The founder answers all three.

Later that day, there are customer calls, an issue with a supplier, and a conversation about cash flow. Marketing has taken another piece of the working day, although the invoices for the actual work may be quite modest.

This is an expense that rarely appears in a marketing budget: the founder’s attention.

It’s particularly noticeable in the first year of a business, when people are still figuring out their offer, their customers, and how much they can afford to invest in attracting them.

The founder often has the most complete understanding of the business. Many marketing decisions genuinely belong on their desk. The difficulty begins when almost every operational detail ends up there as well.

The cost of having everyone ask the same person

A freelancer needs feedback. An agency needs priorities. A developer wants to know what the contact form should do. Every request seems small enough to answer quickly.

By the end of the week, the founder may have spent hours switching between tasks that require completely different kinds of thinking.

There is a good reason for some of this involvement. The business owner decides which customers to pursue, what the product can promise, how much risk to accept, and where to invest limited resources.

Once those decisions are sufficiently clear, specialists have a better basis for making the smaller choices within their areas of responsibility.

I have seen how much easier marketing coordination becomes when the people doing the work have access to the same information about the customer, the offer, and the business objectives.

That is one of the recurring themes in my work at Pinpoint and in the way I think about building marketing around the stage a business has reached.

A cheaper supplier can still take more of your time

Imagine comparing two proposals for a new website.

One supplier has a lower fee and expects the client to provide the page structure, copy, images, and detailed feedback throughout development. The other includes some of that coordination in the scope.

Both proposals may be perfectly reasonable.

The total cost depends on what the business already has, what the suppliers will deliver, and how much time the founder will need to contribute.

For a founder comfortable with writing and digital tools, the first arrangement may work very well. Someone managing a demanding operation may prefer to pay for more support and preserve time for customers, employees, and decisions that require their direct involvement.

Neither choice is automatically better. The calculation becomes more useful when time is treated as a limited resource alongside cash.

I’ve written elsewhere about marketing activity that consumes resources without building enough lasting value. Founder involvement is part of that calculation, especially when repeated approvals and changing priorities keep work from moving forward.

Decide what deserves your attention

A small amount of preparation can reduce the number of questions reaching the founder.

For a campaign, that might mean agreeing on the target customer, the offer, the budget, the main promise, and who is authorized to approve routine adjustments.

For a website, it may mean settling the basic positioning and page priorities before asking a designer to produce several concepts.

These decisions still require thought. Once made, they can support many smaller decisions that follow.

I also think founders benefit from knowing when they need someone to coordinate the marketing work already being done.

For some businesses, that responsibility can sit with an internal employee. Others may need temporary project support or an external marketing director working on a fractional basis, depending on the volume of work and the stage of the business.

The relevant question is how much coordination the business needs and what kind of responsibility the person taking it on can reasonably assume.

What remains on the founder’s desk

A founder will always have decisions that deserve their time. Choosing a new market, changing the business model, committing to a significant investment, or accepting a reputational risk cannot be reduced to a routine approval.

Marketing is more manageable when those decisions are made consciously and the smaller tasks can move forward without constant intervention.

When I look at a marketing plan, I want to understand what it will require from the people involved, including the founder. A modest budget can be a good starting point. It also needs to be realistic about the time, information, and decisions required to make it work.

That is why I think a useful marketing budget should answer one more question: how much of the founder’s attention will this plan consume?

The Marketing Expense a Founder Never Gets an Invoice For was originally published in StartupInsider on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Imagine a manufacturer receiving a substantial order from a new customer. The project is technically feasible, the buyer seems serious, and the contract value is promising.

Then the details begin to add up. The delivery window is tight. Some specifications require extra work. Payment will arrive later than usual. The project may also displace other orders already in the production schedule.

Depending on the price and the costs involved, the sale could still make good commercial sense. It deserves a closer look before anyone decides how attractive it really is.

Situations like this are useful when thinking about marketing, especially in businesses selling complex products and services.

The kind of demand a business generates has consequences long after someone fills out a contact form.

What a campaign cannot tell you about a customer

A marketing report can show how much it cost to attract an inquiry. A CRM may show which opportunities progressed and which contracts were won.

Those numbers matter. They become more useful when the business can connect them to the economics of serving the customers.

A large project may require unusual delivery arrangements, additional service, extensive customization, or significant working capital. A smaller customer may fit the existing operation better and return with repeat orders.

There is also room for strategic choices. A business may deliberately accept a lower margin on an initial project because it wants to enter a promising segment or develop a long-term relationship. The founder can weigh that opportunity against the cost and uncertainty involved.

What interests me is whether marketing knows enough about these priorities before it starts attracting more demand.

In my work with manufacturers and businesses with longer sales cycles, understanding the product and the commercial model has been essential to decisions about positioning, target audiences, and communication.

The sales team knows what prospects ask, where negotiations become difficult, and which relationships are developing. Production or delivery teams know what different promises require in practice. Management has the broader picture of margins, capacity, and investment priorities.

I use those perspectives when developing marketing recommendations.

This is part of the reason I approach fractional marketing leadership as a business-facing role, with ongoing involvement in the company’s priorities and the people responsible for delivering them.

Some customers are valuable for reasons beyond their first order

Customer selection becomes particularly interesting when a business changes its commercial model.

A manufacturer expanding through distributors, for example, has to think about the value of an ongoing relationship. A prospective partner’s reach, service standards, market position, and ability to develop repeat business may matter more than the size of the first purchase.

I’ve worked on this kind of transition, with marketing changes shaped by conversations with the founder, sales leadership, and production.

The experience is documented in my case study on B2B repositioning and distribution growth.

The practical consequence is that customer profiling becomes a commercial decision. It influences what the business communicates, which channels receive attention, what the sales team needs from marketing, and how results are interpreted.

It can also make some apparently attractive opportunities less relevant to the direction management has chosen.

A useful question before increasing the budget

When a campaign brings promising results, the instinct to invest more is understandable.

Before recommending that step, I want to know which customers are responding, what they are buying, and what the business expects to gain from those relationships. I also want to understand whether the organization has the capacity to deliver the additional work well.

These questions become part of marketing planning connected to business growth and available resources.

There are no universal answers. A startup developing its first market may accept economics that an established manufacturer would find unsuitable. A business with unused capacity may evaluate a new order differently from one operating near its limit.

That is why I find customer selection such an interesting marketing decision.

Winning business is rewarding. Knowing which business is worth pursuing gives that success a more useful meaning.

The Hidden Cost of Winning a B2B Customer was originally published in Women in Technology on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Sales wants the product benefit higher up the page. The technical team has concerns about a performance claim. The founder feels the tone is slightly different from the way the business speaks to customers.

Each comment may be reasonable. Together, they leave the designer with a difficult question: whose feedback takes priority?

I’ve spent years working across marketing, brand communication, and project management, often with several departments and external specialists involved. One thing I’ve come to appreciate is how much of a project’s progress depends on decisions that happen away from the creative work itself.

A graphic designer can develop an excellent concept and still lose days waiting for people to settle a question about the offer. A copywriter can revise a headline several times because the business hasn’t agreed on its main selling point. And a founder can spend an entire afternoon reviewing details that someone else could have approved within an agreed framework.

These situations rarely begin with unreasonable people. More often, the project has reached a decision that nobody realized was still open.

Three kinds of feedback, three different responsibilities

I find it useful to distinguish between feedback about accuracy, feedback about direction, and feedback about execution.

A technical objection deserves immediate attention when a claim needs evidence or a product specification is incorrect. A question about positioning may require the founder or the person responsible for brand direction. A suggestion about layout, format, or visual treatment belongs in a conversation with the specialist doing the work.

