We developed a learning matching plattform that compares offerrings with needs. Since we approach a new market we do not have a DB with "offerrings" and no DB with "Needs". So the old known chicken&egg causality. Its not like Match.com, were two sides have the same need its more like "Car dealers" matching "Car buyers". Problem during ramp up: Buyers find no/less dealer and deales find no/less buyers!? Any prove strategie approach is highliy appreciated.
I've dealt with this and at the beggining it sucks, but the trick is to figure out which one is the hardest to get and the riskiest. Let's take skillshare, first we need to understand what consumers want to learn, if people wouldn't want to learn new skills online then why gather up a team of people to create courses if people wouldn't buy them. Once they understood what people would buy then just create the courses yourself one you get people interested other "teachers" would come and be part of it.
I've actually dealt with this problema myself. We created a platform that connects problems from inside the company to people inside the company that can solve them. The riskiest part was WHY people would share problems via online and we discovered that they did not just to make a problem visible, but because that was a great platform to show themselves inside a very large corporation so we enhanced that feature above all else. Once we got that ball rolling we went to get people interested in solving problems and WHY they would do it. What are the right triggers so on so forth. But the riskiest thing for us was getting the ball rolling uploading problems.
If you want to talk longer we can most definitely schedule a call.
All the best!