"Who Do You Trust?"

"Who Do You Trust?"

You've hit that pivotal moment.


The market is resonating with your offer. Qualified leads are flowing. And every week, your calendar fills with more prospects ready to buy…


But this momentum creates a new pressure:


Can your sales team keep up with—and fully capture—this growing demand?


It's the decision that keeps founders up at night.


Because the right sales hire turns this momentum into meteoric growth. The wrong one burns through your best leads before you can course correct.


So what do you do?


Job Boards | LinkedIn vs. DealFuel


LinkedIn is a highlight reel of manufactured success. Behind every candidate is a carefully curated story designed to get interviews—not drive revenue.


They promise results for "just $500" in ad spend. But that's like thinking you can win the jackpot with $20 at a casino. Your first batch of candidates is mediocre (they always are), so you spend another $500... and another...


Next thing you know, you're $3,000 deep with no certainty any candidate meets your specs.


Then comes the cruel irony: The better your job post performs, the MORE it costs you.


Because more candidates = more of your time burned. Each one needs reviewing, screening, initial calls, background checks, reference checks.


That's 4-6 hours minimum of your time. At $500/hour for your expertise? You just spent $3,000 worth of YOUR time doing something you're not even good at.


It's like Gordon Ramsay washing the dishes.


LinkedIn's own data shows the average "fast" hire takes 30 days. If you need this hire because you just lost someone or your calendar is overflowing... that 30-day black hole costs you $90,000 in lost revenue while you play amateur recruiter.


Recruiters vs. DealFuel


Recruiters are generalists playing matchmaker in a specialist's game. They source "available" talent from LinkedIn, yet can't tell an SDR from an AE. Let alone understand industry nuances.


Their incentives work against you. They plant "mole" candidates to learn your interview process, then send manufactured success stories who can't close a door. In the end, you pay $20K+ for their best guess—then spend months discovering if they can actually sell.


We've completely inverted the model >>

You've hit that pivotal moment.


The market is resonating with your offer. Qualified leads are flowing. Every week, your calendar fills with more prospects ready to buy…


But this momentum creates a new pressure:


Can your sales team keep up with—and fully capture—this growing demand?


It's the decision that keeps founders up at night.


Because the right hire turns this momentum into meteoric growth. The wrong one burns through your best leads before you can course correct.


So what do you do?


LinkedIn vs. DealFuel


LinkedIn is a highlight reel of manufactured success.


Behind every candidate is a carefully curated story designed to get interviews—not drive revenue.


They promise results for "just $500" in ad spend. But that's like thinking you can win the jackpot with $20 at a casino.


Your first batch of candidates is mediocre (they always are), so you spend another $500... and another...


Next thing you know, you're $3,000 deep with no certainty any candidate meets your specs.


Then comes the cruel irony: The better your job post performs, the MORE it costs you.


Because more candidates = more time burned. Each one needs reviewing, screening, initial calls, background checks, reference checks…


That's 4-6 hours minimum of your time. At $500/hour for your expertise?


You just spent $3,000 worth of YOUR time doing something you're not even good at.


It's like Gordon Ramsay washing the dishes.


LinkedIn's own data shows the average "fast" hire takes 30 days…


Recruiters vs. DealFuel


Recruiters are generalists playing matchmaker in a specialist's game.


They source "available" talent from LinkedIn, yet can't tell an SDR from an AE. Let alone understand industry nuances.


In the end, you pay $20K+ for their best guess—then spend months discovering if they can actually sell.


We've completely inverted the model >>