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.

Parry Headrick

Founder at Crackle PR ⚡️Text me if you need tech PR: 415.246.8486

I’m founder of Crackle PR, a b2b tech public relations agency that works with good companies only. With over 20 years of experience in the PR industry, I have led marketing, communications, and new business functions for award-winning PR firms, serving clients in the B2B sector. 

As a PR agency leader, I am transparent, picky, and fearless. I do the right thing for my clients, my team, and my community. I am a big idea guy, a stellar writer and content creator, and a media trainer and counsel to the C-Suite. Text me if you need tech PR: 415.246.8486.

Founder 

Crackle Communications is a tech public relations agency that works with good companies only. We know communications, social media, branding and creative services cold. We’re a remote-first PR agency built for now, with deep experience connecting stories to their audiences. Warning: we’re transparent, picky and fearless.

My LinkedIn feed is filled with copywriters desperate to find work. 

People say AI can’t replace human writing. 

Most folks say they use AI for ideation, feedback, etc, but not to actually *do the writing*. 

Maybe. 

But I’m seeing so much terribly boring, formulaic, insipid marketing copy and LinkedIn posts that I’m thinking the correlation is real:

Human writers are losing jobs to AI. 

We just aren’t admitting it yet because it feels icky to say. 

But I’ll die on this hill: 

Strong writing is now—and will always be—the number one trait I look for when hiring for my team. 

Because great writing is a massive differentiator in AI’s sea of sameness. 

Don’t sleep on the humans. 

This is the way ✊

Founder at Crackle PR 🎙️ Text me for tech PR: 415.246.8486

💥 We don’t know if the economy is about to tank. 

But we do know this: 

PR isn’t a “nice to have” that can be cut to save costs any more. 🔪

Not this time. 

As CEO Gregory Galant of Muck Rack  correctly notes, PR is no longer just “brand-building”: 

It’s a performance channel. 

Large Language Models like ChatGPT heavily favor *earned media* in their answers to your questions. 

👇







Helllloooo, PR 👋


Vroom vroom 

🏎️💨

This is the way ✊

👋 PR pros: Don’t sleep on earning niche/industry coverage for clients. 

And this part is important AF:

All LLMs like ChatGPT and Claude, *do not cite earned media equally*. 

To wit: According to a study by Muck Rack, ChatGPT tends to cite large, mainstream publications in its answers. 

Meanwhile, Claude favors: 

-smaller pubs
-niche trade outlets 
-specialized media sources  

That’s a HUGE distinction. 

Another key point, according to Muck Rack: Claude defines “recency” differently

“ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Claude all have a bias toward recent content.

But the way they define ‘recent’ differs:

Claude has a citation sweet spot in the past 10 weeks, whereas ChatGPT shows a sharp citation drop-off after about one week. 

If ChatGPT rewards immediate visibility, Claude rewards sustained relevance…

For PR teams, this suggests:

✔️Coverage doesn’t “expire” as quickly in Claude’s ecosystem

✔️Stories published 2-4 weeks ago still have a strong influence

✔️A consistent drumbeat of earned media over several weeks may have a different impact compared to one big moment,” Muck Rack says. 

One thing is clear: earned media is more important than ever as LLMs gain prominence over traditional SEO. 

Final thought: 

**It’s critical for marketing & PR partners to use actionable, fluid data to win the visibility game over the long haul. 

Hat tip to Muck Rack for keeping it real ✌️

This is the way ✊

🚨 DON’T: Hire a PR agency if you don’t have the time or resources to truly partner with them. 

DO: Hire a PR agency when you prioritize it as a key business driver. 

Because it is. 

Especially now, when LLMs heavily cite *earned media* in their answers to “which company has the best ______?”

But PR agencies can’t do it alone.

You’ve gotta put skin in the game. 

This is the way ✊

👇

That feeling when Gartner predicts budgets for PR and earned media will 2x by 2027 as LLMs replace tratitional search☺️ 

This is the way ✊

No alternative text description for this image

taplio

The Battle

Liam Moroney

Parry Headrick

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreLiam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreParry Headrick's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Liam Moroney

Parry Headrick

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 ScoreParry Headrick's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreLiam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance