seem_2211

Similar to how OpenAI like to use the term "Member of Technical Staff" for Engineers, they like to use "Member of GTM Staff" for their sales team.

I am a sales recruiter, and I was curious what their actual GTM organization looked like. So I manually scraped through all 607 profiles on LinkedIn, ultimately finding 390 US based salespeople.

A few things that surprised me:

• 43% of the team are quota carrying AEs (much higher than the partnerships-first narrative most assume of AI labs)

• They're not hiring a lot of people from traditional B2B SaaS companies - Hubspot, Workday, ServiceNow, Oracle and SAP aren't even in their top 30 companies that they're hiring from. They're going for AWS, Google and Salesforce in a big way.

• They bought a CRO over in December and she's bought 4 additional leaders with her since then.

Methodology: two-pass vision pipeline on screenshotted profiles, function-classified into nine GTM buckets. Limitations: Using LinkedIn data, so biased toward people who maintain active profiles (not usually a huge issue for sales but...).

Full report (free, no signup wall): yournextventure.co/open-ai-gtm-report

I saw someone put phrase it as being "above or below the algorithm"

Chilling and true.

The E Myth is another good example of a business book with a relatively simple message wrapped in an enjoyable narrative.

This is a deluded way of thinking the world works.

Is it how things should be? Probably. But this is nothing close to reality.

I don’t mind it. I drive a v8 Mercedes and love the sound etc... but at the same time, I’ve moved to NYC so the odds that I even keep a car aren’t particularly high.

Couldn't agree more. I'd hazard a guess that 90% of car users aren't wedded to using gas. There are enthusiasts, but they are a small minority.

I would be really interested in understanding the breakdown in F150's as sold by model number.

For a lot of truck owners, there's going to be some resistance because they love having a v8 engine etc. I don't see those people moving over quickly (although they might be swayed by the acceleration/speed). But if you're using one as a tradesperson, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. You're not driving enormous distances regularly and if you're able to run your entire job site for free, as well as have lower servicing costs... why wouldn't you?

The company valuation of BMW and VW isn’t the problem- it’s a problem for Tesla. There aren’t enough nerds in the world to justify it’s insane stock price.

If you are buying a Taycan you would not even consider the Model 3 and if you want to drive far you buy an ICE.

This is also predicated on the idea that every part of Tesla's operations are substantially better than existing automakers.

Do people really believe that Tesla is literally run 10x better than Toyota, Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW or Honda? I don't think so.

Then there's the nightmare of trying to appeal to two wildly different consumer groups.

At the low end: does Tesla have a meaningful reliability advantage versus Honda and Toyota? From what I have seen, it appears not. This matters less when you're dealing with premium buyers, but will not work with the mass market. Fans will put up with hassle (I own an AMG... I'm more than aware of the extra expense I am constantly paying for - and that's a trade-off I'm happy to make in return for a powerful v8).

Secondly from a clout point of view: why would anyone buy a Tesla over a comparatively priced Audi, Porsche, Mercedes or BMW. The people who talk about their Model 3 with a burning passion aren't trading in a 911, or an E Class or a Q7. They're excited to upgrade from a 2015 Camry. Massive expectation gap.

Plus, all of these companies are valued far more realistically. Tesla being worth more than every other automaker or whatever gives them very little room to breathe. If Tesla is ever valued as the hardware manufacturer with relatively low margins (when compared to say a tech stock like Facebook or Salesforce).. is the day that we will see an enormous valuation haircut.

The problem with buying cashflow through ETF investment is you have to make so much money to get to any real level of cashflow.

Buying $30k of index funds will set you back ~$50k pre tax, which is 25% of our doctors income. If you subscribe to the 4% rule, you've "bought" a perpetual cashflow of $1200 annually.

To get a passive income of $200k annually, you need $5m in index funds which is going to take either ~30 years with compounding interest at 10% (assuming you are investing a continuous $30k after tax) every year.

Realistically, to make any sort of actual money (I'm defining this as $200k + annually in passive/semi-passive income), you need an ownership stake in a business or in another asset (likely property).

The vending machine example is stupid for a doctor to do, because it's the sort of opportunity that rewards someone with a lot of hustle and low opportunity cost - good luck competing with an entrepreneurial college student who has a lot more free time. Same thing with the website.

Phoning for anything is my favorite thing. Absolutely I want to talk to customer service. No I don’t want this automated (especially when I’m trying to get myself a slightly better deal). And I hate phone trees with a passion, just get me the operator now.

It’s a very human tendency: we can see the downside so obviously, but the upside is a lot harder to see.

Open offices: another amazing example of enormous value destruction in the name of saving a little bit of money.

I’m saying those programmers should have secretaries to help them with all of the admin etc. They shouldn’t be booking their own flights, or making dinner reservations, or running expenses (or a lot of other manual work)