A Note Before We Begin: I’ve been following Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson’s work for years. Their books changed how I think about business. Their writing is consistently sharp, honest, and useful. I watch Jason’s posts on X not because I’m looking for flaws, but because I’m fascinated by what makes certain businesses connect so deeply with identity.

This piece isn’t a criticism. It’s pattern recognition.

I’ve spent considerable time researching 37signals, reading their content, analyzing customer language, and studying their evolution over 25 years. I’ve done my best to get the facts right. If I’ve misrepresented anything, that’s not my intention. It’s the inevitable gap between outside observation and inside experience.

Here’s what I know to be true: No one can read their own label. Jason and David have access to data, context, and nuance I’ll never see. They experience their business from inside, where every decision has history and logic. I’m looking from outside, where patterns become visible that can’t be seen from within.

They might read this and think “He’s wrong about why we did X” or “That’s not how we see it at all.” That’s fair. They’re probably right about their conscious reasoning. But sometimes the most powerful dynamics are the ones we can’t see because we’re living inside them.

This is my attempt to read their label, not to correct their story, but to reveal what might be working even better than they realize. The highest compliment to their work is taking it seriously enough to understand why it actually works, beyond the explanations that feel obvious from inside.

If you’re Jason or David reading this: I hope you see this as an act of respect, not critique. You’ve built something rare. This is me trying to understand what makes it rare.

PS: The CEO Clarity Starter Kit uncovered all the insights you’ll read in this perspective.

Part 1: The Story They Tell

Jason Fried will tell you 37signals succeeded because they stayed disciplined. No venture capital. Small team. Simple products. Focus over features. Profit over growth.

David Heinemeier Hansson credits their technical credibility and contrarian positioning. They created Ruby on Rails and gave it away. They challenged industry orthodoxy on subscriptions, feature bloat, and meeting culture. They took controversial stances not for attention, but because they believed them.

Their narrative is coherent: “We’re successful because we executed principles consistently for 25 years.” They rejected hundreds of VC offers. Kept the team at 80 people while serving millions. Built profitable software from day one. Work 40-hour weeks, 32 in summer. Say no to complexity. Write books teaching what they practice. Be transparent about everything.

Jason frames their edge through operational excellence: “We’ve been profitable every month for 25 years. That’s not luck. It’s proof the model works.” He positions their advantage as philosophical clarity: “Most companies optimize for growth. We optimize for longevity. Different game, different rules.”

DHH emphasizes thought leadership: “We created Rails. That gave us developer respect. Then we challenged industry orthodoxy. We take controversial stances because we genuinely believe them.” Their public narrative centers on tactical discipline executed with unusual commitment.

When they explain Basecamp’s success, they list features: all-in-one simplicity, flat pricing, client-friendly collaboration, built-in chat so you don’t need Slack, and hill charts for progress visibility. When they describe their business model, they emphasize bootstrapped profitability, founder control, and values-driven decision-making.

The ONCE initiative fits this narrative perfectly: “We pioneered SaaS in the 2000s. Now we’re leading the way out. People are tired of renting software.” They frame it as a prediction. Subscription fatigue will create a massive opportunity for ownership-based software.

Ask them what differentiates them, and they cite principles: “We build half a product, not a half-ass product.” “We don’t sell you or your data.” “Small is not just a stepping stone; small is a great destination.” “It doesn’t have to be crazy at work.”

This story serves their identity needs beautifully. They’re the principled craftspeople who refused to compromise. The indie heroes who proved you don’t need VC funding. The thought leaders whose ideas shaped an industry. The disciplined operators who chose sustainability over hypergrowth.

It’s a compelling story. It’s also completely backward.

Part 2: The Hidden Position

Here’s what customers actually say when describing why they use 37signals products:

“My life is so much less stressed. Basecamp has increased my happiness exponentially.”

“It’s a godsend. Everyone’s on the same page.”

“Finally, sanity. No more drowning in a million emails.”

“I’m in control for the first time in years.”

“HEY solved email!!! I own my inbox again.”

