Digital marketing agency of record for high-growth SaaS, FinTech, and eCommerce brands | Customer-first marketing that drives real business impact | Marketing ops for smarter measurement

In 2017, I was laid off from a great job at a struggling startup.

…so I decided to bet on myself.

I had 10 weeks’ worth of severance, and I told my wife that I would be able to pay rent at the end of the second month, or I would go get a job.

That was 7+ years ago

I’m now the CEO & Founder of an amazing digital marketing agency driving growth for SaaS, FinTech, and eCommerce brands. Since 2017, we’ve helped some of the most disruptive brands around exceed their ambitious growth goals.

Some team stats:
❤️ We’ve grown the team to over 27 people
❤️ We have employees in 14 different states
❤️ 100% of our senior promotions have been from within

Since working with us, 3 clients have gone public:
📈 Upstart - NASDAQ: UPST
📈 Loop.tv - NYSE: LPTV
📈 Markforged - NYSE: MKFG

Since working with us, 3 clients have achieved unicorn status, 2 of which went from Series B to Unicorn while working with us:
🚀 Sentry - JDM client since 2019, raised $190M+ since then, & are now valued at more than $3B
🚀 Pilot - JDM client since 2019, raised $100M since then, & are now valued at $1.2B
🚀 Glean - As of September 10, 2024, Glean Technologies Inc. is valued at $4.6 billion 

Since working with us, 6 companies have been successfully acquired
🤝🏼Azlo
🤝🏼Tulip
🤝🏼Ned Stevens
🤝🏼ICC
🤝🏼Hopscotch
🤝🏼Mobydish

We've also worked rockstar clients like:
⭐ Truecar
⭐ Lending Club
⭐ Foursquare
⭐ PandaDoc
⭐ Secureframe
⭐ Floatme
⭐ Nimble
⭐ Nintex
⭐ Sprig (formerly Userleap)

Just to name a few...

Our clients have had countless new fundraising rounds totaling more than $3.5 billion dollars.

Let me know if you want to talk about how we can help your brand grow

If you want to get started working with us:
👉GO HERE: jordandigitalmarketing.com/contact
👉Email: tyler@jordandigitalmarketing.com


Always happy to help others!

Tyler Jordan

Adam McLane

For 15+ years, I've helped mid-market and PE-backed companies build unified growth systems — not more channels, not more agencies, but the system that connects SEO, CRO, paid media, lifecycle, and analytics into one defensible engine.
Most CMOs I meet aren't struggling with "marketing." They're struggling with:

Fragmented SEO/Paid/CRO/Lifecycle teams
Conflicting dashboards that break during QBRs
Agencies optimizing in silos
No unified growth story for the board
Pressure to show results without a cohesive system

That's the problem I solve.
What I Do
I come in as a Fractional CMO + GTM Systems Operator to:

Unify SEO, CRO, paid, lifecycle, and analytics into one growth engine
Build a clean, defensible narrative executives can take to PE sponsors
Eliminate channel fragmentation that kills pipeline efficiency
Create a single source of truth for performance and ROI
Diagnose and fix growth bottlenecks fast
Bring calm clarity during high-pressure transitions (new CMO, stalled growth, redesigns, data chaos)

Why It Works
Unlike agencies or single-channel specialists, I solve the ignored struggle: No one owns the system. I take responsibility for the entire growth ecosystem, end-to-end.
Sample Wins

Unified demand engine → +47% qualified pipeline in 4 months (SaaS)
CRO + SEO overhaul → 3× organic traffic for a PE-backed media company
Acquisition system redesign → +76% revenue from paid search (DTC)
Fixed analytics + funnel clarity → Board-ready GTM narrative in 60 days

Ideal Partners
I work best with:

PE-backed SaaS, industrial, and mid-market companies
New CMOs in their first 12–18 months
Lean teams (1–5 people) juggling multiple vendors
Companies with heavy dependence on digital acquisition
Leaders under pressure to show a clear, defensible growth plan

If you're working to build (or rebuild) a growth engine you can trust, defend, and scale, let's connect.

Fractional Head of Growth

𝗪𝗵𝘆 "𝗔𝗹𝗹-𝗶𝗻-𝗢𝗻𝗲" 𝗚𝗧𝗠 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗽 𝗜𝗖𝗣 𝗕𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀
"All-in-one" only works when the 𝘸𝘩𝘰 is more specific than the 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵.

B2B SAAS platforms don't fail because of features. They fail when ICP boundaries are fuzzy.

When a GTM platform tries to serve:
• Early-stage teams
• Lean mid-market operators
• Mature lifecycle orgs
• Agencies
• E-commerce + B2B SaaS

…with one story, conversion breaks everywhere.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀:
• Clear segment ownership
• Explicit maturity bands
• Defined primary use cases (not edge cases)

Otherwise, messaging becomes: "Powerful enough for enterprise" "Simple enough for SMB"

Which usually means: → No one sees themselves → Sales cycles slow → Activation drops → Expansion stalls

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘁-𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹: 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗹𝘆.