The distinction becomes especially important in industries where marketing promises have operational consequences.

During a B2B product launch I coordinated for a manufacturer, the work involved production, sales, external creative specialists, and partners who needed to understand the new products before the public announcement.

Technical information had to be confirmed. Commercial materials had to be ready when the sales team needed them. The wider communication followed a planned sequence.

The challenge was keeping those dependencies visible while people were working on different parts of the project.

I’ve described that experience in more detail in a case study about coordinating a B2B product launch.

It reinforced something I had learned in previous roles: the timing of a decision can be as important as the decision itself.

A comment is easier to handle when its purpose is clear

Consider the familiar request, “Can we make this feel more premium?”

There may be a useful observation behind it. Perhaps the language sounds too casual for customers making a significant investment. Perhaps the visuals resemble a lower-priced competitor. Perhaps the product’s actual advantages are getting lost.

The creative team can work with any of these explanations. Each points toward a different solution.

I would rather spend a few minutes understanding the concern than send a vague instruction that creates another full round of revisions.

Of course, feedback remains part of creative work. Good ideas can reveal weaknesses in the original assignment, and new information sometimes justifies a change in direction. The important thing is to make that change consciously, with its implications for time, budget, and the people involved.

This is particularly relevant to marketing projects involving several teams and suppliers, where a seemingly small change can affect a website, a product brochure, a sales presentation, and a launch schedule.

The person approving the work has a job, too

Creative reviews involve judgment, experience, and sometimes personal taste. The person giving final approval has the responsibility to explain what matters to the business and to make the decision after listening to the relevant specialists.

That responsibility can be uncomfortable. A good idea may still need to be set aside because another direction suits the project better. Someone who has invested time in a proposal deserves to understand why.

Having worked in execution roles myself, I know how much thinking can sit behind a detail that looks simple in a finished design. That experience influences how I approach marketing and collaboration at Pinpoint.

For me, a useful creative review ends with a decision people can act on. The team knows what changes, what stays, and who is responsible for the next step.

Then the people hired to create something have room to get on with their work.

Everyone Has Feedback. Who Owns the Decision? was originally published in Venture on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Cost per lead gets more attention in marketing reviews than almost any other number. It is easy to calculate and fits on one slide, so it often stands in for the whole question of whether the marketing works, and when it goes down, the meeting relaxes. In my experience it deserves more curiosity than that, because a lower cost per lead can describe two very different situations.

Sometimes the campaigns have genuinely improved, with targeting closer to the people who buy and a landing page that explains the offer better. At other times the advertising platform has found cheaper people to show the ads to: people who click and fill in forms easily and are much less likely to buy. Both situations produce the same line in the report, and the marketing dashboard alone cannot tell them apart.

The view from the sales side

I saw how much the sales side changes the reading of this number while running campaigns for a credit brokerage that offered several types of loans in several cities. A lead for a mortgage and a lead for a personal loan cost different amounts to generate, take different amounts of work to qualify and bring very different revenue. An average cost per lead across all of them described almost nothing useful. We reported by city and by service line, and the decisions that improved the campaigns came from the feedback loop with the sales department. That loop showed which requests turned into real conversations with an adviser, and where the message of an ad did not match what the person clicking was looking for.

Part of that work was simply agreeing on definitions. Marketing and sales decided together what counted as a lead worth passing on and what counted as a qualified opportunity. Once those definitions existed, the cost per lead could be read next to the cost per qualified conversation. When the two numbers move in different directions, the gap between them is where the useful discussions happen.

Spending less without losing quality

The reverse case is just as instructive. During the repositioning of a B2B manufacturer, a PPC and funnel audit showed that part of the budget was going to channels that produced contacts without producing business. We cut monthly media spend by about half and moved the remaining budget toward high-intent searches and partner leads. Lead quality held and then improved, at a time when the construction market was slowing down. A cost-per-lead chart would have shown little of that story, because the improvement was in what the leads were worth to the sales team.

Reading the number with a second opinion

When a founder asks me whether a falling cost per lead is good news, I ask for two numbers next to it. The first is the share of leads that sales considers worth working, measured with definitions both teams have agreed on. The second is the cost of a qualified conversation: the cost per lead divided by that share. It usually tells a founder more about where the money goes than the original figure.

A simple invented example shows why. Suppose the cost per lead falls from €20 to €15 while the share of qualified leads drops from 40% to 25%. The cost of a qualified conversation then rises from €50 to €60. The report shows a 25% improvement, while the business pays 20% more for each conversation that can turn into revenue. I would also look at quality by source and by product line before celebrating any average, since a cheaper campaign can change the mix of requests the sales team receives without anyone noticing for weeks.

What to bring to the next budget meeting

The tools most companies already have are enough for this. What matters is that marketing and sales agree on what a good lead is, tag requests consistently in the CRM for a few weeks and look at the two numbers together. A large part of my work as a fractional CMO consists of bringing the sales side into marketing decisions early enough that the budget follows the leads that become business.

The next time the cost per lead goes down, it is worth asking sales, before anyone presents it as a win, how many of those leads they would want more of.

Your Cost per Lead Went Down. Is That Good News? was originally published in DataDrivenInvestor on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Every business that sells something complex has a handful of questions its people answer every week. In a solar company they tend to be about eligibility and about what happens after installation, and in a manufacturing business they gather around delivery dates and technical details. The usual response is to treat them as a content task. Someone improves the FAQ page, the sales team receives a sheet of approved answers, and a few months later the same questions are still arriving.

I have learned to read that persistence as information. When a question survives a well-written answer, the cause usually sits somewhere the FAQ page cannot reach, in a process nobody has defined or in a decision that has not been made yet. The questions themselves cost nothing to collect, since they already live in inboxes and call notes. They point quite precisely at the places where customers feel the business is uncertain.

What customer service brought to a strategy table

A few years ago I coordinated the annual marketing strategy for a solar company preparing to open in several new regions over the following year. The plan drew on market data, competitor research, CRM records and the sales team’s view of objections and deal patterns. One of the inputs came from customer service: the questions people kept asking, the moments when their trust wavered and what they expected after the sale.

We brought those observations into structured meetings with the sales and technical teams, whose purpose was to check what marketing could promise against what the company could deliver in each new region. Some of the questions could be answered with better material, and the plan included portfolios and technical documentation for that purpose. Others depended on how delivery and post-sale support would work in regions where operations were still being set up. Those answers had to be agreed with the people responsible before marketing could repeat them anywhere.

Two kinds of recurring questions

Since then I sort recurring questions into two groups before deciding who should act on them. The first group has answers that already exist but reach the customer too late, or in a form they cannot use. A technical term is explained only in a datasheet, or a step of the buying process gets explained in every sales call because nowhere else covers it. These belong to marketing, and they are usually the cheapest improvements a company can make.

The second group has answers that do not exist yet, or exist only in someone’s head. Customers keep asking when their order will arrive because the person answering cannot see its status. They ask whether an exception is possible because nobody has decided which exceptions the team may approve on its own. A better script improves the tone of those conversations, and the question comes back anyway, since the uncertainty sits in the process or in a decision that belongs to management.

For a founder, the two groups carry very different costs. The first kind is solved with a few days of writing and design. Solving the second involves a conversation between departments, sometimes a change in tools or responsibilities, and occasionally the admission that the marketing materials promised more than the operation could support.

A question log, once a month

The habit I recommend is simple enough to start next week. Once a month, ask the people who talk to customers, in sales and in customer service, which questions they answered most often and which took longest to resolve. For each one, note whether the answer is written somewhere a customer can find, whose information it depends on and whether it needs a decision nobody has made. Then give each question an owner, meaning the person who can change the answer at its source, and check the following month whether it came back.

The log shows where customers are uncertain, in their own words. It also turns vague complaints about “communication” into specific tasks with names attached. In audits I look at these questions early, because they describe the business from the side customers experience, and they often point to the commercial and reputational risks that campaign data leaves out.

Why long sales cycles make this more urgent

When a sale takes weeks or months, customers ask many questions before they commit, and every inconsistent answer gets weighed during that time. I have written about what changes in marketing for technical industries with long sales cycles, and recurring questions belong to the same picture. They mark the places where the buyer’s evaluation meets the company’s internal organization.

If you want a starting point that costs nothing, ask your customer service team tomorrow which question they are tired of answering, and then ask who in the company could make it unnecessary. Whoever answers that second question is the person who should own the fix.

Your FAQ Page Is an Audit You Haven’t Read was originally published in DataDrivenInvestor on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

When the first COVID-19 restrictions reached, apartment sales at the residential project I was working on stopped. Viewings became difficult, meetings were restricted, and people who had spent months considering a property suddenly had other priorities. Some developers in the city reduced their advertising and waited for conditions to improve. We had to decide how much marketing activity still made sense, and what we could afford to keep running.

I was the local Marketing & PR Director of a premium residential development within a national real estate group, with responsibility for strategy, approved budgets, agencies, suppliers and the marketing activities supporting sales. The apartments were sold during construction, so buyers had to make a substantial financial commitment based on plans, renderings, specifications and the information they received from our consultants. Decisions often took months, and some people had been in contact with the project long before they were ready to buy.

We had already invested in introducing the brand to the local market. There were advertising campaigns, sales materials, a growing database of contacts and ongoing conversations with prospective buyers. When sales slowed, that history became particularly important in deciding what to do with the marketing budget.

What a pause in sales can tell you

A sudden fall in contracts tells you that fewer people are buying. Understanding what has happened to their interest takes more work, especially when the purchasing decision normally takes several months.

During the restrictions, some potential buyers continued asking questions and comparing apartments, while others postponed their plans. The sales team had contacts in the CRM who already knew the development, its location, prices and payment options. We could follow those conversations, although we had no way of knowing exactly who would return or when.

This mattered when deciding what to cut.

Stopping all promotion would have reduced expenditure immediately. It would also have interrupted the communication we had maintained with people who might reconsider their purchase once circumstances improved. Continuing with the original media plan would have ignored the changes in how our audience spent its time.

I discussed the budget with management in terms of the buying cycle and the commercial activity we needed to preserve. The existing contacts deserved attention because we had already invested resources in reaching them, informing them and bringing them into conversations with the sales team.

Their interest had value. How much of it would eventually turn into contracts remained uncertain.

Keeping the brand visible under different conditions

Our launch strategy had relied partly on radio, outdoor advertising, press and PR. These channels had helped introduce a new residential brand to a city where buyers were understandably cautious about purchasing apartments from plans.

During lockdown, traffic dropped and daily routines changed. The exposure we could expect from billboards and radio was different, particularly for people who normally encountered those messages while commuting.

We reduced offline advertising to a fraction of its previous level and redirected part of the budget towards online brand promotion. Google Search campaigns continued for people who were actively looking for apartments, and we maintained a presence in financial publications to reach potential investors.

We also changed the tone of our social media communication. One campaign explored what people dream about, love and create at home. The subject fitted a period when homes had become workplaces and, for many families, classrooms as well.

There was a practical reason for keeping the brand present in these conversations. A buyer who postponed a viewing could still follow the project, see the latest information and remain familiar with the development. Maintaining communication helped us continue that relationship while the usual sales process was disrupted.

At the same time, the marketing team continued preparing visual content for the project. We worked on new renderings of the common areas, interior design concepts for apartments on the upper floors and video materials that could be used in online communication and future sales presentations.

The sales team kept working with contacts already recorded in the CRM, including people who needed more time to decide. We used the information coming from those conversations to understand which questions buyers still had and what they needed to see.

As restrictions eased, we introduced a physical element that made the offer easier to evaluate. We rented a glass-walled container near the construction site and furnished it, together with our suppliers, as a demonstration apartment, with finishes, furniture and smart-home technology.

Visitors could finally examine materials and see systems they had previously known through architectural renderings. The demonstration space arrived at a point when physical visits were becoming possible again, building on the information we had continued to provide during the restrictions.

Keeping those activities going required decisions about priorities and approvals. We were dealing with reduced sales and an uncertain timeline, and I had to explain why some marketing investments still deserved a place in the budget.

The length of the buying cycle was central to that argument. We were working with people whose purchasing decisions had already developed over several months. The immediate slowdown affected when they could buy, and we needed to keep following their interest as the situation changed.

What the record quarter actually showed

The residential market eventually recovered, and the construction of our building had progressed. Prospective buyers could see the development taking shape, which made it easier to assess a project that had previously existed mainly in plans and renderings.

Some people who had delayed their decisions returned to the sales process. We also had new contacts and a few existing buyers who came back to purchase another apartment.

The strongest sales quarter during my time with the project produced almost three times as many apartment sales as the average of the preceding four quarters, with the same volume of new leads in our corrected internal reporting.

The comparison and its attribution limits are explained in the original Pinpoint case study.

The market recovery contributed to the result, as did the progress of construction and the work of the sales consultants who handled negotiations and contracts. Marketing had continued to develop the brand’s visibility, support commercial conversations and prepare the information buyers needed.

The experience also changed how I looked at monthly marketing reports. New enquiries and signed contracts could follow different timelines. A strong sales month might include people who had first contacted the business much earlier, while some of the leads generated that month might only become serious prospects later.

That distinction matters whenever founders are trying to decide whether their marketing is still useful during a slowdown.

The decisions I would take into another crisis

The conditions of a recession differ from those of a pandemic lockdown. People may continue commuting, visiting showrooms and attending meetings while becoming more cautious about spending. Outdoor advertising or radio might remain appropriate, depending on the audience and the market.

When I discuss marketing expenditure with founders during a difficult period, I want to understand what is happening to buyers before recommending changes to the budget.

Some may be waiting for financing, some may need more evidence before committing, and others may have postponed their purchase because their own financial circumstances have changed. The sales team can often distinguish between these situations through its ongoing conversations.

I also want to know what the business has already accumulated. There may be people in the CRM who have visited, requested offers or discussed a purchase over several months. Their previous interest deserves to be understood, even if some of those opportunities are no longer commercially relevant.

Financial capacity is equally important. Maintaining brand visibility and customer relationships can make sense when the business has sufficient resources and a credible prospect of future demand. A business facing immediate cash-flow problems has different priorities. I assess marketing risks in that context, weighing the immediate cost of each activity against the consequences of stopping it.

Research offers useful context here. A Harvard Business Review study of 4,700 publicly listed companies across three recessions found that businesses combining selective cost reductions with investment in future opportunities, including marketing, were better positioned for recovery. The findings concern broader business strategy, and the right level of investment still depends on the circumstances of each business.

Advertising costs also deserve attention during a downturn. When competitors reduce spending, some auctions may become less competitive, creating opportunities to maintain visibility at a better cost. It is worth checking actual campaign data, since prices depend on the platform, audience and auction conditions.

For a business with a long buying cycle, I would pay particular attention to the work already done to create interest. Marketing budgets fund new opportunities, but they also support conversations that began months earlier. Keeping those conversations relevant requires an understanding of the buyers, the sales process and the resources available.

During the restrictions, we could not predict when the residential market would recover or which contacts would eventually sign. We could decide how to spend the remaining budget, what information to prepare and how to maintain communication with people who were still considering the project.

