Liam Moroney

Co-Founder, Storybook Marketing | Full-service demand generation agency

I lead Storybook Marketing, a consultancy that specializes in brand marketing strategy, to help companies become the brand that buyers think of, using an evidence-based approach to marketing.

We offer customized services, consulting, team workshops and training, to level up marketing programs so they are capturing market share and not just leads.

Founder

When we apply a performance marketing mindset to the top of the funnel, we can end up putting a lot of effort and expense into building an audience that often isn't big enough, and sometimes isn't even real.

In B2B tech I'm increasingly seeing this happening, especially with the new obsession to rank in AI search results. 

Where the effort is on trying to reach Goldilocks prospects who haven't been influenced by competitors yet, or even ones who haven't come to realize they need a solution yet, so we can come along and become their only solution.

While a very attractive concept, it's often an expensive effort to build an audience of unicorns. 

The research in B2B continuously shows that most buyers are experienced ones, or at least part of their buying group is. Kerry Cunningham frequently talks on the topic, and his research at 6sense continuously shows it.

Blank slate buyers who are problem aware but not solution aware are a fringe group, if they even exist at all. Most of our addressable market knows and has experience with the category, and have some form of a consideration set in mind.

The job in marketing isn't to find the undiscovered buyers, but to win the underserved ones. 

Our growth comes from people that exist in the big group in the middle, who have familiarity with the category and most of its players, have likely bought from at least one of them in the past, and don't need "educating".

They need a better alternative - and we have to show up often and relevantly to position ourselves in their consideration set.

Brand Marketer | Storybook Marketing | MarTech contributor

Brand gets underinvested in because it doesn't show up clearly enough in our attribution models, but should it?

Should attribution really be the central and core method for measuring marketing?

I'm not in any way anti-attribution, but I get incredibly frustrated at how much it's come to be how we, and especially leadership, believes that marketing works and gets measured.

What never gets measured in attribution is the underlying conditions that determine how well any of our efforts grow:

❓ How many potential buyers know we exist, and are we continuing to create awareness in new buyers over time?

❓ How effectively are we getting our brand to be thought of as an option to consider - something that becomes existential when purchase risk increases?

❓ How successfully are we being thought of by those buyers when they actually do come in market?

None of this shows up in attribution tools, and yet those conditions determine just how much of an upper limit there is in the effectiveness of our demand gen and performance marketing efforts.

Brand is very possible to measure in a growing variety of ways, and has been for a long time, but it requires leadership understanding and belief in how it works.

When we force it to show up in a measurement tool designed for something else entirely, we set it up to fail.

It's like trying to measure climate change with a thermometer - it will very easily miss the bigger and more existential trends because it's too narrow a view.

Brand is measurable. It's the leadership understanding that's lacking.

This race towards “AI visibility” is feeling like a gold rush without any guarantee of gold, but shovels of all shapes and sizes for sale. 

Everyone is obsessed with being mentioned or cited by LLMs, but it seems like those two things might not even be related - though you’d hardly know it from the confidence of those showing up as AI experts. 

Rand Fishkin has been raising some really important points and insights about how makes up the AI answer may not even necessarily be sourced from the citations. 

Rather it’s looking like citations are often post-hoc ways to support the answer and not what actually always informs it. 

Which, from a user standpoint is hardly reassuring, since AI might be using citations to make the answer look accurate as opposed to actually being accurate. 

And, from a brand point of view, this leaves a potentially massive delta between being part of the answer and beyond a supporting act to prop it up. 

We could easily be targeting metrics that don’t actually mean much, but the train is fully out of the station to try. 

And all of this is before we address whether being the true source of answer drives real brand value and exposure, or how much less value again a barnacle cited link might bring. 

Just like old-school SEO, more backlinks don’t guarantee more business, and not all search visibility is equal. 

All we know for sure is that none of us know for sure yet. 

It’s the Wild West out there - beware overconfident AI experts bringing their data and selling their shovel.

It's often said that "brand drives performance, and performance builds brand", but in many cases only the first half of that statement is true.

Which is problematic when you have a program whose budget heavily favors performance marketing.

Brand definitely should drive performance, and should make existing performance work better, since it's ideally creating more and better awareness of the solution to a broader group of people with at least some of them in-market now or very soon.

And performance marketing is a critical part of a healthy program, activating on people who are in-market and ensuring those hard-build brand memories get activated.

But, performance marketing often has little brand benefit since it's so volatile and opportunistic.

An ad trying to get you to take action on something you're not currently looking for is usually either totally ignored or very temporarily remembered. Our brains simply don't waste valuable cognitive energy and space on things that aren't relevant to us.

Much of performance marketing is about a moment-in-time ask - sometimes it's a price discount, sometimes just a request to take a demo.

There is little about creative like that that is remembered, if it's ever even paid attention to at all by people who aren't in-market.

It's not to say performance marketing isn't valuable - it's a critical part of an efficient program - but on its own it frequently doesn't have any lasting memory value at all. 

And, when you have programs where 70-80% of the budget is trying to nudge people to take action, you can end up with a program that is failing to build any real brand value, no matter how many logo impressions get served.

Marketing does all work together in a complex and integrated way, but it doesn't mean one type of creative is a good substitute for the other.

And when that nuance is missed, we can end up with a very ineffective and inefficient program even with a very healthy budget.

There is still a big brand marketing gap in the industry and the massive push to use AI isn't solving it. 

Most of what's being done to attract business with AI right now is reactive marketing - showing up in answers being asked in LLMs, and being mentioned as a solution when people are seeking one.

While it's important to make sure we place our brand where interest and traffic is happening, this doesn't solve the much harder job of proactively making the brand more familiar and considered before people are even there.

A lot of the buying searches happening in AI search are comparisons, where consideration search is anchored around the brands who are known, and where buyers are comparing them against others.

In essence, AI is mostly helping to do the digital equivalent of merchandising. 

We're putting the brand on the new shelves, and betting rather big that those new shelves are where most of the future buying will happen, which remains to be seen. 

But, just like getting on the shelf in a physical store, it still doesn't guarantee that you get bought even when it exposes you to active buyers. Plenty of brands have spent a fortune to make the shelves of Walmart, Target, etc, only to find that they need to spend even more on discounts to make up for the lack of awareness.

Most of what grows brands happens before the browsing moment, especially when the good being sold requires some consideration. 

It's not enough to occupy a shelf space - you also have to occupy a market presence and usually at a much larger ratio.

The truth about promotion is that it's not efficient. 

We have to get the creative in front of as many people as we can, the majority of whom aren't actively buying, and we have to keep pushing the message to overcome the reality that most won't get seen. 

To quote Les Binet, "If I had to choose between having a great ad with no money behind it and a good ad with a massive budget – I’d probably go for the good ad with a really big budget because media spending and share of voice really matter."

And because it's inefficient, it's often unpalatable to much of leadership, and so marketers get pushed towards things that feel much direct response - and we find ourselves in the advertising "Doom Loop" that David Tiltman and WARC have so eloquently described.

So here we are, where getting placed in an AI overview is taking up massive attention and effort in tech companies, while the underlying problem of being known and remembered is still neglected.

We might end up much better at being found when people are looking, but no better at being sought out by whose who aren't.

George Terry

Hey, I'm George 👋

I'm Co-Founder and Creative Director of Winbox. We help CMOs drive real pipeline using LinkedIn ads.

I've got 15+ years of experience working with B2C and B2B brands. I spent the first half of my career writing and creating copy for Adidas, Tesco, NatWest, Heinz, ESPN, Citi, and a bunch of other big brands. Then, I spent the last seven or so years working with some of the UK's top SaaS and tech companies.

I currently help 50+ brands to win on LinkedIn using paid and organic media. Here's some of the results we've driven for our clients recently:

💪 Reduced average CPL by 80% in six months
😍 Increased monthly leads by 453%
🚀 Generated 326 sales-qualified opportunities in 12 months
📈 Delivered £350K of qualified pipeline (and £200K of revenue) from one campaign

And here are a few kind words from our clients:

"I can't believe the quality of the leads we're getting in."
Hannah Poulton, Marketing Director, Q:be

"Literally every objective it was possible to set was surpassed."
Charlie Widdows, Co-Founder, Solverboard

"These results are the best I've seen. I think it's the best marketing investment we've made."
Phil Atherton, Director, Istoria Group

So yeah, plenty of happy customers! 

If you want a deep dive on our approach, head to our website: winbox.co.

