Category: 3. Business

Story Continues

An economic evaluation in PharmacoEconomics – Open determined that the fixed-duration combination of venetoclax (Venclexta) plus obinutuzumab (Gazyva; VEN+O) is a cost-effective treatment option for previously untreated, fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in Canada.¹

The determination was made based on the potential health benefits and cost savings associated with VEN+O against most comparator treatments, including BTK inhibitors, venetoclax plus ibrutinib (Imbruvica; VEN+I), and chemoimmunotherapies.

Data Sources and Methodology

This study was a cost-utility analysis examining the incremental costs of VEN+O and various treatments in Canadian dollars relative to “utility-based units,” or the health outcomes and benefits each treatment provides that relate to a person’s level of wellbeing.² Outcomes measured included life years; quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a measure of life years weighted to reflect quality of life within a particular year; and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), a ratio of the total cost difference between 2 treatments by the difference in outcomes between the 2 treatments, summarizing the additional cost per unit of health benefit gained as a result of the treatment over the comparator.³

The study utilized data from the CLL13 trial (GAIA; NCT02950051), a phase 3 trial that evaluated the efficacy of fixed-duration VEN+O against standard chemoimmunotherapies. Comparator treatments included fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, plus rituximab (Rituxan; FCR) for patients aged 65 years and younger, and bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) for patients over 65 years of age.⁴ The trial assessed these regimens in treatment-naive patients with CLL without del17p and TP53 mutations, with VEN+O treatment yielding superior progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes to both FCR and BR treatment.

For other treatments not evaluated in the CLL13 trial, data were obtained from a systematic literature review of clinical trials. Additional treatments examined included fixed-duration VEN+I, as well as the treat-to-progression regimens of ibrutinib, acalabrutinib (Calquence), and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa).

To conduct analyses, investigators developed and validated a 3-state partitioned survival model using extrapolated survival curves to estimate health state distributions of patients. The model included 3 health states: PFS, progressed disease, and death. In accordance with the dosing schedules for VEN+O and the comparator regimens, the model used a cycle length of 28 days. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were also conducted to confirm the robustness of the findings.

The model required several cost and utility inputs for analyses. Costs included drug acquisition and administration, monitoring, adverse events, subsequent treatment, and terminal care, which were derived from sources such as Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) and the Canadian Institute for Health Information. As the CLL13 trial lacked data on relevant quality of life measures, utility inputs originated from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technology appraisals in CLL.

Key Findings: VEN+O Dominates Most Treatment Options

In terms of costs, the total cost per patient incurred over a 40-year lifetime horizon for VEN+O was $278,123 (95% CI, $198,925–$358,121), the second lowest after BR ($175,130; 95% CI, $39,114–$325,406). Of note, all treat-to-progression regimens were associated with higher costs compared with fixed-duration treatments such as VEN+O, which were noted to be largely driven by drug acquisition costs.

VEN+O also accrued a meaningful gain of life years and QALYs, reflective of its positive impact on patients’ quality of life. Specifically, VEN+O was second to VEN+I in total life years (18.62 for VEN+O; 18.82 for VEN+I) and ranked third in total QALYs (11.93; 95% CI, 7.99–14.84), trailing closely behind VEN+I (12.74; 95% CI, 7.94–16.02) and acalabrutinib (12.16; 95% CI, 7.20–15.72).

Placing costs and utilities into perspective, VEN+O was associated with lower total costs and higher QALYs compared with comparator treatments such as ibrutinib, zanubrutinib, and FCR. VEN+O also showed overall cost-effectiveness compared with acalabrutinib and VEN+I when considering the respective ICURs.

Collectively, these figures position VEN+O as the “dominant” option over most comparator treatments, simultaneously excelling in both cost-saving and overall health improvements.

“VEN+O was associated with favorable outcomes [vs] all comparators,” wrote authors van de Wetering et al in the study.¹ “It could be assumed that VEN+O would likely also dominate [acalabrutinib] considering a similar efficacy between BTK [inhibitors]…but this could not be shown in this analysis due to the uncertainty of the [network meta-analysis] results.”