They know who the system is for—and just as importantly, who it's not for.

That clarity compounds across:
• Marketing
• Sales enablement
• Onboarding
• Retention

Curious how other operators are drawing ICP boundaries as platforms keep expanding "upmarket + downmarket" at the same time.

Fractional CMO & GTM Systems Operator | I build unified growth engines for PE-backed companies — connecting SEO, CRO, Paid, Lifecycle & Analytics into one defensible system.

Most teams aren’t bad at optimization.
They’re bad at system design.

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀
Incentives reward local wins:
• Lower CPA
• Higher CTR
• Faster feedback loops
But growth doesn’t compound at the channel level. It compounds at the system level.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
Teams over-invest in:
• Channel-specific tweaks
• Marginal efficiency gains
• Short-term attribution clarity
And under-invest in:
• Demand creation
• Conversion credibility
• Measurement that spans the funnel

𝗔 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁

Every growth system has three layers:
1. 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 – Are new buyers entering the system?
2. 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 – Can motivated buyers convert without friction?
3. 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 – Does the business realize value post-conversion?
Most “channel issues” are one layer compensating for another.

𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀
• If upper funnel isn’t growing, lower funnel will look “efficient” right before it stalls.
• If conversion rate is flat, no channel mix will save CAC.
• If payback isn’t visible, optimization is cosmetic.

You can’t optimize your way out of a broken system.

Budget cuts rarely start with bad performance.
They start with unclear causality.

In fragmented GTM systems, spend gets cut not because it’s inefficient — but because leadership can’t confidently explain 𝘸𝘩𝘺 it works.

Here’s the hidden chain reaction:
• 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗼𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 → 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀
Each team optimizes locally. No one owns the full economic story.
• 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 → 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲
Growth is real, but attribution is incoherent.
• 𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 → 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
When pressure hits, CFO logic defaults to: “Cut what we can’t explain.”
I’ve seen teams growing pipeline and revenue, yet still take 20–30% GTM cuts — purely because no unified model connected spend to outcomes across the funnel.

This isn’t about prettier dashboards.
It’s about one shared GTM equation executives can trust.

If your GTM motion can’t survive scrutiny in a budget review, it’s already fragile — regardless of in-platform performance.

Mid-market demand generation fails when you scale enterprise tactics down or SMB tactics up.

The trap: trying to reach 500-2,000 target accounts with strategies built for either 50,000 SMBs or 100 enterprise logos.

Before companies fix this, they're running generic content syndication that generates unqualified leads, attempting pure ABM without the budget or sales capacity to support it, or spreading paid spend so thin across channels that nothing reaches meaningful frequency.

The result is high activity, low pipeline, and constant pressure to "do more."

Here's what changes when you get it right:

Build a tiered approach. Identify your top 100-200 accounts and run true ABM with personalized content, direct outreach, and account-specific campaigns. For the next 300-500 accounts, deploy programmatic ABM using intent data and dynamic personalization. For the remaining addressable market, run efficient awareness plays that drive inbound without requiring high-touch sales.

The system works because each tier gets the right level of investment and the right conversion model.

Most mid-market companies see 40-60% improvement in pipeline quality within one quarter when they stop treating all accounts the same.

Scaling demand gen to mid-market isn't about volume. It's about segmentation, systems, and knowing which accounts deserve what level of effort.

𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗿/𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺. 

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺.
1. 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (𝘁𝗼𝗽-𝗼𝗳-𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹)
The site exists to educate, capture intent, and route demand to dealers. No pricing games. No checkout. Just clean handoff.
When this gets confused: Direct orders cannibalize dealer leads. Dealers stop trusting marketing. Everyone loses visibility.
2. 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝗞𝗨𝘀
Replacement parts, consumables, low-margin accessories. Things dealers don't want to sell—or can't sell efficiently.
When this gets confused: Core products quietly creep online. Dealers feel undercut. They respond by deprioritizing the brand.
3. 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹
Account management, reorders, warranty, documentation, service history. The value is data and experience, not revenue.
When this gets confused: Leadership expects ecommerce to "hit a number." The system contorts. UX degrades. Channel trust erodes.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁:
Ecommerce is asked to be all three at once—without declaring which role matters most.

That's how you end up with:
• Internal fights over attribution
• Dealers gaming the system
• Ecommerce blamed for "channel conflict" it didn't design
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵. It's picking one primary role, designing around it, and being explicit with your channel.
Curious how others are defining ecommerce's job in dealer-led models.

Most “channel problems” are actually system failures wearing a platform label.
“Meta stopped working.”
“SEO is dead.”
“Email doesn’t convert anymore.”
That framing is usually wrong.

