I certainly wish you well in your search for good work! but please don't reply like this in the threads—it's offtopic and I worry about an 'arms race' dynamic where people start competing with replies.
Willing to relocate: No, fine with travel, however.
Technologies: I'm a former founder (everything non-engineering), 20+ years of experience at the intersection of biz dev/strategy/operations/marcom, running companies, managing teams, translating the complex to the people.
Background in / enthusiasm for: SaaS, analytics, cloud/infrastructure, web3/onchain, gaming, API and SDK products, pricing strategy, commercialization, strategy, gtm.
After helping our last venture exit, I'm currently on a contract running strategy for an onchain venture, but looking to transition to a full time role before fall. Open to long term contracts or fractional work for the right projects.
The key areas where I bring a unique advantage and think are most relevant are:
Trusted voice: extremely comfortable being an outward-facing, persuasive ambassador in nearly every necessary capacity on behalf of the company - investor relations, partnerships, corporate/business development, media/press, trade, etc.
Strategic muscle: a voice confident in driving the direction and priorities of the company. Evaluating alternatives, prioritizing and knowing when to say no. A right hand to a CEO, partner to other executives.
Builder mindset: not in an engineering capacity, but in emerging and new markets, figuring out what it takes to win and deploying those strategies.
Operations: I how organizations operate and scale, how business development, sales, product and engineering work together to drive towards product market fit and sustainability.
The success of evolution by natural selection tells us that one can optimize one's response to an environment whose properties aren't understood, by simply trying everything and noticing what works, what prevails. Genetic programming is the computer-science version of natural selection. And A/B testing is a simple version of genetic programming.
> This article appears to push people to consider beyond that: new things.
Yes, but the issue isn't new things, it's which new things. For that, you need testing. If people were either rational or predictable, this argument would fall apart. But they aren't.
Honestly, I think it's a given that web personalization is deeply rooted in A/B testing. But instead of testing for what's best for the aggregate, you're testing for what's best for each individual.
That's interesting, but I suspect most people want to maximize visits, in which case they're after the aggregate. I'm not saying I agree with the sentiment, but I think it's true.
Good perspective by Mark on keeping your friends close and your competition closer.
"By having a good understanding of how rivals are operating, startups can get a better handle on the opportunities by offering a better, different or less expensive product."
