I think true sales is 'putting your head down'; cold calling is at least as manly as debugging Ruby. But I think "biz-dev" is often, well, spinning bullshit fantasies, putting them into powerpoints with nice colors, and calling it work. Not always, but often.

I guess that's why proven coders and proven commission salespeople (and proven accountants) can always find jobs, while "big picture" folks are left unemployed, wondering why companies can't see their brilliance. Or, if they're lucky, they sue Zuckerberg because he was able to do make an actual product which never got past the great-idea-over-beer phase for them.

(Ducks...)

What you say isn't wrong here, but it's one-eyed.

Specifically, it's much more true in consumer than B2B. In B2B, biz dev is building partnerships, channels, distribution, obtaining resources you need at prices you can afford, all that good stuff. It's the absolute engine of your business.

If you're writing a B2C app, doesn't matter about the platform, then what biz is there to dev? In a similar sense, you need marketers, not salesmen, because your problem is getting a call-to-action out to your potential market as effectively and efficiently as possible. You can't do that door-to-door at scale.

But if you're doing enterprise software, the converse is true. You need biz dev to shape your proposition, and you need a sales force to go and hammer down doors and melt the copper in the phonelines.

Different problems, different solutions, different solvers, that's all.

From someone who has interacted with a lot of investors trying to raise money and pitch a business I started with some friends, I can assure you that a lot of what people think makes a business is bullshit.

We spent months and months building a business plan, doing market research, talking about our IP, our proprietary processes, etc. When talking to all the investors we met while in the Notre Dame McCloskey Business Competition, we were basically informed the business plan wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, we had no IP, and the reason investors won't sign an NDA on your idea is that an idea isn't worth shit. When I actually started building something, when we got the land needed for the other part of our business, and when we had substance (not just words); that's when they listened, offered us money, and things started to work out.

ps: for more info -- We ended up finishing 2nd out of 211 businesses (from idea stage to operational). In the finals, we had investors offering us as much as $50,000 on the spot (which was the coolest feeling). We didn't accept any money because we felt we weren't ready to, which was good because the business dematerialized due to internal struggles. The main guy was the stupid idea, no tech knowledge type and thought he ran everything and was the reason we were getting traction (when all he did was sit around thinking up dumb ideas that the rest of us refined, curated, and implemented).

No, I believe that in an early-stage tech startup, each founder should be able to wear more than one hat, and be willing to do tasks they don't enjoy when necessary. The business founder should have some technical knowledge, and the tech founder should have some business knowledge. These aren't prerequisites for success, but they can give you a significant advantage.

Edit: reading your other replies, it doesn't really sound like we're disagreeing.