It surprises me to see so many comments about this article. I couldn't get past the grammar problems in the first paragraph. The most compelling thing at the beginning of this article is the stock photograph of a pretty girl seemingly praying in a coffee shop.

"Founders predictably underestimate the importance of hiring marketers."

They do? Who are these founders? Founders of what? And who are these people predicting the estimations of these founders? How did you learn of these predictions? Are the predictors publishing their founder predictions somewhere?

"As a result, many startups don’t get round to marketing their product until it’s too late."

I realize I'm being pedantic now, but "get round" threw me for a moment. It's another break in the flow of reading his message. I wondered what's "get round" mean? Is that like getting fat? Like getting "round about the middle"? Oh. he means "get around to". Googling "get round" returns 400k results. Googling "get around": 55M. I guess some people do say "get round." 1 out of 137 people. Word choice matters.

"This happened to me and I’ve thought long and hard about why this happens."

What's he referring to? What is "this" that happened? I had to stop and reread the previous sentence to figure out what "this" and "happened" refers to: "startups don’t get round to marketing their product until it’s too late." So a start up didn't get round to marketing a product. Okay, so I guess that implies that a startup was lazy and irresponsible by not getting around to marketing a product. In short, the problem is that something bad was done to a product. That's what happened to you? Inflicted upon you? David Bailey is a product and a startup didn't market him responsibly.

I stopped reading at this point. He put so little care into editing and proofreading his article, I figured he probably put just as little effort into crafting a meaningful message and formulating logical conclusions.

I guess I'll never find out what the pretty girl is praying for.