and learning cycles may depend more heavily on direct outreach.

In practice, building in public rarely shows up as full, radical transparency. While building in private is relatively clear-cut — a deliberate decision to keep work out of public view — building in public operates on a spectrum. Founders choose where to land on that spectrum, deciding what to share, when to share it, and how openly to talk about the work as their company evolves.

Early on, that might look like sharing experiments, early learnings, or the thinking behind product decisions. As the business grows and the stakes increase, founders often narrow the scope —tmalking more about outcomes, milestones, and lessons learned, while keeping unfinished ideas, detailed metrics, or forward-looking strategy private.

This approach allows founders to capture many of the benefits of visibility — trust, credibility, and early connection — without taking on unnecessary risk. Just as importantly, it leaves room to adjust over time, as audience size, competitive pressure, or personal comfort levels change.

Instead of asking “should I build in public,” it can be more useful to ask a set of narrower questions.

How competitive is your market?

If many similar products are racing toward the same customers, discretion may matter more early one—specially if differentiation isn’t clear yet. In less crowded or emerging spaces, openness can help you stand out and shape the narrative.

How mature is your product?

Early experimentation benefits from flexibility. If your product direction is likely to change significantly, sharing too much too early can create confusion or unnecessary expectations. More mature products tend to benefit from more straightforward, stable storytelling.

What is your go-to-market motion?

Founder-led distribution, community-driven growth, developer audiences, and many product-led motions often pair well with building in public. Sales-led and enterprise motions often favor building in private, where messaging can stay consistent and polished while the product matures.

What is your risk tolerance?

Some founders are comfortable being visible through uncertainty. Others find that exposure stressful or distracting. Neither preference is a flaw, but it is a constraint to plan around.

What supports your well-being as a founder?

Public accountability energizes some people and exhausts others. Pay careful attention to which camp you fall into, especially during high-pressure periods.

Answering these questions honestly tends to reveal whether building in public or building in private makes the most sense right now.

If you decide to build in public, the goal is not maximum transparency, but sustainable clarity. A few simple guardrails can help you share in ways that support learning and trust without creating unnecessary risk or distraction.

1. Be clear about your boundaries from the start

Decide what categories of information are always private, such as financial details or security practices. Being explicit about these boundaries early makes it easier to share consistently without second-guessing yourself or over-correcting later.

2. Focus on learnings, not performance

Some of the strongest build-in-public examples emphasize decision-making and lessons over wins. This approach keeps the conversation grounded in insight, not optics, and helps you avoid turning progress into a performance.

3. Choose channels you can sustain

Consistency matters more than volume. It is better to share occasionally and thoughtfully than to burn out by posting constantly, especially during periods when your attention should be focused on building your product or offering.

Revisit the decision regularly. What makes sense at Day 0 may not make sense at Day 180, so be gentle and give yourself permission to evolve.

Building in public doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ahead of the curve, and building in private doesn’t signal a lack of ambition. Both are tools. The right choice depends on your product, your market, and the kind of founder you are at this stage.

The most important thing is to make intentional decisions. When your visibility strategy aligns with your business needs and personal working style, it becomes a source of leverage rather than friction.