Channels don’t operate in isolation. They express the health (or decay) of the system around them: demand capture, measurement, and decision incentives.
When pressure is high, teams blame the surface layer instead of the wiring underneath.

𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸
• 𝗜𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 – Traffic sources optimized for scale feeding conversion paths built for intent.
• 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲 – In-platform KPIs standing in for revenue, payback, or pipeline velocity.
• 𝗙𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗹𝗮𝗴 – No leading indicators, so teams overcorrect after damage is already done.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝘀
• Paid traffic “underperforming” while CRO assumptions are frozen.
• SEO blamed for lead quality when lifecycle routing is broken.
• Email called saturated when it’s compensating for weak demand creation upstream.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱
• Define the job of each channel in the full system.
• Pair every channel metric with a downstream business metric.
• Fix flow before forcing volume.

Channels don’t fail independently. Systems do.

When teams say “this channel doesn’t scale,” what they usually mean is:
the funnel mechanics don’t work.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘀
Flow.
Not traffic.
Not spend.
Not impressions.
Flow.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴
• Top-of-funnel scaled without memory or differentiation.
• Mid-funnel asked to educate what brand never explained.
• Bottom-funnel judged on conversion while trust is missing.
Then the channel gets blamed.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲
• Each stage reduces uncertainty, not just friction.
• Metrics change by funnel depth (not everything is CPA).
• Channels are sequenced, not stacked.

𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁𝘀
• Separate “learning” traffic from “harvesting” traffic.
• Measure new-customer flow before efficiency.
• Treat CRO as informed buying, not persuasion hacks.

𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗯
If every channel is optimized but growth is flat, the system is leaking energy somewhere you’re not measuring.

Fragmented GTM doesn’t just waste budget.
It burns out your best operators first.

Most teams diagnose fragmented GTM as a tooling, channel, or org-chart issue.
But the real cost shows up in 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 before it shows up in revenue.

When GTM is fragmented, three things reliably happen:

• 𝗕𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀
Operators are forced to reconcile contradictions: paid vs. SEO, demand gen vs. sales, lifecycle vs. acquisition — all with different definitions of “working.”
• 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀𝗲𝘀
Every meeting becomes a translation exercise instead of a decision forum.
• 𝗦𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱
Metrics stop being truth-seeking tools and start becoming defensive shields.
 
You don’t lose people because the work is hard.
You lose them because the system makes smart effort feel pointless.

Fragmented GTM isn’t just inefficient.

It quietly taxes morale, judgment, and retention — long before the board asks why growth stalled.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗔𝗕 2026 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵.

It’s about 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘯𝘨.

Yes, the headline is +9.5% ad spend growth in 2026.

Yes, Social, CTV, and Commerce Media are all up double digits.

But the signal that matters for operators is this:

𝗖𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 #1 — 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲.

That’s not a strategy trend.
That’s a margin reality.

Rising media costs + AI-fueled competition means CAC math is breaking faster than most boards want to admit.

Here’s what stands out — and why it matters if you own growth, not just media:

1. 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴.

The shift toward repeat purchase isn’t about “brand love.”
It’s about protecting contribution margin when blended CAC won’t come down.

If your growth model still assumes acquisition will fix efficiency later, this breaks.

2. 𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 — 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲.

Two-thirds of buyers are focused on agentic AI for buying and execution.

But the top challenges are still incrementality, cross-channel measurement, and understanding what AI is 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 doing.

This is how teams end up with:
• Faster media decisions
• More creative variants
• And less confidence in what’s driving revenue

3. 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗞𝗣𝗜.

Nearly doubling YoY focus on repeat purchase is a tell.
Growth teams are being forced to treat lifecycle, CRO, and owned channels as 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, not “post-acquisition cleanup.”

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲:
• If paid, lifecycle, and CRO don’t share a single measurement view, AI will amplify noise.
• If repeat purchase isn’t modeled into CAC payback, acquisition budgets will keep getting cut.
• If you can’t explain incrementality beyond in-platform reporting, AI execution will outpace trust.

AI will accelerate whatever system you already have.
If that system isn’t built around profitable growth and repeat value, speed just gets you to the wrong answer faster.

Open article: IAB 2026 Outlook Study Forecasts 9.5% Growth in U.S. Ad Spend, Fueled by Digital Growth, Major Cyclical Events and Accelerating Adoption of Agentic AI by iab.com

IAB 2026 Outlook Study Forecasts 9.5% Growth in U.S. Ad Spend, Fueled by Digital Growth, Major Cyclical Events and Accelerating Adoption of Agentic AI

The DTC vs. Amazon debate isn't about brand control. It's about unit economics at scale.

Most brands approach this as a philosophical question when it's actually a portfolio construction problem.

