dshah

As someone that has raised $100M+ in VC for my current startup, I totally agree with this sentiment.

Open with the investment thesis -- or more specifically, lead with WHY this is a great investment compared to the other 100+ deals they're looking at.

The smartest share what they know all the time -- that's part of what makes them smart.

As founder/CTO of HubSpot: We don't really sell much to local businesses. We're in the SMB space but with an emphasis on B2B companies.

I'm a bit biased (friend of Rand, founder of HubSpot), but I think the exact opposite is true.

Long-term, I think inbound marketing is way less risky for one simple reason: We're living in an age of increasing choice and increasing transparency. As buysers/consumers, we're naturally going to lean increasingly towards companies that deliver a better product/experience -- not towards those that happen to place more frequent ads. Those that build their brand by delighting customers (all the way through the process from marketing to sales to service) will find that their investments create greater returns.

But, as I said, I'm biased (but that doesn't necessarily make me wrong).

Indeed, like other relationships, it has to go both ways. No fun being in a relationship where the love is unrequited.

That's a really low bar. The market (at least here in the U.S.) for talent is so competitive that a company has to go well beyond the basics of paying on time and providing great hardware.

Ok, hadn't thought of that, but see your point.

I think the content is really good, so title changed -- don't think the author will mind (he had two alternate titles for the original post).

No "probably" about it. Jason would win everywhere except Boston.

I believe the price is $10, one-time (not $10/month).

Another really good piece on pricing is:

http://neildavidson.com/download/dont-just-roll-the-dice/

By @neildavidson

I like the single-player mode vs. multi-player mode analogy. That's a useful way to think about it.

+1 for the transparency of the posting. Getting the salary range out there, and the equity range out there makes a lot of sense.

Quick tip: People are somewhat jaded with platitudes like "be amongst people who are striving for success..." Instead, try to bring out examples of the awesome Buffer culture. What makes you quirky and rare? What can you say about yourselves that few other startups would say?

Yeah, I realized that mistake. I'm glad I was able to escape relatively cheaply. It could have been much worse.

You're right. I reconsidered that particular idea and have struck it out of the original article.

Thanks for the candid feedback.

That's a great point.

I wonder which would one be less biased. My leaning now is towards asking the question after the decision. Perhaps even discard the feedback from folks that were offered a position -- that way, the focus is on making sure even those that weren't offered a position still had a positive experience.

I'm the article's author.

I agree with you that demand for talent far exceeds supply. That's why I think making the process professional and enjoyable is important.

In terms of being completely in "sell mode" once basic filtering has been done, I don't think that's the right approach. In my experience, great developers actually value teams that are selective. They like good dialog. They like debate. If after a basic phone screen, the company goes straight into "sell mode", I think it's a red flag for some people.

And, in terms of the term "Candidate Experience", it was less about inventing a new term, and more about piggy-backing on a concept most people already understand (user experience or customer experience).

Oddly, I enjoy small talk in person in very small groups, but hate small talk at "networking" events (like a cocktail party). It's all about the context.

Trust me, I do not wear it as a badge of honor -- but neither is it a cloak of shame (not sure what a cloak of shame is -- I just made that up).

Yep. I'm cool with in-person meetings. I actually quite enjoy them (under the right circumstances).

There's something about phone calls that just makes me anxious and unhappy.

Indeed, I'm feeling badly about it. (I'm the author of the article)

Have reached out to Matt at The Oatmeal offering to donate $500 to his favorite charity -- but I'm open to do doing whatever he thinks is right.

Although it doesn't excuse it -- I did link to the original comic, mentioned Matt and The Oatmeal by name, and linked EVERY individual image back to the original comic. I didn't mean to not give credit for the original work.

I'm the author of the article. I prefer the term "schmucky" (instead of "douchebaggy").

In theory, I think you're right. In practice, just the thought of trying to do what you are suggesting sounds awfully unpleasant -- even more unpleasant than actually taking the call.

I love that idea.

As an occasional angel investor, I actually use a variation of that filter as well. Out of politeness, entrepreneurs will offer to have a call with me to talk me through their business. I tell them no call is necessary, they have better things to do with their time. If someone insists on a phone call without at least trying to see if we can accomplish what's needed over email, it's a no go for me.

Thankfully, just about every early-stage entrepreneur I've encountered has no issues with this approach. They prefer it.

Really? I had no idea Tim was an introvert. For some reason, he comes off as a complete extrovert.

I disagree with your disagreement. Although being a developer that's just in it to make a living is a fine thing -- just like most creative professions, being an exceptional developer requires a passion for the job. Few developers that are really, really good don't love what they do.

I'm with you. So what should we call these exceptional developers?

Disclosure: I'm founder/CTO of HubSpot.

I agree with you completely. It all depends on the type and stage of business. If all that's needed is analytics, HubSpot is likely overkill.

One quick piece of advice to the OP: Be careful not to spend too much energy analyzing the analytics tool choices. Most startups are better off making a quick decision, and getting back to working on the product.

Indeed, that's true.

One additional point: Customers that commit to annual billing generally tend to churn less often overall -- because they've made a more "considered" purchase and committed more time to the purchasing decision.

Indeed, Josh works at HubSpot and the pricing page on our website preceded his joining. So, he shouldn't be blamed for it.

Having said that, HubSpot has spent a lot of time on designing our pricing model (vs. the pricing page).

For our first 2 years, HubSpot had a single price ($250/month). We've since run many, many pricing experiments and though the complexity bugs me sometimes, it's working.

But now that this thread is going, I think there are things we can do the improve the pricing page (even if we leave the pricing model the same).

Have signed up for the beta. Look forward to checking it out. I've looked at the Google prediction API, but it doesn't do what I need.

Looks really interesting. Any chance you know where to get an invite code for the beta?