Transforming the landscape of GTM recruitment for B2B SaaS and D2C companies. 

Our mission is clear: 

We find the right talent to drive your business forward, faster and more effectively than ever before.

At the heart of our approach lies the Rocket Talent precision system, a powerful blend of technology, psychometrics, and AI. This innovative method allows us to pinpoint the perfect candidates for your organization, ensuring a seamless fit that lasts.

Our track record speaks volumes:

96% of our placements remain with their new employers after a year.

We fill roles 40% faster than traditional methods.

Our clients save an average of $127K+ on every hire.

We offer up to a 24-month guarantee on placements.

But numbers only tell part of the story. Our impact reaches far beyond statistics:

We helped Consumer Affairs build a CRM Growth team in just 60 days, leading to a 150% increase in company lifecycle and retention revenue targets.

Our work with Listen Lively resulted in a $100 million exit within 12 months.

A Google Venture portfolio company achieved a $200M exit in 18 months thanks to the GTM team we placed.

Lennar saw a 310% increase in inbound leads while maintaining their CAC, courtesy of the growth marketing team we assembled.

We placed a CPO at Cognism who had previously scaled a company from $30M to $100M.

VTS generated over $100M in revenue after we filled 7 key digital marketing roles in under 3 months.

We understand the unique challenges faced by CEOs, founders, marketing and sales executives, and HR leaders in the fast-paced world of B2B SaaS and D2C companies. Our goal is to alleviate the stress of recruitment, allowing you to focus on what matters most – growing your business.

Ready to revolutionize your talent acquisition strategy? Let's connect and explore how we can help you build the team that will drive your company's success. Book time here: https://calendly.com/jonathan-268/dm-intro-li-clone

I placed a candidate 7 months ago.
She just quit because she 'couldn't handle the pace.'
But I know what she can handle…





This is the same role I filled seven months ago.

So naturally I asked what happened to them, and whether this role was to work alongside them. I figured the team was growing.

Instead he said, "She wasn't the right fit. Couldn't handle the pace."

Now, I placed that marketer. I know what she can handle. So I asked a few more questions.

Did she have clear KPIs from day one? "We were figuring that out together."
Did she get regular feedback? "I'm pretty hands-off. I let people own their work."
Did she have the resources she needed? "We're lean. Everyone has to be scrappy."

Translation: She walked into chaos with no direction, no support, and no way to win.

​Then she got blamed for not reading her manager's mind. And this is the part that frustrates me most about my job.

I can find incredible talent. I can negotiate the offer. I can get them excited about the opportunity.

But I can't fix the manager who's going to burn them out in six months.

The best growth marketer in the world can't succeed under a leader who sets vague goals then moves them.

Or someone who mistakes "hands-off" for leadership​ and "scrappy" with under-resourced.​

If I had a dollar for every time I'd seen a company hire someone great and give them a manager who sets them up to fail, I wouldn't need to work.

Of course the company blames the hire directly, and around and round we go.

You can have the best growth marketer on the market, if their manager doesn't know how to lead them, you're just renting talent until they find a boss who does.

This is without a doubt the most expensive and wasteful way to hire. 

If you're seeing a leaky bucket in your team, it might be time for some self-reflection.

Jonathan Spiess

CEO @Rocket Talent - Connecting the top 1% of Growth Talent

This Candidate interviewed well and waited 2 weeks.
Then he saw the job reposted online….
He assumed he wasn't the top choice and moved on




This was someone in the final round. He interviewed well, and had been waiting two weeks for a decision.

Then the job appeared again online.

Annoyingly, the client loved the candidate. But with a smaller comparison to judge against they wanted to "see a few more people" before closing.

So they reposted the role again and the candidate saw it immediately.

They judged it in exactly they way you'd expect.

"I'm clearly not the one if I'm backup while they keep shopping."

They didn't rage or send me an angry email, just quietly moved their attention to other employers in their pipeline.

By the time the hiring manager was ready to make a decision, the candidate had moved on. 

Most companies think exploring the candidate market is the smart thing to do. But there comes a time when exploration should take a backseat.

Candidates see signals.

And the signal of continuously marketing jobs is loud. Especially to those you've already interviewed and are trying to "keep warm".

In Growth Marketing, we obsess over every signal we send to prospects.

CAC/LTV
Incrementality
ROAS

But when it comes to hiring, companies forget they're also being evaluated in real time.

If your job reappears online while someone's waiting for your decision, you're not just losing that candidate, but teaching every finalist what 'top choice' actually means to you.

Conditional. Negotiable. Replaceable.

Great Growth Marketers don't stick around to be someone's safety net.

They go where they're the number one choice.

This hiring manager offered a candidate a great role
But then the company went through a hiring freeze
Instead of turning the candidate away, he did this…




Every logical move pointed one way. To pull the offer, save the budget and reopen the role “later.”

Instead, the hiring manager asked me:

“How do we keep our promise and still be responsible?”

We spoke in length about the options available to us. He went back to finance and reworked the team's priorities.

He turned the full-time role into a phased start, with part-time consulting for 3 months, then full-time the moment the freeze lifted.

We worked out a way for the candidate not to lose income and the company not to lose momentum.

And most importantly they didn’t lose trust.

The growth marketer is now leading experiments that are opening entire new channels for them, and when I speak to candidates in that niche, they all say the same thing about the company...

“They do what they say they’ll do.”

In a market obsessed with “employer brand,” this is the part no one can fake.

Keeping your promises when it's easier not to.

This candidate was interviewing for a $140k role 
But they asked for $200K instead. It was approved the same day. Here's why it was a win for everyone. 




This was a candidate of mine who didn't even have a competing offer.

She didn't threaten to walk. Just calmly stated her number.

We'd been searching for a senior growth marketer for three months. Burned through 40+ candidates. None of them could articulate how they'd actually move the needle on CAC or activation rates.

Then, finally one walks in who can.

In the first 15 minutes, she mapped out their funnel blindspots. Pointed to specific conversion gaps. Talked about experiments she'd run in her first 90 days.

The hiring manager nods. Takes notes. Already sold.

When the offer comes in, the company put forward $140K. Which was industry standard for the role.

And she came back with $200K.

Not because she was greedy, because she knew she was make the company 20X that amount. 

I thought I'd seen this movie before, but actually I hadn't. There was a twist.

There were no games. No lengthy justification. Just: "Based on the impact I'll create and what I know I'm worth, this is my number."

And the hiring manager didn't even flinch. He called finance and got approval in the same day.

He knew exactly what it would cost to start over. Another three months of searching. More revenue lost without that role filled. The risk of hiring someone mediocre who'd need replacing in six months.

So they decided to pay her what she's worth now, rather than more later.

Too many companies play silly games with compensation. And they win silly prizes. 

They offer low and hope candidates don't push back. Then seem shocked when top talent walks.

The best hiring managers recognize value immediately. 

And they pay for it before someone else does.

This company agreed to salary ranges upfront.
Then offered $25K less to two top candidates.
Both walked away and told their entire network.





2 times now in quick succession, I've walked candidates through their process.

Both times, we discussed salary expectations upfront. Both times the hiring manager agreed the range was fair.

And then, both times, the offer came in $20K-$25K below what we'd discussed.

The first candidate felt insulted and took a role elsewhere within a week.

The second one tried to negotiate and they pulled the offer entirely.

And guess what? Every recruiter in this space knows what they did. 

Every candidate who went through their process tells their network.

Every competitor is now getting first access to the talent pool.

When you lowball people, you're not just losing one hire, but losing access to an entire market of professionals who now know better.

I built my reputation by matching great people with great opportunities.

I can't and won't risk that on companies who see salary negotiations as a game to win.

Because the best Growth Marketers have options.

And they remember those who respect that fact.

I watched a hiring manager blame 3 former employees
in front of their top candidate.
They lost the hire immediately.




The candidate said:

“It just seemed like they love to complain rather than give constructive feedback.”

A lot of clients forget this about interviews.

You might be evaluating someone. But you’re being evaluated too.

When a hiring manager fixates on what others did wrong instead of what they need going forward, it tells the candidate a lot. 

It tells them how you assign blame. How you handle accountability. And what happens when things don’t work out.

The best leaders I’ve worked with talk about gaps.

They’ll say things like:

“The last person struggled with this specific skill, so we’re prioritising that in this search.”

That’s accountability, and self-awareness. That’s someone who understands their role in building a team that succeeds.

I told my candidate to trust their gut and they declined the offer the next day.

Three months later, and the same role's still open.

If you’re interviewing and the person across from you spends more time complaining than inspiring, pay attention.

The culture you’re walking into is usually visible long before day one.

Over the last month, I’ve spoken to four candidates who took pay cuts just to leave their jobs. Instead of low-balling them, pay them what they’re worth.



Not because they suddenly lost ambition.
But because staying cost them more than leaving.
And this is where some hiring managers get it wrong.
When they see a candidate who’s already taken a pay cut, they see an opportunity.
“They’re earning less now, so we can probably come in lower.”
That logic feels practical.
But it starts the relationship on the wrong foot.
People don’t accept less because they’re worth less.
They accept less because the environment became unlivable.
Poor leadership.
Unclear expectations.
Politics dressed up as “culture.”
So when you lowball that candidate, you’re not being savvy.
You’re reinforcing the exact reason they left.
They’ll take the role.
They’ll do the work.
And eventually, they’ll realize they’re undervalued again.
If you want loyalty, this is the moment most managers miss.
That candidate isn’t leverage.
They’re a test.
Pay them what they’re actually worth, and you’ll stand out immediately.
Because the person who left for less money will always remember the hiring manager who didn’t take advantage of it.

This Demand Gen Leader got offered $180
With a "prove yourself" bump to $230 if targets are hit
She landed $260 elsewhere with no games.



"That's not an offer," I told my candidate. 

She was a Senior Growth leader with three successful exits under her belt.

The role was to build their entire demand gen engine from scratch.

"It's a lot of money to leave on the table," she said, hesitating. "Maybe I can hit the targets early?"

"If they had the budget for $230," I asked, "why aren't they paying it now? Do they doubt your track record? Or do they doubt their own product's convertibility?"

She declined the next morning.

The following month, she accepted a Director of Demand Gen Growth role at $260.

​No caveats. 
No "prove it" period. 
Just a salary that acknowledged her expertise from Day 1.

When hiring managers gatekeep market rates behind "probationary periods", it signals one of two things:

1. They’ve been burned by bad hires and are projecting that fear onto you. 
   
2. They don't actually have the cash flow to support the role. 
   
Either way, it’s a red flag.

You don't hire an architect to build your house and say, "I'll pay you full price if the roof stays up."

You pay for the skill that ensures it stays up to begin with.

This role stayed open for 3 months because the hiring manager screened for 15 non-essential skills. We said choose the 3 most important and filled it in 3 weeks...



On a call, we went through the list together.
“How many people do you think actually have all of this?” I asked.
He laughed.
“Probably no one.”
And yet… that’s exactly how candidates were being rejected.
The problem wasn’t sourcing.
The best candidates weren’t applying anyway, they were being hunted.
The real issue was that when good people did come through, they were being filtered out for missing non-essential skills.
So we changed the approach.
Instead of trying to validate 15 skills on paper, we picked the three that actually mattered.
Then we redesigned the interviews around how they’d use those skills on the job.
What would they tackle in their first 90 days?
How would they approach the core growth problem?
How do they think, not just what tools have they touched?
Same role. Same bar. But now we were interviewing for capability, not checkbox coverage.
The result?
The role that had been open for 5 months was filled in 3 weeks.
Because they stopped rejecting great candidates for not being “perfect”
and started hiring people who could actually do the job.

This company hired a world-class paid social expert.
But gave her broken systems and 3-week approval chains.
She's now looking for a new job.



Every time she wants to test a new campaign, she needs pixels set up properly. 

Apparently, the development team takes MONTHS to implement basic tracking. 

Landing page changes that should take hours are stuck in bureaucratic approval chains for weeks.

She can't run proper tests. Can't optimise campaigns. Can't do the job she was hired to do.

And apparently this isn't a resource problem, they do have the budget. Just as they have the tools and the talent.

They're just drowning in technical red tape.

She told me: "I can see so many opportunities to improve performance, but I'm spending more time fighting internal processes than actually running campaigns."

Recently I'm seeing companies hire amazing marketing talent, then wonder why performance doesn't improve, when their infrastructure is completely broken.

You can't expect world-class results from world-class people when your systems are stuck in 2015.

Either invest in proper technical infrastructure, or use tools that don't require engineering support for every small change.

Your marketing team shouldn't need to file a ticket and wait three weeks just to change a headline.

Great marketers need speed and flexibility to test and optimise. When you remove that, you remove their competitive advantage.

She's now looking for a new role where she can actually do what she does best.

I’ve watched brilliant data engineers get stuck at $120K
They should be earning $200K+ for their skills
But companies know visa holders can't jump ship




Companies know these employees can't easily jump ship. They're stuck waiting for visa processing, green card applications, or sponsorship transfers.

So they get taken advantage of. 

They get minimal raises, or tiny bonuses. They watch their colleagues get promoted while they stay put.

I had a conversation with a candidate last month who's been consulting at a big firm for 8 years. His colleague, who was hired the same year, was making $60K more.

The only difference was, one needed visa sponsorship and the other didn't.

It's not just about the money either. These companies pile on extra work because they know these employees have limited options. 

"Where else are you going to go?"

I've seen people stay at companies for years, ride out multiple layoffs, survive restructures, and then when they finally get their documentation and look around, they realise how far behind they've fallen.

I've seen brilliant engineers and consultants who should be making $200K+ stuck at $120K because they were afraid to negotiate.

The visa system creates vulnerability. 

And some companies absolutely exploit it.

If you're in this situation, start having conversations before you're desperate. Build relationships. Understand your market value.

And if you're a hiring manager...

Paying someone less because of their visa status isn't just morally questionable, you're going to lose great talent the moment they have other options.

Compensation should reflect skills, not someone's immigration status.

This Growth Marketer was managing a $20M budget.
3 months later... he's gone. The company lost millions.
You HAVE to get Marketing hires right, first time.





Marketing hires are different to sales hires.

When a sales rep doesn't work out, you see it quickly. They're not hitting quota. The numbers are staring you in the face. You fire them and move on. 

And hey, maybe you lost some salary and training time?

Not ideal. But also not the end of the world. 

Growth marketers’ entire goal is growing revenue at optimal cost. 

And they're managing budgets some companies don't see in annual revenue. I've spoken to candidates managing $100 million budgets.

So when they leave or get fired, who keeps things afloat?

Campaigns can go unoptimised for weeks. Growth stalls. Sometimes there's specific channel expertise that nobody else on the team has. 

You might bring in a consultant, but by the time they ramp up, you're back at square one.

The really good growth marketers rarely apply to jobs. 

Companies hold onto them tight because they're the lifeblood of growth. Equally, they're constantly hit up by recruiters, so they don't need to search.

By the time you realise someone isn't working out in marketing, significant budget may have been misallocated.

The stakes are just different. A bad growth hire can cost you millions in wasted ad spend, missed growth targets, and potentially your next funding round.

That's why these roles feel so disruptive to replace, and why getting the hire right the first time matters so much.

This top CMO turned down a phenomenal offer.
The reason? Activity tracking software.
They had no interest in being monitored at work.




Initially the hiring manager didn’t actually know why she’d turned down the role. She’d just politely declined to accept.

I asked him to walk me through the interview process.

Everything sounded normal until the final round.

"Yeah, our VP mentioned we use activity tracking software. Just standard stuff. Keyboard activity, screen time, that kind of thing. Helps us stay aligned across remote teams".

There it was.

She got her answer.

Top marketing talent isn't afraid of accountability. But they are afraid of being treated like they can't be trusted to do their job.

Companies are so worried about remote work productivity that they're solving the wrong problem.

They're measuring activity when they should be measuring impact.

They're tracking time when they should be tracking outcomes.

The best marketers I work with don't need surveillance to perform. They need clarity, autonomy, and leaders who care about what they deliver, not when they deliver it.

Half of tech workers say they'd rather quit than be monitored during the workday.
Think about that. You could offer more money, better benefits, equity... and they'd still walk if it means being watched.

Because at a certain level, it's not about the paycheque anymore. It's about respect.

If you're struggling to close candidates, take a hard look at your process.

Are you hiring for expertise? Or compliance?

Because the marketers who'll actually grow your business can smell the difference from the first interview.

taplio

Jonathan Spiess's Linkedin Analytics

Jonathan Spiess

Performance ScoreJonathan Spiess's LinkedIn Performance

Jonathan Spiess's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Jonathan Spiess's Linkedin Analytics

Jonathan Spiess

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Jonathan Spiess's LinkedIn Performance

Jonathan Spiess's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Jonathan Spiess's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreJonathan Spiess's LinkedIn Performance

Jonathan Spiess's Best Posts (last 30 days)