I spent 4 hours rewriting RadKits’ landing page before my cofounder’s conference. My first draft positioned us as a workflow optimization tool that would “standardize” radiology templates and “increase quality”—language that would have alienated our actual users.
My cofounder (who is a radiologist): “This sounds like you’re taking away their autonomy and disparaging their work. They’ll hate that.”
He was right. Here’s what I learned about positioning a product for two audiences.
The Two-Audience Problem
We’re targeting two groups: individual radiologists and radiology department heads.
Department heads want consistent, high-quality reports across their team. Radiologists want to write reports faster without sacrificing quality. The language has to be delicate—can’t imply their work is low quality or that we’re forcing standardization.
The Messaging Mistake
I had this in the problem section:
❌ Low quality
Self-made templates lack peer review and best practices
❌ Inconsistent across radiologists
Every radiologist has their own version—standardization is impossible
What I got wrong:
“Low quality” implied radiologists aren’t producing good work.
“Inconsistent…standardization is impossible” implied we’d remove their autonomy over their own reports.
Both would alienate the actual users.
What Users Actually Value
Our alpha users revealed what matters:
High-quality templates they can customize. They requested more RadKits-style templates for cases we hadn’t covered yet. They appreciated our templates that incorporate RSNA’s “Structured Reporting” best practices—but they wanted to keep using their own templates too. One user even asked us to build a higher-quality version of a template they’d created.
Time savings without losing control. The report assistant lets them dictate findings, and the template updates automatically. They don’t have to manually edit each section. They want this automation to support their workflow, not replace their judgment. They appreciated the care we put in to ensure the automation didn’t modify their findings and didn’t add improvements without their consent.
The pattern: They want our quality + their autonomy.
The Positioning Question
The positioning decision: “template manager” or “workflow optimizer”?
Template manager is accurate but limiting. It describes one feature, not the value. It anchors us to a narrow use case.
Workflow optimizer captures the bigger vision. Yes, we manage templates. But we also suggest improvements, provide AI-assisted reporting, and curate a knowledge base. Reporting is just the first workflow we’re optimizing.
The positioning matters because it shapes what users expect—and what we can build next.
What I Changed
I restructured the landing page with two columns: one for individual radiologists, one for department heads. Each audience sees their specific problems and solutions.
For radiologists, I focused on their actual pain points: building templates from scratch, difficulty sharing templates, setup work.
For department heads, I changed “Low Quality” to “Variable Quality” with the description: “Each radiologist develops their own approach to structuring reports and incorporating evidence.” This emphasizes inconsistency as the issue, not the quality of individual radiologists’ work.
Bottom Line
The landing page is good enough to start collecting beta signups while my cofounder attends his conference —and that’s what matters. Perfect copy can wait.
The key lesson: Getting user feedback on language beats perfect copy. My cofounder caught what I couldn’t see—that I was solving the department head’s problem while alienating the actual users.
In healthcare SaaS, understanding your users’ psychology is as important as understanding their workflows.