And if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a message on here anytime. 

Thanks for reading.

✌️

Co-Founder & Creative Director

Creative lead across all clients and projects.

Me: *joins meeting*

Notion: Launch AI notetaker?

Me: no thanks

Google: Let Gemini take notes for this meeting

Me: I'm good

Fireflies AI has joined the call

Me: I didn't invite you

Otter.ai is requesting access

Me: no

Copilot is summarising in real time

Me: pls stop

Read AI sentiment analysis activated

Me: 🥲🥲🥲

Co-Founder @ Winbox | Podcast Host @ LinkedIn Ads Insider | Keynote Speaker & Podcast Guest | Helping 50+ Brands Win with LinkedIn Ads & Organic Content

Two events in two days - what a whirlwind! 

Yesterday we hosted a packed session at LinkedIn's London HQ, digging into the trends and feature roll-outs every B2B brand needs to be across in 2026.

The three big shifts I covered in my talk:

📌 Brand accounts → Personal accounts
📌 Corporate cringe → Authenticity
📌 Lead gen → Brand building

If you're still putting budget into gated whitepapers and pictures of people shaking hands in skyscrapers, you're fighting a losing battle.

The B2B brands winning right now are the ones putting real people front and centre, ditching the jargon, and playing the long game on brand.

And later today, 92 people (and counting!) are joining our webinar on Thought Leader ads.  🙌

Webinars and events take real time and effort. So why bother?

Because B2B runs on trust and relationships. And the best way to build both is to show up, answer questions and genuinely try to help.

No amount of content or automation can replace that.

PS. Our next LinkedIn HQ event is in June. Drop me a DM if you want to be on the guestlist!

PPS. Huge shout out to Tom, Marc and Rachael for hosting and organising!

We need better language in marketing.

Take "lead generation." It implies that marketers ‘create’ leads. Which is mad. 

The customer decides if and when to buy, and who to buy from. Our job is to get them to choose us when they're ready.

Or "demand generation." Marketers don’t generate demand. Products and categories generate demand. Marketers try to redirect some of that demand toward their solution. 

Or "converting” visitors. To convert something is to change it from one state into another. This is not how UX works. 

You can't make someone want something they don't, on some level, already want. You can only increase the likelihood that they buy the thing they want from you.

Smart marketers know this: the customer is in the driving seat. Our job isn't to change people’s minds. That's incredibly expensive and impossible to scale.

Our job is to understand what customers want and give it to them. To make our version of “the thing” seem easier, faster or better than others.

This is why the most important job in marketing is customer orientation. Understanding what people want. Working out how to give it to them better than everyone else.

The words we use shape how we think. Better language leads to better strategy.

So much confusion in marketing is driven by imprecise jargon that obscures what the work really is.

the absolute state of this “marketing team” 😂

I made a few unofficial resolutions this year. Here’s how they’re going.

1️⃣ - Use bookshops again

I’ve been a Kindle user for years. Which by definition meant I did all my book shopping on Amazon.

A new bookshop opened a couple of minutes' walk from my house. I dropped in to check it out and was reminded how nice it was to browse the shelves, find new books, chat to the staff about what’s in.

So I made a decision: ditch my Kindle and start buying physical books from an actual bookshop.

How’s it going? Amazing. I’m loving it. The people in the shop know me, they know what I like, they recommend things. I get that lovely new book smell. I’m rebuilding my collection.

10/10 would recommend!

2️⃣ - Delete Spotify

I was a pretty heavy podcast listener. When I was walking, shopping, doing chores, cooking, exercising. Mostly history stuff or current affairs.

But last year, I started wondering if the podcasts were messing with my brain. The need to be entertained. The inability to just cook a meal or take a walk without consuming media.

So I deleted Spotify. 

How’s it going? Really good! Much better than expected. I don’t miss podcasts at all. The idea of listening to one actually fills me with dread. 😂

I’m also listening to more music. I’ve switched my streaming from Spotify to NTS or Bandcamp. Which means I’m discovering more new music than I have in ages.

10/10 would recommend!

3️⃣ - Get back into cryptic crosswords

Are cryptic crosswords are a thing outside of the UK? They feel very British to me, but I could be wrong.

If you're not familiar, a cryptic crossword is an insanely hard crossword. They have their own mind-bending logic that you have to use to find the answers.

Here’s an example.

Clue: "Food enthusiast needing large input" (4)

Answer: FLAN

Why: Another word for "Enthusiast" is FAN. "Large" can be abbreviated to L. "Input" tells you to put L inside FAN. F-L-AN = FLAN, which is a food. 🤓 

I’m a word nerd, and solving cryptic crosswords is like a word triathlon. It requires deep focus, patience, lots of “hmmmm” and occasionally a “YES!!!”.

My wife bought me a book of puzzles to solve and the Chamber Crossword Dictionary to help.

10/10 would recommend!

Technology is ravenous. It will consume as much of your life as you let it. 

I’m definitely realising that, for me, there’s no downside to cutting it all the way back.

When I started running ads, I did what everyone does.

I chased higher CTR. Lower CPL. More leads.

It felt like progress. The numbers were going in the right direction. But nothing was really happening downstream.

That's the trap. You can hit all of those targets and still have zero impact on pipeline. Because…

- CTR doesn't tell you whether the right people are seeing your ads.
- CPL doesn't tell you whether those leads are any good.
- And "more leads" means nothing if none of them close.

The metrics that matter most don't live in Campaign Manager. They live in your CRM, in your sales conversations, and in whether your target accounts know, like and trust you.

We break this down properly in the latest episode of LinkedIn Ads Insider — including the metrics we actually use instead. 👇

https://lnkd.in/erdbQBX7

‼️ Last call for this Thursday’s webinar! ‼️ 

MASTERING THOUGHT LEADER ADS. Sign up here👇

https://lnkd.in/eG4_i7va

Marc and I are running a webinar later this week to show you exactly how we're building Thought Leader Ads strategies for our clients: the creative, the paid media, and the systems you need to scale it.

You'll learn:

→ Why this format delivers better ROI (and what the data shows)
→ How to make thought leader content that works for organic and paid
→ Paid media setup, targeting, and optimisation 

If you're running LinkedIn ads and want to improve pipeline and ROI in 2026, don't miss it.

Thursday Feb 26th, 13:00

See you there!

Problem I see constantly:

£5-10K monthly budget + an audience in the millions. 

The result? You're barely scratching the surface. 

Low ad frequency. Low impact. Low likelihood of pipeline.

ABM fixes this. And it's simpler than most people think.

Instead of targeting everyone who might buy from you...

1️⃣ You pick the companies that you most want to sell to. 

2️⃣ You build a list of those companies and upload it to LinkedIn so you can target them and no one else.

3️⃣ You saturate that list with creative built specifically for them.

Marc and I are running a webinar to walk through the exact 5-step framework we use with our clients:

→ How to build your target company list (Clay, Sales Nav, your CRM)

→ Creating a messaging guide that keeps the whole campaign focused

→ The demand gen and demand capture layers that drive pipeline

→ How much personalisation you actually need (spoiler: less than you think)

→ Measurement that goes beyond vanity metrics

This isn't theory. This is the exact strategy we’re using for ourselves and our clients right now.

26th March | 13:00 GMT | 45 mins

Sign up here: https://lnkd.in/emCC32P5

I don't give a monkey's how many people are clicking my ads.

I really don't. Here's what I do care about:

• Does our target market know we exist?
• Is our content and messaging resonating?
• Are people reading our case studies?
• Are people booking sales calls?
• Is our deal size increasing?
• Is our pipeline accelerating or slowing down?
• What's the ROI on our ad spend? 
• Should we invest more or less?

None of those questions are answered by CTR. Or any of the basic metrics people default to in Campaign Manager.

My top advice for people struggling with LinkedIn ads measurement is to look beyond ad-level metrics and find a better model.

One that aligns with how people really buy, and how they use LinkedIn. 

CTRs, CPLs and new leads can be useful indicators. But they’re not the end goal. 

The end goal is sales and marketing working together to generate ICP deals that come in hot and close fast.

If you’re looking for a better way to measure LinkedIn ads, check out our latest podcast episode on LinkedIn ads measurement: 

https://lnkd.in/erdbQBX7

taplio

The Battle

Liam Moroney

George Terry

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreLiam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreGeorge Terry's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Liam Moroney

George Terry

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Liam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreGeorge Terry's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreLiam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance