5 ms·

Can someone explain more of the backstory behind Youexec? I can't tell if their sparse, name-dropping landing page is brilliant or a marketing hack. And I've go

Can someone explain more of the backstory behind Youexec? I can't tell if their sparse, name-dropping landing page is brilliant or a marketing hack. And I've got a marketing background so that's saying a lot!

derefr 10y ago
To me, that landing page reads as: 1. This product doesn't precisely need a web presence—it's an email newsletter, not a web-app. 2. We rely so little on inbound marketing that our site can have obvious grammatical errors. Nobody reads our copy; everyone just comes in from Google already pre-qualified, scrolls until they see the CTA, and hits the button. 3. People mostly find out about our product through outbound marketing—i.e., we call, email, or "run into" them. 4. We don't have all that many customers; we're still at the "doing things that don't scale" stage.
yladiz 10y ago
It's weird, right? After a little research I would lean towards the latter, because it seems like dropping names without having something to really back it up is what's happening. The oldest post I could find is from January, and the corporation (which does exist) was only incorporated in March. While I don't doubt the veracity of the testimonials, it is a little strange to see such a sparse website, without even an about page, and a testimonial stating something like "in under six months...". The service does seem like it could be useful, but it may be trying to make itself seem bigger than it actually is.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Plenty of people work on their product or test the market for customers before they form the legal entity. A two month difference is not necessarily concerning.
OJFord 10y ago
It started a few months ago, I think I saw it here and signed up out of curiosity. There's very little available free, with (I'm led to believe) more content available at the cost of giving people your referral link. I haven't given anyone my referral link though, since the content that is available to me seems so poor. Frequent typos, questionable advice, (most recently 'if your CV will be read digitally, it should have a dark background') and probably-paid advertisements masquerading as recommendations ('buy your boss an {obscure item link} to get noticed').
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  > advertisements masquerading as recommendations You're not wrong. He mentions two products in the article: f.lux and the Sleep Smarter book. The rest is in the disclaimer: > You Exec has no affiliation with f.lux. We have not been paid to promote the software, neither do we gain any financial value if you use their software. We have tested their software to the best of our abilities and we did not find any spyware, viruses, pop-up ads, etc. Legal notes: follow the suggestions of this article at your own risk. The book itself also has some alarming ratings.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    I thought the disclaimer seemed out of place as it seemed obvious they had no affiliation with f.lux. Now it makes sense that they just have a disclaimer for everything so it's clearer what's sponsored content.
- tallanvor 10y ago
  "most recently 'if your CV will be read digitally, it should have a dark background'" It seems to me that would be more likely to get a resume tossed out. It would be harder to read and would break your concentration when you're looking through a bunch. I guess somebody might think that will make you stand out, but at least for me, it wouldn't make you stand out in a good way.
shurcooL 10y ago
I'm really confused. Am I seeing the same page everyone else is seeing? What are you referring to by name-dropping? Where are the "obvious grammatical errors"? Can you maybe post a screenshot of what you're seeing, maybe this is some A/B test?
- stagbeetle 10y ago
  See the 3x3 layout of "We've helped members from these firms" for the name-dropping. ETA: Check under "How We Do It" for the grammatical errors.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    Eh, customer testimonials and logos are a pretty standard part of the startup website equation.
    - stagbeetle 10y ago
      The site's marketing is deceptive if you're not vigilant. > We've helped members from these firms Could mean anyone anywhere up the food chain. From "execs" to unpaid interns. Looking at the customer testimonials portions, they only include first names and their name-brand firm. No position or anything else to help identify their qualifications. If we assume youexec is aligning their marketing towards people who are -- or want to be -- in executive roles, and look at some context clues, the testimonials become nearly worthless. Brian from McK doesn't have front-office dress, so we can rule him out. Oluyemi from Google refers to himself as only a "software developer" (if we assume he's not being modest). Olga from CN, I have no idea. But that only makes it 1 for 3. But, it looks more likely that YE is following the footsteps of "Think and Grow Rich" -- and the infinite spinoffs of which it'll most likely be joining if its current state is to be used as a predictor. The crowd who wants what the other guy's having. Not because of said thing's inherent value, but because someone important is doing it.
      - tedmiston 10y ago
        Personally I did not find this deceptive or confusing as members of jumped out at me right away. I've also seen several other startups do the same thing before. Beyond the article, I don't know anything else about this company per se.