Notice what’s missing? No one mentions features. No one cites pricing models. No one credits the bootstrapped story or philosophical manifestos. They talk about regaining control.

The concept 37signals owns isn’t calm, simplicity, or independence. Those are benefits, methods, or attributes; adjectives describing outcomes. The actual noun lodged in customer minds is CONTROL. Specifically: intentional control over how work happens.

This explains everything that confuses analysts:

Why do customers pay $299/month for “limited” features when competitors offer more for less? They’re not buying features. They’re buying the feeling of being in control. When you’re drowning in project chaos across five different tools, Basecamp’s deliberate constraints feel like relief, not limitation.

Why does HEY charge $99/year when Gmail is “free?” Because free means you’re not in control, advertisers are. HEY customers aren’t paying for email. They’re buying back control of their inbox from surveillance capitalism.

Why do ONCE products work despite self-hosting complexity? Because some customers value control over convenience so intensely, they’ll tolerate technical burden. “You should own that shit by now” isn’t about saving money. It’s about sovereignty.

Why does removing features strengthen rather than weaken their position? Because feature bloat is a loss of control. Every option added creates decisions, dependencies, configurations, and learning curves. Each one diluting control. Subtraction is control restoration.

The position creates a perceptual monopoly. When someone says, “I want control over my work chaos,” one answer dominates mental space: 37signals. Not Asana (too complex, requires extensive configuration). Not Monday.com (too many features that pull you in different directions). Not Slack (designed to interrupt you constantly).

37signals is control.

This isn’t what they claim. Scan their website and you’ll find “calm,” “simple,” “straightforward,” and “organized.” All adjectives describing benefits. But in customers’ minds, these adjectives point to a noun: control.

The linguistic evidence appears everywhere once you see it:

Basecamp testimonials: “We have a better handle on our business.” “Things don’t fall through cracks.” “I no longer wonder whether I asked for something.” Translation: I’m in control.

HEY marketing: “You’re in control” appears 11 times on their features page. “You decide who can email you.” “Screen first-time senders.” Every feature reinforces: you have control.

ONCE framing: “Own your software.” “You should own that shit by now.” Not “save money” or “better software,” but ownership as a means of control restoration.

Internal operations: Async communication (control over your time), no managers (control over your work), flat organization (control over decisions), profit-first (control over destiny), no VC (control over direction).

The position didn’t emerge through careful strategy. It crystallized organically from founder identity and got reinforced by consistent decisions. But make no mistake — 37signals owns control as surely as Volvo owns safety or Tesla owns future.

Part 3: The Identity Layer

The power of owning control stems from identity resonance. Using 37signals products isn’t a functional decision. It’s identity expression.

Customer identity: “I’m someone who determines how I work.”

The 37signals customer isn’t defined by company size (though they skew 10-50 employees) or industry (agencies, professional services, nonprofits dominate but don’t define). They’re defined by identity orientation: people who believe they should control their work rather than be controlled by it.

This explains purchasing patterns that confuse traditional analysis:

A 15-person agency pays $299/month for Basecamp when Asana costs $135/month. Why overpay by $164/month? Because choosing Asana signals “we’ll adapt to whatever tools others use.” Choosing Basecamp signals “we determine our own workflow.” The extra money buys identity expression, not features.

A privacy-conscious professional pays $99/year for HEY despite Gmail being free. The payment itself matters. It signals “I’m not someone whose attention can be bought by advertisers.” The economic exchange establishes sovereignty.

A regulated healthcare company buys Campfire ONCE for $299 instead of Slack at $7.25/user/month. For 20 people, Slack costs $1,740/year. Campfire pays for itself in two months. But the decision isn’t financial — it’s identity. “We’re not people who depend on external vendors controlling our data.”

This identity-first buying explains why 37signals can have significant feature gaps and maintain customer loyalty. The gaps prove authenticity. If Basecamp added Gantt charts, time tracking, and 200+ integrations, it would signal “we’ll give you whatever competitors have.” That would destroy the position. The deliberate restraint communicates “we know what matters, and we won’t be distracted by what doesn’t.”

