It might impact top of funnel (visits), but quality content will really stand out once visitors are at your site, which should increase conversion rate. Regardless, quality content is important for branding/perceived reputation, which is going to be helpful.
It's easier to stand out when everyone goes crappy and cheap. This won't change.
lol, a website is not a good way to promote a business for most startups. Even a YT, facebook, or linkedin page will generate better lead volume.
The nonexistent brand recognition means most SEO and online advertising is a waste of time and money. i.e. random users are usually not going to suddenly discover your products and services in significant volumes.
Mostly we would see around 2400 new users after each contextually relevant community event, 400 per trade-show, and around 25 per informal business gathering.
To match similar lead volume on the web, it would take about 8 months to reach the same volumes as a single community event. i.e. random browsers are generally not going to investigate unknown brands unless they were tipped off by another user. You will see that exponential curve initially as early adopters share their experience with friends, and more users investigate the "free tier".
That exponential growth also requires persistent release updates (extinction rate is about 5 months), monitoring customer feedback, and keeping your profit mode traction quiet. However, do not rely on people stepping up to help out on any vanity project, and plan 2 month release cycles around your core use-case for paying customers.
The key to survival as a company is cash flow in the front door, and providing value to customers. Unless you can do both, than form a nonprofit instead.
Note, every castle needs a moat with legal alligators... If the product/service technological barrier is too low, than a competitor in a better brand position will scoop the market your team cultivated.
As a startup your chances are 1:22, and even lower if you are not objectively studying other firms founding years. Not the success stories, but rather the 21 other firms that didn't win the launch lottery.
As a side note, entering a market already saturated with crap is usually economically unfeasible. The goodwill available with consumers has been burned already.
Not a founder at the moment, but I do purchase a lot of b2b SaaS/infra services. Usually I hear of the brand first, but really high quality content is one factor that makes me decide between competitors. That’s all I meant.
Makes sense for small firms to run low entry cost subscriptions at first, but make sure to build a spreadsheet calculator to regularly project costs. Note accumulating variable costs can pack a wallop during growth, and external services EOL all the time.
Anecdotally, we found aesthetically focused firms lived up to the old adage:
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." ( W.C. Fields )
It's easier to stand out when everyone goes crappy and cheap. This won't change.