Sign up for the weekly B2B Marketing United newsletter
Blog
Letters
How to
Blog
The very term business-to-business implies that companies buy from other companies. Well, not exactly. What actually happens is that people make purchasing decisions to buy from other people at companies who are selling products, services or software.
Companies don't buy anything. People do. And they generally buy from people based on some level of relationship. This becomes more important as the complexity of the sale moves from commodity to complex solutions. None of this is news to anyone. But the way most B2B marketers behave suggests they have forgotten it entirely.
If people buy from people, then finding the right people and knowing how to reach them is the single most important thing a marketer can do. Yet most of the budget, effort and attention goes elsewhere. That is the problem this piece is about. And the scale of it is worse than most marketers realise.
Contact data decays at 70.8 percent a year. Yes, really.
We conducted a research study on the accuracy of contact information and gathered 1,025 data inputs. The method was straightforward. When giving seminars, I asked the audience to pull out their business card and check any element on it that had changed in the last 12 months. All cards, with or without changes, were collected in exchange for a copy of the research.
The result: 70.8 percent of the business cards had one or more changes in the previous 12 months.
The breakdown tells you a lot about why your CRM is quietly rotting. Title or job function changes accounted for 65.8 percent. Address changes hit 41.9 percent. Phone number changes reached 42.9 percent. Email address changes came in at 37.3 percent, slightly lower thanks to the rise of personal Gmail accounts. Company name changes affected 34.2 percent, mostly driven by people moving to new employers. Even name changes showed up at 3.8 percent, as people still change their name upon marriage or divorce.
Digging deeper, 29.6 percent of individuals changed companies entirely. 4.6 percent of companies changed their name through mergers or acquisitions. 12.3 percent of companies moved locations. And 41.2 percent of individuals stayed at the same company but something else changed, a new title, a restructured department, a relocated office.
This is not just an American problem
Several years ago I was giving a seminar in London to about 100 people. Before running the same exercise, I told the audience I expected the change rate to be much lower in England, because "you are all much more stable than us Americans."
Well, the hands went up, and to everyone's surprise it was exactly 70 percent. The same as the US. So much for stability.
On the other hand, a seminar in Shanghai three years later with 50 people produced a change rate of only 45 percent. And several years ago, the Computer Intelligence division of Harte-Hanks (now Aberdeen) reported a change rate of just over 60 percent in the US technology market.
No matter what the exact percentage, whether it is 60 percent or 70 percent, it is high. And the trend is going in the wrong direction.
It is getting worse, not better
We ran a similar study more than ten years earlier, and 62 percent of individuals had one or more changes in their business card. That compares with 70.8 percent a decade later. The decay rate for B2B contact data is increasing.
The proportion of people changing companies held roughly steady, dropping slightly from 31 percent to 29.6 percent. The biggest shift was a 10 percent increase in movement within companies. 41.2 percent reported data changes without changing employer, compared to 31 percent in the earlier study. People are being restructured, promoted, reassigned and relocated more frequently than ever.
There are newer methods and firms compiling B2B data now, and these lists are an improvement over traditional approaches. But they still contain inaccurate data at some level. It is worth checking out any data provider before assuming their promoted accuracy rates hold up in practice.
Outside lists are less accurate than you think
This usually leads marketers towards external lists, particularly for acquisition campaigns. So how accurate is the compiled information in those lists?
We conducted a snap survey as a data check. We called 50 records from each of three different list sources to verify key contact name, title, company name, address, email and phone number. A record was scored inaccurate if one or more of those data elements were found to be incorrect.
The results were sobering. A B2B trade association membership list came back 20 percent inaccurate. A large B2B data compiler was 35 percent inaccurate. And an industrial directory was 60 percent inaccurate.
Your own data is probably worse
Here is the part that surprises people. Internal customer and prospect data can be even less accurate than external lists. Most companies do not have a rigorous data hygiene process in place. Internal data, once entered, is rarely revisited to update contact and company information, even with widespread usage of CRM and marketing automation platforms.
"There is an old axiom widely accepted in B2B, and it is this: a great campaign sent to a lousy list will not do as well as a lousy campaign sent to a great list."
John Coe
So why does this matter more than everything else?
There are four elements that affect the success of a B2B database or direct marketing campaign. Each has a weighted impact on results:
Targeting and list data that matches the audience accounts for 50 to 70 percent of campaign performance. The offer drives 20 to 30 percent. Sequence, frequency and cadence of contact media contributes another 20 to 30 percent. And creative, which is typically copy-led, accounts for 10 to 20 percent.
The most important element by a significant margin is the targeting and matching data. Yet most of the money gets spent on the other three. There is an old axiom widely accepted in B2B, and it is this: a great campaign sent to a lousy list will not do as well as a lousy campaign sent to a great list.
Most marketers know this instinctively. Very few act on it.
So what should you actually do about it?
Spend time and money on developing and obtaining the best lists and data possible. The payback will be significant. This is particularly true when you consider the investment most companies are making in their marketing technology stack. None of those technologies work to their full potential without good data feeding them.
Your data governance process needs a fixed set of input rules, double checks and procedures for updating accuracy. Ideally, you have merged your data silos into a customer data platform and instituted sound data input rules. But the hardest part remains: verifying, correcting and updating contact-level information on an ongoing basis.
That is a tough job. But given that targeting accounts for up to 70 percent of your campaign performance, it is the job that matters most.
The very term business-to-business implies that companies buy from other companies. Well, not exactly. What actually happens is that people make purchasing decisions to buy from other people at companies who are selling products, services or software.
Companies don't buy anything. People do. And they generally buy from people based on some level of relationship. This becomes more important as the complexity of the sale moves from commodity to complex solutions. None of this is news to anyone. But the way most B2B marketers behave suggests they have forgotten it entirely.
If people buy from people, then finding the right people and knowing how to reach them is the single most important thing a marketer can do. Yet most of the budget, effort and attention goes elsewhere. That is the problem this piece is about. And the scale of it is worse than most marketers realise.
Contact data decays at 70.8 percent a year. Yes, really.
We conducted a research study on the accuracy of contact information and gathered 1,025 data inputs. The method was straightforward. When giving seminars, I asked the audience to pull out their business card and check any element on it that had changed in the last 12 months. All cards, with or without changes, were collected in exchange for a copy of the research.
