TLDR: The B2B SaaS Growth Podcast Recording

Most founders stay in the CEO seat too long.
Tony Jamous didn't.
In this episode of TLDR, I spoke with Tony (founder of Oyster) and Hadi (new CEO) about stepping back when the company needs something different.
Not because the company was failing. Because it needed something different to scale.
Tony asked himself: "What needs to happen for Oyster to reach $10 billion?"
The answer? A different CEO.
That realization took months to accept. Oyster was his baby. The mission - anyone, anywhere can access great jobs - was deeply personal.
But 360 feedback from his team made the gap clear. They needed someone closer to operations. Someone built to scale multi-billion dollar companies. Someone with different strengths for the next chapter.
So Tony went to the board and said we need to make a change.
The process:
Hired top-tier executive search. Interviewed 40+ candidates globally. Required a case study: "How would you make Oyster more successful than anyone imagined?" Let the board vote without him voting.
Hadi got 100% of votes. Clear #1.
But the hire was just the beginning. The transition required 18 months of prep, with changes to the leadership structure and careful planning designed to set Hadi up for success.
The handoff happened from a position of strength. Oyster had its best financial year before the transition.
Hadi's first 90 days:
Listen and learn.
Establish trust through communication.
Build a 3-year strategy.
Walk backwards from the goal.
No wholesale changes for the sake of change. Protect what works. Fix what's broken. Invest where it scales.
The thing most founders miss:
Letting go of control maximizes enterprise value. Staying attached destroys it.
Tony's now Executive Chairman. Guards the mission, stays as the external face, advises Hadi. He's not gone. He's in the right role for this chapter.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Everyone says cold email is "saturated."
But what they really mean is: the usual way of doing cold email is dead.
In this episode of TLDR, I spoke to Rey Fernando (CEO, eight25), who's generating 300+ enterprise meetings/year, ~$10-12M pipeline, and $3–7M closed revenue from outbound.
But nothing about his system looks like what most teams do.
Most outbound advice today centers on finding better signals, writing better templates, and scaling volume.
Rey just flipped all of it. Here’s how,
1. Signals don't tell you WHO to reach. They tell you HOW to reach.
Most teams use signals to reduce their list. Rey doesn't. He reaches out to everyone in the ICP consistently. Signals simply help in shaping the angle of the message. 
2. The job of your email isn't what you think
Not to explain your product. Not to build trust. Not even to drive conversion. Each part has one job: subject line gets the open, email gets the meeting, offer reduces friction. That's it. Don’t overthink this.
3. Good outbound ≠ clever hacks
I kept asking for systems, automations, shortcuts. But his answer was annoyingly simple: "You just have to write good emails."
Before AI, his team wrote 2,000 custom emails per week manually. Timed. Trained. Iterated. 
4. The real constraint isn't volume. It's data quality.
Most teams think they're emailing 3,000 people. They're not. Bad targeting leads to irrelevant emails, which leads to spam reports, which kills deliverability, which breaks the entire system.
Rey's team verifies roles manually, checks relevance before sending, They don't just check 'do we have data?', they check 'is this data actually accurate?'"
5. The most underrated insight
Don't blast everyone in an account at once. Reach out to one person per company per week, rotating through your buying committee.
Result: each person hears from you monthly, the company hears from you weekly. This way you stay present without creating fatigue, and you increase surface area over time. 
In short, outbound isn't broken. Lazy outbound is.
The teams winning today aren't doing more. They're just doing the fundamentals way better than everyone else.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Most B2B marketers treat events like a channel.
Book a venue. Get people in. Hope something comes out of it.
And that's also why they fail.
In this episode of TLDR, I spoke with Taryn Talley (30+ events, $2.4M in revenue over 4 years).
Her approach is completely different.
She doesn't start with pipeline targets or event logistics.
She starts with: "Who do we actually want to build relationships with?"
Then she builds a system around deepening those relationships.
B2B deals need 7-12 touches to close. Events are just high-value touches in that sequence.
Her biggest deals came from people who attended 3+ different events over time.
Not one big event. A deliberate sequence of events.
Here's how the system works:
Build a network, not an invite list: Start with 100-1,000 core relationships. Track them in a spreadsheet. Document engagement history, pain points, last meaningful touch. Goal: grow this network 20% annually.
Vary the format: Mix intimate dinners (20 people), networking events (150 people), multi-day experiences (30-40 people). Don't hit the same people with the same format twice.
The real work happens after: Track every conversation. Document pain points shared. Schedule follow-ups: lunches, sports events, smaller dinners. Tag everyone in CRM. Track multi-touch progression.
Her 2023 Growth Marketing Summit: 3 days in Park City, 30-40 executives, cost ~$80K.
Result? The WhatsApp group stayed active for 12 months. Attendees invested in each other's companies. Multiple deals closed.
Here’s the shift:
Most marketers optimize event logistics (venues, catering, attendance, swag bags).
Taryn optimizes relationship infrastructure (network growth, touch sequences, conversion tracking).
That's the difference between treating events as a channel vs. treating them as systematic relationship building.
This is operator-level thinking you can't learn from playbooks.
If you're still running campaigns without direct customer context, you're just guessing.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Most SaaS companies guess their pricing.
Because they're operating from a secondhand context.
Competitor research. Pricing surveys. "Best practices."
None of that tells you what'll work for YOUR product.
And that's exactly how we had priced Chosenly.
No framework. No model. Just gut feel on what would work.
Turns out… that's not unusual.
In this episode of TLDR, I spoke with Dan Layfield from Diligent about how real SaaS companies actually figure out pricing.
Codecademy scaled from $10M → $50M ARR and eventually exited for $525M.
And according to Dan, one of their biggest unlocks came from something most SaaS companies barely think about:
How they price annual plans.
Most companies do this: Monthly: $10 Annual: $96 or $120 (10–20% discount)
Because… that's what everyone else does.
But Dan shared a much smarter approach.
Price your annual plan based on monthly retention.
Example: If your product costs $10/month and users stay 4 months on average…
Most companies make $40 LTV.
Instead, price the annual plan around 6 months of value ($60).
That pulls more users into annual.
What happens next:
You collect more cash upfront

