3 ms·

I can't help but want to draw the parallel between triplebyte and dating app: both are marketplace for 2 parties, or say networks; both networks are inherently

I can't help but want to draw the parallel between triplebyte and dating app: both are marketplace for 2 parties, or say networks; both networks are inherently two-tier, one premium tier and one, let's say subpar tier. For the premium tier, the problem is less so the efficiency of the matching process because participants have powerful signals, I would say the problem is the efficiency of negotiating a fair term because both parties are not incentivized to go to a public auction, hence no market price. Hence the hiring process may be less so investigating potential candidates and more so "let' just wait two weeks and see who's the highest bidder". For the subpar tier, the problem is less so the efficiency of the matching process (this still is part of the problem), but more so a cost-effect analysis: is it worth throwing X amount of resources to filter a huge pool of unknown quality candidates? Obviously, one more problem is that there's no easy way to use whatever incentive to quickly bump up the supply. So intrinsically, triplebyte/dating app tried to use tech to alleviate the pain point, but it is a part of the bigger, convoluted mating dance, and improving a non-critical part of the whole pipeline doesn't yield a so-called step function gain overall. That, plus venture backing, forces triplebyte to go down the rabbit hole and try to acquire as much of the lower subpar tier network as possible, yet this dilutes their attention and human touch on the premium tier, and goes down a death spiral. Sorry I do not intend to bash the author or the founders for picking this problem/user need to solve, it just occurs to me that this heterogeneous network with no easy way to increase supply/lower demand, is really hard for a marketplace company and sometimes simply throwing technology onto the white-hot competing segment may not be the groundbreaking solution. I wish the author all the best with their next endeavor

rachofsunshine 2y ago
We talked about the dating-app analogy a LOT, and I think it goes quite deep. It applies to almost all competitive markets, especially matchmaking ones. > I would say the problem is the efficiency of negotiating a fair term because both parties are not incentivized to go to a public auction, hence no market price. Are you referring specifically to salary negotiation here? I think this is one of the things that makes a trusted intermediary useful. During signup, or during an initial recruiter call with candidates, I ask about salary with the following script: > Okay, what are your salary expectations? To be clear, I will NOT share this with clients unless you tell me that I can. This is just so we know what jobs you might be interested in - the only thing we'll communicate is whether you match a client's salary range or not and vice-versa. While I doubt the incentives here align to perfect honesty, it's certainly a lot better than the background, in that each side gets information on the other only after revealing semi-honest preferences used to match them. > For the subpar tier, the problem is less so the efficiency of the matching process (this still is part of the problem), but more so a cost-effect analysis: is it worth throwing X amount of resources to filter a huge pool of unknown quality candidates? Yeah, this is where the pitch about centralization - the main pitch I want to make with Otherbranch, since I think the full background-blind pitch was overselling things - comes in. There's some threshold where the cost-benefit analysis is neutral for companies, in the sense that there is 0 expected value to the next marginal candidate. But if we're effectively interviewing for more than one company, that threshold is lower for us, because the cost is similar and the benefit is higher. I don't expect we're going to be able to get a mediocre developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job. I'm not really trying to do that. I'm trying to get an amazing developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job, or a good eveloper with a mediocre resume a good job - one better than they could have gotten on their own.
- Jianghong94 2y ago
  > Are you referring specifically to salary negotiation here? I think this is one of the things that makes a trusted intermediary useful. Yeah, I agree. I do feel like you're not going to take the venture-backed route this time? Cause in my opinion that's part of the reason why drive triplebyte went down this route. Based on your writing you probably concluded triplebyte model back in its heyday was going to be a decent business, just that it can't be a VC home-run.
- neilv 2y ago
  > > Okay, what are your salary expectations? [...] This is just so we know what jobs you might be interested in - the only thing we'll communicate is whether you match a client's salary range or not and vice-versa. > [...] I'm trying to get an amazing developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job, or a good eveloper with a mediocre resume a good job - one better than they could have gotten on their own. Is the reason that you can get employers and workers to commit to salary ranges like this, that you're focusing on mediocre resumes? That is: Workers with mediocre resumes can't afford to be too greedy and play their cards too close, and companies aren't too hesitant to filter out someone with a mediocre resume? (BTW, the below sounds like it could be a good/great thing. I'm not criticizing it, just curious whether that's also why requiring salary ranges upfront would work here, when normally both parties would be resistant.) > I'm trying to get an amazing developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job, or a good eveloper with a mediocre resume a good job - one better than they could have gotten on their own.
  - rachofsunshine 2y ago
    > Is the reason that you can get employers and workers to commit to salary ranges like this, that you're focusing on mediocre resumes? I don't think so. Of the signups that have come in from this thread, most of whom have pretty respectable if not quite impressive resumes, about 80% chose to give a salary range and about 2/3 of those are OK sharing it. I don't think most people are averse to sharing salary information. I think they just don't like the guessing game or the feeling like they're weakening their negotiating position, and having someone in the middle revealing things only with precommitments by both sides alleviates that quite a bit. > (BTW, the below sounds like it could be a good/great thing. I'm not criticizing it, just curious whether that's also why requiring salary ranges upfront would work here, when normally both parties would be resistant.) Yeah, no offense taken at all! It's a reasonable question. To be clear, though, we don't require salary ranges; we just ask for them voluntarily. If one side or the other doesn't want to share that info, that's fine - we just won't give them the info the other party gave us either. If they don't want to share it even internally with us, they can do that, but that just means they get noisier matches, which isn't really to their benefit. But that's their choice.

