Category Archives: Communications

Be the CMO Everyone Wants to Work With

I’m a big fan of Dave Gerhardt and the Exit Five marketing community he has built. While I have always liked the idea of peer-networking communities, I think they change from vitamin to painkiller in times of rapid change. Why? Because the playbooks haven’t been written yet.

Take SaaS, for example. Today, you can find scores of blogs — including mine — that talk about how to run SaaS businesses, how to plan SaaS businesses, and how to produce and interpret SaaS metrics. Twenty years ago virtually none of that existed. You needed to figure it out. And one of the best ways to figure it out was to spend time with other people who were doing the same figuring.

There’s a time for timeless wisdom and there’s a time for talking to other people who are doing the same thing as you are, right now. I think AI and the massive disruption it creates in marketing — from content to workflow to performance marketing to analytics — means it’s an awesome time to join a marketing peer-networking community.

I tell this to literally every CMO I work with:

  • Come to me for timeless wisdom (if not fleeting opinions).
  • Join Exit Five (or equivalent) to talk to peers who face the same challenges you do, every day.

That’s not to say that following thought leaders isn’t a great tactic, too. I keep an eye on Emily Kramer, Elena Verna, Carilu Dietrich, Alice de Courcy, and Jon Miller. And I can’t wait for Rand Fishkin’s rumored new book on Zero-Click Marketing. If there are other marketing thought leaders you think I should be following, please let me know.

All this is why I was thrilled when Dave Gerhardt invited me to speak at Exit Five’s Marketing Leadership Retreat on March 19-20 in Phoenix. Given the above, I knew I wasn’t going to be the person delivering fresh-from-the-trenches information on AI tools and methods. The audience is 100x more qualified than I am to do that.

So what did I want to offer up instead? Some timeless wisdom. Specifically, timeless wisdom not just on how to successfully do the CMO job, but on how to be the CMO everyone wants to work with.

Why that topic? And bear in mind it takes a lot for me to pick a title that ends with a preposition. Because I thought it captured the key to success in an important way.

  • It’s not just about doing the job. Yes, that’s quite hard already but if you only focus on that you ironically increase your odds of becoming a statistic.
  • It’s not just about keeping the job. And yes, there’s an art to that, a big part of that is simply remembering to market marketing.
  • It’s about helping the boss do their job which not only increases your strategic value, but makes you more “sticky” in your role.
  • It’s about doing all that while being the CMO that everyone wants to work with (EW2WW)

Why does that last point matter?

  • Marketing is inherently a service organization, so a strong internal customer service orientation never hurts.
  • Being the CMO EW2WW helps you keep your job. With a median tenure of 18-24 months, this should never be too far from a CMO’s mind. Belt and suspenders.
  • If everyone wants to work with you, it helps you find your next job. Board members and recruiters — your top two job sources after peers — will seek you out when the time comes.
  • It might well help you get promoted to COO or CEO. If everyone wants to work with you, they might well give you a shot at the next level.
  • It frames things as a positioning problem. And we know a lot about solving positioning problems, working backwards from a desired result.

Ultimately, I’m saying that CMOs should want to position themselves as the CMO EW2WW.

Put differently: “Marketer, position thyself.

(Adapted without permission from Luke 4:23.)

With that as background, here are the slides from the presentation, embedded below, and downloadable here. I had a fairly miserable time in Gamma building them so apologies for the upside-down funnel, some of the formatting, graphics, and mechanics (e.g., the absence of copyright notice and slide numbers). There is only so much time I’m willing to spend explaining to a chatbot what expression to put on the reflected image of a face in a mirror. And once you drop into PowerPoint to make changes, there seems to be no going back.

Thanks again to Dave for having me and to Allison Saxon for working with me to make it happen.

Navigating the Mythical Sea of Sameness


Every day I hear more and more about the “sea of sameness” from founders, CEOs, CROs, and CMOs. 

The dialog goes something like this:

  • There are so many products out there,
  • They are getting more similar,
  • Customers are more confused than ever,
  • Unable to see the differences between them.
  • Thus, we are lost in sea of sameness.

