We put together a bundle, mostly engineering soft: https://resources.youteam.io/bfcm-bundle-deals-youteam

Thanks for pointing our those details.

https://greenlight.jobs/ - is the candidates' website: we're sending access codes to candidates individually via LinkedIn or Email.

UPDATE:

Thanks for your amazing feedback, everyone! One more time I see how incredible Hacker News is.

Summarizing what I learned from your comments, there are 3 key hypotheses to check:

H1: We have overestimated the problem. Time-to-hire isn't really a big concern and companies in the US aren't experiencing any major issues with hiring engineers.

H2: We have overestimated our solution. The employer's aren't prepared to pay US-level salaries to offshore devs and/or are quite happy working with recruiters.

H3: We have chosen wrong marketing channels and/or ICP to target.

Probably the truth is a combination of all the above, but it is important to understand which cause is has the strongest impact.

Back in my cave to do my homework and book some calls with the customers :).

Thanks for this! Indeed, I may have overestimated the problem and our solution.

Good point, thanks. And a useful thinking framework indeed.

Looking at the funnel, it looks like the problem is at the very top. Further conversions seem to be OK-ish - if you can draw any statistically significant conclusions from 6 total conversions of course.

IOW, I feel like it is mostly that they don't want the solution.

And yes - I'm hoping to have enough intellectual courage to seek the actual truth, not a comforting story.

Do they not want the solution or are you solving the wrong problem?

Is speed to hire the problem? If so, who specifically is it a problem for?

I don’t know the space (technical hiring) at all. But I do hiring for a small marketing agency and I don’t care at all about speed to hire. I’ve had roles filled by the first applicant and roles that took months (same job btw) to fill. I want to be sure I hire the right person when they come along and I don’t care how long it takes.

Of course, this doesn’t make me the ideal audience for your idea, but who is? And is their problem speed to hire? Why is that the problem you think they’ll pay to solve?

Wow, I didn't really think about it from this perspective. You are absolutely right! This is an extremely noisy space.

Do you think the fact that you're not going to pay a margin to outsourcing firm, but instead employ the offshore developer directly, doesn't compensate for the additional hassle?

Thanks for that.

We're investing a lot in expansion in LatAm at my other company - and one thing I learned about Argetina's job market is that you have 2 tiers of developers: one working mainly for internal market and the other - for US customers. The salaries may differ by the factor of 3 or even more.

Here is a great piece of research about similar situation in Europe: https://blog.pragmaticengineer.com/software-engineering-sala...

Actually, the idea of Greenlight has a lot to do with this salary gap phenomenon. I see this as a big potential for a win-win.

Unfortunately we are bleeding talent because our national market is really bad.

Thanks for that!

I'm lucky enough to know both Rob and Julian personally, but this definitely doesn't serve as an excuse not to re-read the Mom's Test.

Very good point about the ICP. We were targeting startup companies 20-250 ppl, that raised their last round in the last 6 months, sector agnostic. However we weren't sure about the right decision-maker. The three options are CTO, CEO and HR manager.

So far we had more top-of-the-funnel conversions on Linkedin ads from CEOs and HRs, but more actual sign-ups from CTO.

You're welcome!

Lucky indeed. Their resources are so valuable. The Mom Test is always worth a re-read, I recommend it so often to people.

I understand the tendency to be broader and speak to more different people (larger target market, more potential buyers), but it makes it harder to effectively communicate your message in the language of the buyer. Also different people have different priorities. The more focus, especially at first, the better.

Do some experiments and see who has the problem in the most pressing way, or who can and is willing to pay enough to solve it to make it work for you and them. Consider size of company, decision maker, potentially industry/sector, location, time since money raised, bootstrapped vs investor funded, anything that makes sense - you never know which niches will be amenable to you.

Ah, this is indeed helpful. English isn't my first language - so such subtleties are definitely beyond my linguistic perception. I did use someones help to proof-read the content, but it looks like there is always room for improvement.

This is a very good point. Actually, the arrival of LinkedIn disrupted the way recruiters worked. Before LinkedIn the core of their job was indeed building the relationship with candidates. LinkedIn provided them with the opportunity to mass-message the candidates - which is more efficient from recruiter's ROI perspective, but also creates a lot of noise and eventually discourages candidates.