How Rooom Chose Developer-First Positioning Over Mass Market Appeal

How Rooom Chose Developer-First Positioning Over Mass Market Appeal

Most SaaS companies chase the biggest market. Hans Elstner did the opposite—and built a more defensible business because of it.

When building a document processing platform, the obvious move is to target business users. Make it visual, drag-and-drop, no-code. Chase the largest addressable market. That’s what every competitor did. Hans Elstner, CEO of Rooom, looked at the same market and made a contrarian bet: he’d build for developers instead.

In a recent episode of Category Visionaries, Hans explained how this single positioning decision shaped everything about Rooom’s business—from product architecture to pricing strategy to go-to-market motion. For technical founders wrestling with the same choice, his journey reveals why smaller markets can sometimes be better markets.

The Decision That Shaped Everything

Hans’s positioning choice wasn’t abstract strategy. It was a fundamental belief about how document processing should work. “Our main target audience is actually more technical,” Hans explains. “So we have a low code tool which is much more similar to like if you go on AWS or if you go on Anthropic and like, you know, you fiddle around with the API.”

That comparison—AWS, Anthropic—tells you everything. Rooom isn’t trying to hide complexity from users. They’re exposing it in a controlled way, giving technical teams the building blocks to construct custom solutions.

The alternative was obvious. Build a no-code interface where business users upload a template, click some buttons, and watch data extract automatically. It’s simpler. More intuitive. And it works perfectly—until it doesn’t.

The problem? Documents don’t follow templates. Real-world invoices have variations. Contracts have custom clauses. The moment something deviates from the expected format, rigid no-code tools break. Business users can’t fix them. They’re stuck waiting for vendor support or custom development.

Developers want something different. They don’t need simplicity—they need flexibility. Give them APIs, webhooks, and configuration options, and they’ll build exactly what their business needs. When documents change, they adapt the system themselves.

How Product Strategy Followed Positioning

Once Hans committed to technical buyers, every product decision became clearer. Rooom wouldn’t try to be the easiest tool. They’d be the most flexible tool.

This meant building what Hans calls “a low code tool” rather than a no-code tool. Developers could configure document extraction through an interface, but they also had programmatic access to everything. APIs for training models. Webhooks for processing results. Configuration files for complex workflows.

The product architecture reflected this philosophy. Instead of building closed templates, Rooom built composable components. Developers could mix and match extraction modules, validation rules, and output formats. The platform became infrastructure rather than application.

This approach had downstream effects. Documentation became critical—developers need comprehensive API references, not video tutorials. The product had to be programmable from day one. Support teams needed technical depth to help troubleshoot complex implementations.

The Pricing Model That Technical Buyers Demanded

Developer-first positioning also shaped pricing. Business users expect per-seat pricing or tiered packages. Developers expect usage-based pricing that scales with their needs.

Rooom couldn’t charge per user—technical teams don’t think that way. They’re building systems that process thousands or millions of documents. They need predictable pricing tied to consumption, not headcount.

This aligned perfectly with how technical buyers evaluate tools. They start with pilots, process small volumes, and scale up gradually. Usage-based pricing removes friction from that journey. No need to negotiate enterprise contracts before proving value.

The pricing model also created natural expansion. As customers processed more documents, revenue grew automatically. Rooom didn’t need to constantly upsell additional seats or features. Growth was built into the business model.

The Go-to-Market Motion That Emerged

Developer-first positioning fundamentally changed how Rooom went to market. They couldn’t rely on traditional SaaS playbooks built for business buyers.

Hans recognized this early. Technical buyers don’t respond to sales calls. They want to try the product themselves, read documentation, and make informed decisions. This led Rooom to a product-led approach where developers could start using the platform with minimal friction.

But developer-first also opened different channels. “We’re building integrations with a lot of the automation vendors out there,” Hans says. Technical buyers already use automation platforms. By integrating with those tools, Rooom met developers where they already worked.

These partnerships became distribution. Automation vendors had existing relationships with technical teams. Rooom provided capability those teams needed. Instead of building a massive direct sales force, Rooom leveraged partner channels to reach technical buyers efficiently.

The content strategy followed the same logic. Technical buyers don’t want marketing fluff—they want technical depth. Rooom’s content focused on implementation details, architecture decisions, and integration patterns. The goal wasn’t to generate massive traffic but to demonstrate technical credibility to the right audience.

The Tradeoffs Nobody Tells You About

Developer-first positioning isn’t free. Hans made deliberate tradeoffs to chase a smaller market. The addressable market shrunk considerably. Not every company has technical teams capable of implementing Rooom. Some businesses need simpler, more constrained tools.

Sales cycles changed too. Technical buyers move differently than business buyers. They want to test extensively before committing. They involve multiple stakeholders—developers, architects, security teams. The evaluation process takes longer but produces stickier customers.

Support requirements increased. When business users have problems, they need handholding. When developers have problems, they need technical expertise. Rooom’s support team required deeper knowledge to troubleshoot complex implementations.

But these tradeoffs created advantages. Technical buyers churn less because switching costs are high. They integrate Rooom deeply into their workflows. Ripping it out means rewriting code, not just canceling a subscription.

Contract values increased too. Technical teams solving complex problems pay for sophisticated solutions. Rooom could charge premium prices because they delivered premium flexibility. The smaller market consisted of higher-value customers.

Why This Strategy Creates Defensibility

Hans’s developer-first bet created a defensible moat. Competitors targeting business users can’t easily pivot to technical buyers. The products are architecturally different. The go-to-market motions are incompatible. The organizations are structured differently.

Moving downmarket from technical to business users is possible—you add abstraction layers and simplified interfaces. But moving upmarket from business to technical buyers requires rebuilding everything. The codebase, the documentation, the support model, the pricing structure.

This asymmetry protects Rooom. They can expand into simpler use cases if needed. But competitors stuck serving business users face massive switching costs to compete for technical buyers.

The developer relationships compound over time too. As technical teams invest in Rooom integrations, they become advocates. They recommend the platform to peers. They build internal expertise. Each implementation makes the next one easier and increases switching costs.

The Lesson for Technical Founders

Hans’s journey reveals a crucial insight: the biggest market isn’t always the best market. Sometimes a smaller, more technical market offers better unit economics, lower churn, and stronger defensibility.

The key is honest assessment. Can you deliver meaningfully better value to technical buyers than to business users? If yes, resist the temptation to chase the masses. Build for the audience you understand best.

For Rooom, that audience was clear. “Our main target audience is actually more technical,” Hans says simply. That clarity drove every decision that followed—and built a business that raised $19 million while maintaining what Hans calls “low drama” growth.

Developer-first positioning isn’t right for every company. But for founders with technical depth solving complex problems, it might be the most defensible path forward.