The result: 70.8 percent of the business cards had one or more changes in the previous 12 months.
The breakdown tells you a lot about why your CRM is quietly rotting. Title or job function changes accounted for 65.8 percent. Address changes hit 41.9 percent. Phone number changes reached 42.9 percent. Email address changes came in at 37.3 percent, slightly lower thanks to the rise of personal Gmail accounts. Company name changes affected 34.2 percent, mostly driven by people moving to new employers. Even name changes showed up at 3.8 percent, as people still change their name upon marriage or divorce.
Digging deeper, 29.6 percent of individuals changed companies entirely. 4.6 percent of companies changed their name through mergers or acquisitions. 12.3 percent of companies moved locations. And 41.2 percent of individuals stayed at the same company but something else changed, a new title, a restructured department, a relocated office.
This is not just an American problem
Several years ago I was giving a seminar in London to about 100 people. Before running the same exercise, I told the audience I expected the change rate to be much lower in England, because "you are all much more stable than us Americans."
Well, the hands went up, and to everyone's surprise it was exactly 70 percent. The same as the US. So much for stability.
On the other hand, a seminar in Shanghai three years later with 50 people produced a change rate of only 45 percent. And several years ago, the Computer Intelligence division of Harte-Hanks (now Aberdeen) reported a change rate of just over 60 percent in the US technology market.
No matter what the exact percentage, whether it is 60 percent or 70 percent, it is high. And the trend is going in the wrong direction.
It is getting worse, not better
We ran a similar study more than ten years earlier, and 62 percent of individuals had one or more changes in their business card. That compares with 70.8 percent a decade later. The decay rate for B2B contact data is increasing.
The proportion of people changing companies held roughly steady, dropping slightly from 31 percent to 29.6 percent. The biggest shift was a 10 percent increase in movement within companies. 41.2 percent reported data changes without changing employer, compared to 31 percent in the earlier study. People are being restructured, promoted, reassigned and relocated more frequently than ever.
There are newer methods and firms compiling B2B data now, and these lists are an improvement over traditional approaches. But they still contain inaccurate data at some level. It is worth checking out any data provider before assuming their promoted accuracy rates hold up in practice.
Outside lists are less accurate than you think
This usually leads marketers towards external lists, particularly for acquisition campaigns. So how accurate is the compiled information in those lists?
We conducted a snap survey as a data check. We called 50 records from each of three different list sources to verify key contact name, title, company name, address, email and phone number. A record was scored inaccurate if one or more of those data elements were found to be incorrect.
The results were sobering. A B2B trade association membership list came back 20 percent inaccurate. A large B2B data compiler was 35 percent inaccurate. And an industrial directory was 60 percent inaccurate.
Your own data is probably worse
Here is the part that surprises people. Internal customer and prospect data can be even less accurate than external lists. Most companies do not have a rigorous data hygiene process in place. Internal data, once entered, is rarely revisited to update contact and company information, even with widespread usage of CRM and marketing automation platforms.
"There is an old axiom widely accepted in B2B, and it is this: a great campaign sent to a lousy list will not do as well as a lousy campaign sent to a great list."
John Coe
So why does this matter more than everything else?
There are four elements that affect the success of a B2B database or direct marketing campaign. Each has a weighted impact on results:
Targeting and list data that matches the audience accounts for 50 to 70 percent of campaign performance. The offer drives 20 to 30 percent. Sequence, frequency and cadence of contact media contributes another 20 to 30 percent. And creative, which is typically copy-led, accounts for 10 to 20 percent.
The most important element by a significant margin is the targeting and matching data. Yet most of the money gets spent on the other three. There is an old axiom widely accepted in B2B, and it is this: a great campaign sent to a lousy list will not do as well as a lousy campaign sent to a great list.
Most marketers know this instinctively. Very few act on it.
So what should you actually do about it?
Spend time and money on developing and obtaining the best lists and data possible. The payback will be significant. This is particularly true when you consider the investment most companies are making in their marketing technology stack. None of those technologies work to their full potential without good data feeding them.
Your data governance process needs a fixed set of input rules, double checks and procedures for updating accuracy. Ideally, you have merged your data silos into a customer data platform and instituted sound data input rules. But the hardest part remains: verifying, correcting and updating contact-level information on an ongoing basis.
That is a tough job. But given that targeting accounts for up to 70 percent of your campaign performance, it is the job that matters most.
The very term business-to-business implies that companies buy from other companies. Well, not exactly. What actually happens is that people make purchasing decisions to buy from other people at companies who are selling products, services or software.
Companies don't buy anything. People do. And they generally buy from people based on some level of relationship. This becomes more important as the complexity of the sale moves from commodity to complex solutions. None of this is news to anyone. But the way most B2B marketers behave suggests they have forgotten it entirely.
If people buy from people, then finding the right people and knowing how to reach them is the single most important thing a marketer can do. Yet most of the budget, effort and attention goes elsewhere. That is the problem this piece is about. And the scale of it is worse than most marketers realise.
Contact data decays at 70.8 percent a year. Yes, really.
We conducted a research study on the accuracy of contact information and gathered 1,025 data inputs. The method was straightforward. When giving seminars, I asked the audience to pull out their business card and check any element on it that had changed in the last 12 months. All cards, with or without changes, were collected in exchange for a copy of the research.
The result: 70.8 percent of the business cards had one or more changes in the previous 12 months.
The breakdown tells you a lot about why your CRM is quietly rotting. Title or job function changes accounted for 65.8 percent. Address changes hit 41.9 percent. Phone number changes reached 42.9 percent. Email address changes came in at 37.3 percent, slightly lower thanks to the rise of personal Gmail accounts. Company name changes affected 34.2 percent, mostly driven by people moving to new employers. Even name changes showed up at 3.8 percent, as people still change their name upon marriage or divorce.
Digging deeper, 29.6 percent of individuals changed companies entirely. 4.6 percent of companies changed their name through mergers or acquisitions. 12.3 percent of companies moved locations. And 41.2 percent of individuals stayed at the same company but something else changed, a new title, a restructured department, a relocated office.