The common mistakes:
Going all-in on DTC because "we own the customer relationship" while ignoring that acquisition costs make the unit economics unsustainable. Treating Amazon as a necessary evil instead of a strategic distribution lever. Running both channels without clear role definition creates pricing conflicts and margin erosion.

Here's the better model:

Map your customer acquisition cost and lifetime value by channel, then assign each channel a specific job based on economics. Amazon typically works best for top-of-funnel discovery and first-time purchase where lower CAC justifies lower margin. DTC becomes the vehicle for high-LTV repeat purchases, subscription models, and customers who already know your brand.

The portfolio approach means each channel amplifies the other instead of competing. Amazon builds awareness cost-efficiently. DTC captures the highest-value customers.

PE-backed brands that get this right typically run 60-70% of revenue through Amazon while capturing 80%+ of profit through DTC repeat purchase.

The key metric isn't revenue mix. It's blended CAC and portfolio LTV.
Your board doesn't care which channel wins. They care about defensible unit economics.

Need help mapping your channel economics? Book a strategy session to see where your margins are leaking.

Weak positioning doesn't announce itself in dashboards.

It hides in long sales cycles, broad targeting, vague messaging, and the quiet erosion of win rates.

This week's challenge: Ask your executive team, "Who are we NOT for?"
If the room goes silent, or if someone says "we can serve anyone," you've found the problem.

Strong SaaS positioning requires a forcing function. You need to be narrow enough to dominate a category and clear enough that prospects self-select in or out fast.

When everyone is your customer, no one is.

Here's what happens when positioning is clear:

Sales stops chasing unqualified logos because the ICP is precise. Marketing generates higher-intent pipeline because targeting and messaging are sharp. Win rates improve because buyers understand exactly why you're different. CAC drops because you're not spending to educate the wrong market.

PE-backed SaaS companies that fix positioning typically see 20-30% improvement in sales velocity within 180 days.

Your positioning is a revenue lever, not a marketing exercise.

Try the question. See what happens.

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 "𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁" 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻.
Conflict implies people behaving badly. Misdesign means the system was broken from the start.

Here's the difference.

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁
Dealers and direct teams compete for the same customer, with overlapping rules, pricing, and incentives.
Example (industrial):
• Same SKU sold direct and through dealers
• Different pricing or promo timing
• Reps, dealers, and ecommerce all chasing the same PO
That's real conflict. It's visible. And it's rare.

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻
Channels are given unclear or incompatible jobs.
Example (pro/contractor categories):
• Ecommerce launches "for lead gen"
• Then adds checkout "to capture small orders"
• Then leadership asks why it's not driving revenue

Now ecommerce is:
• Stealing some dealer demand
• Not good enough to replace dealers
• Blamed for underperformance it was designed into
No one broke the rules. The rules never made sense.

𝗔𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻 (𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹):
Dealers are expected to "own the relationship." But the manufacturer owns:
• Pricing signals
• Promotions
• Customer data
• Product education
Dealers aren't conflicted. They're boxed out.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁:
• Endless debates about attribution
• Dealers saying "we're confused, not angry"
• Ecommerce metrics that look fine but feel wrong
• Leadership asking, "Why isn't this working?" without changing the model

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗜𝘁'𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲.
Define:
• What each channel is for
• What it will never do
• Who wins when tradeoffs appear

Until then, you'll keep calling it "channel conflict" when it's really a systems problem.

If you're operating in dealer-led or pro categories, you've probably seen this firsthand.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 "𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆" 𝗪𝗲𝗯𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀
Most underperforming B2B websites don't fail because of bad design. They fail because they're polite.

When every page speaks to everyone, the site stops functioning as a conversion system and starts behaving like a general opportunity surface.

That creates a quiet but expensive problem: demand tax leakage.

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻.

When a website isn't anchored to:
• A clear ICP
• A specific buying motion
• A primary conversion action
…users are forced to do the work.
They have to:
• Self-identify relevance
• Interpret positioning
• Decide where to go next
Most won't. They just leave.

Nothing is "broken" enough to trigger alarms. Traffic looks fine. Engagement is "okay." But intent bleeds out between pages.

𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴:
• Multiple CTAs with equal weight
• Pages that explain everything you do but never who this is for right now
• Messaging optimized for internal consensus instead of buyer decision-making

The cost isn't aesthetic. It's mid-funnel conversion drag that compounds across paid, SEO, and lifecycle.

𝗛𝗶𝗴𝗵-𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲:
• They choose who they're for and who they're not
• They map pages to motions, not features
• They treat clarity as a revenue lever, not a branding preference

A website isn't a portfolio. It's a system.

And systems either convert demand—or quietly tax it.
Curious how others are thinking about this right now.

taplio

The Battle

Tyler Jordan

Adam McLane

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreAdam McLane's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Tyler Jordan

Adam McLane

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);}Adam McLane's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreAdam McLane's LinkedIn Performance