[conrey]

Speaking as a salesperson this article has a few things that I find difficult to agree with:

1) Sales vs BizDev - As described in the article the sales people he's looking for are great for one off transactions, not for building a real client base that will refer and keep coming back. Remember how you like to be sold, for bigger things most people want to know and trust the person they are buying from.

2) Domain Knowledge - which is easy to teach, sales or what you do? Hire a good salesman and teach them your business

The idea is sound and I've seen a number of startups go the wrong way with it, but those two stood out to me.

[ananddass]

Conrey-I agree with your point about things not being black and white between sales vs biz dev . It boils down to how many resources do you have to invest in go-to-market initiatives. For most startups, customers decide to trust and buy based on their interactions with the founding team and the CEO. In fact if the founding team isnt actively involved in the deal closure process that is a red flag. Given this assumption what you need is a person on the team who is obsessively focused in generating prospects. Once a prospect has been engaged then the founding team will have to wing into action in closing the deal.

On domain knowledge-certainly its easy to teach what you do than teach how to sell. Always better to get a strong sales guy than the other way round. In the article I was reference the difference between one with industry knowledge and product knowledge.

[ashleycutler]

I would not recommend hiring a sales person who you cannot trust to close deals or build long standing relationships with customers. I have been the head of sales at Zencoder for almost two years. While there were certainly deals where interaction with the founders was critical to winning the deal because it had strategic impact on the business, they certainly weren't involved with every deal. While the founding team shouldn't be completely disconnected with sales efforts, if the founding team has to win every deal, you haven't hired a very successful sales person and certainly not a partner who can help you strategically grow your business. You have hired a telemarketer (the difference between 'generating leads' and 'winning deals' is crucial here).

Also, I feel like focusing on domain knowledge too narrowly can lead the hiring process astray. I think you are spot on regarding hiring for intelligence and acumen but I think it is a mistake to think that those attributes can only be found in those with domain knowledge. I can tell you that I knew nothing about video encoding before becoming Zencoder's head of sales and had it been a requirement, I wouldn't have been hired. We were able to grow that company rapidly to acquisition with only myself focused on sales.

My opinion is that a good sales hire should be 1. fully committed to learning your product inside and out and have the technical acumen to be able to execute on that. 2. Should think about sales the same way the engineering team think about product (test, iterate, listen,) 3. Should be able to sell themselves they way you want your product to be sold. Listen to how they talk about themselves in the interview. This is how they will sell your product.

[ananddass]

Ashely- you are spot on with all comments!

re: winning deals vs generating deals: winning deals = generating leads + proposing a solution/pitch + dealing with contracting + get technical/architectural support from core team + following up on sales commitments.

Anything else?

Re domain knowledge: value of hiring smart reps> hiring reps with marketspace knowledge > hiring reps with product knowledge

Re how candidates carry themselves: one of the things to watch for is how they conduct themselves with customers. I have in the past taken candidates to networking events to get a feel for how they work in a social setting.