This is not just an American problem
Several years ago I was giving a seminar in London to about 100 people. Before running the same exercise, I told the audience I expected the change rate to be much lower in England, because "you are all much more stable than us Americans."
Well, the hands went up, and to everyone's surprise it was exactly 70 percent. The same as the US. So much for stability.
On the other hand, a seminar in Shanghai three years later with 50 people produced a change rate of only 45 percent. And several years ago, the Computer Intelligence division of Harte-Hanks (now Aberdeen) reported a change rate of just over 60 percent in the US technology market.
No matter what the exact percentage, whether it is 60 percent or 70 percent, it is high. And the trend is going in the wrong direction.
It is getting worse, not better
We ran a similar study more than ten years earlier, and 62 percent of individuals had one or more changes in their business card. That compares with 70.8 percent a decade later. The decay rate for B2B contact data is increasing.
The proportion of people changing companies held roughly steady, dropping slightly from 31 percent to 29.6 percent. The biggest shift was a 10 percent increase in movement within companies. 41.2 percent reported data changes without changing employer, compared to 31 percent in the earlier study. People are being restructured, promoted, reassigned and relocated more frequently than ever.
There are newer methods and firms compiling B2B data now, and these lists are an improvement over traditional approaches. But they still contain inaccurate data at some level. It is worth checking out any data provider before assuming their promoted accuracy rates hold up in practice.
Outside lists are less accurate than you think
This usually leads marketers towards external lists, particularly for acquisition campaigns. So how accurate is the compiled information in those lists?
We conducted a snap survey as a data check. We called 50 records from each of three different list sources to verify key contact name, title, company name, address, email and phone number. A record was scored inaccurate if one or more of those data elements were found to be incorrect.
The results were sobering. A B2B trade association membership list came back 20 percent inaccurate. A large B2B data compiler was 35 percent inaccurate. And an industrial directory was 60 percent inaccurate.
Your own data is probably worse
Here is the part that surprises people. Internal customer and prospect data can be even less accurate than external lists. Most companies do not have a rigorous data hygiene process in place. Internal data, once entered, is rarely revisited to update contact and company information, even with widespread usage of CRM and marketing automation platforms.
"There is an old axiom widely accepted in B2B, and it is this: a great campaign sent to a lousy list will not do as well as a lousy campaign sent to a great list."
John Coe
So why does this matter more than everything else?
There are four elements that affect the success of a B2B database or direct marketing campaign. Each has a weighted impact on results:
Targeting and list data that matches the audience accounts for 50 to 70 percent of campaign performance. The offer drives 20 to 30 percent. Sequence, frequency and cadence of contact media contributes another 20 to 30 percent. And creative, which is typically copy-led, accounts for 10 to 20 percent.
The most important element by a significant margin is the targeting and matching data. Yet most of the money gets spent on the other three. There is an old axiom widely accepted in B2B, and it is this: a great campaign sent to a lousy list will not do as well as a lousy campaign sent to a great list.
Most marketers know this instinctively. Very few act on it.
So what should you actually do about it?
Spend time and money on developing and obtaining the best lists and data possible. The payback will be significant. This is particularly true when you consider the investment most companies are making in their marketing technology stack. None of those technologies work to their full potential without good data feeding them.
Your data governance process needs a fixed set of input rules, double checks and procedures for updating accuracy. Ideally, you have merged your data silos into a customer data platform and instituted sound data input rules. But the hardest part remains: verifying, correcting and updating contact-level information on an ongoing basis.
That is a tough job. But given that targeting accounts for up to 70 percent of your campaign performance, it is the job that matters most.
London
Mar 2, 2026
Rich Fitzmaurice
Letters
"Dear Rich,
I'm a marketing director at a B2B software company. My team is 11 people. Content, demand gen, ops, and a couple of SDRs on a dotted line.
Last month our CEO started talking about AI. He'd seen a demo at some PE portfolio day and a talk from someone who claimed they'd "cut their marketing team in half and 10x'd their output." He hasn't said it directly, but the direction of travel is obvious.
Since then our CFO has started asking about "marketing efficiency gains from AI." My CEO keeps forwarding me articles about companies replacing writers with AI tools. Last week in our exec meeting he asked, in that casual-but-not-casual way, "what does this person actually do?".
I'm not anti-AI. I've been experimenting like everybody else and some of it genuinely impresses me. I can see how it makes ideation faster.
But my team is already stretched. Sales are not doing great and they have open positions. We don't need fewer people. We need the same people moving faster so we can actually deliver what the business is asking for.
Every time I try to make this case I sound defensive. Like I'm just protecting headcount. But if I just nod along and start cutting, we'll be in serious trouble in six months when we can't execute on anything.
So, how do I play it? Without sounding like I'm resisting change?"
Jay, Ohio
Rich's reply
Thanks for your note Jay. My first response was an audible 'ergh'. But the good news is that I am certain so many marketers are facing exactly the same situation right now.
I remember when Marketing Automation was the latest buzzword and a Head of Region asked me how many marketers we could let go because we could automate things. I remember he brought it up again in a meeting with a CFO so I replied that he was completely right…we should be investing in MA but we'd need more people, not less, as we'd need to increase the volume of quality content to be able to build effective nurture tracks and we'd need a dedicated MA manager to build it out. The look on his face was enjoyable. There are some parallels to the situation you face Jay, life continues to be cyclical!
Let's try and take the sting out of things and spin the situation on its head.
First, your CEO has come back from a conference genuinely excited about the potential of your function. We might be able to use that. Most marketing directors would kill for a CEO who believes marketing can be dramatically more impactful. He's not trying to destroy your team. He's looking at it and thinking there's more in it. He's just landed on the wrong lever.
Second, he is talking to you about this. Not going behind your back. Not hiring a consultant. Not restructuring over your head. He's forwarding you articles and asking you questions. That's an invitation to lead the conversation, even if it doesn't feel like one. Even if it irritates you to the bone. He's interesting in the topic so, sorry, it's best to lean in.
Third, you said your team is already stretched and sales are behind. That could actually be your strongest card and you haven't played it yet.
And fourth, you are already experimenting with AI on your own time. Which means you know more about what it can and can't do than your CEO does. He has a conference demo and has heard someone jump up on stage trying to make themselves look like a messiah (Champagne CMO, per chance?). You have reality. That is an enormous advantage if you use it properly.