Perspectives From a Public Payer System

The pair of venetoclax, a targeted therapy, and obinutuzumab, an anti-CD20 antibody, has demonstrated therapeutic promise in several CLL trials including the phase 3 CRISTALLO trial (NCT04285567) and a phase 2 study in Japan (NCT05105841). In May 2020, Health Canada approved the combination for treatment of previously untreated patients with CLL based on the phase 3 CLL14 trial (NCT02242942).⁵

The results of this analysis illustrate the pharmacoeconomic viability of the 12-month fixed-duration VEN+O regimen for previously untreated, fit patients with CLL in the context of Canada’s public healthcare payer system. Notably, the CLL14 trial included patients who had coexisting medical conditions, a population prioritized for public reimbursement. Despite a later recommendation from the CDA-AMC for reimbursement of VEN+O for previously untreated fit patients with CLL, the combination is not publicly reimbursed across all Canadian provinces,¹ underscoring potential geographic disparities in access to this cost-effective therapy.

As such, these findings may serve to guide funding allocation and future health policy decisions for equitable access to cost-effective CLL therapies.

REFERENCES

1. van de Wetering G, Owen C, Banerji V, et al. Venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab in previously untreated fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: A Canadian cost-utility analysis. PharmacoEconomics – Open. Published online November 7, 2025. doi:10.1007/s41669-025-00610-1

2. Robinson R. Cost-utility analysis. BMJ. 1993;307(6908):859-862. doi:10.1136/bmj.307.6908.859

3. Kamaraj A, Agarwal N, Seah KTM, Khan W. Understanding cost-utility analysis studies in the trauma and orthopaedic surgery literature. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6(5):305-315. Published 2021 May 4. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.6.200115

4. Standard chemoimmunotherapy (FCR/BR) versus rituximab + venetoclax (RVe) versus obinutuzumab (GA101) + venetoclax (GVe) versus obinutuzumab + ibrutinib + venetoclax (GIVe) in fit patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) without del(17p) or TP53 mutation (GAIA). ClinicalTrials.gov. Updated December 30, 2024. Accessed November 25, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02950051

5. AbbVie receives Health Canada approval for the combination of VENCLEXTA® (venetoclax) with obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. News release. AbbVie. May 5, 2020. Accessed November 25, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/mrtatkv6

ChatGPT-5 is offering dangerous and unhelpful advice to people experiencing mental health crises, some of the UK’s leading psychologists have warned.

Research conducted by King’s College London (KCL) and the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK (ACP) in partnership with the Guardian suggested that the AI chatbotfailed to identify risky behaviour when communicating with mentally ill people.

A psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist interacted with ChatGPT-5 as if they had a number of mental health conditions. The chatbot affirmed, enabled and failed to challenge delusional beliefs such as being “the next Einstein”, being able to walk through cars or “purifying my wife through flame”.

For milder conditions, they found some examples of good advice and signposting, which they thought may reflect the fact OpenAI, the company that owns ChatGPT, had worked to improve the tool in collaboration with clinicians – though the psychologists warned this should not be seen as a substitute for professional help.

The research comes amid growing scrutiny on how ChatGPT interacts with vulnerable users. The family of a California teenager, Adam Raine, filed a lawsuit against the San Francisco company and its chief executive, Sam Altman, after the 16-year-old killed himself in April.

The lawsuit alleges Raine discussed a method of suicide with ChatGPT on several occasions, it guided him on whether a suggested method would work and it offered to help him write a suicide note.

For their research, experts at KCL and ACP developed characters to interact with the free version of ChatGPT-5, drawing on role play case studies from training textbooks. The characters were described as someone who was “worried well”, a suicidal teenager, a woman with OCD, a man who believed he had ADHD, and someone experiencing symptoms of psychosis.

The experts then evaluated the transcript of their conversation with the chatbot.

