jeffinpdx

I like that language. I'll have to try that.

Agreed. Perhaps it's less about the nice words one uses and more about the features (embed in a website, embed times in an email) that reduce the work for the person trying to book a meeting.

It's a good point. There is a feature which allows the sender to "reserve times" in a one-off meeting. That way, they don't get booked before you have an opportunity to select a time.

The family example was meant to be a silly example -- most of use Calendly for work -- but it's helpful feedback that it's probably better to say "my availability" versus "my Calendly."

I recommend using a "polite" script many people use: "Feel free to let me know when you're available. If you prefer, you can choose from my availability here." It opens the door for the other person first.

I like that. Ask them for their scheduling link.

Do you think this would have landed better if the recruiter would have first asked you for YOUR availability before sending their link? Or was it just the act of sending a link of any type that required a click on your part?

Yeah, I feel like the sender should do the extra work of embedding the times in an email. I like your idea of a script that's auto-generated.

Hey, there. I wrote the post. I agree: From my experience people "jockeying for power" tend to get the most irritated by a scheduling link getting dropped on them without some sort of niceties surrounding it.

"but I sure wish it were easier to identify engineering organizations by their type ahead of hire."

You can make it easier before joining. During the interview process, ask one of the interviewers if they can share an example of how the organization makes decisions in a quantitative and/or qualitative way. If they don't mention a Mode/Amplitude/whatever report with user data and/or talk about some user interviews (and the concomitant report) then it's probably not a data-driven process. Or the data isn't shared beyond Leadership. And if they roll their eyes or say, "We just build what the CEO or Sales wants" then you have even more evidence that this might the kind of place where you'll just take direction and not get a clear reason.

Sure, we've all known founders who've created products that were successful without talking to potential users, but it's very rare. What we've all encountered more often: founders who stubbornly don't talk to users as some sort of half-understood adherence to the biography of Steve Jobs. And then their product fails. If they had only tried a different way -- I don't know, talk to the people who might pay them? -- they could have avoided complete failure. It's not as glamorous as magically stumbling on a good idea, perhaps, and requires extra work, but it's often a more viable path for most of us.

You just have to realize that somewhere out there is someone who is hating on you too. We're all the envy of someone else. It gives you perspective that will help you transcend the envy.

Many AP English classes teach Byron. Many an English teacher loves a hater like Byron

When I'm working with tech companies, the most frustrating concept is whether to blog. On one hand, the blogging zealots think blogging is this panacea and want to spend all of their time blogging about fun but ultimately irrelevant topics that generate traffic (e.g., "Why I Hate Ruby!" when they're selling software to banking execs). Or on the other hand, the curmudgeons are cynical about blogging because they "tried it once and it didn't work." The best advice I've received is every startup should try blogging at least once, but measure the results. Not just visits to your site or sign-ups from tire-kickers on P.H. who want to test your onboarding strategies. Did the blog post yield paying customers? If not, try another marketing strategy, but measure it too.

What these "[insert communication medium] is dead!" proclamations don't take into account is that everyone learns differently. Even with developers. Some will wade through detailed documentation, others want a quick GIF showing how the API does something, some just want some screenshots, and so on.

What do you mean by big-box competitors? Can you give me one name so I can see how you define "big box?" I'm assuming you have a more innovative approach than your big-company competitors, so you could theoretically charge more. Particularly if it's b-to-b.

Also, personally, I'd try to secure some medium to large company clients as soon as possible. Small businesses, while wonderful (your offering is one, after all), often don't have the size budgets you'll need, nor the influence, to take you to the next level. However, try to avoid or de-prioritize the "whales" (e.g., Fortune 500) in the first year, as they'll often consume a lot of your time/resources "kicking tires."

You need to give us more information. What kind of product is it: consumer or business-to-business (enterprise)? Chances are, if your retention is nearly perfect and you've converted nearly all cold leads into customers, you're not charging customers enough money. Second, throwing money at ads -- when you have hardly any money -- is a typical mistake. Always try to earn attention before paying for it. Send some emails to bloggers about your pleased customers, ask your customers if they'll mention your product in their networks, write about your customers' success on your site (in your blog, etc.). When people don't want to freely talk about you anymore, then throw some money at ads to boost the old conversations.