Investigative writer/analyst original research for SaaS comparison content (B2B sales automation)

Who we're looking for An investigative writer/analyst for product deep review and comparison content in the sales-automation / LinkedIn-automation category - alternatives pages, - comparisons, - roundups, - pricing/value breakdowns. - product researches. We don't want someone who reads the top-5 ranking pages and synthesizes them. We want a co-researcher who: - has hands-on B2B SaaS experience. B2B SaaS is a must, but it needn't be sales automation: CRM, sales/outbound tools, or adjacent business software you've actually used or run all count — enough to model real business situations (how an agency, an SDR team, or a solo founder actually uses a tool, where it breaks, the day-2 problems); - can mine first-hand evidence independently. Signs up for the tools, pokes at the products, inspects how they behave, digs primary sources, and captures their own proof (screenshots, logs, observed behavior); - brings original hypotheses for what's worth investigating. We provide product context, topic, editorial direction, and final positioning. The first-hand evidence is yours to find. A plus: a public LinkedIn profile and openness to being a named author on our site (your own author page). We publish under real, verifiable experts. What a strong article does It helps a real buyer choose between tools — fair and specific, not "our product wins everywhere." It explains where each tool fits, the real tradeoffs, and why architecture, pricing, safety controls, CRM integrations, automation depth, and team/agency use cases matter in practice. Official pages, pricing, Help Center, and G2 / Capterra / Trustpilot / Reddit feedback are support — they don't make the article. The differentiator is what you know from doing, what you verify first-hand, and what you surface that no one else has. Use editorial judgment — no rigid block-by-block brief. ----------- Paid project structure (after hiring) Budget: $500 total across four paid milestones. Work is conducted only after onboarding. --- M1 — Research Notes, Angle & Outline — $50 To pass this milestone, your submission must include: 1. A clearly defined target reader, their decision stage, and search intent. 2. At least one genuine information-gain finding that is true, verifiable, and not already covered in current top-ranking articles. 3. At least one original hypothesis worth testing, along with a description of how you would verify it through structured research or first-hand product evaluation (post-hire). 4. A proposed H1/H2/H3 outline. For each section, briefly explain: - why it belongs in the article - what key question it answers for the reader - any suggested tables or visual elements - open questions that still need to be resolved during research A well-formatted outline without original insights, hypotheses, or clear analytical thinking will not pass. We review and approve M1 before moving to drafting. M2 — Full Draft + Source Log + Visual Plan — $50 Requirements for the article: - Clear, human writing with strong product understanding, useful verdicts, and honest tradeoffs - No unsupported claims, invented numbers, vague benefits, generic intros, filler comparisons, or promotional tone - No competitor overpromotion or exaggerated safety framing - No template-style writing All analysis must be grounded in: - first-hand product evaluation (conducted after onboarding) - supported secondary sources where appropriate The article must include: - a structured methodology section explaining how product insights were gathered - a clear verdict and decision guidance - BLUF/TL;DR (≤60 words) at the start of each H2 section - Total Cost of Ownership pricing analysis (not headline pricing) --- Source requirements A source log is required for every claim that may change over time, including: - pricing - feature availability - usage limits - trial conditions - integrations - ratings or review counts - policy or safety-related claims - competitor comparisons Every quoted review must include a direct URL (G2 or Capterra preferred over Trustpilot) and be date-checked for accuracy. Visual/content planning For each visual element, specify: - placement in the article - what it demonstrates - underlying data or source - format (table, chart, screenshot, diagram) - caption idea All visuals must serve a functional purpose: help readers understand, verify, compare, or make decisions. M3 — Revision — $100 Revision based on feedback covering: - factual corrections - structural improvements - missing evidence or sources - clarity and editorial tone M4 — Final Delivery — $300 Final clean Google Doc including: - polished article - full source log - date-checked notes - visual plan - open questions for future updates AI policy AI tools may be used for: 1. organizing notes 2. formatting 3. grammar and clarity improvements 4. summarizing already-collected research AI must not replace: - hands-on product research - first-hand evaluation - reasoning and judgment - original writing Submissions that read as AI-generated summaries of existing ranking pages will not pass evaluation. How to apply 1. Start your proposal with the phrase: "I am not AI tool." 2. Answer all screening questions provided in the job post. *Applications without completed answers to the screening questions will not be considered.* If it goes well, we continue with more articles in the same category.