So let's reframe this.
Right now, in your CEO's head, the story is:
AI is powerful. Our marketing team is expensive. Therefore, AI should mean fewer people and less cost.
That logic feels clean, which is why it's dangerous. Your job is not to argue against it. Your job is to replace it with a better story.
And the better story is already sitting in your inbox. You just told me your team is stretched. That means the business is leaving growth on the table because your team doesn't have capacity. Your CEO cares about growth more than he cares about headcount. If the company is growing, headcount requests go through a lot easier.
In your next conversation with him, don't start with AI and don't start with your team. Start with the gap.
Ask him: Of all the things marketing should be doing for this business right now, what are we not getting to?
He might come up with a list, CEO's rarely have no viewpoint. Pipeline in a new segment. Board pressure to achieve an exit. A country or service line that is struggling. A margin target which looks like it won't be hit. Whatever it is, let him talk.
Then ask: If my team had 30% more capacity tomorrow, which of those would you want us to attack first?
He'll pick one. Maybe two.
Then you say: That's exactly what I want to use AI for.
Not to cut people. To close the gap between what marketing should be delivering and what we currently can. Right now we're spending too many hours on work that AI can accelerate, first drafts, lead research, reporting, content repurposing. If we free that time up, we redirect it straight into the growth areas you just described.
Notice what's happened. You haven't defended your team. You haven't argued about headcount. You haven't pushed back on AI. You've taken his enthusiasm for AI and pointed it at his enthusiasm for growth and connected them in a way that doesn't involve firing anyone. And you've bought yourself some time. And time always makes things a little easier.
He may have been dragged over to this event you mention by your PE investors and asked to take a serious look. Maybe it was another firm in the PE's portfolio singing nonsense up on stage and he feels obliged to take a look. He came away from that event thinking about cost. You've made it about revenue. CEOs prefer revenue.
Now, I do want to say something you might not want to hear.
Your CEO's instinct is not entirely wrong. It's just premature.
As AI matures and your team learns to work with it, the shape of your team will change. The person who currently spends most of their week writing first drafts might become someone who spends most of their week on something a little harder and more strategic, with AI handling the drafting. That's a different role. Some people will grow into it brilliantly. Some will struggle.
Your job as a leader isn't to freeze the team in place. It's to evolve it. Help your people build the skills that make them more valuable alongside AI, not in competition with it. If you do that well, nobody needs to be cut, because the team becomes capable of things it couldn't do before, and the business will want more of that, not less.
But if you just dig in and defend the current setup, your CEO will eventually go around you. He'll bring in someone who "gets it" (or make your report into someone who says they do) and you'll lose control of the conversation entirely.
So don't fight the energy. Redirect it in a way you're more comfortable.
Go into your next meeting with the aim of coming out of it with a joint experiment with AI to learn together what its true capabilities are and how it could work for the firm. Give me 60 days to show what that looks like with real numbers.
That's not defensive. That's leadership. And it's the kind of conversation that changes how your CEO sees you, not just your team. You also bring him along on the journey.
If the people standing up at events saying wildly sugar coated claims about their teams and AI are proven to be full of….you know what…(hint - the majority are)…then you'll come to that conclusion together. If you find a way of improving your capacity challenges, then that's great too?
Play this well and you won't just protect 11 jobs. You'll make the case for 13.
Onwards,
Rich
Got a question for Rich? Email it to editor@b2bmarketing.com
"Dear Rich,
I'm a marketing director at a B2B software company. My team is 11 people. Content, demand gen, ops, and a couple of SDRs on a dotted line.
Last month our CEO started talking about AI. He'd seen a demo at some PE portfolio day and a talk from someone who claimed they'd "cut their marketing team in half and 10x'd their output." He hasn't said it directly, but the direction of travel is obvious.
Since then our CFO has started asking about "marketing efficiency gains from AI." My CEO keeps forwarding me articles about companies replacing writers with AI tools. Last week in our exec meeting he asked, in that casual-but-not-casual way, "what does this person actually do?".
I'm not anti-AI. I've been experimenting like everybody else and some of it genuinely impresses me. I can see how it makes ideation faster.
But my team is already stretched. Sales are not doing great and they have open positions. We don't need fewer people. We need the same people moving faster so we can actually deliver what the business is asking for.
Every time I try to make this case I sound defensive. Like I'm just protecting headcount. But if I just nod along and start cutting, we'll be in serious trouble in six months when we can't execute on anything.
So, how do I play it? Without sounding like I'm resisting change?"
Jay, Ohio
Rich's reply
Thanks for your note Jay. My first response was an audible 'ergh'. But the good news is that I am certain so many marketers are facing exactly the same situation right now.
I remember when Marketing Automation was the latest buzzword and a Head of Region asked me how many marketers we could let go because we could automate things. I remember he brought it up again in a meeting with a CFO so I replied that he was completely right…we should be investing in MA but we'd need more people, not less, as we'd need to increase the volume of quality content to be able to build effective nurture tracks and we'd need a dedicated MA manager to build it out. The look on his face was enjoyable. There are some parallels to the situation you face Jay, life continues to be cyclical!
Let's try and take the sting out of things and spin the situation on its head.
First, your CEO has come back from a conference genuinely excited about the potential of your function. We might be able to use that. Most marketing directors would kill for a CEO who believes marketing can be dramatically more impactful. He's not trying to destroy your team. He's looking at it and thinking there's more in it. He's just landed on the wrong lever.
Second, he is talking to you about this. Not going behind your back. Not hiring a consultant. Not restructuring over your head. He's forwarding you articles and asking you questions. That's an invitation to lead the conversation, even if it doesn't feel like one. Even if it irritates you to the bone. He's interesting in the topic so, sorry, it's best to lean in.
Third, you said your team is already stretched and sales are behind. That could actually be your strongest card and you haven't played it yet.
And fourth, you are already experimenting with AI on your own time. Which means you know more about what it can and can't do than your CEO does. He has a conference demo and has heard someone jump up on stage trying to make themselves look like a messiah (Champagne CMO, per chance?). You have reality. That is an enormous advantage if you use it properly.
So let's reframe this.
