Chaim Tesser advises applied behavior analysis (ABA) agency operators on improving intake and operations, including planning CRM systems before they are built.
Chaim Tesser is most useful for explaining ABA intake bottlenecks and planning CRM workflows before build.
Best for
A healthcare technology company selling CRM and intake workflow software to ABA agency operators.
Not for
Consumer telehealth marketplaces seeking family-facing caregiver content or impression-based campaigns.
Key takeaways
A single intake status hides distinct delays in clinical eligibility, funding, and staffing capacity.
Map the workflow before hiring anyone to build the CRM.
Growth quietly turns the founder into the glue between systems.
Check first: Confirm available formats, audience job roles, and assumptions behind any CRM cost comparison.
Main ideas
A single intake status hides three different delays · Map the workflow before you hire anyone to build the CRM · An internal CRM build is priced in the operator's lost hours, not in saved developer fees
Chaim Tesser advises applied behavior analysis (ABA) agency operators on intake and operational systems, especially how to plan CRM workflows before building them.
In four LinkedIn posts, they write about the gap between an agency’s growth and the manual coordination holding it together: families can be waiting for different reasons, staff may track follow-ups by hand, and a CRM project can fail when planning is skipped.
Follow them for practical examples of how to map those problems and decide what a system should track.
Tesser turns operational friction into specific questions an ABA operator can act on.
One post separates a family’s clinical eligibility, funding, and staffing capacity, showing how a single “in process” label can conceal distinct delays; it recommends separate statuses, owners, and clocks for each track.
Another uses manual follow-up notes, unclear marketing attribution, and a disappointing CRM project to show how owners become the glue between systems.
Their CRM advice emphasizes mapping workflows, assessing risks, and addressing bottlenecks before development.
Software cannot create staff capacity.
The in-house coding versus freelancer cost comparison is an illustrative estimate, not a measured industry result; ask for the assumptions behind it.
Across four posts, Chaim Tesser makes one argument in several forms: ABA agency operations break not because owners lack software, but because no one has separated and assigned the work the software is supposed to carry.
Read more
Intake becomes three independent tracks rather than one pipeline stage; CRM builds become an operations-planning problem before a development problem; and internal builds are costed against the operator's lost hours.
Their priority is the operating model first — statuses, owners, clocks, workflow maps — with the tool chosen or configured afterward.
One agency owner puts it bluntly: staff hand-type a note just to remember a text was sent, a system the owner called "reactive, not productive."
A single intake status hides three different delays
Tesser argues that clinical eligibility, funding approval, and technician capacity move on separate timelines, so a single field such as "in process" cannot tell an operator what is blocking a family.
Read more
Past roughly 40 open inquiries, that field stops being useful.
They propose three status fields, a named owner for each track, and a clock measured per track rather than per family.
The fix is not a better CRM: some waitlist time comes from workforce supply, beyond what software can address.
A family can be cleared for services and approved for 25 hours of care yet still be waiting because no technician is free on Tuesday afternoons in their zip code. On most intake boards, that looks identical to a family still waiting for a diagnostic report.
Map the workflow before you hire anyone to build the CRM
Tesser tells ABA agencies not to hire a CRM builder first.
Read more
They attribute repeated fixes and half-working systems to skipped planning, not incompetent developers or an agency unable to articulate what it wants.
Their sequence: map the current workflow, assess the risks, address bottlenecks, and plan the future state — then hand that blueprint to the CRM team.
Planning belongs to the agency's operations; the build comes later.
Tesser describes agencies going back and forth with a builder, hoping to end up with a mostly working system. They frame the pre-build blueprint as the document that helps get the build right the first time and prepares the agency to scale.
An internal CRM build is priced in the operator's lost hours, not in saved developer fees
Tesser argues against having an operator or IT generalist build the agency's CRM to avoid developer costs, making the case through opportunity cost rather than features.
Read more
They prioritize protecting the operator's own work and bringing in both a professional developer and a technical leader who can architect something that scales. The calculation is illustrative; flaws and ongoing maintenance push the real cost higher.
An operator worth about $125 an hour spends 40 hours building and fixing the tool: $5,000 spent, and the tool still is not finished.
A freelancer at $80 an hour completes it in 20 hours for $1,600.
Tesser calls the $3,400 difference a loss, before maintenance and defects.
The build-versus-buy argument follows Tesser's earlier planning position: the objection is to unplanned building, whether by an outsider or the owner. They also allow that a technical leader may be needed to design the tool, a broader role than the blueprint handoff described elsewhere.
