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

We’re setting the AI search / AEO curve for our clients thanks in large part to two fantastic tech partners in Profound and AI Trust Signals (AITS). 

If you or your agency aren’t using AITS to build the right foundation for your AEO program, we need to talk.

Digital marketing agency of record for high-growth B2B, SaaS, and FinTech brands | Customer-first marketing that drives real business impact

Open article: AI Trust Signals Launches Agency Partner Program, Names Jordan Digital Marketing as Founding Lead Partner by globenewswire.com

AI Trust Signals Launches Agency Partner Program, Names Jordan Digital Marketing as Founding Lead Partner

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

Most VC/PE-backed companies don't have a growth problem.

They have a fragmentation problem.

Here's what it looks like from the inside:

SEO is with Agency A
Paid is with Agency B  
CRO is "on the roadmap"
Lifecycle is half-built
Analytics is three dashboards nobody trusts

Then PE asks: "What's actually driving pipeline?"

Nobody can answer cleanly.

That's not a budget problem. It's a system problem.

The fix isn't to spend more. It's one operator who owns the full engine — SEO, CRO, paid, lifecycle, and analytics — as a single, integrated system.

That's what I build at GMC.

If your channels don't talk to each other, let's talk.

↳

GTM Operator and Fractional CMO for VC/PE Portfolio Companies | I replace GTM chaos with one unified growth system — SEO, CRO, Paid, Lifecycle, Analytics working as one.

Open article: Growth marketing consultancy by growthmarketingconsultancy.com

There's a clock that starts the moment you join a PE-backed company as CMO.
It's not officially announced. But everyone in the room knows it exists.

You have roughly 90 days before leadership forms an opinion about whether you're the person who's going to fix the growth engine — or the latest hire who "had a lot of good ideas."

Most new CMOs fail that window not because they're bad at marketing, but because they start in the wrong place.

They audit quickly, conclude fast, and start changing things — vendor contracts, reporting structures, channel strategy — before they actually understand what they've inherited.

And in PE environments, that burns political capital you can't afford to lose.

Here's the framework I use with every new engagement:

𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀 1–30: 𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗲. 𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. Map every tool, every vendor, every owner. Pull the data across every channel. Interview sales, CS, product. Find where the numbers conflict. Resist the urge to fix before the picture is complete.
𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀 31–60: 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀. Not a list of 20 things. Three breaks that are actively costing pipeline right now. Separate quick wins (which buy credibility) from system fixes (which drive compounding growth). Align with PE and the CEO on the narrative before you start moving.
𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀 61–90: 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆. Ship the quick wins. Begin unifying the system. Build the board-ready growth narrative — what the system was, what changed, what it's producing now.

The output by day 90 isn't just better performance.

It's a defensible growth story you can take into any room with confidence.

Full post with diagnostic framework and decision matrix:

Open article: The First 90 Days as a CMO in a PE-Backed Company: What to Audit, Fix, and Leave Alone — Growth marketing consultancy by growthmarketingconsultancy.com

The First 90 Days as a CMO in a PE-Backed Company: What to Audit, Fix, and Leave Alone — Growth marketing consultancy

Most funnel dashboards tell you what happened.

A real funnel health dashboard tells you 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘯 — before you walk into a board meeting.

Here's what it actually needs to show:

1. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲-𝗯𝘆-𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘃𝘀. 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 Not just volume. Every stage measured against a defensible baseline. If you can't see the gap, you can't fix it.
2. 𝗔 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹 (𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿) Is it getting better or worse? A 1.4% CVR means nothing without knowing it dropped 0.6% last month.
3. 𝗔𝗻 𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘀 Traffic healthy. Sales healthy. Mid-funnel: broken. That clarity is worth more than any campaign optimization.
4. 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱 Green. Amber. Red. Your PE sponsor doesn't want six dashboards — they want one clear answer.

The dashboard above shows the most common pattern I find inside PE-backed companies:

→ Organic is working → Sales is converting fine → Everything is collapsing in the middle — CRO, lead quality, lifecycle

The system isn't broken everywhere. It's broken in one place. 

That's a very different conversation than "growth is down."

Most companies don't have a growth problem. They have a 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 problem.

Fix the dashboard first. The strategy follows.

𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘭 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘢𝘴𝘩𝘣𝘰𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘸?

Most attribution debates are power struggles.

The channel that wins attribution gets budget. Everyone in the room knows it.
This is why mid-market CMOs waste 6–10 hours per month in attribution 
"alignment" meetings that produce no clarity and change nothing. The model isn't broken. The governance is.

Here's what's actually happening in most $30M–$150M PE-backed companies:

The Attribution Politics Stack
Paid team pushes last-click or platform-reported ROAS — it makes their numbers look largest.

SEO/content team argues for first-touch or assisted — because they rarely "close" anything.

RevOps defaults to whatever HubSpot or Salesforce reports — because it's easier than building a real model.

The CMO inherits all three and presents a blended story to PE that no one can defend under pressure.
I
n 7 of 10 growth audits I run, the attribution model in use was chosen because it favored the loudest internal voice — not because it reflected reality.