rachofsunshine 2y ago

We talked about the dating-app analogy a LOT, and I think it goes quite deep. It applies to almost all competitive markets, especially matchmaking ones. > I would say the problem is the efficiency of negotiating a fair term because both parties are not incentivized to go to a public auction, hence no market price. Are you referring specifically to salary negotiation here? I think this is one of the things that makes a trusted intermediary useful. During signup, or during an initial recruiter call with candidates, I ask about salary with the following script: > Okay, what are your salary expectations? To be clear, I will NOT share this with clients unless you tell me that I can. This is just so we know what jobs you might be interested in - the only thing we'll communicate is whether you match a client's salary range or not and vice-versa. While I doubt the incentives here align to perfect honesty, it's certainly a lot better than the background, in that each side gets information on the other only after revealing semi-honest preferences used to match them. > For the subpar tier, the problem is less so the efficiency of the matching process (this still is part of the problem), but more so a cost-effect analysis: is it worth throwing X amount of resources to filter a huge pool of unknown quality candidates? Yeah, this is where the pitch about centralization - the main pitch I want to make with Otherbranch, since I think the full background-blind pitch was overselling things - comes in. There's some threshold where the cost-benefit analysis is neutral for companies, in the sense that there is 0 expected value to the next marginal candidate. But if we're effectively interviewing for more than one company, that threshold is lower for us, because the cost is similar and the benefit is higher. I don't expect we're going to be able to get a mediocre developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job. I'm not really trying to do that. I'm trying to get an amazing developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job, or a good eveloper with a mediocre resume a good job - one better than they could have gotten on their own.

Jianghong94 2y ago
> Are you referring specifically to salary negotiation here? I think this is one of the things that makes a trusted intermediary useful. Yeah, I agree. I do feel like you're not going to take the venture-backed route this time? Cause in my opinion that's part of the reason why drive triplebyte went down this route. Based on your writing you probably concluded triplebyte model back in its heyday was going to be a decent business, just that it can't be a VC home-run.
neilv 2y ago
> > Okay, what are your salary expectations? [...] This is just so we know what jobs you might be interested in - the only thing we'll communicate is whether you match a client's salary range or not and vice-versa. > [...] I'm trying to get an amazing developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job, or a good eveloper with a mediocre resume a good job - one better than they could have gotten on their own. Is the reason that you can get employers and workers to commit to salary ranges like this, that you're focusing on mediocre resumes? That is: Workers with mediocre resumes can't afford to be too greedy and play their cards too close, and companies aren't too hesitant to filter out someone with a mediocre resume? (BTW, the below sounds like it could be a good/great thing. I'm not criticizing it, just curious whether that's also why requiring salary ranges upfront would work here, when normally both parties would be resistant.) > I'm trying to get an amazing developer with a mediocre resume an amazing job, or a good eveloper with a mediocre resume a good job - one better than they could have gotten on their own.
- rachofsunshine 2y ago
  > Is the reason that you can get employers and workers to commit to salary ranges like this, that you're focusing on mediocre resumes? I don't think so. Of the signups that have come in from this thread, most of whom have pretty respectable if not quite impressive resumes, about 80% chose to give a salary range and about 2/3 of those are OK sharing it. I don't think most people are averse to sharing salary information. I think they just don't like the guessing game or the feeling like they're weakening their negotiating position, and having someone in the middle revealing things only with precommitments by both sides alleviates that quite a bit. > (BTW, the below sounds like it could be a good/great thing. I'm not criticizing it, just curious whether that's also why requiring salary ranges upfront would work here, when normally both parties would be resistant.) Yeah, no offense taken at all! It's a reasonable question. To be clear, though, we don't require salary ranges; we just ask for them voluntarily. If one side or the other doesn't want to share that info, that's fine - we just won't give them the info the other party gave us either. If they don't want to share it even internally with us, they can do that, but that just means they get noisier matches, which isn't really to their benefit. But that's their choice.