Payment churn drops

Users commit longer

Many renew annually

Codecademy saw LTV jump from roughly $40 → $90 using this logic.
Dan also breaks down:
Why pricing should be tested every ~6 months

Why willingness-to-pay surveys are only 60% accurate

How freemium models actually convert (and when they fail)

The simple A/B testing setup used to test pricing

If you run a SaaS product, this episode will probably make you rethink your pricing page.
It definitely made me rethink ours.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Cold email isn’t dying. Lazy marketing is.
In this episode of TLDR, I spoke with James Milsom, Head of Marketing at Hunter.io, about what’s actually working in cold outreach right now.

Here’s some uncomfortable truths:
😟 Campaigns sent to 1,000+ recipients average ~2% reply rates
😟 71% of decision-makers ignore emails because they’re irrelevant
😟 Open rates and click rates? Mostly noise. Replies are what matter

The problem really isn’t the channel.
Marketing is changing and lazy volume-first tactics are getting taxed.
It’s that most teams are still optimizing for volume - more contacts, more sends, more automation, instead of better segmentation, better offers, better sequencing.

James breaks down:

➡️ Why cold email should run 3-4 week structured experiments 
➡️ How to A/B test offers, not just subject lines 
➡️ Why layering LinkedIn with email nearly doubles effectiveness 
➡️ Why email verification is an important step (but most teams skip this)

At this point, you can’t just blast your TAM and hope 2020 tactics still work.
Buyers are smarter. Inboxes are harsher. Attention is expensive.
So you can either tighten your targeting, or accept 2% reply rates.

Hosted on Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.