The audience cap we thought we needed
Three days before we launched Feedr, I made a decision that felt sensible at the time. We'd limit free users to 100 audience members per session. Smart guardrail, I told the team. Keeps the backend stable. Stops bad actors from abusing the service. Gives us a story to tell paid customers. By week two, I'd begun to wonder if we'd got it entirely backwards.
The fear that shaped our launch
Most product decisions come down to a handful of legitimate concerns dressed up as strategy. Our audience cap was no exception. We were worried about three things: server cost at scale, the ability to moderate a ballroom full of comments in real time, and what happens when someone runs 50 simultaneous sessions on the free tier to test our limits.
On paper, those concerns were rational. In practice, they were anchored to a version of Feedr that didn't exist yet. We'd never had 100 simultaneous users in a session. We'd certainly never had 500. We were optimising for a problem we hadn't actually experienced, and in doing so, we created a much worse one.
The cap wasn't technical insurance. It was anxiety dressed as a feature.
What a schoolteacher told us on day five
Anna teaches year 11 drama in Bristol. She signed up on a Tuesday afternoon, tested Feedr with her class of 28 students, and sent us an email by evening saying it was exactly what she needed for managing Q&A during her end-of-year showcase. Perfect. We replied with enthusiasm.
By Friday, she was back. She wanted to use Feedr for the actual showcase. 87 students and parents in the school hall. She'd read the free tier limit and asked us straight: could she upgrade for just that one event?
We said yes, moved her to Creator (unlimited sessions, 500 audience), and she got her showcase. But the exchange stayed with me. She shouldn't have had to ask. She shouldn't have had to think about pricing tiers to work out whether our product could handle her use case. And the cap - the thing we'd designed to be a helpful boundary - had almost stopped her from trying us at all.
The real limit isn't audience size
Here's what we learnt in the first month: people don't run into the 100-person cap because they're testing Feedr for fun. They hit it because they're using it for real work. A conference organiser runs a panel with 150 attendees. A church preacher is streaming a service with 200 community members. A lecturer needs feedback from her full class of 120 students. These aren't edge cases. They're the exact people Feedr is built for.
The cap didn't protect us from abuse. It just put friction between Feedr and the moment when people discovered whether it actually solved their problem. And by then, some of them had already moved on.
What we got wrong was treating the cap as a safety feature when it was actually a conversion blocker. We were so focused on preventing theoretical problems that we created a real one: uncertainty about whether our product could handle the job at hand.
Why we've rethought what free really means
The free tier of Feedr still has limits. Three sessions per month on Free, unlimited on Creator. That boundary makes sense because it's about usage pattern, not fear. Someone running their first event probably won't run three per month straight away. The limit lets us understand who's serious about this and who's just kicking the tyres.
But the 100-person cap was different. It was arbitrary. It was based on assumptions, not data. And once we started fielding requests from people who wanted to use Feedr with actual audiences, the gap between what we'd designed and what people actually needed became impossible to ignore.
So we changed it. Free users get 100. Creator users get 500. Pro users get unlimited. That's not the only difference between the tiers - Creator adds moderation tools, emoji reactions, the ability to pin comments, and guest-moderator links. Pro adds the analytics dashboard. But those features matter because they're things people actively want, not things we're withholding to force an upgrade.
What we learned about launching small
The temptation when you're launching is to make every boundary feel intentional. To have a story for why the limits exist. We did that with the audience cap, and it cost us some early customers and a lot of time explaining ourselves.
What we should have done is simpler: launch with what you know works, listen hard to what breaks first, and fix the things that stop people from using your product for real work. The cap didn't need to exist to protect our infrastructure. It existed because we weren't confident yet. And that's a terrible reason to build a constraint into a free product.
Feedr works fine with 500 people in a session posting comments and upvoting. It works fine with 100. If someone needs more than that, Pro is there. But we're not pretending the cap exists for technical reasons any more. It's a business decision, plain and simple. The free tier is there for people to try us out. The Creator tier is there for people doing real work at a scale we can support while staying sane about moderation and cost. That's honest in a way our original framing wasn't.
Have you ever launched something with a limit you later realised wasn't really about the thing itself, but about your own uncertainty? I'd be curious how you'd have approached it differently.
Ready to try Feedr by MRVL?
One tap to download. No sign-up wall.