“Quit your job to make money online” is gaining momentum. But most stories are of people selling you their own courses.
The reality is you need to build a profitable business to make a living if you quit. Right now there are more cheap B2C marketing channels with social media.
We’ll see an explosion of profitable online small businesses built on top of cheap social media as a distribution channel. There’s an opening for this strategy for the next years.
But it’s not easy & the majority will not succeed (unit economics & attention economy economics).
The economics for “tech creators” (those quitting a sw eng job) is tough.
To make $300K/yr (a sr eng comp at a big tech in US) you need ~ 3,000 customers/year if you sell something for $100/year. That’s ~30,000 leads at a 10% conversion, and 3M impressions at a 1% conversion.
Now the 3,000 customers per year might not seem that much.
But spending $100/year on content/education something most people will only do for very few things per year and re-evaluate it every year.
Succeeding here is similar to succeeding as a bootstrapped, profitable startup.
Also, remember the 3M impressions? Suppose you could somehow target only software engineers to see whatever you’re selling. 1% of them is vaguely interested and clicks (30K) and 10% buy.
The problem? There’s “only” ~26M software engineers, globally.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m pro EU startups/scaleups/publicly traded companies, including Adyen.
It’s a just a tragedy how their leadership does nothing while other businesses to hire away so many of their best engineers… all while recording record profits.
I’ve been privately taking with managers at Adyen who were seeing large attritions on their team. I told them they need to move up aggressively. Shared how much others are paying.
These eng managers believed me, but their leadership instead relies on outdated comp data. 🤷♂️
This article has been circulated so much within Adyen at all levels.
They know what the numbers were a year ago to be a top tier company and what market dynamics are (numbers are higher since).
The root cause on the differences? Compensation, on the surface. The mindset of maximising profits and minimising people expenses (Adyen) vs investing in the future (Stripe).
To give very specific examples on the compensation differences. Same position, similar skillsets, engineer in Amsterdam, total comp (base salary + equity + target bonus):
Adyen business is at Netflix, Google, and Mastercard levels of profitability. It's a money-printing machine.
But instead of paying for software engineers like these companies do, they try to hire the same skillset, but at a steep discount and are surprised it's hard to do so.
Interviewer: "Where do you see your career headed?"
Candidate: "I want to be a software architect."
I: "Why?"
C: "Honestly: I'm getting tired of coding. I'd like to do the planning, others implementing my ideas."
I: "Let me be frank. We don't have this kind of role here."
The above was an actual conversation I had with a candidate.
Wanting to become an architect to fully get away from coding is either:
1. A sign of poor organizations where this is how architects work.
2. A huge disservice for everyone involved.
Don't get me wrong: it's fair for anyone to get tired of coding. Luckily, there are more career paths that can accommodate staying technical, but without coding. Both TPM (Technical Program Manager) and PM (Product Manager) are paths that might be good options in this case.
This is the third, similar message I receive about a senior engineer having a fantastic interview experience with @Fonoa_HQ (I’m an investor).
I asked them what they’re doing differently.
“Everything. We’re creating the process we wish we had. And we keep iterating on it.”
Their current interview process:
- No Leetcode-style interviews (coding in a vacuum)
- No coding for senior hires: opting for conversations instead
- Managers spend 30-50% of their time on hiring, and making the process better, at this stage.