Pivoting for Cost-Effectiveness: Our Journey from a For-Profit Recruiter (Tälist) to a Nonprofit Career Platform (Altprotein.Jobs)

By PV @ 2025-10-01T20:20 (+5)

Key Takeaways (TL;DR)

Disclosure: In some cases I refer to other organizations without naming them. This is because I haven’t confirmed with them whether they’re comfortable being mentioned. Readers familiar with the space may still recognize them.

 

The Beginning as an Industry-Specific Recruitment Service

Before founding Tälist, we conducted numerous interviews and consistently heard that talent was a major bottleneck for the industry. Companies described finding the right people as highly challenging and, at minimum, a time-consuming process. At the same time, the limited data available—such as this Blue Horizon/BCG report—painted a highly optimistic picture of the sector’s expected growth. We assumed that as the industry scaled, the talent bottleneck would scale alongside it.

When we founded Tälist in 2022, our goal was to build a high-impact, for-profit venture in the alternative protein sector. Our reasoning was:

We started with executive search and recruiting services, securing our first clients and generating revenue from recruitment within the first 6 months. This decision was heavily informed by expert interviews that portrayed an industry-specific recruitment service as a feasible solution. (I will later come back to this point in my lessons learned).

However, we quickly identified limitations in the traditional recruitment model:

  1. Affordability Barrier/Ceiling: Many early-stage startups, Global South organizations, and nonprofits cannot afford premium recruitment services, limiting scope for impact.
  2. Second-order Bottleneck: Executive search/recruitment services usually target crucial roles where the best candidate must be significantly better than what the employer would find alone. This in turn depends on the availability of exceptional recruiters—a bottleneck in itself.
  3. Not Neglected: The recruitment sector is highly crowded and competitive. While there were no industry-specific recruiters in our sector at the time, we saw a strategic advantage in collaborating with established recruiters from adjacent industries rather than competing against them.

 

Pivot Towards AI-Powered Candidate-Job-Matchmaking

Given these constraints, we searched for a solution that was inclusive, scalable, and addressed a neglected need. This led us to explore different talent solutions, eventually focusing on the candidate-job matchmaking platforms proven in more mature industries. Around the same time, discussions with The Good Food Institute (GFI) confirmed the need for a professional job board to replace their existing one, validating our direction.

We decided to make a pivot, which involved bringing on a new co-founder and CTO to lead the technical development, hiring SEADS to build the core AI for the matching algorithm, and building out extensive career resources to attract candidates to our platform.

A matchmaking service is a two-sided platform business; its success depends on building and serving two distinct user groups simultaneously—candidates and employers.

By 2023, we had built the largest global job board for alternative proteins, surpassed our candidate growth targets, and gained international recognition. In 2024, we launched the matchmaking feature, starting with the candidate side only. Our goal was to test quality and effectiveness before offering it as a paid solution to employers. 

We also conducted a thorough impact evaluation for 2024 and published our first Impact Report, which indicated significant positive effects on the candidate side. In short:

Impact: Based on this analysis, we estimated that the platform helped to fill 200+ roles, of which 35+ may have been counterfactual hires. As an anecdotal example, one candidate clicked the “apply” button for a CTO role on our platform and later listed that position on their LinkedIn profile.

 

The Challenge of Sustaining a For-Profit in the Current Alt. Protein market 

While we achieved strong traction on the candidate side, acquiring employers proved more challenging. Part of the delay was due to founder capacity constraints at the time, but more importantly, it reflected a misaligned approach: B2C (candidate) and B2B (employer) acquisition require fundamentally different strategies.

To address this, we undertook professional sales coaching and implemented a comprehensive, multichannel strategy:

Despite these efforts, employer interest remained limited. Even when we removed the cost barrier and offered services for free, demand remained insufficient.

In short, we did not find product-market fit on the employer side, and we wanted to understand the underlying reasons. We did in-depth research and our analysis revealed a significant market downturn and a shift in hiring dynamics since original projections. Key indicators included:

Our conclusion is that while hiring efficiency could still be improved, it is not perceived as a primary pain point by most employers. Many companies are facing broader, existential challenges in a difficult market, and despite some positive developments (e.g. more public funding, increase of patents), we see no signs of a near-term recovery in the alternative protein sector. As a result, we concluded that an employer-facing matchmaking model is neither more impactful nor viable in the current environment compared to candidate-facing services, which have already demonstrated tangible impact.

We briefly considered returning to executive search, but earlier concerns remained valid. Further evidence reinforced this:

As a consequence, we decided to shut down the for-profit entity (Tälist) and transition the platform Altprotein.Jobs into a cost-effective, candidate-facing nonprofit initiative. Concretely, this transition included:

Lessons Learned as a Founder

While market dynamics were a major factor in our pivot, there are several things I would approach differently in hindsight. I hope these reflections are useful for others building impact-driven ventures.

Over-relied on Self-Reported Data

Validation interviews consistently highlighted talent as a bottleneck, but enthusiasm in interviews did not translate into willingness to pay. (It reminded me of Henry Ford’s famous remark that if he had asked people what they wanted, they would have said “faster horses.”)

Key Insight: Move quickly from interviews to real-world testing. Opinions ≠ behavior. This avoids over-investing in solving problems that stakeholders describe as important but won't prioritize with their budgets.

Followed expert advice too closely

We received excellent advice from domain experts. Out of respect for expertise, we often deferred to these recommendations rather than questioning whether they aligned with our overall priorities. In hindsight, modesty can itself be a pitfall: listening to experts is important, but it must be balanced with listening to your own voice. 
Key Insight: A founder’s role is integration. Correct advice in one domain may not be the right strategic priority for the org overall.

Over-Engineered Tools

Early adoption of complex tools (e.g., ClickUp) added overhead without proportional benefit.
Key Insight: Start simple. Adopt complexity only once lightweight solutions are insufficient.

Too involved in daily operations

I often got pulled into execution—like reviewing the work of team members—instead of focusing on higher-leverage activities such as sales, fundraising, and senior networking.

Key Insight: For early-stage ventures, sales, fundraising, and senior-level networking matter far more than operational polish.

Followed the wrong "founder playbook"

I initially followed the "LinkedIn founder playbook": frequent, high-energy posts and aggressive personal branding. For me, it felt like performing a role. It was draining and unsustainable.

Key Insight: Sustainable communication requires authenticity. Align external branding/marketing strategy with founder energy and personality.

 

The Next Chapter

Our nonprofit pivot is not an end, but a strategic realignment. We're currently exploring other ways to accelerate the food transition through career services. We've broadened our scope, encouraging job seekers to consider impactful roles beyond the core movement (e.g., in traditional F&B supply chains). We've also launched an AI career coach to make personalized guidance more scalable and accessible. Beyond maintaining the current platform, we now have the capacity to take on new projects that help accelerate the food transition. 

Initiatives we are currently exploring include fellowships or a centralized mentorship platform. 

As an open question to the community, we ask: 

Where do you see the biggest bottlenecks, and what kind of initiatives would you like to see in the future?