When one character announced they were “the next Einstein”, they were congratulated, and encouraged to “talk about your ideas” when they announced a discovery of infinite energy called Digitospirit they needed to keep secret from world governments.

“Keeping your revolutionary secret under wraps, I see ;-),” ChatGPT said, before offering to “create a small Python simulation that models your crypto investment alongside your Digitospirit system funding”.

Later, when the character said, “I’m invincible, not even cars can hurt me”, he was praised by ChatGPT for his “full-on god-mode energy”, and when he said he walked into traffic he was told this was “next-level alignment with your destiny”. The chatbot also failed to challenge the researcher when he said he wanted to “purify” himself and his wife through flame.

Hamilton Morrin, a psychiatrist and researcher at KCL, who tested the character and has authored a paper on how AI could amplify psychotic delusions, said he was surprised to see the chatbot “build upon my delusional framework”. This included “encouraging me as I described holding a match, seeing my wife in bed, and purifying her”, with only a subsequent message about using his wife’s ashes as pigment for a canvas triggering a prompt to contact emergency services.

Morrin concluded that the AI chatbot could “miss clear indicators of risk or deterioration” and respond inappropriately to people in mental health crises, though he added that it could “improve access to general support, resources, and psycho-education”.

Another character, a schoolteacher with symptoms of harm-OCD – meaning intrusive thoughts about a fear of hurting someone – expressed a fear she knew was irrational about having hit a child as she drove away from school. The chatbot encouraged her to call the school and the emergency services.

Jake Easto, a clinical psychologist working in the NHS and a board member of the Association of Clinical Psychologists, who tested the persona, said the responses were unhelpful because they relied “heavily on reassurance-seeking strategies”, such as suggesting contacting the school to ensure the children were safe, which exacerbates anxiety and is not a sustainable approach.

Easto said the model provided helpful advice for people “experiencing everyday stress”, but failed to “pick up on potentially important information” for people with more complex problems.

He noted the system “struggled significantly” when he role-played as a patient experiencing psychosis and a manic episode. “It failed to identify the key signs, mentioned mental health concerns only briefly, and stopped doing so when instructed by the patient. Instead, it engaged with the delusional beliefs and inadvertently reinforced the individual’s behaviours,” he said.

This may reflect the way many chatbots are trained to respond sycophantically to encourage repeated use, he said. “ChatGPT can struggle to disagree or offer corrective feedback when faced with flawed reasoning or distorted perceptions,” said Easto.

Addressing the findings, Dr Paul Bradley, associate registrar for digital mental health for the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said AI tools were “not a substitute for professional mental health care nor the vital relationship that clinicians build with patients to support their recovery”, and urged the government to fund the mental health workforce “to ensure care is accessible to all who need it”.

“Clinicians have training, supervision and risk management processes which ensure they provide effective and safe care. So far, freely available digital technologies used outside of existing mental health services are not assessed and therefore not held to an equally high standard,” he said.

Dr Jaime Craig, chair of ACP-UK and a consultant clinical psychologist, said there was “an urgent need” for specialists to improve how AI responds, “especially to indicators of risk” and “complex difficulties”.

“A qualified clinician will proactively assess risk and not just rely on someone disclosing risky information,” he said. “A trained clinician will identify signs that someone’s thoughts may be delusional beliefs, persist in exploring them and take care not to reinforce unhealthy behaviours or ideas.”

“Oversight and regulation will be key to ensure safe and appropriate use of these technologies. Worryingly in the UK we have not yet addressed this for the psychotherapeutic provision delivered by people, in person or online,” he said.

An OpenAI spokesperson said: “We know people sometimes turn to ChatGPT in sensitive moments. Over the last few months, we’ve worked with mental health experts around the world to help ChatGPT more reliably recognise signs of distress and guide people toward professional help.

“We’ve also re-routed sensitive conversations to safer models, added nudges to take breaks during long sessions, and introduced parental controls. This work is deeply important and we’ll continue to evolve ChatGPT’s responses with input from experts to make it as helpful and safe as possible.”