The customer identity also explains market boundaries. Enterprise buyers rarely choose 37signals, not because the software can’t technically scale, but because enterprise purchasing is fundamentally about the distribution of responsibility. Large organizations buy vendors who take responsibility. 37signals sells tools that put responsibility on users. Identity mismatch.

Founder identity: sovereignty as core drive

The position exists because Jason and DHH are sovereignty-oriented people. This isn’t a strategy — it’s personality expressing through business.

Jason Fried: “My sense of independence has always been important to me. That’s why I became an entrepreneur. When you raise money, you don’t work for yourself anymore.”

Notice the language. Not “independence is a smart business strategy.” But “independence has always been important to me.” Its identity, not optimization.

DHH racing at Le Mans, creating Ruby on Rails, living between Spain and California, taking contrarian positions on Twitter. These aren’t random. They’re sovereignty expressions. He needs autonomy in every domain: technical (Rails), physical (racing), geographical (multi-country living), and ideological (contrarianism).

The company couldn’t exist without founders who value control above growth, autonomy above scale, and self-determination above validation. Different founders would have taken VC money, built enterprise features, and optimized for growth. The positioning would collapse.

Identity protection in B2B buying

The identity layer explains B2B procurement dynamics that seem irrational. A marketing director choosing 37signals isn’t just selecting project management software. They’re signalling to their team: “I’m a leader who values your sanity over feature checkboxes.”

If that director chose Monday.com, they’d signal: “I’m a leader who wants comprehensive tracking and visibility.” Different identity. Both valid, but incompatible.

This creates loyalty beyond switching costs. Abandoning 37signals means changing identity, not just changing tools. The director who chose Basecamp has told themselves (and their team) a story about what kind of leader they are. Switching to Asana violates that self-story.

B2B security theatre clearly reveals identity protection. Basecamp doesn’t have SOC 2 compliance that enterprise security teams “require.” Yet many enterprise teams use it anyway. Why? Because the person choosing Basecamp values control over compliance theatre. They’re protecting their identity as someone who makes their own assessment rather than following bureaucratic requirements.

Part 4: The Success Mechanics

37signals thinks its success comes from discipline. Saying no, staying small, choosing profit. The reality is simpler and more powerful: their position chose their tactics, not vice versa.

The causality runs: Control position → Identity resonance → Distribution paths that feel “obvious” → Tactical execution that reinforces position.

Flat-rate pricing emerged from the position.

Jason frames flat pricing as “being on the customer’s side, not extracting rent as they grow.” That’s the rationalization. The actual driver: control positions require aligned incentives.

When someone buys control, per-seat pricing creates anxiety because every new hire increases costs, reducing control over budgets. Flat pricing removes that anxiety. The position made this pricing model inevitable.

Competitors copying flat pricing without owning control discover that it doesn’t work. Intercom tried flat pricing and failed. Why? Because they’re selling features and integrations. More users = more value in feature-land, so per-seat pricing makes sense. But in control-land, more users should mean more control, not more cost. The position drives the pricing model.

Feature subtraction flows from control ownership

37signals describes removing features as discipline, “saying no to complexity.” That’s backward. Control positions require simplicity because complexity is a loss of control.

Every feature added creates decisions, dependencies, configurations, and learning curves. Each one dilutes control. The position made feature subtraction non-negotiable, not the other way around.

When Basecamp 2 launched with removed features, customers complained but mostly stayed. The position held. People didn’t switch to feature-rich competitors because they weren’t buying features. They were buying control, and subtraction reinforced that position.

Competitors can’t copy this tactic. When Asana removes features, customers revolt because they’re buying comprehensiveness. Feature removal violates Asana’s implicit promise. But it reinforces 37signals’ promise.

ONCE products are inevitable, given the position

Jason frames ONCE as an industry prediction: “We led the industry into SaaS. Now we’re leading the way out because subscription fatigue is real.”

That’s the story they tell themselves. Here’s what’s actually happening: owning control eventually requires ownership itself.

The position created internal tension. Customers buying control were still renting software. That’s a contradiction. The position needed resolution. ONCE is that resolution — control position reaching its logical conclusion.