Right now, in your CEO's head, the story is:
AI is powerful. Our marketing team is expensive. Therefore, AI should mean fewer people and less cost.
That logic feels clean, which is why it's dangerous. Your job is not to argue against it. Your job is to replace it with a better story.
And the better story is already sitting in your inbox. You just told me your team is stretched. That means the business is leaving growth on the table because your team doesn't have capacity. Your CEO cares about growth more than he cares about headcount. If the company is growing, headcount requests go through a lot easier.
In your next conversation with him, don't start with AI and don't start with your team. Start with the gap.
Ask him: Of all the things marketing should be doing for this business right now, what are we not getting to?
He might come up with a list, CEO's rarely have no viewpoint. Pipeline in a new segment. Board pressure to achieve an exit. A country or service line that is struggling. A margin target which looks like it won't be hit. Whatever it is, let him talk.
Then ask: If my team had 30% more capacity tomorrow, which of those would you want us to attack first?
He'll pick one. Maybe two.
Then you say: That's exactly what I want to use AI for.
Not to cut people. To close the gap between what marketing should be delivering and what we currently can. Right now we're spending too many hours on work that AI can accelerate, first drafts, lead research, reporting, content repurposing. If we free that time up, we redirect it straight into the growth areas you just described.
Notice what's happened. You haven't defended your team. You haven't argued about headcount. You haven't pushed back on AI. You've taken his enthusiasm for AI and pointed it at his enthusiasm for growth and connected them in a way that doesn't involve firing anyone. And you've bought yourself some time. And time always makes things a little easier.
He may have been dragged over to this event you mention by your PE investors and asked to take a serious look. Maybe it was another firm in the PE's portfolio singing nonsense up on stage and he feels obliged to take a look. He came away from that event thinking about cost. You've made it about revenue. CEOs prefer revenue.
Now, I do want to say something you might not want to hear.
Your CEO's instinct is not entirely wrong. It's just premature.
As AI matures and your team learns to work with it, the shape of your team will change. The person who currently spends most of their week writing first drafts might become someone who spends most of their week on something a little harder and more strategic, with AI handling the drafting. That's a different role. Some people will grow into it brilliantly. Some will struggle.
Your job as a leader isn't to freeze the team in place. It's to evolve it. Help your people build the skills that make them more valuable alongside AI, not in competition with it. If you do that well, nobody needs to be cut, because the team becomes capable of things it couldn't do before, and the business will want more of that, not less.
But if you just dig in and defend the current setup, your CEO will eventually go around you. He'll bring in someone who "gets it" (or make your report into someone who says they do) and you'll lose control of the conversation entirely.
So don't fight the energy. Redirect it in a way you're more comfortable.
Go into your next meeting with the aim of coming out of it with a joint experiment with AI to learn together what its true capabilities are and how it could work for the firm. Give me 60 days to show what that looks like with real numbers.
That's not defensive. That's leadership. And it's the kind of conversation that changes how your CEO sees you, not just your team. You also bring him along on the journey.
If the people standing up at events saying wildly sugar coated claims about their teams and AI are proven to be full of….you know what…(hint - the majority are)…then you'll come to that conclusion together. If you find a way of improving your capacity challenges, then that's great too?
Play this well and you won't just protect 11 jobs. You'll make the case for 13.
Onwards,
Rich
Got a question for Rich? Email it to editor@b2bmarketing.com
"Dear Rich,
I'm a marketing director at a B2B software company. My team is 11 people. Content, demand gen, ops, and a couple of SDRs on a dotted line.
Last month our CEO started talking about AI. He'd seen a demo at some PE portfolio day and a talk from someone who claimed they'd "cut their marketing team in half and 10x'd their output." He hasn't said it directly, but the direction of travel is obvious.
Since then our CFO has started asking about "marketing efficiency gains from AI." My CEO keeps forwarding me articles about companies replacing writers with AI tools. Last week in our exec meeting he asked, in that casual-but-not-casual way, "what does this person actually do?".
I'm not anti-AI. I've been experimenting like everybody else and some of it genuinely impresses me. I can see how it makes ideation faster.
But my team is already stretched. Sales are not doing great and they have open positions. We don't need fewer people. We need the same people moving faster so we can actually deliver what the business is asking for.
Every time I try to make this case I sound defensive. Like I'm just protecting headcount. But if I just nod along and start cutting, we'll be in serious trouble in six months when we can't execute on anything.
So, how do I play it? Without sounding like I'm resisting change?"
Jay, Ohio
Rich's reply
Thanks for your note Jay. My first response was an audible 'ergh'. But the good news is that I am certain so many marketers are facing exactly the same situation right now.
I remember when Marketing Automation was the latest buzzword and a Head of Region asked me how many marketers we could let go because we could automate things. I remember he brought it up again in a meeting with a CFO so I replied that he was completely right…we should be investing in MA but we'd need more people, not less, as we'd need to increase the volume of quality content to be able to build effective nurture tracks and we'd need a dedicated MA manager to build it out. The look on his face was enjoyable. There are some parallels to the situation you face Jay, life continues to be cyclical!
Let's try and take the sting out of things and spin the situation on its head.
First, your CEO has come back from a conference genuinely excited about the potential of your function. We might be able to use that. Most marketing directors would kill for a CEO who believes marketing can be dramatically more impactful. He's not trying to destroy your team. He's looking at it and thinking there's more in it. He's just landed on the wrong lever.
Second, he is talking to you about this. Not going behind your back. Not hiring a consultant. Not restructuring over your head. He's forwarding you articles and asking you questions. That's an invitation to lead the conversation, even if it doesn't feel like one. Even if it irritates you to the bone. He's interesting in the topic so, sorry, it's best to lean in.
Third, you said your team is already stretched and sales are behind. That could actually be your strongest card and you haven't played it yet.
And fourth, you are already experimenting with AI on your own time. Which means you know more about what it can and can't do than your CEO does. He has a conference demo and has heard someone jump up on stage trying to make themselves look like a messiah (Champagne CMO, per chance?). You have reality. That is an enormous advantage if you use it properly.
So let's reframe this.
Right now, in your CEO's head, the story is:
AI is powerful. Our marketing team is expensive. Therefore, AI should mean fewer people and less cost.
That logic feels clean, which is why it's dangerous. Your job is not to argue against it. Your job is to replace it with a better story.
