PLG Experiment for New Market Entry in India

This case study explores a 3-month PLG experiment targeting the Indian market by repositioning an all-in-one App Builder as a lightweight, collaborative online form builder.

Through Google Ads, a focused form-centric landing page, ready-to-use form templates, and onboarding videos, we aimed to guide new users from search intent to form creation and publishing.

While initial acquisition and template installation were successful, user drop-off during editing and publishing revealed critical UX friction and a disconnect between product complexity and user expectations.

The experiment highlights the limitations of surface-level rebranding and the need for structural product changes to truly enable self-serve user growth and feature adoption.

Key takeaways include optimising entry points for form users, increasing visibility of automation features, and reconsidering whether to split the product into separate form and app builder lines.

Role: Product Manager

Duration: 3–4 months

Goal: Test whether repositioning an all-in-one App Builder as a lightweight, collaborative online form tool could drive self-serve growth and product-led adoption in the Indian market.

🧭 Background

The product was positioned as an all-in-one App Builder, offering rich features but often overwhelming new users with complexity.
Inspired by competitors like JotForm and Fillout, we hypothesised that simplifying the entry point by highlighting only the Form Builder could improve initial adoption and unlock PLG (Product-Led Growth) potential.
India was selected for this experiment due to low acquisition cost and strong early engagement signals.

🔍 Strategy & Execution

Acquisition Funnel Design

Ran Google Ads targeting keywords like “create an online form”, “form builder”, etc.
Built a dedicated landing page focused solely on form-building and collaboration features.

New User Onboarding Flow

Embedded a form-specific tutorial video and used an Intercom-based onboarding tour to guide users into the form editing experience.
Introduced a set of Form Templates in the Template Centre with common use cases (registration, application, order forms, etc.).
Retained the core App Builder experience and didn’t emphasise the form entry path in UI.

📊 Key Metrics Tracked

Landing Page → Sign-up Conversion Rate
Sign-up → Template Installation
Installation → Editor Entry
First Save Rate in Editor
Published Forms with ≥20 visits (proxy for real usage)
Advanced Feature Usage & Adoption (e.g., Conditional Logic, Formula, Automation, Email Plugin)

📈 Results & Insights

Acquisition & Template Behaviour

Top templates installed:

CRM/Order Management (28%)
Registration Forms (21%)
Education/Quiz (17%)

Many users (~40%) installed business app templates, indicating confusion about whether they were building a form or an app.

Drop-off Points

High drop-off before entering the editor or completing the first save.
56.4% of users abandoned without saving progress.

51.4% of them engage in multiple actions, rather than just superficially exploring the interface.

Real Usage & Retention

Despite 1,000+ form users, only a few dozen forms were published with consistent traffic.
Sustained usage came mainly from simple, standalone forms (e.g., recruitment, order forms).

Advanced Feature Adoption

Deep features like Formulas, Automations, and Email Plugins had <5% usage.
Only the conditional logic feature saw modest engagement.

💡 Takeaways

Mismatch in User Perception: UI and flow failed to clearly separate "Form Builder" from "App Builder" use cases.
High Friction in Early Experience: Lack of clear feedback and motivation caused early abandonment.
Advanced Features Hidden Too Deep: Users did not discover value-driving functionality.
Packaging ≠ Product Strategy: Simply repackaging the entry point was not enough to drive long-term retention or monetisation.

🧭 Outcome & Reflections

While this experiment did not achieve strong PLG outcomes, it revealed critical structural barriers within the product. We concluded that deeper product-level changes were needed, such as: