3 ms·

> They have the resources to spin up something like this in a week That sentence right there is a pretty solid indicator that it’s a solid business to be in, n

by ketzo 5y ago

> They have the resources to spin up something like this in a week That sentence right there is a pretty solid indicator that it’s a solid business to be in, no? What VP wants to take engineer time to create an internal tool when they could pay $40/user/month or whatever? How many SaaS startups do we see right now that occupy that exact sentiment area? As far as this being more of a culture change than a process change — well, good products can change culture. Making something much easier is a huge step on the way to getting people to do it.

garyjlin 5y ago
Completely agree! This is indeed a big problem, and we have so many CTOs, VPs and founders willing to jump into 6 figure contracts if it works. The biggest risk here is execution, not market size.
JimDabell 5y ago
> What VP wants to take engineer time to create an internal tool when they could pay $40/user/month or whatever? The cheapest pricing for this is $600/mo, the next plan up is $2,400/mo, the enterprise plans start at $60k/mo.
- ketzo 5y ago
  I mean, how many engineering interviews is a big enterprise company running per month? 1000 feels like a comfortable lower bound. Most of those would use this tool at least twice during their interview process. So you're paying... $60k/2000 = a cost of $30 per interview. If you save your company half an hour of engineer time (at $60/hr, another comfortable lower bound) you have already made back the cost. And that's just strictly cost reduction. If this is genuinely a better interview process, if you get more applicants and qualified candidates as a result of using the tool, of course the value of said tool is gonna be even higher. I'm pulling numbers out of a hat, obviously, but I don't think any of this is at all unreasonable. And once you start putting it like this, I think you can start to see the justification for that kind of pricing. Edit: well, just looking at their Enterprise pricing in a little more detail, they're pricing at 60k/200 = $300/interview, then $30/interview after that. That's... a lot steeper, and a lot less friendly to mid-tier companies. But hey, frankly, I can still see the justification for it -- if it's really good.

by ketzo 5y ago

garyjlin 5y ago

Completely agree! This is indeed a big problem, and we have so many CTOs, VPs and founders willing to jump into 6 figure contracts if it works. The biggest risk here is execution, not market size.

JimDabell 5y ago

> What VP wants to take engineer time to create an internal tool when they could pay $40/user/month or whatever? The cheapest pricing for this is $600/mo, the next plan up is $2,400/mo, the enterprise plans start at $60k/mo.

ketzo 5y ago
I mean, how many engineering interviews is a big enterprise company running per month? 1000 feels like a comfortable lower bound. Most of those would use this tool at least twice during their interview process. So you're paying... $60k/2000 = a cost of $30 per interview. If you save your company half an hour of engineer time (at $60/hr, another comfortable lower bound) you have already made back the cost. And that's just strictly cost reduction. If this is genuinely a better interview process, if you get more applicants and qualified candidates as a result of using the tool, of course the value of said tool is gonna be even higher. I'm pulling numbers out of a hat, obviously, but I don't think any of this is at all unreasonable. And once you start putting it like this, I think you can start to see the justification for that kind of pricing. Edit: well, just looking at their Enterprise pricing in a little more detail, they're pricing at 60k/200 = $300/interview, then $30/interview after that. That's... a lot steeper, and a lot less friendly to mid-tier companies. But hey, frankly, I can still see the justification for it -- if it's really good.