And the better story is already sitting in your inbox. You just told me your team is stretched. That means the business is leaving growth on the table because your team doesn't have capacity. Your CEO cares about growth more than he cares about headcount. If the company is growing, headcount requests go through a lot easier.
In your next conversation with him, don't start with AI and don't start with your team. Start with the gap.
Ask him: Of all the things marketing should be doing for this business right now, what are we not getting to?
He might come up with a list, CEO's rarely have no viewpoint. Pipeline in a new segment. Board pressure to achieve an exit. A country or service line that is struggling. A margin target which looks like it won't be hit. Whatever it is, let him talk.
Then ask: If my team had 30% more capacity tomorrow, which of those would you want us to attack first?
He'll pick one. Maybe two.
Then you say: That's exactly what I want to use AI for.
Not to cut people. To close the gap between what marketing should be delivering and what we currently can. Right now we're spending too many hours on work that AI can accelerate, first drafts, lead research, reporting, content repurposing. If we free that time up, we redirect it straight into the growth areas you just described.
Notice what's happened. You haven't defended your team. You haven't argued about headcount. You haven't pushed back on AI. You've taken his enthusiasm for AI and pointed it at his enthusiasm for growth and connected them in a way that doesn't involve firing anyone. And you've bought yourself some time. And time always makes things a little easier.
He may have been dragged over to this event you mention by your PE investors and asked to take a serious look. Maybe it was another firm in the PE's portfolio singing nonsense up on stage and he feels obliged to take a look. He came away from that event thinking about cost. You've made it about revenue. CEOs prefer revenue.
Now, I do want to say something you might not want to hear.
Your CEO's instinct is not entirely wrong. It's just premature.
As AI matures and your team learns to work with it, the shape of your team will change. The person who currently spends most of their week writing first drafts might become someone who spends most of their week on something a little harder and more strategic, with AI handling the drafting. That's a different role. Some people will grow into it brilliantly. Some will struggle.
Your job as a leader isn't to freeze the team in place. It's to evolve it. Help your people build the skills that make them more valuable alongside AI, not in competition with it. If you do that well, nobody needs to be cut, because the team becomes capable of things it couldn't do before, and the business will want more of that, not less.
But if you just dig in and defend the current setup, your CEO will eventually go around you. He'll bring in someone who "gets it" (or make your report into someone who says they do) and you'll lose control of the conversation entirely.
So don't fight the energy. Redirect it in a way you're more comfortable.
Go into your next meeting with the aim of coming out of it with a joint experiment with AI to learn together what its true capabilities are and how it could work for the firm. Give me 60 days to show what that looks like with real numbers.
That's not defensive. That's leadership. And it's the kind of conversation that changes how your CEO sees you, not just your team. You also bring him along on the journey.
If the people standing up at events saying wildly sugar coated claims about their teams and AI are proven to be full of….you know what…(hint - the majority are)…then you'll come to that conclusion together. If you find a way of improving your capacity challenges, then that's great too?
Play this well and you won't just protect 11 jobs. You'll make the case for 13.
Onwards,
Rich
Got a question for Rich? Email it to editor@b2bmarketing.com
Content
Feb 21, 2026
Content
How to's
In my experience, most PR underperforms for one simple reason. It is built to generate coverage, not influence.
Press releases go out. Coverage appears. Logos get dropped into decks. Somewhere along the way, teams convince themselves that visibility equals impact.
It does not.
In complex B2B buying, nobody buys because they saw your logo in the trade press. They buy because choosing you feels safe, defensible, and sensible to the people who have to put their names against the decision.
PR only works when it reduces risk. When it does not, it becomes noise.
What PR is actually for in B2B
PR is not about announcements or press releases (I am not even sure journalists read them anymore). It is not about share of voice. It is not about chasing journalists for coverage.
In our world, PR exists to build external credibility that buyers can borrow internally.
When a deal is live, buying group members are quietly asking themselves variations of:
Are these people legitimate?
Do they understand our world?
Have others trusted them before?
Would I look foolish defending this choice internally?
This aligns closely with buying group research from Gartner, which shows that deals stall far more often due to lack of confidence and consensus than lack of information. PR contributes to what Gartner calls sense making. It helps groups align around whether a decision feels safe.
So from that viewpoint, PR is another tool in the arsenal that helps do that job.
PR is not the same as media relations
One reason PR disappoints is because it is often reduced to media relations alone.
It actually includes:
Media commentary
Executive visibility
Analyst relations
Third party validation
Consistent narrative across external touchpoints
Media coverage is just one output. Credibility is the outcome.
You can get plenty of coverage and still be ignored in deals if what you say sounds generic, inconsistent, or self-congratulatory.
Why most B2B PR fails
Most B2B PR fails in predictable ways.
It sounds like marketing
It talks about the company, not the problem
It overclaims and underexplains
It avoids trade-offs and reality
It focuses on announcements that only matter to that firm, rather than insight for anybody else
This is why buyers skim it or ignore it entirely. They are not looking for promotion. They are looking for reassurance.
Research from the Edelman Trust Barometer consistently shows that people trust expertise, transparency, and third-party validation far more than corporate messaging. PR that feels polished but empty actively erodes trust.
What is actually newsworthy in B2B
Most B2B companies are not newsworthy because they exist. They become newsworthy when they help others make sense of change.
What journalists and buyers actually care about:
What is changing in the market?
What is breaking or no longer working?
What leaders are seeing that others are missing?
What trade-offs organizations are facing?
What mistakes are being repeated?
This is why commentary outperforms announcements. Insight travels further than information.
If your PR plan is built around what you want to say rather than what your market is struggling to understand, it will not perform. It simply adds to the plethora of noise that is already out there.
Credibility is built through consistency, not volume
Buyers do not remember one article. They remember patterns.
This is where mental availability matters. Research from the B2B Institute shows that brands grow by being consistently associated with specific problems and outcomes over time.
Effective PR reinforces the same story across:
Executive interviews
Bylined articles
Panel appearances
Analyst commentary
Partner quotes
If each appearance tells a slightly different version of who you are, or if different executives say conflicting things, you are not building credibility, you are creating friction.
Reality check
If your CEO sounds visionary, your CTO sounds tactical, your PR agency sounds promotional, and your sales team sounds defensive, buyers will trust none of them.
How PR actually supports live deals
PR will never close deals directly, of course, but bad PR can lose it.
It can make sales conversations easier.
Good PR helps when:
Prospects already recognize your name
Stakeholders reference your perspective unprompted
Objections sound familiar rather than hostile
Sales spends less time proving legitimacy
This aligns with Forrester guidance on executive thought leadership, which emphasizes that credibility shortens evaluation cycles by reducing perceived risk.
PR works best when sales does not have to explain it.
How to tell if your PR is building credibility
If you want a simple diagnostic, ask these questions:
Would a journalist describe us as experts in one specific thing?
Do our leaders sound consistent across interviews?
Does sales ever forward this coverage without being asked?
Would a cautious buyer feel safer after reading this?
If the answer is no, the issue is not distribution it is a lack of substance.
How to measure PR without pretending attribution
PR does not lend itself to last click attribution and pretending otherwise damages its credibility internally.
Avoid over relying on:
Raw coverage volume
Share of voice without context
Generic sentiment scores
Last click revenue models
Instead, look for signals that confidence is forming:
Sales referencing coverage in meetings
Increased inbound credibility rather than inbound volume
Faster movement through late-stage objections
Analyst inclusion and citation
Executives being sought out for perspective
PR should be discussed in the language of influence, not performance marketing.
The simple rule to remember
PR in B2B is not about being visible. It is about being believable.
If your PR helps buyers feel safer choosing you and helps sales spend less time proving legitimacy, it is working. If it just fills a coverage report, it is not. Especially if you don’t actually recognise the publications who picked up your press release verbatim.
Call to action
Audit your last six months of PR and ask one hard question.
If a cautious buyer read this, would they feel more confident choosing us?
If the answer is unclear, stop producing more content and fix the narrative first.
Decide what you want to be trusted for.
Ensure your leaders sound consistent.
Prioritize insight over announcements.
Measure confidence, not clicks.
If you want help turning PR into a credibility engine rather than a coverage machine, get in touch and we will introduce you to people who genuinely know what good looks like.
In my experience, most PR underperforms for one simple reason. It is built to generate coverage, not influence.
Press releases go out. Coverage appears. Logos get dropped into decks. Somewhere along the way, teams convince themselves that visibility equals impact.
It does not.
In complex B2B buying, nobody buys because they saw your logo in the trade press. They buy because choosing you feels safe, defensible, and sensible to the people who have to put their names against the decision.
PR only works when it reduces risk. When it does not, it becomes noise.
What PR is actually for in B2B
PR is not about announcements or press releases (I am not even sure journalists read them anymore). It is not about share of voice. It is not about chasing journalists for coverage.
In our world, PR exists to build external credibility that buyers can borrow internally.
When a deal is live, buying group members are quietly asking themselves variations of:
Are these people legitimate?
Do they understand our world?
Have others trusted them before?
Would I look foolish defending this choice internally?
This aligns closely with buying group research from Gartner, which shows that deals stall far more often due to lack of confidence and consensus than lack of information. PR contributes to what Gartner calls sense making. It helps groups align around whether a decision feels safe.
So from that viewpoint, PR is another tool in the arsenal that helps do that job.
PR is not the same as media relations
One reason PR disappoints is because it is often reduced to media relations alone.
It actually includes:
Media commentary
Executive visibility
Analyst relations
Third party validation
Consistent narrative across external touchpoints
Media coverage is just one output. Credibility is the outcome.
You can get plenty of coverage and still be ignored in deals if what you say sounds generic, inconsistent, or self-congratulatory.
Why most B2B PR fails
Most B2B PR fails in predictable ways.
It sounds like marketing
It talks about the company, not the problem
It overclaims and underexplains
It avoids trade-offs and reality
It focuses on announcements that only matter to that firm, rather than insight for anybody else
This is why buyers skim it or ignore it entirely. They are not looking for promotion. They are looking for reassurance.
Research from the Edelman Trust Barometer consistently shows that people trust expertise, transparency, and third-party validation far more than corporate messaging. PR that feels polished but empty actively erodes trust.
What is actually newsworthy in B2B
Most B2B companies are not newsworthy because they exist. They become newsworthy when they help others make sense of change.
What journalists and buyers actually care about:
What is changing in the market?
What is breaking or no longer working?
What leaders are seeing that others are missing?
What trade-offs organizations are facing?
What mistakes are being repeated?
This is why commentary outperforms announcements. Insight travels further than information.
If your PR plan is built around what you want to say rather than what your market is struggling to understand, it will not perform. It simply adds to the plethora of noise that is already out there.
Credibility is built through consistency, not volume
Buyers do not remember one article. They remember patterns.
This is where mental availability matters. Research from the B2B Institute shows that brands grow by being consistently associated with specific problems and outcomes over time.
Effective PR reinforces the same story across:
Executive interviews
Bylined articles
Panel appearances
Analyst commentary
Partner quotes
If each appearance tells a slightly different version of who you are, or if different executives say conflicting things, you are not building credibility, you are creating friction.
Reality check
If your CEO sounds visionary, your CTO sounds tactical, your PR agency sounds promotional, and your sales team sounds defensive, buyers will trust none of them.
How PR actually supports live deals
PR will never close deals directly, of course, but bad PR can lose it.
It can make sales conversations easier.
Good PR helps when:
Prospects already recognize your name
Stakeholders reference your perspective unprompted
Objections sound familiar rather than hostile
Sales spends less time proving legitimacy
This aligns with Forrester guidance on executive thought leadership, which emphasizes that credibility shortens evaluation cycles by reducing perceived risk.
PR works best when sales does not have to explain it.
How to tell if your PR is building credibility
If you want a simple diagnostic, ask these questions:
Would a journalist describe us as experts in one specific thing?
Do our leaders sound consistent across interviews?
Does sales ever forward this coverage without being asked?
Would a cautious buyer feel safer after reading this?
If the answer is no, the issue is not distribution it is a lack of substance.
How to measure PR without pretending attribution
PR does not lend itself to last click attribution and pretending otherwise damages its credibility internally.
