Catalog

Proposal — Loom · AE Onboarding Playbook Pilot

On Tuesday you said the eight incoming AEs have "no shared playbook" and that "ramp is going to kill us by Q2". You put current ramp at "14 weeks if we're honest" and a loaded AE at "about $140k".

Success: first cohort productive — first closed deal — inside 6 weeks instead of 14.

You said → What we do about it
"no shared playbook" → two-week build with your top two reps, delivered as a 5-day onboarding track
"ramp is 14 weeks" → week-1 to week-6 milestones with a manager checklist, so ramp is measured, not felt
"we tried a doc once and nobody read it" → every module ends with a recorded role-play a manager reviews in ten minutes

Timeline: build weeks 1–2; cohort onboarding weeks 3–8; review week 9.

Investment: $18,000. Payback: 8 AEs × 8 weeks saved × ($140k ÷ 52) ≈ $172k of ramp cost recovered. Breakeven at one AE.

Next step: a yes by Friday the 13th to start the build on the 16th.
Risk you raised: "our reps won't do homework" — modules are under 20 minutes and done live with the manager.

PILLAR — "The async standup playbook: how 14 distributed teams dropped the 9 AM call"
Keyword: async standup (~1,900/mo) · Intent: informational, late-stage
Gap in current top results: none give a template by team size; all assume 5–8 people.
H2s: Why the sync standup breaks past 3 time zones / The 3 formats by team size / Slack + Notion templates / What to do when nobody posts / Daily vs weekly / Tools compared honestly

Supporting articles
1. "Async standup template (Slack and Notion versions)" — async standup template (~720) · transactional · links to H2 #3
2. "Why your async standup is being ignored — and the 3-line fix" — async standup not working (~210) · informational · H2 #4
3. "Daily or weekly async standup for a 6-person team?" — daily vs weekly standup (~140) · comparison · H2 #5
4. "Async standup across 5+ time zones: what actually works" — async standup timezone (~95) · informational · H2 #1
...
Publishing order: 1, 2, 4 first (quick wins, low competition), pillar in week 3, remaining support weeks 4–6.

Subject: Launch moves to the 28th — plan attached

Jamie — I am moving the launch from the 14th to the 28th.

Two reasons. The security review surfaced one issue we want to fix properly rather than patch, and the marketing site needs one more full week of build. The rest of the timeline holds; the partner webinar on the 30th is unaffected.

Already handled: the fix is scoped and owned by Priya; the new site copy is in legal review. I need two things from you — approval of the new date, and a release of the email send that is booked for the 14th.

I will post a five-minute pulse in #launch every morning until the 28th.

— Alex

Questions you will get back:
- "Why didn't we catch the security issue earlier?" → It was found by the external review we scheduled for exactly this reason; that is the process working.
- "What else could slip?" → Nothing on the critical path; the only open risk is legal turnaround on copy, which has a Friday deadline.

Subject: eight AEs, one playbook

Sam — you posted eight AE roles this month, and the Head of Enablement role is still open from April.
Eight new reps and no owner for onboarding usually means ramp drifts past a quarter while everyone is "about to" write the playbook.
Vanta had the same gap last year; our playbook cut their AE ramp from 14 weeks to 6.
Is ramp time something you are measuring this quarter — yes or no?

— Dana

Backup first line (if the roles are filled by send time): "Saw the eight AEs you hired this spring — congratulations, and sympathies for whoever owns their ramp."

Subject: the 14-week ramp

Sam — on the call you said ramp "is going to kill us by Q2" if the eight new AEs land without a playbook. That line has stayed with me, which is why I am writing rather than waiting.

I know a quiet week usually means priorities moved, not that the problem did.

Two options: A — we start a two-week pilot with the first cohort on Thursday the 19th; B — we park it until the cohort is hired and I check back the first week of July. Reply "A" or "B" and I will handle the rest.

If this is a no, a one-line "not now" is genuinely fine — it lets me stop guessing.

— Dana

LinkedIn version:
Sam — your "ramp will kill us by Q2" line is still on my notepad. Pilot Thursday, or park it till July? A or B is enough.

Edited draft

AI lessons that take 15 minutes a day. Used by 12,000 professionals in 40 countries. Start your free 5-day trial.

Change log
- "a revolutionary AI-powered learning experience" → "AI lessons that take 15 minutes a day" — "revolutionary" is a tell; 15 minutes is a number the reader can picture
- "empowering professionals worldwide to thrive" → "used by 12,000 professionals in 40 countries" — abstraction replaced with proof
- "Begin your transformative journey today" → "Start your free 5-day trial" — the actual offer is more persuasive than the metaphor
- cut "seamlessly", "cutting-edge", "unlock" — adjectives with no referent
- "trusted by teams" → [NEEDS NUMBER] — kept, but it needs a count or a name

Weakest remaining line: "40 countries" is impressive only if the reader is outside the US; consider replacing with a named company.