From a series of meetings with ABA agency owners, Tesser identifies a pattern: the technology is supposed to run the agency, but the owner ends up running the technology.
Read more
They frame this as a stage-of-growth problem, not a competence problem: clinicians who became operators were never told that growth would put them in the middle of every system.
They quote one owner's characterization directly.
In their telling, the owners who do best are not the ones with no problems, but those who admit they cannot hold it all themselves and start building something that can.
Three owner accounts: a team hand-types "sent the text on this date" into a note just to remember it happened, which one owner called "reactive, not productive"; an owner spends real money on marketing each month but cannot say which source brings clients who stay; and an agency that paid a consultant to build its CRM for five months ended up close to the spreadsheet it was trying to escape.
Want to see how Chaim Tesser thinks about intake bottlenecks?
Read more
This post separates clinical eligibility, funding, and staff capacity. Its example—a family approved for 25 hours that still cannot start because no technician is free on Tuesday afternoons in their zip code—shows why a single “in process” label can hide very different delays.
The post moves from a concrete scheduling example to a practical diagnosis: one stage field cannot represent three independent tracks.
It proposes separate status fields, a named owner, and a clock for each track.
It also distinguishes delays an agency can track from workforce shortages a tool cannot fix.
For brands planning a campaign
For a healthcare technology company, this is a strong starting point for a webinar or guest article on intake visibility.
Show how separate eligibility, funding, and capacity statuses could help operators identify the next action, without implying software can resolve staff shortages.
The post also flags privacy as a question agencies should address before choosing a tool.
Wondering what operational problems Chaim Tesser focuses on beyond choosing a CRM?
Read more
This post describes owners becoming the people who hold disconnected systems together as their agencies grow. Its examples make the problem tangible: staff manually record that a text was sent, an owner cannot tell which marketing source brings clients who stay, and a five-month CRM project ends up resembling the spreadsheet it was meant to replace.
The piece builds its case through three owner examples, then reframes the issue as dependence on the owner rather than a lack of effort. That framing connects everyday administrative friction to a larger operational risk: the agency works only while the owner personally coordinates its systems.
For brands planning a campaign
This could open a co-marketing conversation about reducing manual coordination, but a campaign should not promise that a CRM alone fixes the problem. Use the examples to ask operators where follow-ups, marketing attribution, or handoffs depend on memory, then show how a planned workflow could address one of those specific points.
Before commissioning an ABA CRM build, what should an agency do first?
Read more
This post answers with planning: map the current workflow, assess risks, address bottlenecks, and plan for the future before development begins.
The headline sounds like a warning against hiring a builder, but the post identifies missing planning—not developer skill or unclear user preferences—as the cause of repeated fixes and incomplete systems. It positions a blueprint as a handoff between agency operations and the CRM team.
For brands planning a campaign
This is a direct fit for guest content or a webinar with a healthcare technology company.
A practical session could walk through a pre-build workflow map and risk checklist.
Keep the focus on planning and handoffs.
Ask whether any particular CRM product or implementation service is endorsed.
Is building a CRM in-house necessarily cheaper than hiring a developer?
Read more
This post compares the time cost of an operator building and fixing a tool with a freelancer's estimated project cost. It gives newcomers a clear example of how Chaim Tesser weighs staff time against software work.
The post makes its argument with a simple calculation: at an estimated $125 per hour, 40 hours of operator time is $5,000; at $80 per hour, 20 freelancer hours is $1,600.
It notes that flaws and ongoing maintenance could add costs.
The comparison is an estimate, not a measured result for a named agency.
For brands planning a campaign
This could support a campaign about deciding when to build, buy, or hire help.
Present the figures as Chaim Tesser's illustrative assumptions, not a general market benchmark.
Invite operators to compare internal labor, implementation, maintenance, and the cost of unresolved workflow problems.
Chaim Tesser argues that a single intake stage such as "in process" obscures what is holding a family back.
Read more
Clinical eligibility, funding approval, and technician capacity move independently, so a family cleared for services and approved for hours can still be waiting because no technician is free on Tuesday afternoons in their zip code.
On most intake boards, that family looks identical to one still waiting on a diagnostic report.
They say the stage field stops being useful at around 40 open inquiries, and propose three status fields instead of one, a named owner for each track, and a clock measured per track rather than per family.
They cite a survey of 78 Michigan families published in Behavior Analysis in Practice, where 73 percent of children spent time on a waitlist ranging from one month to over a year.
Recasts a common operational field as three tracks and supports the argument with a published survey.