Avoid over relying on:
Raw coverage volume
Share of voice without context
Generic sentiment scores
Last click revenue models
Instead, look for signals that confidence is forming:
Sales referencing coverage in meetings
Increased inbound credibility rather than inbound volume
Faster movement through late-stage objections
Analyst inclusion and citation
Executives being sought out for perspective
PR should be discussed in the language of influence, not performance marketing.
The simple rule to remember
PR in B2B is not about being visible. It is about being believable.
If your PR helps buyers feel safer choosing you and helps sales spend less time proving legitimacy, it is working. If it just fills a coverage report, it is not. Especially if you don’t actually recognise the publications who picked up your press release verbatim.
Call to action
Audit your last six months of PR and ask one hard question.
If a cautious buyer read this, would they feel more confident choosing us?
If the answer is unclear, stop producing more content and fix the narrative first.
Decide what you want to be trusted for.
Ensure your leaders sound consistent.
Prioritize insight over announcements.
Measure confidence, not clicks.
If you want help turning PR into a credibility engine rather than a coverage machine, get in touch and we will introduce you to people who genuinely know what good looks like.
In my experience, most PR underperforms for one simple reason. It is built to generate coverage, not influence.
Press releases go out. Coverage appears. Logos get dropped into decks. Somewhere along the way, teams convince themselves that visibility equals impact.
It does not.
In complex B2B buying, nobody buys because they saw your logo in the trade press. They buy because choosing you feels safe, defensible, and sensible to the people who have to put their names against the decision.
PR only works when it reduces risk. When it does not, it becomes noise.
What PR is actually for in B2B
PR is not about announcements or press releases (I am not even sure journalists read them anymore). It is not about share of voice. It is not about chasing journalists for coverage.
In our world, PR exists to build external credibility that buyers can borrow internally.
When a deal is live, buying group members are quietly asking themselves variations of:
Are these people legitimate?
Do they understand our world?
Have others trusted them before?
Would I look foolish defending this choice internally?
This aligns closely with buying group research from Gartner, which shows that deals stall far more often due to lack of confidence and consensus than lack of information. PR contributes to what Gartner calls sense making. It helps groups align around whether a decision feels safe.
So from that viewpoint, PR is another tool in the arsenal that helps do that job.
PR is not the same as media relations
One reason PR disappoints is because it is often reduced to media relations alone.
It actually includes:
Media commentary
Executive visibility
Analyst relations
Third party validation
Consistent narrative across external touchpoints
Media coverage is just one output. Credibility is the outcome.
You can get plenty of coverage and still be ignored in deals if what you say sounds generic, inconsistent, or self-congratulatory.
Why most B2B PR fails
Most B2B PR fails in predictable ways.
It sounds like marketing
It talks about the company, not the problem
It overclaims and underexplains
It avoids trade-offs and reality
It focuses on announcements that only matter to that firm, rather than insight for anybody else
This is why buyers skim it or ignore it entirely. They are not looking for promotion. They are looking for reassurance.
Research from the Edelman Trust Barometer consistently shows that people trust expertise, transparency, and third-party validation far more than corporate messaging. PR that feels polished but empty actively erodes trust.
What is actually newsworthy in B2B
Most B2B companies are not newsworthy because they exist. They become newsworthy when they help others make sense of change.
What journalists and buyers actually care about:
What is changing in the market?
What is breaking or no longer working?
What leaders are seeing that others are missing?
What trade-offs organizations are facing?
What mistakes are being repeated?
This is why commentary outperforms announcements. Insight travels further than information.
If your PR plan is built around what you want to say rather than what your market is struggling to understand, it will not perform. It simply adds to the plethora of noise that is already out there.
Credibility is built through consistency, not volume
Buyers do not remember one article. They remember patterns.
This is where mental availability matters. Research from the B2B Institute shows that brands grow by being consistently associated with specific problems and outcomes over time.
Effective PR reinforces the same story across:
Executive interviews
Bylined articles
Panel appearances
Analyst commentary
Partner quotes
If each appearance tells a slightly different version of who you are, or if different executives say conflicting things, you are not building credibility, you are creating friction.
Reality check
If your CEO sounds visionary, your CTO sounds tactical, your PR agency sounds promotional, and your sales team sounds defensive, buyers will trust none of them.
How PR actually supports live deals
PR will never close deals directly, of course, but bad PR can lose it.
It can make sales conversations easier.
Good PR helps when:
Prospects already recognize your name
Stakeholders reference your perspective unprompted
Objections sound familiar rather than hostile
Sales spends less time proving legitimacy
This aligns with Forrester guidance on executive thought leadership, which emphasizes that credibility shortens evaluation cycles by reducing perceived risk.
PR works best when sales does not have to explain it.
How to tell if your PR is building credibility
If you want a simple diagnostic, ask these questions:
Would a journalist describe us as experts in one specific thing?
Do our leaders sound consistent across interviews?
Does sales ever forward this coverage without being asked?
Would a cautious buyer feel safer after reading this?
If the answer is no, the issue is not distribution it is a lack of substance.
How to measure PR without pretending attribution
PR does not lend itself to last click attribution and pretending otherwise damages its credibility internally.
Avoid over relying on:
Raw coverage volume
Share of voice without context
Generic sentiment scores
Last click revenue models
Instead, look for signals that confidence is forming:
Sales referencing coverage in meetings
Increased inbound credibility rather than inbound volume
Faster movement through late-stage objections
Analyst inclusion and citation
Executives being sought out for perspective
PR should be discussed in the language of influence, not performance marketing.
The simple rule to remember
PR in B2B is not about being visible. It is about being believable.
If your PR helps buyers feel safer choosing you and helps sales spend less time proving legitimacy, it is working. If it just fills a coverage report, it is not. Especially if you don’t actually recognise the publications who picked up your press release verbatim.
Call to action
Audit your last six months of PR and ask one hard question.
If a cautious buyer read this, would they feel more confident choosing us?
If the answer is unclear, stop producing more content and fix the narrative first.
Decide what you want to be trusted for.
Ensure your leaders sound consistent.
Prioritize insight over announcements.
Measure confidence, not clicks.
If you want help turning PR into a credibility engine rather than a coverage machine, get in touch and we will introduce you to people who genuinely know what good looks like.
Content
Feb 8, 2026
Content