This explains why ONCE timing makes sense despite seeming risky. They’re not predicting market trends. They’re resolving position tension. Customers already owned the concept (control). Now they can own the software. Perfect alignment.

The business risk others perceive stems from viewing ONCE through conventional SaaS frameworks. But 37signals isn’t a SaaS company. They’re a control positioning company that happened to use SaaS delivery. When delivery contradicts position, you change delivery.

Bootstrapping chose them

The proudest part of their story: “We rejected hundreds of VC offers. Stayed independent for 25 years.”

Here’s the truth they can’t see: their control position made VC funding impossible, not a choice.

When you own control as a concept, taking VC money creates an irreconcilable contradiction. VCs buy control. If customers are buying control from you, and VCs bought control over you, the position collapses.

Imagine the customer psychology: “I chose 37signals because they represent control. Oh, wait, investors control them.” Position destroyed.

They didn’t nobly reject VC. Their position made VC funding positional suicide. They experienced this as a principled choice because it felt right. But it felt right because the position wouldn’t allow the alternative.

DHH’s Jeff Bezos investment works only because it’s structured to preserve control: a personal payout, no board seat, and no control rights. The exception proves the rule.

Content marketing emerged from position reinforcement needs.

Their explanation: “We out-teach the competition. Share everything. Transparency wins.”

The reality is that control positions require continuous proof.

Control is invisible. You can’t demo it. You can’t show screenshots of someone being in control. You can only prove it through founder behaviour, which demonstrates that they maintain control, allowing customers to trust that the products will give them control.

Books, blog posts, conference talks, and podcast episodes — these aren’t marketing tactics. They’re position proof. “Look, we control our story, our platform, our distribution. This isn’t a company that outsources messaging to PR firms. We maintain control. Therefore, our products will give you control.”

The thought leadership creates authority, yes. But specifically: authority on operating with control. This isn’t thought leadership on productivity or collaboration (Asana’s territory). It’s thought leadership on self-determined business operation.

Competitors with different positions can’t copy this tactic effectively. When Monday.com publishes content, it reinforces its position (visual workflow management). When 37signals publishes, it reinforces theirs (control). Same tactic, different position-driven outcomes.

The position created a gravitational pull.

The strongest evidence that position drives tactics is that 37signals barely tries to acquire customers, yet customers come.

No sales team for Basecamp (order online). Minimal paid advertising (started only recently, after 20 years). No partner channel. No aggressive outbound. No lead generation machinery.

How do they get customers? Gravitational pull from position strength.

When someone experiences work chaos and searches for solutions, they encounter 37signals’ 25-year idea trail. Books read years before purchase. Podcast episodes about calm work. DHH tweets about independence. Jason’s writing on workplace sanity.

By the time they’re ready to buy, 37signals owns the control concept in their mind. The “sales process” is position reinforcement, not feature education.

This explains why their CAC is low despite no optimization: the position does the acquiring. People self-identify as control-seeking; find 37signals and buy. No friction because there’s no selling, just position recognition.

Part 5: The Coaching Moment

The challenge with unconscious success is that you can’t see what you’re doing right. Jason and DHH think they’re disciplined operators executing principles. They’re actually position custodians maintaining mental territory. This blindness creates risks.

Position dilution risk from tactical expansion

They’re considering expansion: more ONCE products, new categories, maybe different customer segments. The thinking: “We’ve proven the model works. Let’s expand.”

Danger: Every new product must reinforce control positioning, or it dilutes the concept. Basecamp reinforces control (over project chaos). HEY reinforces control (over inbox chaos). Campfire reinforces control (over vendor dependency). Each strengthens the same concept.

If they launched a product that didn’t reinforce control (say, a traditional analytics tool that’s complex by nature), it would confuse the position. Customers would wonder: “Are they about control or comprehensiveness?”

The test for any new product: Does it give customers more control, or does it add to their chaos? That’s the filter. Not “does it solve a problem” or “can we build it” but “does it reinforce our mental territory.”

Reframing the strategic question

Wrong question: “What features should we build?”
Right question: “What gives customers deeper control?”

