A complete application in a minute — tailored resume and cover letter, ready to send.
Product.ai in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, is seeking a data journalist to lead the citable-research pipeline from warehouse queries to published studies and a story brief that pitches on strong, verifiable data.
You will conduct expert interviews, shopper panels, and merchant conversations, ensuring every claim rests on verifiable data and that the numbers the AI answers quote are defended by sound denominators and time windows.
Turn one of the largest first-party records of what actually works at online checkouts into the studies journalists cite and AI engines quote.
Product.ai is the verified truth layer for shopping: when a person or an AI agent needs to know what is actually true about a purchase, we answer with proof. SimplyCodes is the first proof at scale, the code verification service whose robots run real checkouts and test discount codes so shoppers only see codes that work. It earns about $22 million a year at roughly 60% margins. Profitable. Bootstrapped. Founder-owned since 2009. No outside investors. No board. Fewer than twenty operators, outbuilding companies 10x our size.
We sit on one of the largest first-party records of online savings anywhere: years of robot-run checkouts, code tests, and shopper behavior across hundreds of thousands of stores. When we turn a slice of that record into a study, it gets cited. We tested codes at 500 stores: ours worked 66.8 percent of the time, and codes from the open web worked 23.4 percent. That finding now travels the industry as "only about 1 in 4 coupon codes actually work," and we never had to push it.
The engine those studies feed is compounding. Our studies earned hundreds of pickups and brand mentions across our two brands this year, earned coverage is where our citations in AI answers come from, and the distribution behind it is widening: proactive story pitches, plus a standing reactive lane where reporters come to us for savings data. A widening engine spends studies faster than it can mint them today. This seat exists to be that supply. Every citation makes Product.ai a source those engines trust about a purchase, and that, not traffic, is how we intend to win. It is a founding seat: the pipeline, the standards, and the beat are yours to define.
If reading that energizes you, keep going. If it feels overwhelming or underspecified, this isn't the right fit.
You reason about numbers the way a good editor reasons about sources: what would make this wrong, what is the honest denominator, what time window the claim covers. You state those without being asked. You can feel the difference between a finding and a query artifact, and when your model of the data is wrong you update fast. You write clearly, because on a team this small the written study is the meeting.
You go to the data first. Agents are your research staff: warehouse queries, research sweeps, and verification passes run through them; you direct the machinery. But you can do every step yourself — pull, sanity checks, draft, pitch note — and that mastery is what lets you trust, or reject, what an agent hands back.
You have personally done all four: pulled the data, found the story, written the piece, and called the source. Your record is newsroom-data-desk shaped: computational journalism, an investigations desk, a brand research team that published real studies, or an independent beat you ran with a scraper and a spreadsheet. "We scored ten thousand machine-generated answers against a rubric" reads like a normal Tuesday to you. We care about the artifact and the reasoning, not where you did it; there is no degree to check.
This seat is wrong if you need the data handed to you in a brief; here the story starts in the warehouse, with you holding the query. It is wrong if you analyze but never publish, or publish takes instead of datasets; the portfolio that wins this seat is cited work standing on numbers you pulled yourself. It is wrong if the panel seat, the personal brand, or a masthead logo matters more to you than the dataset under the byline, and it is wrong if this beat is a clip portfolio for your next job; the work here compounds, and a study still cited two years out is the point. And it is wrong if AI-native means a chat window and a subscription; here agents do the grunt work, you own the verdicts, and verification is most of the job. You will be happiest here if your idea of a good month is five studies shipped, two of them cited somewhere that matters, and one interview thread open.
If the work above reads like yours but your resume is unconventional, apply anyway. We hire on the work and the reasoning, not the pedigree.
Total first-year comp: $250,000 - $350,000 (base, plus performance-based ownership and profit-share programs). Base: $160,000 - $210,000, top of market for a data journalist.
Beyond base: eligibility for the company's ownership and profit-share programs, with grants performance-based and terms discussed at the offer stage, plus 100% company-paid family health premiums and an AI tooling budget steered by return, never capped.
This is a partnership, not a pay grade. The model is built to mint partners: when the company wins, you win, in real and liquid dollars, every year.
Based in Santa Monica, Los Angeles. In person, five days a week. The rooms are real rooms.