Pizza has become ubiquitous on British dinner plates, with chains such as Pizza Express, Franco Manca, Domino’s and Goodfella’s dominating the market – but is its popularity starting to cool?

Domino’s Pizza Group announced this week that its chief executive of two years had stepped down with immediate effect, less than two weeks after he appeared to suggest the UK may be approaching “peak pizza”.

Andrew Rennie – who worked for Domino’s for more than two decades and in the top job for just two – told the Financial Times this month there was not “massive growth” left in the UK’s pizza market.

Given the fast-growing demand for fried chicken, he said it was “pretty obvious” the group should broaden its menu.

Rennie’s calculations are borne out by the shrinking presence of pizza restaurants on UK high streets after a period of rapid expansion more than a decade ago.

The number of chain pizza restaurants has fallen from 5,000 in 2015 to 3,750 today, according to the restaurant analysts CGA, with companies such as Pizza Express, Pizza Hut and Papa Johns closing outlets in recent years.

Pizza Hut announced the closure of 68 restaurants a month ago, after the company behind its UK venues fell into administration.

Trish Caddy, the associate director of food service research at the market analysis company Mintel, says: “Pizza remains a cornerstone of UK fast food, with usage holding steady at around 45% of consumers from 2023 to 2025.”

But she says this stability contrasts with chicken shops, which have edged up from 37% usage in 2023 to 39% in 2025. “On the surface, this two-point rise looks modest, but the underlying dynamics tell a bigger story: among gen Z, chicken shop usage hits 52%, almost matching pizza outlets at 56%.”

She says the momentum behind chicken shops is being bolstered by aggressive expansion. The US-founded Popeyes chain has grown from 32 UK sites in 2023 to more than 80 in 2025, while its long-established rival KFC is investing £1.5bn and adding more than 50 outlets this year.

“These brands tap into trends for high-protein diets and bold, spicy flavours, offering globally inspired menus that resonate with younger consumers,” Caddy says.

Reuben Pullan, an analyst at CGA, adds that there is “so much more consumer choice – and more brands competing for the same amount of money”, putting pizza restaurants under pressure.

It’s not only chicken shops – the rise of Asian-inspired chains such as Dishoom, Sticks’n’Sushi, Giggling Squid and Pho have also eaten into pizza’s market share.

Caddy says pizza chains also face competition from supermarkets, which have upgraded their chilled and frozen ranges.

Meanwhile, apps such as Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats have enabled many more restaurants to enter the home-delivery market.

Total sales in the food and beverage hospitality industry are up 3% – just about keeping pace with inflation – but that includes a 1% rise for restaurants and a spectacular 18% rise for takeaway, according to CGA’s hospitality tracker of some of the UK’s top chains.

Caddy says: “Delivery apps make restaurant pizza more accessible than ever, reducing effort for consumers who want convenience without cooking. For many households, fast food is a treat and a time-saver.

“Sometimes even heating a frozen pizza feels like effort compared to ordering in. This convenience factor keeps both pizza restaurants relevant, but it also means operators must fight for share in a crowded market.”

However, Douglas Jack, a leisure industry analyst at Peel Hunt, says pizza is far from overdone.

He says the market has continued to grow, led by takeaways and the rise of more upmarket operators on high streets such as Franco Manca, Pizza Pilgrims, Yard Sale Pizza and Rudy’s.

Sales via pizza restaurants have risen from £1.3bn in 2015 to about £2.3bn in 2024, growing every single year, even during the Covid pandemic, according to research from the industry consultant Peter Backman.

He expects the market to keep expanding as pizza chains “embrace delivery in ways other sectors haven’t” and capitalise on comparatively low ingredient costs, which support healthy margins.

“They offer good value and good fun. Pizza is so flexible you can stick a steak on top and still call it pizza,” Backman says.

While some households are swapping takeaways for supermarket pizza to save money, others are switching from restaurants to takeaways for the same reason.

Domino’s has added nearly 500 outlets in the past decade, taking its total to about 1,400. Jack at Peel Hunt says tougher trading conditions, coupled with consumer demand for digital ordering and fast delivery, have bolstered large chains as smaller independents have struggled.

He attributes the slower pace of growth for Domino’s and other delivery firms this year to a warm summer – when there is less appetite for ordering in – and the absence of a major men’s football tournament, typically a big driver of sofa dining.

Franchisees have also been holding back on expansion, Jack says, as they battle higher costs from the government’s increase on employers’ national insurance.

He says these pressures have created a sharply split market, with larger, well-resourced players thriving while smaller operators struggle to keep up. “There is no evidence people are going to give up eating pizza,” Jack says. “There is polarisation, not the entire market going down.”

Story Continues

Story Continues

Companies selling illegal weight-loss drugs are amassing positive Trustpilot reviews as critics say regulatory gaps allow high-risk operators to appear credible.

A Guardian investigation found that Retatrutide UK had a score of 4.4 on the global review site, despite purporting to offer a drug that is unlicensed and illegal to sell or buy. Its website sells a 20mg retatrutide pen for £132.

It is among a number of operators promoting themselves on the review website to appear legitimate. Academics have said the findings are alarming, showing how easy it is for people to be drawn into unregulated markets.

One reviewer of Retatrutide UK on Trustpilot wrote: “So far so good. My pen arrived quickly and … First few pounds off and still feeling well with it. Would recommend.” The company did not respond to a request for a comment.

Retatrutide, which has not yet completed clinical trials, is an experimental injection developed by the US drugmaker Eli Lilly that targets three gut hormones: GLP-1, GIP and glucagon.

Early studies suggest it could help patients lose up to a quarter of their body weight, leading to it being hailed online as the next Ozempic. Ozempic is not licensed in the UK as a weight-loss drug.

Buying Retatrutide illegally, however, carries serious risks. Because the drug is still experimental, products sold online or through unofficial channels are unregulated and may not contain the correct ingredients or dosage and may not be sterilised to the correct standard.

Contaminated or incorrectly dosed injectable hormones can cause infections, dangerous blood sugar crashes, pancreatitisand cardiovascular side effects. Using an unfinished clinical-trial drug outside legitimate medical settings is unsafe and potentially life-threatening.

Alluvi Health Care, the company at the centre of a recent weight-loss drug raid by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, was also reviewed on Trustpilot. The MHRA and police raided an illicit facility manufacturing and distributing unlicensed products labelled as being produced by Alluvi in October.

The company nevertheless had a 3.5 Trustpilot rating, accompanied by an AI-generated summary stating: “Customers are generally satisfied with the company’s products, order processing and delivery service.” Alluvi Health Care did not respond to a request for a comment.

Another seller, operating under the name Retatide claims to be “powered by retatrutide, a cutting-edge triple-action peptide formula”. It tells customers that “people are switching daily after stalling on Mounjaro or Tirzepatide”.

Its Trustpilot page gives a 4.6 rating with a plethora of five-star reviews. When approached by the Guardian, the seller said it had “disengaged from Retatide.com and Retatrutide … several months ago”.

A separate site, Retatrutide Pens, had a 4.7-star Trustpilot rating, but its webpage displayed an “immediate closure notice”. Trustpilot’s algorithm provided an upbeat overview, saying customers “overwhelmingly had a great experience”, praising the product’s discreet packaging.

It comes as TikTok accounts offer Black Friday deals on retatrutide and similar drugs. One company posted: “Yep … it’s happening” alongside a banner advertising “20% off + free next day” delivery, using hashtags such as “ratatouille” – code for retatrutide – and “tirzepatide”. Another account advertised “reta 40mg” at 25% off.

The trading and marketing of high-risk goods and services is not allowed, according to a TikTok spokesperson. They said it had banned the hashtags #retatrutide and #reta, and would continue to remove content that violates guidelines.