Wrong question: “What market should we enter?”
Right question: “Where else do people need to reclaim control?”

Wrong question: “How do we differentiate from competitors?”
Right question: “How do we deepen our ownership of control?”

Price-position misalignment at the small scale

Their flat $299/month pricing creates a problem they don’t see: it contradicts control positioning for very small teams.

A 5-person startup paying $299/month equals $60 per user. That’s higher than most competitors. For someone seeking control, this creates cognitive dissonance: “I’m paying more to get fewer features. That doesn’t feel like control. It feels like being forced to overpay.”

The position says: You control your tools.
The pricing says: We control what you pay regardless of size.

This explains why 37signals’ sweet spot is 10-50 person teams despite positioning for “small businesses.” At 20 people, $299/month is $15 per user, excellent. At 5 people, it’s $60 per user, a control violation.

Solution: Offer a true small-team tier (5-10 people at $99/month) to align pricing with control positioning at every scale. But they can’t see it because they frame pricing as “fairness,” not “position reinforcement.”

Enterprise positioning confusion

They claim to avoid enterprise intentionally: “We’re for small teams, not big sluggish corporations.”

That’s identity protection (they don’t want to be enterprise-y). But it misses nuance: some enterprise buyers desperately want control.

Think regulated industries (healthcare, finance, legal). Data sovereignty isn’t a feature request. It’s a control necessity. ONCE products should dominate here. But 37signals hasn’t positioned itself in this explicitly.

The opportunity: “For organizations that require control.” Not “for small teams” (size-based) but “for control-seekers” (position-based). This includes 5-person startups and 500-person hospitals. The unifying variable is control orientation, not company size.

Metrics theatre distracting from position health

What they measure: Revenue, profit, customer count, employee efficiency, uptime, support response time.

What they should measure: Position strength metrics.

Questions that actually matter:

• When customers describe us, do they use control language spontaneously?
• What percentage chose us despite having fewer features than competitors?
• Are we gaining or losing ownership of “control” in prospect minds?
• Do competitor moves weaken our position or reinforce it?
• Which customer segments show the strongest identity resonance with control?

These aren’t typical SaaS metrics. But they’re what matters when you own mental territory. Revenue lags position strength. You can have strong revenue with a weakening position (dangerous) or a growing position before revenue (opportunity). They need a position health dashboard, not just a business metrics dashboard.

The authenticity trap

Their superpower is authenticity. What they preach, they practice. But this creates a trap: they can’t evolve if evolution feels inauthentic.

Example: They might benefit from strategic partnerships to ease ONCE product deployment complexity. But partnerships feel like losing independence. So they don’t pursue them, limiting ONCE adoption.

The insight they need: You can maintain control while enabling others to help customers. Partnerships with deployment specialists who help customers self-host ONCE products don’t violate the position. They reinforce it, giving customers control over the implementation approach.

But because Jason and DHH’s personal identity requires independence, they experience partnership conversations as threats to authenticity. They’re confusing founder identity preferences with position requirements.

Category definition opportunity

They’re competing in “project management,” “email,” and “software” categories. All wrong.

The category they should own: Work Sovereignty Software.

This isn’t a real category yet. They could create it. Work Sovereignty Software gives you control over how work happens: your tools, your data, your workflow, your communication, your time.

Category-defining statements:

• “Most software makes you adapt to it. Work Sovereignty Software adapts to how you want to work.”
• “You don’t rent sovereignty. You own it.”
• “Control chaos on your terms.”

Creating this category would give them language for ONCE expansion, clearer positioning against competitors, and room to add products that don’t fit traditional categories.

But they can’t see this because they think in terms of existing categories. They’re stuck in “project management” mindshare when they should be creating new territory.

The Fundamental Insight They Can’t See

Here’s what Jason and DHH will never figure out from inside their company:

They think: “We’re successful because we’re disciplined about our principles.”

Reality: “You’re successful because you own a concept. Your principles emerged from that concept ownership. The discipline is downstream of position, not upstream of success.”

