When he got hired it was covered in TechCrunch: https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/02/snapchat-hires-a-new-growt... Most people do not get that type of coverage.

There is coverage of him pitching: http://upstart.bizjournals.com/companies/hatched/2013/03/25/...

And coverage of the acquisition: http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2014/01/02/apex-tec...

> Most people do not get that type of coverage.

Anecdote: it takes surprisingly little.

Back in the day, when I was a fresh faced 20-something - and, like now, a complete nobody as well - I joined a fun, pretty unknown, startup and had my photo and bio published in the physical magazine of the time.

This happened because one of their journalists knew our CEO, and they thought it'd be a fun "welcome to the company" for me.

One of the doctors I work with has his own PR person. He is routinely covered in "Best of the Bay" and other interviews for famous doctors, brought on to be a guest speaker on the news, etc. He's sort of a hack. The other doctors I work with are much smarter, but they keep their heads down, help patients and operate with a lot less puffery.

I bet the guy with the PR agent makes more money. Funny what PR does.

I've been thinking about hiring a marketing person. I build things, I'm great at that. I can run businesses, likewise. A little extra press coverage (deserved or not) would be very valuable for me. Any recommendations on hiring for this role?

PR is different from marketing, so first read up and decide which one you need. IMO marketing/sales is a core, systematic task, an engine, and PR can add much fuel to the engine. Looking for PR, have an idea of which publications, speaking events and biz dev opportunities you want to access with their help. They should be able to demonstrate -- with proof from past clients in your field -- that they have relationships with those gatekeepers. They should also be able to assist you in developing a core narrative around you/your company, and they should be perceptive, skilled and honest enough to tell you what the flaws in that narrative are and how best to address this. Some media training, too.

Thanks, this is a great introduction. I have no idea how I am going to afford this person. But already I don't know how I can afford to NOT have this person!

The media, especially the tech media, is not as difficult to manipulate as you think. I think its likely those stories were engineered and sensationalized, built up from less credible sources to more credible, each medium citing the previous.

I'm imagining the main sales character (Joe) from the show Halt and Catch Fire, who has an extreme talent for persuasion and manipulation.

I know him personally and collaborated with him on some things while he was running Digiforce. It was always a stealth operation, but I know that the technology was real and that it was legitimately acquired. I know that doesn't amount to much reliability on a forum, but I use my real name for my username, so you can see I'm not making this up.

I only kept in limited contact with him after he went to Facebook, but from my experience with him in Raleigh, he's a stand up guy. I'm inclined to believe his story, because if he was incompetent he wouldn't have run FB's growth for several years before going to Snapchat.

I registered a throwaway account to play devils advocate with what feels like a straw-man argument from yourself:

>digiforce.com directs to some random japanese site

It could be that the brand digaforce wasn't valuable to strategic link partners & they let it go.

> the Strategic Link site looks like something made from a (bad) wordpress template.

Their target market looks like military and law enforcement. You don't necessarily need shiny marketing to sell to the land of powerpoint: personal selling through established contacts works. Ex military stick together because of how bonds were forged.

>I almost wonder if he made up a company to acquire his company.

Are you suggesting he invented strategic link partners? This is probably pretty easy to validate as their management is well documented on their site - all ex military.

>Next, no way Facebook hires someone like that to lead "THE" growth team for pages.

You've built the next step of your argument assuming your previous allegations are true.

>Maybe as an entry level PM or something.

Is what you argued previously about his character true or not? If he was fraudulent (i.e. inventing companies etc.) then Facebook probably wouldn't hire at all (or he'd get washed out pretty quickly).

> He was only at facebook for 1.5 years, which also makes me skeptical he was such a high priority hire for Snapchat.

His allegation says that Snapchats intent was to gain confidential information about Facebook. Does 1.5 years matter in this case? Recent information is what's key here.

> Sounds like a bunch of hot air and resume puffing to me.

What are the facts we know for sure? He worked for Facebook. He was involved in some startups. He is ex military. He was hired by snapchat briefly and fired.

>My guess is that Snapchat realized he had an overly active imagination and had taken liberties with his resume.

Have you read his complaint? He alleges he was calling out snapchat internally on misrepresenting metrics to prospective investors - and they fired him for it.

What's more likely? He faked his way into Facebook and survived 1.5 year, generated enough demand to get noticed by Snapchat and then jumped to snapchat only to be found out to be completely incompetent in three weeks?

Or... his military / honour based mindset got him in trouble when he saw things happening in snapchat that were at odds with his value system.

There is definitely smoke here in my opinion. You have to be grossly incompetent to get fired within three weeks. If he did manage to fake his way into Facebook then he does have a level of competency. To me, it doesn't make sense that he'd screw up and get fired in three weeks. Especially given his military background.

Does this make sense?

Completely agree with the stronger likelihood of this version. At least the individuals tied to his story (e.g. cofounder mentioned, the principals of the acquiring company) are all real people with credible business careers.

Also, geo-based social media aggregation stuff getting gobbled up by opaque defence industry players just sounds way too scary to make up for any other reason than to instill fear.

Based on the last link in the bhouston comment nearby: http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2014/01/02/apex-tec...

> There is definitely smoke here in my opinion. You have to be grossly incompetent to get fired within three weeks.

Agreed. grossly incompetent

Yes. Further, if you put yourself in his shoes. What are you doing in those three weeks? You've sold them on the growth strategy - now you're getting up to speed on the details getting ready to execute. It's natural that you'd look into things in more detail. If you find something that's not right... whoah... differences.

If you were a fraudster, you'd just go along with it ;-)

Completely.