The post states plainly that some waitlist time reflects workforce supply, which a tool cannot fix.
For brands planning a campaign
A ready-made webinar or guest-content topic for intake and CRM vendors: why a single pipeline stage loses information, and how a three-track intake model works in practice. The published survey offers a concrete data hook, not just a generic opinion.
Map the processes before hiring anyone to build the CRM
Tesser advises ABA agencies not to hire a CRM builder first.
Read more
They say repeated back-and-forth over fixes happens because planning never happened, not because the CRM developers are incompetent or the agency is unclear about what it wants.
Before any build, they recommend mapping current processes, assessing risks, addressing bottlenecks, and planning for the future.
They offer a full blueprint the agency can hand to its CRM team so the build is right the first time and the agency is prepared to scale.
Pre-build blueprint: map current processes, assess risks, review bottlenecks, and plan the future state.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful for positioning requirements or implementation-discovery services, and for co-marketing content aimed at operators considering CRM software who have not documented their intake or scheduling process.
Do-it-yourself CRM builds look cheap and cost more
In a post about operators or IT staff vibe-coding an ABA CRM, Tesser runs the arithmetic.
Read more
An operator worth roughly $125 an hour who spends 40 hours building and fixing the tool has spent $5,000 and still does not have a finished product.
A freelancer at $80 an hour finishes the same project in 20 hours for $1,600.
They call the difference a $3,400 loss, before counting the tool's likely flaws and ongoing maintenance.
Their recommendation is to have a professional write the code and bring in a technical leader to design and architect the tool so it can scale.
Opportunity-cost comparison: value the operator's time against a developer's hourly rate.
For brands planning a campaign
Strong material for build-versus-buy or cost-of-ownership content, including ROI calculators and case studies aimed at agency owners considering an internal build to save money.
Tesser describes a recurring pattern from meetings with ABA agency owners: the technology is supposed to run the agency, but the owner is the one running the technology.
Read more
They give three examples.
A team types "sent the text on this date" into a note by hand just to remember it happened, which one owner called "reactive, not productive."
Another spends real money on marketing each month and still cannot say which source brings clients who stay.
A third had a consultant build the CRM for five months and ended up close to the spreadsheet the agency was trying to escape.
Their point is that these are capable clinicians who became operators and were never warned that growth would put them in the middle of everything.
The best owners they met were the ones who admitted they could not hold it all and started building systems that could.
A pattern drawn from a series of owner conversations, illustrated with direct examples and a quote.
The examples are anecdotal, drawn from meetings; the agencies are not named.
For brands planning a campaign
A good foundation for empathy-led content about founders' dependence on manual processes, and for testing which operational pain points agency operators recognize in their own language before pitching a software solution.
Format: short problem-framing posts tied to one operational fix
The posts follow a consistent shape.
Read more
Each opens with a blunt or counterintuitive statement about ABA agency operations, explains the specific failure mode, and closes with a named fix or direct next step.
One points readers to a weekly "Operator Notes" write-up for the practical version of the three-track intake model.
Another ends with an explicit invitation to talk before starting a CRM build.
The content targets agency owners and operators rather than clinicians, and relies on concrete numbers and observed examples instead of general advice.
Problem framing, a concrete example, a named fix, and a handoff to a deeper resource or conversation.
For brands planning a campaign
Shows a creator who can carry one operational argument through a short post and direct interested readers to a longer asset—well suited to co-marketing around a webinar, newsletter series, or consultation lead-in.
No named brand, sponsor, client, or commercial partner appears in Chaim Tesser's posts, so there is no relationship to list.
Read more
Two things in the posts are adjacent to commercial relationships but fall short of one.
First, Tesser sells CRM build-planning work directly to ABA agencies — one post tells readers to "speak to me" before hiring a CRM developer for a blueprint — but the posts never name the business or state whether Tesser owns it, works for it, or contracts to it, so no ownership, employment, or client relationship can be established.
Second, the posts reference outside material rather than partner brands: one cites a survey of 78 Michigan families published in Behavior Analysis in Practice, and another points to "this week's Operator Notes" without saying who publishes it or what Tesser's role in it is.
Readers assessing partnership fit should treat the posts as showing subject-matter focus on ABA intake and CRM planning, not as showing existing brand relationships.
Chaim Tesser writes short, argument-first posts about how ABA agencies run.
Read more
Across these four posts, the operating model comes before the tool: intake is treated as three separate tracks rather than one pipeline stage, a CRM build as a planning problem before a development problem, and an internal build is costed against the hours the owner loses rather than the developer fee avoided.
Start with the intake post about three statuses instead of one: it carries the fullest argument and points to a longer weekly write-up called Operator Notes.
Then read the two CRM posts together: the recommendation to map the workflow before hiring a builder and the arithmetic against do-it-yourself builds make the same case from two directions.
Finish with the post drawn from owner conversations, which gives the bluntest phrasing of the problem and the clearest statement of who Tesser thinks succeeds.
Watch for the recurring structure: a specific failure mode, a concrete example or number, then a named fix or an invitation to talk before building anything.
ABA agency operationsABA intake workflowsWaitlists and technician capacityCRM build planningBuild-versus-buy decisionsMapping the workflow before a buildThe founder as the operational bottleneckCosting decisions in the owner's lost hoursShort-form LinkedIn postsProblem, example, then a named fixOperator Notes weekly write-upABA agency ownersAgency operators and clinical directors
Omar makes the same kind of move Tesser makes, aimed at a different corner of healthcare: take one administrative problem, put a price on it in staff hours and dollars, and argue from the arithmetic rather than product features.
Read more
Omar's prior-authorization post counts 7 to 14 days of clinical staff time per authorization, puts the replacement cost of a burned-out physician near $500K, and compares an AI employee at about $2 an hour with the $41-an-hour admin doing the work today.
Tesser does the equivalent for CRM builds, weighing an operator's $125 hourly value against a freelancer's $80 rate.
Both open with a blunt, quotable claim and defend it in a short post.
Omar writes about AI adoption economics inside health systems, including the split between AI that increases hospital revenue and AI that saves society money.
One post centres on a specific vendor's cost comparison.
His reader is a health-system decision-maker; he writes from inside that market, not as an advisor to small agency owners.
Tesser focuses on ABA agency operations: intake status design, technician capacity, CRM sequencing, and the founder's own time.
Ali describes the same trap Tesser names when Tesser says growth quietly turns the founder into the glue.
Read more
Ali's post about getting sick as a freelancer walks through a business with no redundancy in it, where every deliverable routes through one person and the only alternative to working through illness is a client not getting what they paid for, and then describes carrying that lesson into an agency where sales, strategy, and client relationships stay with the owner while fulfillment does not. Both argue that fulfillment has to survive without the founder standing in the middle of it, and both use a small real incident rather than an abstract principle.
Ali sells the fix directly, as a done-for-you backend or white-label delivery team for marketing agencies.
His posts are long, hash-formatted case studies that end with a comment or direct-message lead magnet.
Tesser's recommendations are structural and pre-purchase; his calls to action are a weekly write-up or a conversation before an agency starts a build.
Ali's audience is solo social media managers and content marketing agencies, not ABA operators working within clinical and funding constraints.
Hunt gives agency owners the same flavour of advice Tesser gives ABA operators: name one operational decision, cost it in the owner's hours, and recommend removing it rather than optimising around it.
Read more
His post about a $1.8M agency owner with twelve things to fix argues that nineteen hours a week in unqualified sales calls matters more than saving thirty minutes on a content review.
His post about a $2.1M owner argues against adding a service line just because clients ask.
Tesser's post about a founder holding a dozen systems together in their head, and his request-based reasoning for a CRM build, follow the same discipline.
Hunt advises marketing and SEO agency owners on service-line strategy and scaling past five million dollars.
His examples cover which services to sell and which founder activities to hand off.
Tesser's cases focus on ABA agency intake, scheduling capacity, funding tracks, and the sequence of a CRM build.
Hunt stays in the same business-development register throughout, while Tesser alternates between operational critique and the point that some waitlist time reflects workforce supply and no tool will fix it.
For a healthcare technology company planning a co-marketing webinar or guest content for ABA agency operators, Chaim Tesser is relevant at the topic level: LinkedIn posts speak directly to ABA owners and operators about intake bottlenecks, CRM build planning, and manual workflows.
Read more
The only audience-size figure published in the posts here is a LinkedIn follower count of about 3,458 as of October 11, 2026.
The posts do not verify audience job titles, employer type, seniority, or geography.
If a campaign needs to reach people with those attributes, ask whether they have recent audience survey results or another source covering job role, agency size, and location.
Request results from comparable ABA intake or CRM content, too, along with any survey showing the share of ABA owners or operators in the audience.
Across four LinkedIn posts, Chaim Tesser describes ABA agency operations, intake bottlenecks, CRM planning, and technical build choices, but does not set out sponsorship packages, paid partnership formats, media kit terms, rates, or an inquiry route.
Read more
The posts point readers toward their “Operator Notes” work and offer help with CRM blueprints—content and service offers, not documented sponsorships.
They disclose no brand partnership examples, sponsor requirements, or official collaboration process.
Buyers should ask directly about available formats and the collaboration process.
A healthcare technology company selling CRM and intake workflow software to ABA agency operators wants to reach them through co-marketing: a joint webinar or guest content on intake bottlenecks and CRM build planning.
Reasons
Chaim Tesser writes directly to ABA agency owners and operators about the decisions in this brief. Their three-track intake argument—clinical eligibility, funding, and technician capacity moving on separate clocks—is a ready-made session topic for an intake software vendor, grounded in a published survey of 78 Michigan families rather than opinion alone.
The pre-build blueprint post gives a webinar on intake bottlenecks and CRM build planning a complementary segment: map the workflow, assess risks, address bottlenecks, plan the future state, then hand the blueprint to the CRM team. It’s a natural vendor-neutral agenda item that sets up a product conversation without turning the webinar into a demo.
The build-versus-hire post offers a third angle for a healthcare technology audience: what an internal build really costs in operator time versus paying for professional development, and why architecture matters for scaling.
The founder-as-glue post shows how Chaim Tesser can open with empathy rather than a pitch. The three owner examples—hand-typed notes, unclear marketing attribution, and a five-month CRM build that ended up like the spreadsheet it replaced—are the kind of specifics that can hold an operator audience through the first ten minutes.
The posts follow a repeatable format: a blunt opening claim, one named failure mode, concrete numbers or examples, then a handoff to a longer asset or direct conversation. That suits a webinar-and-guest-content plan, not just a one-off placement.
Conditions
No sponsorship packages, rates, media kit, or partnership inquiry route appear in the four posts. Ask Tesser directly which formats are available.
The only published audience figure is a LinkedIn follower count of about 3,458 as of October 11, 2026. Ask for audience survey results or performance data from comparable intake or CRM content before committing budget; the follower count alone does not show whether the audience includes ABA owners and operators.
The posts show a content and service offer—the weekly Operator Notes write-up and CRM blueprint help—rather than a documented brand partnership history. Plan the collaboration as a content engagement, not a pre-priced media buy.
When to choose a specialist
Poor fit.
Read more
Brief
A national consumer telehealth marketplace wants family-facing content to help parents find and start ABA services, distributed to a large, verified caregiver audience at a defined cost per thousand impressions.
Reasons
The audience is wrong for this brief. Every post is written to ABA agency owners and operators, not parents or caregivers. The three-track intake post explains an internal board field; the CRM posts address build, hire, and planning decisions inside an agency. None speaks to a family choosing a provider.
The available information gives one account and a LinkedIn follower count of about 3,458, observed October 11, 2026, but no engagement or reach data. Ask for verified impression data before planning a campaign priced on impressions.
There is no commercial mechanism to buy. The posts here document no paid partnership formats, no sponsored placements, and no partnership inquiry route, so a request for sponsorship has nothing to attach to.
The tone works against the goal. These posts frame operator problems and invite readers to discuss a CRM blueprint. That reads as vendor content to a consumer audience and would need rewriting for caregivers, losing the specific operational value that makes the material credible.
What would change this
Posts here do not say that a meaningful share of the audience is caregivers or families.
The posts here do not show a parent- or patient-facing body of work.
A worked campaign example
Angle
The intake board is lying to you: why one stage field hides three different waits, and what to plan before you buy or build anything.
Campaign
Co-marketing webinar and guest article for an ABA CRM and intake software vendor, aimed at ABA agency operators.
Guardrails
State plainly that some waitlist time reflects workforce supply, which no tool can fix. One post says this directly; skipping it would overpromise.
Present the build-versus-hire figures as illustrative assumptions at $125 and $80 an hour, not as a market benchmark. The post frames them as an estimate.
Address the privacy question that the intake post says most agencies answer only after buying a tool; don’t treat it as a footnote.
Do not present the vendor’s software as a solution to eligibility, funding, or staffing constraints. The posts support workflow visibility and planning, not outcome guarantees.
Keep the blueprint vendor-neutral during the webinar. Make the commercial ask after operators recognize the planning gap, not in the opening.
Guest article outline
A short piece titled around the three-track intake idea, using the survey of 78 Michigan families published in Behavior Analysis in Practice—73 percent spent time on a waitlist, from one month to over a year—as the data hook. Use the planning checklist from the blueprint post as a practical takeaway.
Session structure
Open with the concrete case: a family cleared for services and approved for 25 hours is still waiting because no technician is free on Tuesday afternoons in their zip code. They sit in the same board column as a family waiting on an unwritten diagnostic report.
Walk through the fix as a planning exercise, not a product feature: three status fields instead of one, a named owner for each track, and a clock for each track rather than each family.
Start with the pre-build step: map the current workflow, assess risks, address bottlenecks, plan the future state, then hand the blueprint to the CRM team to get the build right the first time.
Use the founder-dependence examples to build empathy: hand-typed notes recording that a text was sent; marketing spend with no view of which source brings clients who stay; and a five-month build that drifted back toward the old spreadsheet.
Close with the build-versus-hire arithmetic as an operator decision aid: compare operator hours valued against a freelancer's estimated project cost, then weigh the flaws and maintenance that follow a do-it-yourself build.
Setup steps
Ask Tesser whether co-marketing, a guest article, or a webinar slot is available, and on what terms.
Request recent audience evidence, such as survey results or performance data from comparable ABA intake or CRM content. Follower count alone does not establish operator composition.
Ask about the Operator Notes newsletter or write-up referenced in one post as a possible distribution channel for the article.
Why it works
The posts make one strong observation: clinical eligibility, funding, and technician capacity move independently but collapse into an identical "in process" label. They pair it with the pre-build planning operators need to accept before a software conversation makes sense.
Ahmed Omar is the better choice when the vendor’s priority is a health-system or healthcare-executive audience and a revenue-ROI framing around administrative work.
Read more
The two posts focus on healthcare AI adoption and prior authorization: one quotes Taha Kass-Hout on hospitals adopting AI that makes them more money; the other calculates prior-auth time, clinician turnover, and the cost gap between an administrative worker and an AI employee.
For an ABA CRM vendor, this is useful if the campaign should reach larger provider organizations, billing and prior-auth stakeholders, or executives who decide automation budgets, rather than only private ABA agency owners.
The same buyer task—helping an operations buyer see why intake and administrative workflow software matters—can be pitched as prior-auth and administrative-cost reduction.
The tradeoff is relevance to ABA agency operators.
Chaim Tesser’s posts focus on health systems and prior authorization, not clinical eligibility, funding, technician capacity, ABA intake boards, or CRM build planning.
An ABA-specific webinar or guest article would need heavy translation and could lose the operator-level specificity that makes the founder’s intake argument useful.
If the buyer task is reaching ABA owners who evaluate CRM and intake workflow tools, Ahmed Omar is a weaker direct match unless the vendor also sells into health systems or wants a prior-auth angle.
Syed Subhan Ali is the better choice when the vendor wants to reach marketing, creative, or service agency owners deciding how to build delivery capacity—not ABA operators specifically.
Read more
One post is a detailed case study of a content marketing agency moving fulfillment to an outside delivery system; the other tells a freelancer-to-agency story about one person being the only redundancy and the need to build a backend team before a bad day puts clients at risk.
For a CRM or workflow software vendor, this opens a broader agency-ops campaign about systemizing delivery, outsourcing, and reducing founder dependence.
It is adjacent to the founder-as-glue theme but aimed at a general agency audience.
The tradeoff is clinical and ABA specificity.
The posts focus on fulfillment outsourcing and backend teams rather than software purchase decisions, and do not mention ABA, intake, eligibility, funding, technician scheduling, or healthcare CRM.
A vendor targeting ABA agency operators would reach agency owners but need to reframe the offer around general agency operations, which may not select for buyers with ABA intake problems.
Kyle Hunt is the better choice when the campaign needs an agency-growth and service-line-discipline angle for agency founders.
Read more
One post advises a $2.1M agency owner not to add SEO as a fifth service line and to build referral partners instead; the other tells a $1.8M agency owner to ignore small calendar optimizations and fix the 19 hours a week spent on unqualified sales calls.
For a CRM or ops software vendor, these posts support a webinar or guest piece about removing operational drag, deciding what not to deliver, and reallocating founder time.
This is a useful complement if the vendor wants to speak to agency owners about capacity and focus before introducing a workflow product.
The tradeoff is that the posts cover marketing agency service lines, sales qualification, and founder time allocation—not ABA intake or healthcare workflows. An ABA CRM vendor could use the operational-focus framing, but would need to supply the clinical and intake substance; the audience may be general agency owners rather than ABA operators.