Causality matters. They believe: Principles → Discipline → Tactics → Success

Actual causality: Founder identity → Position ownership (control) → Principles that reinforce position → Tactics that feel obvious → Success that validates everything

This isn’t just academic. Getting causality right changes what you optimize.

Wrong framing: “How do we stay disciplined about saying no?”
Right framing: “How do we deepen control positioning?”

Wrong question: “Should we add this feature?”
Right question: “Does this feature give customers more control or less?”

Wrong metric: “What’s our revenue per employee?”
Right metric: “How strongly do customers associate us with control?”

Wrong expansion strategy: “What other simple tools should we build?”
Right expansion strategy: “What other chaos needs control restoration?”

Why This Matters Beyond 37signals

The 37signals case reveals something that applies broadly: Founders can’t see their own positioning clearly because they experience it through the lens of identity, principles, and tactical choices.

You can’t perceive what you’re inside of. Jason and DHH live inside a control position so completely that they interpret everything through that lens without seeing the lens itself.

They make decisions that reinforce control, explain them as principle-driven discipline, and credit their success to the execution of principles. Meanwhile, customers are buying concept ownership (control), competitors can’t copy tactics because they lack position, and every “surprising” outcome flows inevitably from position dynamics.

This pattern repeats everywhere:

• Stripe thinks they won on API quality. Actually, own developer respect.
• Snowflake thinks they won on architecture. Actually, own data sophistication.
• Tesla thinks they won on technology. Actually, own the future.

The position chose their tactics. Their tactics reinforced position. Success validated everything. They attribute success to tactics when it actually came from position.

For 37signals specifically, the path forward requires seeing what they’ve been doing unconsciously and doing it intentionally:

Stop: Framing decisions through principles and discipline
Start: Framing decisions through position reinforcement

Stop: Measuring business metrics
Start: Measuring position strength

Stop: Expanding based on capability (“we can build it”)
Start: Expanding based on position coherence (“does it deepen control?”)

Stop: Competing in existing categories
Start: Defining Work Sovereignty Software category

Stop: Targeting company size
Start: Targeting identity orientation (control-seekers)

The company that rejected VC, removed features, launched anti-SaaS products, and stayed profitable for 25 years did all of this because they own control. Not because they’re disciplined. Not because their principles are superior. But because the position drove every decision, whether they saw it or not.

The magic of positioning is that it works even when you don’t know you’re doing it. The power of understanding positioning is that you can do it intentionally, deepening what already works instead of accidentally diluting it through tactics that feel smart but violate the position.

37signals owns control. Everything they’ve built, every decision they’ve made, every customer they’ve attracted flows from that ownership. The moment they clearly see it is when they can consciously steward what they’ve unconsciously built.

That’s not just strategy.
That’s the gravitational pull from clarity.

---

Uncover your position

Before you hire a messaging consultant to wordsmith your homepage, or an agency to “refresh your brand,” or someone to fix what they’ll call positioning (but is really just tactical framing), try this first.

The CEO Clarity Starter Kit

It does exactly what we just read. It helps you find and own your noun.

What you do:

• Run the Position Audit (reveals what noun you might already own without knowing it)
• Complete the 8-Question Advisor (the same questions that would surface “control” for 37signals)
• Feed the output into ClarityGPT (included)

What you get:

• Your noun. The concept you can actually own, not just claim
• A 4-Level Positioning Canvas showing how to move from saying it to OWNING it
• ClarityGPT translates your position into landing pages, offers, and LinkedIn profiles (written in your buyer’s voice, not consultant-speak)
• A 30-day positioning course so you can apply this method without me

Time required: About an hour (less time than reading three more case studies about tactics that won’t work without position)

Who’s used it: 200+ CEOs and founders who were tired of pushing uphill

Investment: $249 USD

Most realize they don’t need the consultant or agency after this. Or they need far less than they thought. Because once you know your noun (your position), the tactics become obvious. The distribution chooses itself. The customers explain you better than you explain yourself.

And yes, if you buy the kit, it nudges me closer to that Porsche in the photo. Thanks in advance for supporting excellent positioning and questionable life choices.

Stop competing on features. Start owning concepts.

Get your CEO Clarity Starter Kit