I believe the first four statements are largely true, though I might challenge statement two.  But the conclusion — that we are inevitably flotsam in a sea of sameness — is where I beg to differ most.

Somewhere along the way, we got lost.  We’ve turned what should have been the problem statement into an invitation to a pity party.  The correct response to differentiation challenges isn’t “woe is me,” but “that’s why we get paid the big bucks.” 

That’s our job.  That’s what we do here:  differentiate similar products in the minds of customers.  See Positioning.  No, it’s not easy.  But the day you think differentiation is impossible is the day you should turn in your marketing gun and badge.  Differentiation is always possible.  If consumer packaged goods (CPG) marketers can differentiate rice or yogurt, then we can darn well differentiate enterprise software.

While we’re at it, none of these arguments are new.  Thirty years ago, when we were building Business Objects, most customers couldn’t tell you the differences between Actuate, Brio, BusinessObjects, Cognos, Crystal, Discoverer, Essbase, Forest & Trees, MicroStrategy, OLAP@Work, Panorama, ReportSmith, Spotfire, TM1, and a dozen other business intelligence tools.  (Yes, markets were crowded back in the day, too.)

It was not because those differences didn’t exist.  It was because you had to be a connoisseur to see most of them.  But most customers aren’t connoisseurs and don’t want to be.  They’re just businesspeople with problems that they’re hoping to solve.

Differentiation is a key duty of product marketing [1]. You do it in three ways:

  • Essence distillation.  First, you need to find the essence of what makes the product different.  Sometimes those differences are general, sometimes they’re specific to given use-cases. The key questions are:   What’s actually different?  What’s not, but maybe the founders wished it were?  What used to be different, but isn’t any more [2]?  What’s different, but only in shades-of-gray and not in black-and-white [3]?  You need to get to the heart of what’s both actually different and differentiate-able, in the sense that you can explain why pretty easily.
  • Emphasis of differentiated features.  Once you understand what’s different, you need to build a message that emphasizes your differentiation.  One standard approach is to “set the agenda” by turning your differentiation list into your buyer’s selection criteria.  One way to do that is to write an Evaluation Guide that explains the key features buyers should be looking for and which prominently includes your key differentiators and why they matter.
  • Selling benefits and consequences.  Every feature has benefits (the good things that happen when you have it) and consequences (the bad things that happen when you don’t).  Great marketers market both.  Think:  alerting is critical to the successful deployment of your conversational intelligence system [4].  Or:  God help you if your data governance platform can’t manage data assets from the modern data stack [5].  

In short:  if you’re shopping for a product in [category], then be sure to find one that includes features ABC.  If you do, you’ll succeed and reap benefits DEF.  If you don’t, you’ll fail and face consequences PDQ.  See my post on how to build a marketing message for more.

Navigating the Sea of Sameness

So how do you navigate the sea of sameness?  Good old-fashioned product marketing.  But if the answer is so simple, one must wonder, why are people talking so much about the sea of sameness today?  Why is the volume so high on this message?

Are products really getting so similar that customers can’t see differences among them?  Or is it something else?

I think the sea-of-sameness conversation is less about changes in markets, and more about changes in marketers.  That is, the staffing profile of today’s software CMOs.

Back in the day, nearly 100% of CMOs came from product marketing backgrounds.  Today, that’s no longer true.  Because pipeline generation is now the sine qua non of marketing, the vast majority of today’s CMOs come from demand generation backgrounds. 

So, when faced with a challenging differentiation problem, it’s a little too easy for them to blame the market and tell the CEO that we’re lost in a sea of sameness. 

When you’re only tool’s a hammer, problems that don’t look like nails are for someone else to solve.  Many CMOs are, in effect, saying that the problem isn’t marketing’s lack of skills in finding and emphasizing product differentiation, but that such differentiation does not exist.

Hogwash.  The fault lies not within our stars but within ourselves.                   

What’s a founder/CEO to do about all this?

  • Beware knee-jerk brand spending.  If you follow this line of reasoning, you then say “well, since we can’t differentiate our product, we’re going to need to differentiate our company.  Ergo, we need to spend a ton on branding.”  While brand spend might be a good thing for your company, it might not be.  But God help you if you think differentiating your company is going to be easier than differentiating your product [6].
  • Hire a strong product marketer.  In most cases they should report directly to you — and not a CMO more interested in pipegen or a product leader more interested in roadmap.  While board members might question this as unusual, you’ll find a better product marketer if they work directly for you and remove a potentially uninterested middleman.
  • Work closely with them.  Great product marketers need to interact with (even, interview) the CEO, founders, and product leaders repeatedly, searching for nuggets, and structuring what they hear.  The process is highly iterative and somewhat subjective.  Hopefully with each cycle you improve both quality and consensus. 
  • Support them.  While the product marketer should be able to hold their own in debates with sales, product, and the e-team, there is no substitute for founder/CEO support when trying to standardize a company on a message.  Think:  “I know this may not be perfect, but it’s very, very good, and we’ve iterated ten times with Sandy.  This is what we’ve decided to go with.”

As a founder/CEO you’re likely to already be hearing about the sea of sameness from your sales and marketing teams.  The question is:  what are you going to do about it? 

Blame the product, and set off on a endless quest for potentially irrelevant differentiation – all while investing more and more of your marketing dollars in branding?  Or hire some product marketers who can distill the essence of what you’ve got today and build on it?

There is no sea of sameness.  Only marketers who don’t know how to differentiate.

Notes

[1] Some product marketers think demonstrating value is the job.  And in some situations (e.g., an early-stage startup selling an entirely new thing) you do certainly need to sell value.  But in more developed markets, the game quickly changes from why buy one to why buy mine?   The reward for successfully selling the concept is typically N competitors all selling something similar.

[2] Companies often cling to lost differentiators, well past their neutralization date.  This is likely due to positive reinforcement from past success and, surprisingly, the fact that it usually still works for a while even though the feature is no longer differentiated.  (A mind is a difficult thing to change.) But eventually customers learn that the differentiation is no more, and you lose both product differentiation and credibility with the customer.

[3] And is harder to demonstrate.  So hard, perhaps, that it’s not worth trying.  This is why I often refer to “graying-out” competitive differentiators.  You don’t need to match them functionally; you just need enough to take their formerly black-and-white difference and turn it gray, changing their claim from “only” to “better.”

[4] And you should be able to explain why.

[5] And yes, you should explain in detail the exact problems that God will need to help you with.  The rhetoric is fine, but only if you can back it up.

[6] If you think tech products all look the same to customers, try tech companies.  They’ve all got hip founders who went to Stanford to MIT, tons of venture capital (and no, they can’t tell Redpoint from Sequoia), modern offices, ping pong tables, youthful energy, a “we’re going to change the world” vision, customer focus and integrity as core values (regardless of whether they actually practice either), and a strong conviction that their people is really what differentiates them.  Think hard about really differentiating your company from a dozen others, in your space or not, and then you might find yourself in a real hurry to go back and differentiate your product.

The First Rule of Messaging: When in Doubt, Be Clear

[Cross-posted from LinkedIn, see note.]

<rant>

I can’t tell you the number of times I applied this rule when I ran marketing from $30M to $1B at Business Objects back in the day. It’s 1:00 AM, I’m doing final edits on a press release or launch deck. Sure, I have some crazy creative idea that I’d like to try. But it’s 1:00 AM and the materials need to be ready tomorrow.

When in doubt, be clear.

I’ll be creative another day. Or, I’ll get my shit together earlier next time and leave myself more time to be creative, try something, get feedback, sleep on it, and make a final decision. Creativity needs feedback and time. It’s inherently riskier. But time’s the one thing I don’t have in this scenario.

Or, I’ll be reading something where I’m lost in the minutiae of differentiation. Christ, I can barely understand it. Should I stick with the writer who’s trying to differentiate or should I kick it up a level and just ensure people understand what it is and why they might buy one?

When in doubt, be clear.

I guess I’ll need to leave differentiation to another day. And put more work into writing the shorter letter that crisply explains why my feature is different from the other product’s. But, once again, I don’t have time.

So, when in doubt, be clear.

So many marketers today get axle-wrapped in jargon, buzzwords, and attempts at differentiation that when people hear your schtick, they glaze over. They have no idea what it is or why they’d buy one. But they know it’s AI-native, next-generation, cloud-native, low-code/no-code, a copilot, and now agentic.

But what was it again? I have no idea.

When in doubt, be clear.

</rant>

Note

As part of my evolving social media strategy I now write short, ranty posts on LinkedIn and usually reserve Kellblog for longer, more well thought out — and hopefully better written — posts. But today I wrote a quick rant that I liked enough that I wanted to post it here for posterity (and indexability). If you want to read all my stuff, please also follow me on LinkedIn because some material only goes there. And if you want to hear all my stuff, please listen to SaaS Talk with the Metrics Brothers, my podcast with Ray Rike.

Seven Messaging Lessons from the 2024 Election

While I don’t do politics on Kellblog, I do analyze messaging, including political messaging. My point is not to change your mind on a given issue, but to study what works in the major leagues [1]. Towards that end, I wrote a post back in January entitled Analyzing Core Messaging in the 2024 Election. I argued that the campaign messages distilled down to:

  • Republicans want to save the country from a list of crises
  • Democrats want to save democracy from a man

And that the Democratic message suffered from four key flaws:

  • It was too cerebral — e.g., saving the American ideal and the soul of the nation.
  • Fighting a man sounds vindictive while fighting for the country sounds noble. (Irony noted.)
  • Democracy isn’t all that popular an idea. It’s often referred to as the least bad form of government.
  • The message to cross-over voters was effectively: take one for the team. Vote for someone you don’t like in order to save the democratic system of government. (Hint: that’s not very compelling.)

I understand there are a hundred other factors that influenced the outcome and people will be studying that for years. But in this post, I want to take a quick look at some of the messaging tactics that I think worked to the Republicans’ advantage. I’m not going to touch on truth or falsehood both because that’s quicksand and because lots of other people do [2].

Here are the tactics that I think worked to the Republicans’ advantage:

  • A simple, clear message. Put “Save America” against uh, well, I can’t even tell you what Harris’ message was. “Joy,” or “The Other Guys Are Weird,” or perhaps, “A New Way Forward”? [3] This is a big problem. You should always have a simple clear message for your candidate or, in technology, for your company and product [4].
  • Talking about the problem. The Republican message recites a litany of problems with America. But it is very light on solutions (e.g., “I have the concepts of plan“) [5]. I have long believed that 80% of winning is about demonstrating understanding of the problem. In tech, we are so eager to talk about the solution (i.e., the product) that we fail to use the powerful technique of demonstrating absolute fluency in the problem. Complete your customers’ sentences when they’re describing the problem. They’ll love you for it. And then trust that you can solve it [6].
  • Differentiation. While the Democrats did differentiate from the Republicans, they failed to differentiate from themselves. Given the unpopularity of the Biden administration, this was essential. But Harris offered no differentiation message. This enabled Republicans to position her as a continuation of the unpopular status quo. In tech, we must remember not only to provide differentiation from our direct competitors, but also our indirect ones, and sometimes from ourselves (e.g., our prior version). Most marketers build one generic differentiation message. They should build N specific ones.
  • Tit-for-tat messaging. For example, “I’m not the threat to democracy, you’re the threat to democracy.” This goes all the way back to 2016 and “I’m not the puppet, you’re the puppet.” This tactic works because it muddies the issue. You don’t even need a strong counter-argument to neutralize the message because all you’re trying to do is gray it up [7]. The desired conclusion: “Well, they’re each a threat to democracy in their own way.” This works in technology. “We’re not the ones with scaling issues, they’re the ones with scaling issues.” Just build an argument to support the assertion. Even if it’s somewhat contrived, it can still work when you remember the job is not to win the point, but only to muddy it up.
  • Attacking the opponent’s leaders, not their supporters. I think “the enemy within” can be seen as referring to key Democratic leaders. Whereas Hillary’s deplorables, Biden’s garbage, and Obama’s scolding were attacks not on the opponent’s leadership, but on their supporters. You don’t win votes by insulting people [8]. In technology, never attack the users of a product, but instead how the product has evolved. “Picking X was a good decision at the time, but now people are finding problem Y.” Or, “it was a great company back when you selected them, but new owners have come in, changed the leadership team, and killed innovation. We can help.”
  • Speaking in plain language. Republicans generally express themselves in simple language. Democrats, not so much. Can voters correctly define facism? Regressive tax policy (in reference to tariffs [9]). Supermarket price gouging. Neoliberalism. Reproductive rights. Demagoguery. If someone needs a dictionary to understand your message, it’s a big problem. In tech, we should use regular language, as opposed to industry jargon, whenever possible. Confused people don’t buy from you. Especially when you’re a small startup.
  • Consistent use of standard vocabulary. Open borders. Coastal elites. Immigration crisis. Invasion. Endless wars. Mass deportations. Election integrity [10]. Love these terms or hate them, Republicans picked them and used them over and over on the stump. Marketing is a game of repetition. Not only do the Democrats generally prefer more abstract words, they lack the discipline to repeatedly use them. Many technology companies do the same thing. They never settle on a common vocabulary, use multiple words for the same concept, and confuse people as a result. And the easiest thing for a confused buyer to do is nothing. That is, not buy your product.

No matter your views on the outcome of this election, I hope you can appreciate some of the messaging lessons that can be learned from it.

Peace out.

# # #

[1] While I’m not trying to evangelize my views, nor do I try to deeply bury them. So they have a habit of leaking out. If that bugs you, stop reading here. In regards to my own views on the election, I’ll just say that it looks like I picked the wrong week to quit stoicism.

[2] It’s difficult to compete against an opponent who lies constantly. (In software as in politics.) But it’s not impossible if you inoculate against their lies in your messsaging (e.g., our competitor is going to tell you XYZ, here’s why they do that, and here’s why it’s not true) and call them out when they do (e.g., using tactics like tit-for-tat below). In this election, the lying issue was muddied up using tit-for-tat (described in the bullets above) with the desired conclusion being: “all politicians lie,” which grays out the large differences in frequency and degree.

[3] “A New Way Forward” wasn’t a bad message, but it was neither fully developed nor hammered home. (I had to go to her campaign website to learn it was the message.) Moreover, The New Way Forward was absolutely gutted by Harris’ flub on The View, which basically said that the new way forward is the same as the old way forward. Talk about driving a stake through the heart of your own message.

[4] For a startup, your company message is your origin story. Why you exist.

[5] Or the slogan “Trump Will Fix It” which captures the spirit perfectly.

[6] The other advantage of not proposing detailed solutions is that you have no concrete plans to attack. While Project 2025 was a very specific plan, Trump immediately backpeddled when faced with its unpopularity. It won’t take long to find out the extent to which that backpeddling was disingenous.

[7] A lot of messaging is the basic battle between black/white and gray. You want black/white differentiators for your offering and you want to gray out the differentiators of your competition. Think: in fact we both have that feature, but we do implement it differently.

[8] Also, when attacking an opponent with a cult-like following, you should never attack the cult because it only makes it stronger. That’s why people were dressing up as garbage cans after Biden’s gaffe.

[9] Many people don’t understand tariffs let alone how they represent regressive tax policy. Or, for that matter, what regressive tax policy is. The correct counter-message would have been to position tariffs as a sales tax or as an inflation driver.

[10] Which surprisingly became a non-issue on 11/6/24.

Should Marketers Say “Business Outcomes”?

Sometimes. But make sure it’s not out of laziness or ignorance.

Increasingly, you’ll hear the term “business outcomes” popping up in software marketing.  While I initially loathed the phrase for its vagueness, over time I’ve come to believe that, much like the frequently-abused word “solutions,” there is a right and a wrong way to use “business outcomes.” 

Let’s start with two examples.

Example 1: 

Our skills-based HR solution helps you inventory your talent so you can better leverage the people you have and achieve the business outcomes you desire.

Example 2:

Our metadata platform helps you deliver clean data to business analysts so they can build better models, make better decisions using them, and deliver superior business outcomes.

These are ostensibly similar claims.  Both are in feature/advantage/benefit form (i.e., our feature X gives you advantage Y that delivers benefit Z). However, I strongly dislike the first one, while I’m almost-OK with the second.  Why?

Example 1 deals with a specific application where it’s possible to enumerate concrete benefits such as:

  • Save money by making more productive use of your existing talent
  • Save more money by eliminating new hires from the plan
  • Increase employee satisfaction by providing more stimulating work (that leverages their skills)
  • Reduce attrition and backfill costs as a result of increased employee satisfaction

Saying “business outcomes” instead of enumerating these advantages strikes me as either lazy (if you can’t be troubled to enumerate them) or ignorant (if you don’t know them). It leaves too much to the mind of the reader. The reader has to figure out the advantages of the feature. They have to answer the question “so what?” on their own.

Leaving too much to the mind of the reader by omitting advantages and benefits is — not to put too fine a point on it — the cardinal sin of marketing. Don’t make people figure it out. Tell them.

If laundry detergents can take you from the green spot (feature) which is an emulsifier to remove stains (function) to whiter towels (advantage) to happier spouse (first-order so-what = advantage) to kiss from your spouse (ultimate benefit), then we in technology can certainly take you from skills inventories (feature) to happier employees (advantage) to saving money (advantage) to getting promoted (ultimate benefit).

When you have something to work with, when you have an advantages stack to climb, failing to do so is a dereliction of marketing duty. You should be called before the Marketing High Tribunal, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years of writing technical documentation.

(I’d argue this is often caused by a subtle form of templatitis, an endemic disease in marketing, where you fill in the template with the name of the template field. In this case, business outcomes.)

Example 2 suffers from the same problem, but with one big difference. Because we’re marketing a low-level data platform that can be used for almost anything, it’s basically impossible to enumerate benefits without knowing more about what the customer wants to do with it.  If I were writing a solutions piece on customer relationship management, I could talk about how cleaner data means better churn prediction means less churn means higher NRR. If I were writing a fintech piece, I could write about how cleaner data means better fraud detection means less fraud means reduced fraud costs means higher profits.

So the question becomes:  are there benefits that you can reasonably enumerate? At some point you have to know what someone wants in order to climb the advantages stack. But even here, I think I could do better:

Our metadata platform helps you build a superior data infrastructure to drive your organization’s data culture, help analysts build better models, make better decisions, and deliver superior business outcomes across areas like finance, marketing, and operations.

It’s not great. Look, this is a tricky marketing problem. We’re trying to climb a generic advantages stack in a way that results in more compelling messages than save money by working smarter. Here’s what I did to try and improve it:

  • Knowing that CDOs buy data platforms, I tuned the message toward CDO priorities (which I can learn through market research)
  • I know that CDOs see their job as building enterprise data infrastructure, so I tell them directly that we help with that. Our product can makes yours better.
  • Many CDOs have a strategic mission to build a data culture, so I make that explicit. If you buy our platform it will help advance you on your strategic mission.
  • I remind them that better data means better models means better decisions means better business outcomes. Since I have no idea what outcomes they’re seeking, it’s hard to do better — other than being generic (e.g., “more profit”) which isn’t compelling or taking shots in the dark (e.g., “increase inventory turns”) that will either hit or miss.
  • But since I know that most of our customers are delivering data to finance, marketing, and operations, I throw that out to be a bit more specific. Think: ask me about how we help finance teams.

As with many challenging games, sometimes the only wining move is not to play. Or to change the rules. How can we do that? Write a different piece.

Sure, every product needs its web page and product overview. And that’s the land of generic feature/advantage/benefit marketing. Climb the benefits stack as high as you can. But since it’s hard to get strong business benefits when playing the generic game, maybe you should invest less energy in product marketing and more in solution marketing. Write about use-cases instead. Write a solutions piece about how your metadata system can help customers build their customer data platform (CDP) and get the many marketing benefits of a CDP. Write a case study about how BigBank uses your metadata platform to help with fraud detection and save $60M/year as a result.

But either way, don’t get lazy and say “business outcomes” because you don’t want to enumerate them or, worse yet, because you don’t know them. Check yourself each time you write the words. Ask yourself: Can I climb the stack higher? Can I enumerate actual benefits? Am I truly in a situation where “business outcomes” is the best I can do?

If yes, say it. And then start thinking about the next piece you need to write so you can change the rules.