Those were decisions we could make while sales were almost at a standstill.

If sales in your business slowed sharply tomorrow, how many of the people who had already shown interest would still have a reason to stay in touch?

The Buyers Who Said “Not Now” was originally published in StartupInsider on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

When founders ask whether a senior marketing manager can really work remotely, I understand the hesitation. Marketing touches too many parts of a business to feel like something you can safely hand to a person who is not physically there every day.

Then I think about what my teams actually looked like.

The founder might be in one city, I would be working from another, the web developer somewhere else, the PPC agency with its own team, the graphic designer working independently, while the information we needed came from sales, production, customer service or people working in the field.

Even if I had spent every day sitting next to the founder, a large part of the marketing operation would still have been distributed.

That has been true across several of my longer collaborations, from manufacturing and energy to financial services and experiential marketing. My role usually included the ongoing management of marketing, with priorities, budgets, suppliers, reporting and decisions, alongside individual projects such as a website rebuild, a CRM implementation, a repositioning, a campaign or a new commercial system.

Working remotely made some management habits more visible because there was less room for information to travel by accident. Someone had to know where the current version lived. A supplier had to know who was giving the final direction. A decision had to reach everyone whose work depended on it. A delay had to be understood in terms of what else it would move.

Over time, this became part of how I approach marketing work more broadly through Pinpoint: start with the business, understand the people and constraints, then build enough structure for the work that actually needs to happen.

I map the business before I map the tasks

At the beginning of a project, I want to understand what the business is trying to achieve, what already exists, who is involved, how much time and budget are available, where information comes from and how decisions are really made.

That last part matters a lot in smaller and mid-sized businesses. An organisational chart rarely tells the whole story.

The founder may approve one category of decisions. Sales may have information that changes the commercial message. Production may need to confirm a technical claim. Customer service may know the questions buyers keep asking. An external agency may already be running campaigns that depend on a website managed by someone else.

In one energy business, for example, the PPC agency, web developer, sales team and founder already existed when I came in. Later, when I coordinated the CRM implementation, the project had to connect campaign forms, the website, email, sales stages, lead routing, users and reporting.

The software itself was only one part of the work. I first needed to understand what happened to a lead from the moment it entered the system until somebody in sales took over.

In an experiential marketing agency, the situation was very different. Marketing was managed remotely while the actual work came alive at physical activations and events. That meant thinking about marketing before the event happened. What images would we need? What should the field team document? What information would make the project useful as a case study later?

Some moments cannot be recreated once everybody has packed up and left.

This is also why I try to establish decision rights fairly early. If I am coordinating a supplier, that supplier needs to know whose direction to follow. Four people sending separate feedback to the same designer or developer usually creates a different problem from the one we were trying to solve.

A useful brief carries the thinking that happened before it

Briefing is one of the areas where I see the connection between strategy and project management most clearly.

By the time I brief a designer, developer or advertising specialist, I have usually worked through a much bigger set of questions.

What is the business trying to achieve? Who are we speaking to? What role does this asset play in the buyer journey? What can we genuinely claim? What should someone understand or do after seeing it? What information still needs checking? Who approves the result?

The answers become different instructions for different specialists.

In one manufacturing project, we were developing visual identities for two product ranges with different commercial roles. One was associated more strongly with aesthetics, light and comfort. The other leaned into structure, precision and long-term durability.

The designer needed that distinction because it gave the creative work a reason. The task was larger than producing two visually pleasing logos. There was a business logic behind each identity, and that logic created a useful frame for creative decisions.

The web developer needed a different version of the same strategy. The questions there were about structure and behaviour: which pages had to change, how products should be organised, what professional buyers needed to find, where trust signals belonged, how users moved towards the next action, what happened to form data and what had to remain consistent across languages.

I handled the translation between the business need and the specialist brief. The developer could then focus on the technical solution.

Advertising teams needed another translation again. They needed to know which products had priority, which audiences mattered commercially, what qualified as a useful enquiry, what claims we could support and which page matched each campaign.

I wrote separately about one of the larger B2B projects where this kind of coordination connected marketing, production, sales and external suppliers.

A good brief also gives you a way to judge when the work is actually finished. A webpage being live does not automatically make it complete. The form may need testing, mobile may need checking, links and tracking need to work, the final text needs to be in place and somebody has to approve the result. A campaign is similar. Ads can be technically ready while the landing page, lead routing or sales follow-up still need work.

For me, this is where project management becomes very practical. “Done” has to mean something that the people involved can recognise.

The right system is sometimes sophisticated. Sometimes it is an Excel file.

I have worked with CRMs, automation systems and dedicated project management platforms. I have also run projects perfectly well with Google Drive, shared documents, email and carefully structured spreadsheets.

The system depends on the complexity of the work and on the people who have to use it.

When several projects run in parallel, responsibilities overlap, approvals happen at different levels and one delay can affect five other tasks, a platform such as Asana or Monday can be extremely useful.

A smaller project may need far less.

I have never found much value in adding software simply because professional project management is supposed to look sophisticated. If four people can see what they need in one well-built document and they actually use it, the system is doing its job.

Different tools also hold different kinds of information. A project tracker tells me where execution stands. Drive holds files. A CRM tracks leads and commercial activity. An ERP may contain operational information that marketing should reference rather than duplicate somewhere else.

The part I care about most is knowing where the current version lives.

This sounds almost too basic to mention until you have a designer working from one text, a developer working from another and a founder approving a PDF that stopped being current three days ago.

Distributed teams make version confusion expensive very quickly.

Remote communication works better when the channel has a purpose

I do not want every small question to become a meeting.

A quick clarification can happen in a message. An approval or structured request is easier to manage somewhere it can be found later. Working documents need a shared home. Commercial information belongs in the system where commercial activity is already being tracked.

Important decisions also benefit from a small amount of memory.

Sometimes that means nothing more complicated than an email or a note recording what we decided, when we decided it and what changes because of it. A month later, that context can save a surprisingly long conversation.

Video calls become valuable when several perspectives need to meet at once. If marketing, sales and the technical team all see different parts of the same problem, a shared conversation may resolve in twenty minutes what would otherwise spend days moving between inboxes.

I also use live conversations more at the beginning of a relationship or when something feels uncomfortable or unclear. Remote work makes it easier to miss the fact that somebody has understood the task differently, has a concern they have not raised, or needs more context than you realised.

The rest of the time, people need space to do the work.

I also pay attention to how long a project spends waiting. A developer can deliver everything on time and still appear “late” if the project has been waiting four days for an approval. Knowing whether the work is delayed by execution, information or decision-making leads to much better management conversations.

A deadline means very little without dependencies and capacity

Marketing projects rarely move in a perfectly straight line.

A paid campaign may depend on an offer, a landing page and tracking, then on the people who receive the enquiries. A website needs structure, content, design and development, with information often coming from other parts of the business. A photo or video project requires preparation long before the filming date and produces more work afterwards.

I try to identify early decisions that have the power to block several other things.

Once those are stable enough, other workstreams can move in parallel.

I also plan around real availability. A task that takes three working hours does not necessarily have a three-hour lead time. The specialist may only be able to start next Tuesday. That difference matters when the next three tasks depend on the result.

The level of checking changes with the cost of a mistake too.

Something that will be printed hundreds of times deserves an earlier review than a small digital asset that can be corrected quickly. A claim in a sensitive industry deserves a different validation process from routine social content. A tracking mistake in a significant paid campaign can affect far more than the person who configured it.

Experience has made me increasingly interested in reversibility. The harder or more expensive a decision is to undo, the earlier I want the right people looking at it.

Scope changes are part of the project, and they need to be treated fairly

Projects change because businesses change.

A new piece of information appears. A founder sees an opportunity. A product gets delayed. A sales conversation reveals something useful. A new asset suddenly becomes necessary.

When that happens, I look at what else the change moves.

Does it affect the deadline? Is there enough budget? Is the specialist available? Does another deliverable need to move? Can we include it now, or does it belong in a later phase?

This also matters in the relationship with suppliers.

There is a meaningful difference between correcting work that did not follow the agreed brief and asking for new work because the brief itself has changed.

When a supplier has already worked against an approved direction and the business changes its mind, I think it is fair to acknowledge that the project changed. Depending on the size of the change, time and cost may need to change with it.

Long-term supplier relationships become much healthier when both sides can tell the difference.

Leadership gets more personal when you cannot rely on physical presence

I have managed experienced specialists and I have also mentored a marketing intern completely remotely.

The amount of structure people need varies.

With a junior, I care about how they arrived at the result because that tells me what they understood and where they need more context. Early on, I may create more checkpoints, give examples and explain the reasoning behind a decision. As the person understands the business and the work, they can take on more independently.

With an experienced specialist, I usually care more about the quality of the brief, the expected result, the deadline and anything that may put the rest of the project at risk. Their expertise deserves room.

Seniority alone does not decide the level of autonomy. Familiarity with the business, the ambiguity of the task, the history of the working relationship and the cost of a mistake matter as well.

A senior person entering a technical business for the first time may need more context than a junior who has spent a year inside it.

One of the most useful things a manager can create remotely is enough trust for people to say things early.

“I do not know.”

“I cannot make Friday.”

“I made a mistake.”

“I am missing something.”

These are useful sentences while there is still time to do something with them.

Disagreement is useful too. Sales may see a message differently from marketing. Production may challenge a claim. An agency may recommend a different route. The founder may have another commercial priority.

My role in those moments is to understand why each person sees the problem differently, check what we actually know and turn the discussion into a decision the project can use.

The founder should stay involved without becoming the marketing switchboard

This is one of the patterns I have seen repeatedly in founder-led businesses.

The agency needs an answer. The developer needs approval. The designer sends options. Sales has feedback. Someone asks about budget. Someone else needs a decision before they can continue. Individually, most of these questions look small. Together, they turn the founder into the point through which the entire marketing operation has to pass.

A senior marketing manager can absorb a large part of that coordination. How much depends on the relationship and the mandate. Some founders delegate broadly. Others prefer to approve more. What matters is knowing where that line sits.

When I need a founder decision, I try to bring the problem in a usable form: what happened, which options I see, what each one changes and what I recommend.

Reporting works in a similar way. The founder rarely needs a diary of everything I did that week. They need to know what is moving, what changed, where there is risk, how the budget looks and whether a decision needs them.

This is also a large part of how I think about a Fractional CMO or external marketing director role. I have written separately about how I divide marketing decisions between a fractional leader and the founder, because the quality of that relationship depends heavily on having enough responsibility to manage while keeping the founder close to decisions that genuinely belong at business level.

Remote management still has physical edges

Some of the businesses I have worked with had factories. Others had activations, filming days or events. Those things still happen somewhere.

Production people validate technical information and prepare the product. The event team runs the activation. The photographer goes to the location. Sales speaks directly with customers.

My job is to make sure the marketing work connects to what happens there.

That may mean briefing the field team about what needs to be documented, obtaining technical validation before publishing something, or making sure photos and project information arrive in a format that can be used later.

A distributed model therefore does not mean every activity becomes remote.

There are also businesses where a senior person should probably be physically present more often. A highly operational team in one location, a showroom with constant activity, continuous field management or a difficult internal period may benefit greatly from someone being there.

Sometimes a predominantly remote relationship also benefits from simply sitting in the same room for a day.

I find the question much more useful when it is specific: what does this role need to observe, decide, coordinate and influence in this particular business?

Good external management should leave something behind

I pay attention to what remains when a project or collaboration ends.

Final files matter, of course. So do working documents, open issues, account access and enough context for somebody else to pick up the work.

In external collaborations, I prefer important business assets to remain under the business’s control. Analytics, advertising accounts, domains, hosting, CRM systems and other core platforms should still be manageable after one supplier or consultant leaves.

I also keep whatever can make future projects easier: brief structures, useful templates, arguments that have been validated, processes that worked and notes about what slowed us down.

That is part of risk reduction too.

A business should be stronger because somebody good worked inside its marketing system, rather than becoming more dependent on that person’s inbox, memory or private accounts.

That principle sits behind much of my work at Pinpoint and behind the way I approach project-based marketing interventions as well as longer-term leadership. You can see more of that work and the feedback I have received from founders and collaborators on my Pinpoint profile.

After several years of working this way, I tend to evaluate remote marketing management through fairly practical questions.

Can the manager reach the right people? Can decisions move without disappearing into private conversations? Do suppliers know who is coordinating them? Can problems be raised early? Is the system simple enough for people to use? Does the founder know what requires their attention? Can somebody else understand the project if one person is unavailable?

When those conditions exist, distance can become a manageable part of the operating model. When they do not, putting everybody in the same building may still leave the underlying management problem exactly where it was.

Before you go

• Please take a moment to like the post and follow the writer!
• Did you know that over 400,000 developers share what they’re building, learning, and discovering across our platforms every month? Learn how you can contribute here.

The Team Was Already Remote Before I Was was originally published in Venture on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

The people inside the business usually understand the difference very well. They know which materials matter, how the product is manufactured, what tolerances are acceptable, how equipment is calibrated, what gets tested and what can create problems later. They also know why one component was chosen over another and which investments have improved production over time. Most customers never see that entire system. They see the finished product, a technical sheet, a quotation and perhaps a few claims about quality.

I came across this situation while working as a Fractional CMO and Marketing & PR Director for an European manufacturer of premium technical products for the construction sector. The business already had substantial manufacturing experience, international certifications, automated production equipment and long-term relationships with established German suppliers. Its commercial model also relied heavily on distributors and resellers, so the communication had to work across several layers. The manufacturer had to earn the partner’s confidence, and the partner then needed enough knowledge and evidence to explain the product to somebody else.

This is where the idea of “German quality” became relevant.

It was already present in conversations around the business because there were several concrete reasons for the association. Important components came from German manufacturers, part of the production technology was German, an independent German technical institute audited the products and manufacturing processes, and the team maintained professional links with the German market and attended major technical trade fairs there.

From a marketing perspective, this gave us useful material, although the phrase itself was far too broad to carry the positioning on its own. Expressions such as “German technology”, “German standards” and “German quality” are common across technical industries, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Buyers have heard them many times, so their value depends heavily on what follows.

The work therefore began with the evidence.

Turning a familiar association into something the buyer can verify

Country-of-origin associations have been studied in marketing for decades because people often use origin as one of several signals when evaluating products. This becomes particularly relevant in categories where quality is difficult to judge before purchase.

A buyer can look at a window, an industrial component or a technical system and understand some of its visible characteristics, while many of the factors that determine long-term performance remain hidden. Manufacturing consistency, component durability, process control and laboratory performance are difficult to evaluate from the outside. In these situations, certifications, suppliers, production methods and previous experience become part of the decision.

Germany has a strong reputation in fields associated with engineering, manufacturing and technical precision, and the association is familiar to European buyers as well. That gave us a useful cultural reference point. The next step was to establish exactly which elements of the business supported it and what each of them meant commercially.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence was an external certification issued following periodic audits by an independent German technical body. Initially, the certification existed in the communication much as certifications often do: as a badge, a logo and a statement that the products were certified.

Once I looked into the actual audit procedure, the marketing value became much clearer.

The auditors examined the production process in considerable detail. Their checks covered manufacturing instructions, cutting and welding tolerances, welding temperatures, measuring and control equipment, reinforcement, glazing, corrective processes and the resistance of welded joints. Product testing also included repeated opening and closing cycles and performance under air, water and mechanical pressure.

Those details allowed us to explain the certification in a way that a buyer could understand. It showed that an external technical organisation had examined both the product and the way it was manufactured. It also gave us a way to talk about consistency, which is particularly important in a category where customers expect the same level of performance across many units and over long periods of use.

For distributors, this had an additional commercial meaning. Their reputation is influenced by the quality of the products they recommend. When something fails after installation, the end customer usually contacts the seller or installer. A reseller who has spent years building trust locally therefore has a strong interest in choosing suppliers whose products and processes have been properly verified.

The certification could consequently support a very practical sales conversation. The reseller could explain who had audited the product, what had been checked and why those checks were relevant. That gave them evidence they could use when recommending a premium solution.

Translating technical facts for different people in the buying process

Another important part of the work came from recognizing that the same technical information has a different meaning depending on who is making the decision.

Technical businesses often communicate features accurately and assume that the practical relevance is obvious. In reality, a reseller, an architect and an end customer can look at the same specification and extract completely different value from it.

For a reseller, a recognized certification can strengthen the recommendation made to a customer and support the commercial argument behind a higher-priced product. For an architect or technical specifier, documented performance can help with product selection and give confidence that the proposed system meets the requirements of the project. For the end customer, the same information has to connect with day-to-day experience.

Water tightness, for example, ultimately relates to protection against leaks. Air permeability influences comfort and energy performance. Wind resistance matters when a product is installed in exposed conditions. Mechanical durability affects how well it will cope with repeated use over many years.

This became an important principle for the content strategy. We used the same body of technical evidence in different ways depending on who needed to understand it.

One article explained product testing specifically for resellers and translated technical performance classes into information they could use during sales conversations. Another addressed architects and connected certification with performance and the requirements of energy-efficient projects. Product pages combined technical specifications with explanations of their practical consequences.

As a result, the information became easier to use throughout the buying process. The engineering remained accurate, while the explanation changed according to the questions each audience was likely to have.

Making suppliers part of the argument

The business also worked with several recognized German component manufacturers. Their names already carried credibility in the industry, although simply placing supplier logos on a website would have left much of their value unexplained.

Ingredient branding works particularly well when the role of the component is clear. A respected supplier can act as a quality signal, and the signal becomes considerably stronger when the buyer understands what that supplier contributes to the final product.

Hardware gave us a useful example. The communication included information about load capacity, testing cycles, security classes, ventilation functions and configuration options. For a reseller, those details created material for a much better customer conversation because the recommendation could be adapted to the building, the way the product would be used and the priorities of the person buying it.

The same approach applied to profile systems and other technical components. The supplier provided one layer of credibility. Product specifications explained another part of the story. Certification introduced independent verification, while the factory and manufacturing process showed how those elements were brought together.

Over time, these separate pieces started to reinforce the same general perception of the business.

Using the factory as evidence

Industrial marketing often has an advantage that consumer brands would love to have: much of the proof already exists inside the operation.

The factory in this case offered a large amount of valuable communication material. A major automated production line from Germany had been installed following an investment of more than one million euros. From a communications perspective, the important part was understanding what this technology changed in the production process.

Automation increased repeatability, reduced variation associated with manual execution and allowed tighter control over manufacturing. These were meaningful advantages because they connected the investment directly with product consistency.

This is also why I find FAB analysis useful in technical marketing. It creates a simple discipline around the way information is translated.

The automated production line is the feature. Greater repeatability and tighter process control are advantages. For the buyer, the benefit is increased confidence that the product is being manufactured under controlled conditions and that the quality of one unit can be reproduced across many others.

Once we applied the same thinking to photography and content, the factory became part of the brand story in a very natural way. Machinery, quality checks, production stages, employees and working conditions all gave people access to a part of the business they would normally never see.

For a manufacturer, this kind of visibility can carry significant weight because it allows the operation itself to support the claims being made in communication.

Bringing the positioning into a product relaunch

Around the same period, the business was preparing to relaunch a premium product line on a new technical platform. That gave us an opportunity to apply the same reasoning at product level.

The work covered positioning, commercial architecture, buyer benefits, naming logic, visual identity and launch communication. Each audience was considered separately because the reasons for choosing the product varied considerably across the buying chain.

Resellers and installers needed technical arguments that could strengthen their own offer and help them explain the premium price. Architects and developers were interested in areas such as performance, robustness, energy efficiency and specification. The end customer’s concerns were closer to comfort, security, durability and long-term value.

The visual identity also drew from precision and engineering, using geometry and measurement-inspired cues that felt connected to the technical character of the product.

By the time we developed the product page, the German association was supported by several connected elements: the profile system, the hardware, the automated production process and external certification. Each one had a specific role and could be linked to something relevant in the buying decision.

The broader positioning therefore emerged gradually from a collection of facts that already existed inside the business.

Building consistency across the communication system

Once the logic was established, the next challenge was consistency. In this case, consistency meant allowing people to encounter the same underlying idea through different forms of evidence over time.

Long-form website content gave us enough space to explain the certification process properly. Product pages connected technical characteristics with performance. Articles translated testing and technical information for different professional audiences. Newsletters helped distributors understand products and components well enough to use the information in their own customer conversations.

Commercial presentations brought together manufacturing, suppliers, certification and product evidence. Social media offered room for shorter technical explanations, factory content, partner stories and updates from the industry. PR and founder communication helped educate the market about product quality and professional installation.

Industry events also played a role. Participation in a major German trade fair provided useful content because it showed that the business remained connected to technological developments, automation, suppliers and the wider professional community in its category.

The communication therefore developed through accumulation. A buyer might first see a supplier relationship, later read about a certification, then encounter factory content and eventually see the same ideas reflected on a product page. Each contact added context to the previous one.

That is often how technical brands build credibility. People rarely form a strong perception from a single statement. They form it through repeated exposure to evidence that fits together.

Giving resellers an argument they could carry forward

The reseller network added another layer to the strategy because the communication had to remain useful after it left the manufacturer.

A manufacturer working through partners has to help those partners understand the product well enough to explain it confidently. This changes the role of marketing materials considerably. A brochure or technical article becomes part of the sales infrastructure.

We developed technical sheets, reseller materials, commercial presentations, product explanations, catalogues and educational content that could support conversations further down the commercial chain. Physical product samples gave sales teams and partners another practical tool.

Over time, I came to see one useful test for B2B positioning: can the argument still make sense when somebody outside the marketing team explains it?

A reseller should be able to tell a customer that the production process is independently audited, that certain components have been tested for a defined level of use and that these characteristics matter for a particular project. The language will naturally change from one person to another, while the core evidence remains intact.

I later saw the same types of proof appearing in partner communication. There are many influences behind the way resellers communicate, so I would not assign that development to a single marketing initiative. What it showed, however, was that the information had become practical enough to travel through the network.

Being precise about what marketing contributed

I am also careful with the results I attribute to this kind of work.

We did not run a controlled brand study before and after the repositioning, so I cannot quantify a change in the association between the manufacturer and German engineering. Sales performance, service incidents and subsequent commercial partnerships were influenced by many parts of the business, including production, sales, management, pricing, product development and market conditions.

There are still several outcomes that can be observed directly.

The positioning became visible across the website, educational content, product communication, commercial presentations, sales tools and partner materials. The same technical evidence was adapted for different buyer groups. The premium product relaunch followed the same strategic logic, and the communication system continued to be used after the initial work.

During the wider repositioning period, branding and PR also contributed to the credibility surrounding an important new international supplier relationship, together with the operational, commercial and technical work involved in building that partnership.

For me, this is a more useful way to discuss marketing impact because it keeps the contribution connected to what can genuinely be traced.

What other technical businesses can take from this

The broader lesson from this project extends well beyond the window and construction industries.

Technical businesses often have strong trust signals already embedded in their operations. A manufacturer may own machinery that improves production consistency. An automotive supplier may hold demanding certifications and work with respected OEMs. An industrial equipment business may use components from established European suppliers. A construction business may have operational experience in Germany and project management practices shaped by that environment. An engineering business may have technical leaders trained within a particular industrial culture.

These facts can all become useful in positioning when they are relevant to the buying decision and when the business can explain their practical meaning.

When I work through this kind of situation, I usually look at a few connected questions. What associations already exist in the buyer’s mind? Which of them genuinely matter in this category? What evidence gives the business the right to use that association? How does each technical proof point affect performance, risk, comfort, commercial credibility or long-term value? How does its meaning change between a reseller, an architect, a professional buyer and the final customer? Finally, can the argument be explained easily by somebody further down the sales chain?

In this project, “German quality” became useful because there was enough substance behind it to explain where the association came from. The certification documented an external verification process. The production equipment showed investment in control and repeatability. The components had specific technical roles. Product performance could be measured and explained. Resellers could use those facts in conversations with their own customers.

That gave the positioning a foundation people could understand, verify and pass on.

When “German Quality” Is More Than a Slogan: Building Trust for a Technical B2B Brand was originally published in Women in Technology on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

I worked as a Fractional CMO with a renewable energy business that had reached exactly that stage. It already had experience with photovoltaic systems, from residential installations to projects designed for businesses producing energy for their own consumption, and the founder wanted to expand into larger opportunities: solar parks, B2B and public-sector projects, as well as partnerships that could open access to those projects.

My job was to prepare the commercial side of that move. Before thinking about campaigns or producing new marketing materials, I needed to understand how these projects were actually bought, who became involved along the way and what the business would need in order to support a sales process that could last for months or, in some cases, years. From there, we could make sensible decisions about positioning, brand, website content, sales materials and partner communication.

Once I started following the path of an actual solar park opportunity, it became obvious that the business was entering a very different kind of sale.

A conversation could start with a landowner who wanted to understand whether a site had potential for a photovoltaic development. Another opportunity could come from an investor looking for a viable project, from a public organisation considering an energy investment or through a partner who already had the right relationship in place. As the project developed, questions around feasibility, financing, grid connection and authorisation would begin to shape the conversation, and different people would enter the process at different moments.

Their concerns were naturally different. A landowner needed enough context to understand what could realistically happen with the land. An investor was interested in feasibility, return and risk. A public-sector buyer worked within its own procedures and funding conditions. Financial partners evaluated the project from another angle, while designers, consultants, grid operators and authorities could influence its timing and viability.

A project of this kind develops through a sequence of decisions made by people who rarely need the same information at the same time. That had a direct consequence for marketing: the business needed to remain credible and useful through a much longer commercial relationship than it had previously been used to supporting.

I started with the buying process

When I enter a project like this, I prefer to understand the commercial reality before deciding what marketing should look like. In this case, that meant looking at where opportunities could originate, how they progressed, which questions appeared repeatedly and where uncertainty could slow them down. I also wanted to understand what the person on the other side needed in order to make the next decision, because that changes significantly as a project moves forward.

A company presentation, for example, can be useful early in the relationship, when someone has been introduced to the business and wants to understand who they are dealing with. Later, once there is a concrete project on the table, the conversation needs more specific commercial and technical information. Financing becomes relevant at another point. A partner who wants to recommend the business needs enough information to understand which opportunities are suitable and what will happen after the introduction.

Looking at the process in this way also made it easier to decide what the business actually needed from marketing. Instead of producing assets because they were part of a conventional marketing checklist, we could build them around real moments in the sales process and give each of them a clear job.

The same thinking influenced the work on the brand.

The business had developed technically and commercially, while the way it presented itself still reflected an earlier stage. That gap becomes increasingly visible when the value and complexity of the projects grow, because prospective clients and partners start evaluating the business through many small signals long before a contract is signed. They visit the website after a meeting, open the presentation that was forwarded to them, read how the process is explained and compare the experience of the conversation with the materials they receive afterwards.

All of this contributes to the way risk is perceived.

I worked on the B2B and public-sector positioning, on a new visual direction and on a system that could be used consistently across the website, presentations and commercial documentation. The business also needed to explain its wider role more accurately. It had access to services and partnerships around areas such as project design and implementation, financing options, monitoring and maintenance, with additional specialists involved where necessary. For someone considering a long-term energy investment, understanding how these pieces connect is relevant from the beginning, even if some of them only become operational much later.

The positioning gradually came closer to the business the founder was actually trying to build: a technical and commercial partner capable of handling part of the project directly and coordinating other parts through the right network.

The sales materials followed the conversation

Once the buying process was mapped properly, the commercial materials became much easier to organise because we knew why each of them existed.

A potential project might first appear through networking or a recommendation. At that stage, the person receiving the introduction usually wants enough information to decide whether another conversation is worth having. A month later, the same opportunity may have reached questions about feasibility or financing. Further down the line, the discussion becomes more concrete and eventually reaches commercial negotiation.

The business therefore needed different forms of support at different points in the relationship. The company presentation helped explain the business early on. The solar project proposal belonged further into the conversation, when there was already a specific opportunity to discuss. Website content had an important validation role because people often visited it after hearing about the business elsewhere. Partner materials helped third parties explain the business accurately when they were making an introduction, while the commercial team needed prepared answers for recurring questions around financing, land conditions, timelines and bureaucracy.

Content fitted into the same logic. It could give someone useful information between two conversations and help maintain continuity while other parts of the project were still being evaluated.

That matters more than it may appear at first. In a short sales cycle, a good conversation can be followed by a decision relatively quickly. In a project that develops over months, there can be long periods between meaningful commercial moments. During that time, the business still needs to remain understandable, credible and easy to return to.

Partnerships were part of the commercial model

The role of partnerships became particularly important because opportunities in this market do not always arrive directly from the future client.

A consultant, designer, financial partner or someone working around property and investment may already be in the conversation before the technical supplier appears. When that person makes an introduction, their own reputation is involved as well, so they need to understand what the business does, what kind of opportunity is relevant and what will happen after the contact is made.

This changes the role of partner communication quite considerably. The partner needs a proposition they can understand, materials they can use and enough visibility into the process to feel comfortable making the recommendation. The business, in turn, needs to know what type of opportunity it wants to receive and how that opportunity will be handled once it arrives.

For the renewable energy business I worked with, this meant treating partnerships as part of the way the new service line could grow commercially. The marketing materials, positioning and sales process all had to make those relationships easier to build and maintain.

The same applied to financing.

Financing came up regularly in conversations around projects for businesses and institutions, and the business was already working with several models and financial partners. I developed content that explained options such as ESCO structures, energy-efficiency funding, leasing, rental or credit, depending on the situation.

Those routes did not apply automatically to every solar park, and they were never presented as if they did. Their value was in keeping the conversation moving when a potential client reached the point where the investment itself had to be funded. The business could explain available routes and, where relevant, connect the client with the appropriate partners instead of leaving the financing question completely outside the commercial discussion.

I still use the same logic today when I decide what content or sales material is worth creating. I look for a real question or obstacle inside the buying process first, then decide what information would help someone move forward. The format comes afterwards.

What commercial readiness looked like in practice

By the end of the work, the business had a clearer B2B and public-sector direction, a brand that reflected the type of projects it wanted to pursue, website content supporting the new area and commercial materials suited to different moments in the relationship. Partners had something concrete to use when introducing the business, and the sales team had a more consistent way to continue conversations after the first meeting.

That also changed the way the founder could think about the pipeline. In a long B2B sales cycle, an opportunity may remain active for a considerable period while feasibility, financing, approvals or other parts of the project are being resolved. A relationship with a partner may take time before it generates a project. A promising conversation may pause and restart months later. Planning starts to look different once you accept that these are normal characteristics of the sale rather than signs that marketing has stopped working.

The project stayed with me because the underlying situation appears in many industries, especially in technical businesses.

A manufacturer may decide to pursue larger accounts. A software business may move towards enterprise sales. A technical services business may start working with institutions or more complex procurement structures. In each case, the operational capacity to deliver can develop faster than the commercial system around it.

When that happens, the next marketing problem is rarely a shortage of channels. The business needs to understand how the new customer buys, who influences the decision, what information is needed along the way and how the brand and sales process can support a relationship that has become longer and more complex.

Sometimes the business already has the people and the expertise for the next level of work. What takes more time is making sure the market can understand that capability, evaluate it and buy it through a commercial process that is built for the size of the opportunity.

When Your Business Is Ready for Bigger Projects Before Your Sales Process Is was originally published in StartupInsider on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

During a year working with a renewable energy SME, I watched monthly inquiries for residential photovoltaic systems grow from a few dozen to several thousand during a government programme that subsidised solar installations for homeowners.

The volume was unusual and the market context mattered enormously, so I would never use those numbers as proof that one campaign or one marketing decision created the growth. What the period did give us was enough volume to see patterns that are much harder to notice when only 10 or 20 people are entering the sales process every month.

Some leads that looked perfectly good in an advertising platform were far less useful once sales started calling them. Others cost more to acquire but came from people who understood the offer better and were closer to a real purchase. Geography mattered because installation capacity was not unlimited. Timing mattered because public funding could change a homeowner’s willingness to buy almost overnight.

It became difficult to discuss lead generation only through cost per lead.

The advertising platform sees the form. Sales sees the person behind it.

When a campaign generates leads, most of the immediate data comes from the advertising platform. You know how many forms were completed, which audience or keyword produced them and what each one cost.

Useful information, but incomplete.

The first sales conversation adds a different layer. Was the person actually looking for the product advertised? Is the property in an area the business can serve? Does the customer understand the approximate level of investment? Are they researching for some undefined future date, waiting for funding, or actively comparing offers?

We started using feedback from sales to read campaign results differently. If a source produced a high number of inexpensive inquiries but very few relevant conversations, the low cost per lead was not particularly helpful. When the same misunderstanding appeared repeatedly in calls, there was often something earlier in the journey that could be improved, either in the message, the landing page or the information collected in the form.

This is one reason I like marketing and sales to have a fairly short feedback loop in SMEs. The sales team hears language, objections and misconceptions that rarely appear in an analytics dashboard.

In the full photovoltaic lead-generation case study, I describe the project itself and what happened during the period of very high demand. The part that remains useful outside that particular market moment is the connection between the campaign and everything that happened after the lead was generated.

A good solar lead depends on what the business can actually sell and deliver

Lead quality is often discussed as if it were a fixed characteristic of the person filling in the form. In practice, the business model influences it just as much.

A lead from the wrong county may be a perfectly serious buyer and still have little commercial value if installation teams cannot serve that area efficiently. A homeowner asking for a system may have strong intent but be waiting for a funding programme that is several months away. Someone else may have sufficient budget and be ready to decide soon, but the website has not given them enough information to understand why one configuration costs more than another.

That is why I would define a qualified lead together with sales before trying to scale volume.

For a residential photovoltaic business, relevant criteria might include location, type of property, current energy consumption, financing situation and approximate purchase timing. The exact criteria will differ between businesses because operational capacity, offer and margins differ as well.

The form does not need to become an interrogation. It needs to collect enough information to make the next conversation more useful.

The website can carry part of that work too. Solar is still a technical purchase for most homeowners. They tend to understand the outcome they want much better than the equipment they are buying. They know what their electricity bill feels like. They usually know far less about inverter specifications, system sizing, installation requirements or the administrative steps involved in becoming a prosumer.

If all of that education starts only after the salesperson picks up the phone, higher lead volume also means a much larger amount of repetitive explanation.

During this project we therefore worked on the website, campaign pages and customer-facing explanations before the highest-volume period. It was part of a broader marketing strategy and implementation process that started from what the business could support commercially and operationally, rather than treating the campaign as a separate exercise.

Renewable energy leads can change without the customer changing very much

The influence of financing became especially visible once the government subsidy programme closed.

Many homeowners who had wanted photovoltaic systems now had an easy reason to postpone the investment. They had missed the funding window and could wait for another edition.

Their electricity bills had not changed because the programme ended. Their interest in lower energy costs had not disappeared either. What changed was the context in which they were making the decision.

That distinction affected the way we looked at the existing lead base.

Some people realistically needed the subsidy before they could buy. Others had the financial capacity to purchase a system themselves and had applied for public funding because it was available. Treating both groups in exactly the same way would have ignored a fairly important difference.

Together with the sales manager, I looked at scenarios based on consumption, electricity costs and the potential savings over another year. For some households, postponing the investment had a financial consequence large enough to make a self-funded purchase worth considering again.

The following communication was built around that situation. We used the cost of waiting as one of the arguments and translated the numbers into references that were easier to understand than an amortization calculation inside an ad.

The customer profile had not suddenly become obsolete. The reason for acting now had changed.

This is something I would watch closely in renewable energy because the commercial context can move faster than the underlying customer need. Subsidies change, financing terms change, electricity prices move, and regulation can affect the attractiveness or timing of an investment. Lead nurturing becomes much more relevant when the business keeps enough context to understand why somebody was interested and why they stopped.

A large database is only useful if you remember what created it

High-volume campaigns can leave behind impressive numbers and very little usable information.

Knowing that 10,000 people once completed a form does not tell you whether they were waiting for financing, comparing suppliers, researching the market or ready to buy.

That history changes what you can do with the database later.

A person who has already spent time understanding the offer does not necessarily need another awareness campaign. They may need a new reason to reconsider the decision, updated financing information, a different economic argument or simply better timing.

This is where I think many discussions about renewable energy lead generation become too focused on acquisition. Generating the contact is only one part of the commercial value. What the business learns about that person afterwards determines whether the lead remains useful when the market changes.

The same principle affects reporting. I would rather see a smaller set of metrics that connects marketing with the sales process than a long dashboard full of campaign numbers with no indication of what happened next. Cost per lead still matters, particularly when budgets grow, but I would read it alongside contact rate, qualification, progression towards an offer and the reasons people drop out.

That gives marketing something it can actually use.

The same project also reinforced why sometimes a Fractional CMO setup is preferred in an SME. When lead generation depends on the website, paid media, sales feedback, positioning and operational capacity working together, somebody needs to look across the whole commercial system rather than optimize each channel separately. The level of involvement can then change once the structure is in place and more of the recurring execution can be handled internally or by specialised suppliers.

A cheaper lead may genuinely be better. Sometimes it is simply cheaper. The reliable way to know the difference is to keep following the lead after the form has disappeared from the advertising dashboard.

Lead Generation in Renewable Energy: Looking Beyond Cost per Lead was originally published in DataDrivenInvestor on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.