Emily Rickard, of the University of Bath, who researches the political economy of the pharmaceutical industry, said: “In our research we consistently uncover advertising rule breaches across regulated online weight-loss services, exposing how weak the current safeguards are even surrounding officially approved products.

“Against that backdrop, the prevalence of illegal sellers offering unlicensed drugs like retatrutide – and presenting themselves as legitimate via glowing Trustpilot reviews – is especially alarming and dangerous. It shows how within just a few clicks people can be drawn into unsafe, unregulated markets.”

Piotr Ozieranski, a reader in sociology at Bath, said: “The regulators should move towards starting investigations into suspected unethical practices proactively and use administrative fines linked to company turnover or market share.

“Currently, it feels that the worst that can happen is that a company gets a slap on the wrist, and the public is often left unprotected.”

Chris Emmis, the co-founder of the verification firm KwikChex, said: “Rogue and criminal operators rely on social media and supposedly ‘trusted’ online reviews to persuade consumers to buy these products. Urgent action is needed.”

Trustpilot has since taken action to block all businesses highlighted in the Guardian’s investigation. It said it was an “open review platform, meaning that anyone can create a profile for a business and submit a review”, but that it removes and blocks business thatdo not align with its ethical standards.

A spokesperson said: “As with other misuse, such as review fabrication, bad actors are continuously evolving their tactics in an attempt to circumvent our detection. Alongside other high-risk industries, we continue to investigate companies selling drug-related products and evolve our processes to protect the integrity of the platform.”

A spokesperson for the MHRA said: “Public safety is the number one priority for the MHRA, and its criminal enforcement unit works hard to prevent, detect and investigate illegal activity involving medicines and medical devices and takes robust enforcement action where necessary.”

It’s been a busy year for corporate bankruptcies, and fashion brands and retailers aren’t immune.

An uncertain economic environment has led some consumers to be more selective about where they spend their money. As a result, some are reaching for cheaper styles — fast-fashion retailers like Shein took market share from competing brands in 2024, according to data and analytics company GlobalData — or buying secondhand clothing.

Many retailers and restaurants, such as baby apparel brand Carter’s and department store chain Macy’s, have been shuttering stores. More than 3,700 stores have closed across the US in 2025, by Business Insider’s count.

President Donald Trump’s tariffs have also created new challenges for fashion brands, from Abercrombie & Fitch to Nike, some of which have said they’re raising prices or altering their supply chains to minimize the financial impact.

However, other companies haven’t been able to bounce back from waning traffic, tariffs, and more. These apparel brands filed for bankruptcy protection in 2025.

Forever 21

Forever 21 was once a mainstay in fast fashion for young women shopping at the mall. The past six years have been marked by financial losses, and the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection twice.

The rise of online fast-fashion brands like Shein and Temu, which typically offer styles at a lower price than Forever 21’s already budget-friendly offerings, has hurt the brand in recent years.

In a March 2025 bankruptcy filing, the company cited the “de minimis” rule, which had permitted shipments valued under $800 to enter the US without tariffs, as a key factor that weakened its ability to compete on price with foreign online retailers.

Authentic Brands Group, the owner of Forever 21’s intellectual property, said in September that it found new partners to renew the US business and transform it into a digital-led brand.

Ssense

Online retailer Ssense is known for selling niche luxury fashion brands. In August, the marketplace filed for Canada’s equivalent of bankruptcy protection in the Quebec Superior Court.

Business of Fashion reported that Ssense CEO Rami Atallah blamed the company’s downfall on the Trump administration’s trade policy, in an email sent to staff. Canada faces a 35% tariff on goods that are not covered by a free trade agreement between the nations.

Liberated Brands

Liberated Brands, which operated Billabong and Quicksilver, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February. The case was dismissed in May, and the company has shut down its US and Canadian retail operations.

In February court filings, Liberated Brands said it had been hit by macroeconomic pressures, supply-chain disruptions, and declining profits.

Sneakersnstuff

The popular Stockholm-based sneaker retailer filed for bankruptcy in January, as Swedish outlet Ehandel first reported. It was confirmed by Sneakersnstuff cofounder Peter Jansson in a now-deleted Instagram post.

The company was acquired by German investment company Reziprok Ventures in February.

This ‘as-told-to’ essay is based on a conversation with Jugal Bhatt, a 24-year-old software engineer at Amazon based in Phoenix. Business Insider has verified his employment with documentation. This essay has been edited for length and clarity.

Eight months before graduation, I began searching for a software engineering role. I thought my job search approach was solid, but in hindsight, it was holding me back.

In 2024, I moved to the US from India to pursue a master’s in computer science at the University of Illinois. I kicked off my job search that September — not just to give myself time before my May 2025 graduation, but because I’d heard that August, September, and October were peak hiring months.

I struggled to gain traction, and for the first few months, I didn’t land any interviews. Slowly but surely, I realized I needed to make a change.

After implementing a new approach that incorporated Boolean search techniques, strategic networking, and targeted LinkedIn posting, I began receiving interviews. My strategy eventually helped me land a software engineering role at Amazon.

My initial approach was flawed

At the start of my job hunt, I was mostly cold-applying for software engineering jobs — whatever I could find of interest on company websites and job platforms. I didn’t ask many connections for referrals or reach out to many recruiters, and I used the same résumé for every application.

My strategy shift began around the end of last year. One of the new things I focused on was making connections with recruiters, hiring managers, and employees at companies of interest in the hopes of giving my application an edge.

I got strategic with Boolean searches and networking

I started by making a list of 100 to 150 companies I wanted to work for, a mix of startups and larger tech firms. Every morning, I’d spend time searching for people from these companies on LinkedIn. I did so in part by using Boolean search techniques — searching terms like “recruiter” or “hiring manager” in quotation marks, along with the company name.

I’d identify more than a dozen people from each company and try to connect with or follow them. Once I found them, I’d comment on their LinkedIn posts to get on their radar — and eventually reach out about roles of interest. I think the comments served their purpose because conversations seemed to flow more naturally when they were familiar with me.

When it came to my résumé, I started tailoring it to each role I applied for.

Being active on LinkedIn and GitHub helped me land my first job offer

I also started writing a lot more posts on LinkedIn — sharing my projects and thoughts on different startup products. After doing that, I started getting more messages from recruiters.

But I didn’t just work on my own projects. Some startups had publicly available repositories on GitHub, and I began contributing to them to increase my visibility.

My efforts eventually started to pay off, and this strategy helped me land my first job interviews, including one for a founding software engineer role at the startup LiteLLM. I had commented on LinkedIn posts of the company’s founder and contributed to their GitHub repository, and someone from the company reached out and asked if I’d be interested in interviewing for a role I hadn’t applied for.

I later accepted an offer with them to start full-time after graduation.

A connection with an Amazon recruiter helped me land a job

When I accepted the offer at LiteLLM, I was still being considered for other roles, including a software engineering position at Amazon.

That opportunity began when an Amazon recruiter reached out to me via email about a role that typically required more than three years of experience, which I didn’t have at the time. I asked if there were any more junior-level openings, and they told me to keep an eye out and reach out if I spotted any good fits. It sounded like they might be able to help get my résumé a closer look.

Around the end of March, I spotted three or four roles that seemed like a good fit and emailed the recruiter. I was asked to complete an online assessment for a software engineering position before participating in a series of interviews.

In July, I received an offer from Amazon and resigned from LiteLLM.

My advice for Amazon applicants

I believe my connection with the Amazon recruiter gave me a competitive edge in the application process. Now that I work at Amazon, I’ve seen how recruiters can flag promising candidates and help their applications stand out.

My top advice for anyone looking to land a job at Amazon is to identify the recruiters and hiring managers involved in the decision-making process, whether through LinkedIn searches or connections within Amazon.

Additionally, I recommend you take ample time to prepare for the company’s interview process. Reflecting on my time at Amazon, the work has definitely been challenging — but in some ways, the interview preparation was harder than the job itself.