u/satieshgy

Been doing GTM for 10 years, I can build outbound end to end, run revops/gtm strategy, and handle whatever tools you're using. Looking to work with teams that have 2+ sellers and a revops or marketing person who's drowning in to-dos, someone I can take stuff off their plate. Prefer B2B tech, US-based ideally.

Quick idea of what I actually do day to day: for one client I built their outbound and CRM from scratch, using Clay to find best fit companies and running multichannel outreach on top, sales team gets 30+ leads a month now. For another I'm doing data hygiene on their Zoho instance, plus building reports and some internal agents for their commercial director and exec team. Smaller client, I pull lists of companies running ads, find contacts, load them into Close for outreach, and before their events (they go to 4-5 a year) I scrape the attendee list and run a campaign through their app.

Worked with 4 outbound agencies before this, across maybe 100 clients total, mostly Asia/Europe with a chunk US-based. Clay partner, HubSpot certified, can jump into pretty much any stack.

If this sounds like something you need, comment or DM me.

Hi guys - family of 4, going on vacation in Barbados for 7 days staying at a villa in Royal Westmoreland. Looking for a chef/cook that can prepare most of the meals for those days. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and snacks in between. Do you know any good options?

A couple years back I built up an offshore ops team for a client, a vacation rental management company. Distribution work across Airbnb, VRBO, [Booking.com](http://Booking.com), that kind of thing. Started small, grew fast. Within about a year we were at 16 people on that one account. Felt like proof the model worked.

Right now we're down to 2 people on that same account.

First instinct might be that something went wrong. Client unhappy, budget cuts, whatever. None of that happened. What actually happened is their internal automation matured enough to absorb most of the repetitive volume work that used to need a person doing it manually. The high-volume, predictable stuff, listing updates, standard responses, routine data entry, is just handled by their systems now.

The 2 people still there aren't leftover headcount waiting to get cut too. They're doing the stuff that's genuinely hard to automate: judgment calls, exceptions that don't fit the standard flow, the situations where a rule-based system would either break or make the wrong call.

I run an offshore staffing company. You'd think watching a client's headcount need shrink by 87% because of automation would scare me. It doesn't, because it's exactly the split I actually believe in. AI is legitimately good at volume. It is not good, yet, at the judgment layer, the stuff that requires actual context about a specific weird situation. My job isn't to protect headcount for its own sake, it's to make sure the humans on an account are doing the part that's actually worth a human doing.

Honestly this changed how I pitch what we do. I used to lead with "dedicated English-speaking staff." Now I lead with the QC and judgment layer, because that's the part that doesn't get automated away. The part that does get automated away was never really the differentiator anyway, it was just volume.

Curious if anyone else here has watched a chunk of their own business get automated out from under them and actually came out feeling better about it, not worse.

A couple years back I built up an offshore ops team for a client, a vacation rental management company. Distribution work across Airbnb, VRBO, \[Booking.com\](http://Booking.com), that kind of thing. Started small, grew fast. Within about a year we were at 16 people on that one account. Felt like proof the model worked.

Right now we're down to 2 people on that same account.

First instinct might be that something went wrong. Client unhappy, budget cuts, whatever. None of that happened. What actually happened is their internal automation matured enough to absorb most of the repetitive volume work that used to need a person doing it manually. The high-volume, predictable stuff, listing updates, standard responses, routine data entry, is just handled by their systems now.

The 2 people still there aren't leftover headcount waiting to get cut too. They're doing the stuff that's genuinely hard to automate: judgment calls, exceptions that don't fit the standard flow, the situations where a rule-based system would either break or make the wrong call.

I run an offshore staffing company. You'd think watching a client's headcount need shrink by 87% because of automation would scare me. It doesn't, because it's exactly the split I actually believe in. AI is legitimately good at volume. It is not good, yet, at the judgment layer, the stuff that requires actual context about a specific weird situation. My job isn't to protect headcount for its own sake, it's to make sure the humans on an account are doing the part that's actually worth a human doing.

Honestly this changed how I pitch what we do. I used to lead with "dedicated English-speaking staff." Now I lead with the QC and judgment layer, because that's the part that doesn't get automated away. The part that does get automated away was never really the differentiator anyway, it was just volume.

Curious if anyone else here has watched a chunk of their own business get automated out from under them and actually came out feeling better about it, not worse.

A couple years back I built up an offshore ops team for a client, a vacation rental management company. Distribution work across Airbnb, VRBO, [Booking.com](http://Booking.com), that kind of thing. Started small, grew fast. Within about a year we were at 16 people on that one account. Felt like proof the model worked.

Right now we're down to 2 people on that same account.

First instinct might be that something went wrong. Client unhappy, budget cuts, whatever. None of that happened. What actually happened is their internal automation matured enough to absorb most of the repetitive volume work that used to need a person doing it manually. The high-volume, predictable stuff, listing updates, standard responses, routine data entry, is just handled by their systems now.

The 2 people still there aren't leftover headcount waiting to get cut too. They're doing the stuff that's genuinely hard to automate: judgment calls, exceptions that don't fit the standard flow, the situations where a rule-based system would either break or make the wrong call.

I run an offshore staffing company. You'd think watching a client's headcount need shrink by 87% because of automation would scare me. It doesn't, because it's exactly the split I actually believe in. AI is legitimately good at volume. It is not good, yet, at the judgment layer, the stuff that requires actual context about a specific weird situation. My job isn't to protect headcount for its own sake, it's to make sure the humans on an account are doing the part that's actually worth a human doing.

Honestly this changed how I pitch what we do. I used to lead with "dedicated English-speaking staff." Now I lead with the QC and judgment layer, because that's the part that doesn't get automated away. The part that does get automated away was never really the differentiator anyway, it was just volume.

Curious if anyone else here has watched a chunk of their own business get automated out from under them and actually came out feeling better about it, not worse.

A couple years back I built up an offshore ops team for a client, a vacation rental management company. Distribution work across Airbnb, VRBO, Booking.com, that kind of thing. Started small, grew fast. Within about a year we were at 16 people on that one account. Felt like proof the model worked.

Right now we're down to 2 people on that same account.

First instinct might be that something went wrong. Client unhappy, budget cuts, whatever. None of that happened. What actually happened is their internal automation matured enough to absorb most of the repetitive volume work that used to need a person doing it manually. The high-volume, predictable stuff, listing updates, standard responses, routine data entry, is just handled by their systems now.

The 2 people still there aren't leftover headcount waiting to get cut too. They're doing the stuff that's genuinely hard to automate: judgment calls, exceptions that don't fit the standard flow, the situations where a rule-based system would either break or make the wrong call.

I run an offshore staffing company. You'd think watching a client's headcount need shrink by 87% because of automation would scare me. It doesn't, because it's exactly the split I actually believe in. AI is legitimately good at volume. It is not good, yet, at the judgment layer, the stuff that requires actual context about a specific weird situation. My job isn't to protect headcount for its own sake, it's to make sure the humans on an account are doing the part that's actually worth a human doing.

Honestly this changed how I pitch what we do. I used to lead with "dedicated English-speaking staff." Now I lead with the QC and judgment layer, because that's the part that doesn't get automated away. The part that does get automated away was never really the differentiator anyway, it was just volume.

Curious if anyone else here has watched a chunk of their own business get automated out from under them and actually came out feeling better about it, not worse.

This whole business started because I said yes to something I wasn't even trying to build.

I was doing sales ops for a client. Good relationship, good people, I genuinely liked working with them. I'm the type who tries to help even when it's not really my job. One slow period on the sales ops side, they asked if I could cover customer support for a few days while they found someone permanent. They were experimenting with adding a human-in-the-loop layer alongside the tech they'd built, and this particular thing needed a person, not just software.

So I did it. Gave them feedback along the way. They liked it enough to ask if I wanted to do it full time. Honestly, no, I liked the sales ops work more. But I told them I could probably find someone local here in Guyana who'd be really good at it.

My wife happened to be free at the time. She had relevant experience, seemed like a good fit, so we brought her on. That's it, that's the whole start.

That one hire sparked something on their end. They asked if I could help find more people locally. I said yes, and that's when it actually became a thing. I got brought on as a partner, sort of split the work: they'd bring in clients, I'd find and manage the people.

First client started with 3 people. Three months later they'd expanded to 10. By month six we had 16 people on that one account. Another client came on with 3 more not long after.

At some point I realized I was basically running local operations here, building out systems, tracking, dashboards, performance reviews, while still handling my other sales ops clients on the side. Busy stretch, but good.

I'll be honest, there were a couple of instances where oversight slipped because I was stretched thin. Got lucky that the people we'd hired were solid enough to handle things well on their own even when I wasn't watching closely. Local talent here is genuinely good. Guyana isn't an outsourcing destination yet the way the Philippines or India is, but I think we'll get there.

That near-miss is actually what pushed me to build a real quality control layer instead of just hoping people would keep handling things well solo. Every staff member now has a Team Lead assigned to them, that's a newer piece we added once I realized I couldn't be the only check. We're still learning and adding processes as we go.

I don't really want to be the biggest option out there. I'd rather be the most efficient, with a workforce that's actually happy and clients who are fair to work with. That's been the goal since it stopped being an accident and started being a real business.

Curious if anyone else here ended up building something real out of just trying to help someone out, not some big planned strategy.