derefr 10y ago

To me, that landing page reads as: 1. This product doesn't precisely need a web presence—it's an email newsletter, not a web-app. 2. We rely so little on inbound marketing that our site can have obvious grammatical errors. Nobody reads our copy; everyone just comes in from Google already pre-qualified, scrolls until they see the CTA, and hits the button. 3. People mostly find out about our product through outbound marketing—i.e., we call, email, or "run into" them. 4. We don't have all that many customers; we're still at the "doing things that don't scale" stage.

yladiz 10y ago

It's weird, right? After a little research I would lean towards the latter, because it seems like dropping names without having something to really back it up is what's happening. The oldest post I could find is from January, and the corporation (which does exist) was only incorporated in March. While I don't doubt the veracity of the testimonials, it is a little strange to see such a sparse website, without even an about page, and a testimonial stating something like "in under six months...". The service does seem like it could be useful, but it may be trying to make itself seem bigger than it actually is.

tedmiston 10y ago
Plenty of people work on their product or test the market for customers before they form the legal entity. A two month difference is not necessarily concerning.

OJFord 10y ago

It started a few months ago, I think I saw it here and signed up out of curiosity. There's very little available free, with (I'm led to believe) more content available at the cost of giving people your referral link. I haven't given anyone my referral link though, since the content that is available to me seems so poor. Frequent typos, questionable advice, (most recently 'if your CV will be read digitally, it should have a dark background') and probably-paid advertisements masquerading as recommendations ('buy your boss an {obscure item link} to get noticed').

stagbeetle 10y ago
> advertisements masquerading as recommendations You're not wrong. He mentions two products in the article: f.lux and the Sleep Smarter book. The rest is in the disclaimer: > You Exec has no affiliation with f.lux. We have not been paid to promote the software, neither do we gain any financial value if you use their software. We have tested their software to the best of our abilities and we did not find any spyware, viruses, pop-up ads, etc. Legal notes: follow the suggestions of this article at your own risk. The book itself also has some alarming ratings.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  I thought the disclaimer seemed out of place as it seemed obvious they had no affiliation with f.lux. Now it makes sense that they just have a disclaimer for everything so it's clearer what's sponsored content.
tallanvor 10y ago
"most recently 'if your CV will be read digitally, it should have a dark background'" It seems to me that would be more likely to get a resume tossed out. It would be harder to read and would break your concentration when you're looking through a bunch. I guess somebody might think that will make you stand out, but at least for me, it wouldn't make you stand out in a good way.

shurcooL 10y ago

I'm really confused. Am I seeing the same page everyone else is seeing? What are you referring to by name-dropping? Where are the "obvious grammatical errors"? Can you maybe post a screenshot of what you're seeing, maybe this is some A/B test?

stagbeetle 10y ago
See the 3x3 layout of "We've helped members from these firms" for the name-dropping. ETA: Check under "How We Do It" for the grammatical errors.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  Eh, customer testimonials and logos are a pretty standard part of the startup website equation.
  - stagbeetle 10y ago
    The site's marketing is deceptive if you're not vigilant. > We've helped members from these firms Could mean anyone anywhere up the food chain. From "execs" to unpaid interns. Looking at the customer testimonials portions, they only include first names and their name-brand firm. No position or anything else to help identify their qualifications. If we assume youexec is aligning their marketing towards people who are -- or want to be -- in executive roles, and look at some context clues, the testimonials become nearly worthless. Brian from McK doesn't have front-office dress, so we can rule him out. Oluyemi from Google refers to himself as only a "software developer" (if we assume he's not being modest). Olga from CN, I have no idea. But that only makes it 1 for 3. But, it looks more likely that YE is following the footsteps of "Think and Grow Rich" -- and the infinite spinoffs of which it'll most likely be joining if its current state is to be used as a predictor. The crowd who wants what the other guy's having. Not because of said thing's inherent value, but because someone important is doing it.
    - tedmiston 10y ago
      Personally I did not find this deceptive or confusing as members of jumped out at me right away. I've also seen several other startups do the same thing before. Beyond the article, I don't know anything else about this company per se.