The real issue isn't which model to use. It's that no one owns the measurement system at the board level. Attribution without governance is just channel politics with a dashboard.

PE doesn't care who gets credit. They care whether pipeline is predictable and defensible.

Until you separate the attribution conversation from the budget conversation, you'll keep running the same political loop every quarter.

The question isn't which model is right. It's who owns the answer — and who's accountable if it's wrong.

Most new CMOs spend their first 90 days making promises.
The ones who last spend it diagnosing the system.
When you inherit a broken GTM, the instinct is to move fast — rebrand the deck, consolidate agencies, launch a campaign. Show momentum. Show you're doing something.

That instinct is what gets CMOs fired in PE-backed environments.

Here's what the first 90 days actually require:

𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀 1–30: 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗰𝘁. Map every channel, every vendor, every metric. Don't trust the dashboards. Find where SEO, paid, CRO, and lifecycle disconnect from each other — because they always do.
𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀 31–60: 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵. Before you can tell a growth story to PE sponsors, you need to believe it yourself. Unified attribution. Consolidated reporting. A single view of what actually drives pipeline.
𝗗𝗮𝘆𝘀 61–90: 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 — 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻. Plans get challenged. Systems get funded. Walk into your first QBR with a clear architecture, not a slide full of initiatives.

The CMOs who make it past 18 months in PE-backed companies aren't the most creative. They're the most systematic.

You don't fix a broken GTM by running harder. You fix it by rebuilding the engine while the car is still moving.

"𝗪𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿" 𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆
The real issue isn't speed—it's that you're running experiments without a system to learn from them.

Teams confuse activity with velocity. They launch campaigns, tests, and initiatives at high speed. But nothing connects. Each experiment exists in isolation.

What actually happens:
• Tests contradict each other across channels
• Learnings don't transfer between teams
• You re-test the same hypotheses unknowingly
• "Winning" variations don't scale or replicate

The fix isn't slowing down. It's building a learning system first. Shared hypothesis library. Clear documentation of what worked, what didn't, and why. 

Cross-functional debrief cadence.

Speed without memory is just expensive repetition.

There's a pattern I see in almost every PE-backed company I work with.

Growth slows. Someone diagnoses a channel problem. An agency gets hired to fix it.

Six months later the channel is performing better but pipeline still isn't moving. 

So another agency gets hired for the next weakest channel.
Then another.

Then you have four vendors, five dashboards, a reporting process that takes three days every month to assemble, and no clean answer to the question every PE sponsor eventually asks:

"What actually drove pipeline growth last quarter?"

Here's what nobody says out loud: this is not an agency quality problem. Most of those agencies are doing exactly what they were hired to do.

It's a structural problem. And it gets worse every time you add a new agency without changing the underlying operating logic.

The reason is simple: agencies are not incentivised to solve your whole problem. They're incentivised to retain their contract and expand their scope. A paid agency will always make the case for more paid budget. An SEO agency will always find more content gaps to fill. They genuinely believe in their channel — but their incentive structure makes them constitutionally unable to tell you that the real problem is the absence of integration, not underperformance in any single channel.

The fix isn't finding better agencies. It's changing the operating model entirely.
Someone needs to own the growth system end-to-end. Not a channel. The system. One attribution model. One growth narrative. Budget decisions made by data, not by whoever made the most compelling case in their monthly report.
That shift — from channel management to system ownership — is what actually fixes the growth problem.

New post on why agency sprawl deepens fragmentation, and what to do instead

Open article: Why Hiring Another Agency Won't Fix Your Growth Problem — Growth marketing consultancy by growthmarketingconsultancy.com

Why Hiring Another Agency Won't Fix Your Growth Problem — Growth marketing consultancy

Full-funnel isn't a budget strategy. It's a risk strategy.

Most VPs treat upper funnel as the first thing to cut when pipeline slows. That's exactly backwards.

When 100% of your demand budget targets in-market buyers, you're not running a growth program. You're running a dependency. One algorithm shift, one auction spike, one quarter of suppressed buying intent — and your pipeline collapses with no structural explanation you can defend.

In-market buyers represent roughly 3–5% of your total addressable market at any given time. The other 95% is either problem-unaware, solution-aware but not ready, or evaluating without signaling. Your paid search and retargeting spend can only reach the 3–5%.

Upper funnel creates the condition that makes lower funnel efficient. It does three things lower funnel cannot:

1. Reduces CAC volatility — You're not bidding against 12 competitors for the same in-market signal. You're building preference before intent fires.

2. Expands the buying pool — Buyers who encounter your brand during problem formation convert at higher rates and shorter cycles when they do reach the decision stage.

3. Creates a defensible narrative — "We have a 9-month content and brand program warming 40K contacts" is a board-level answer. "We're running Google and Meta" is not.

The reframe: upper funnel spend is insurance against in-market dependency — not a discretionary line item you optimize last.

If your growth plan only works when buyers are already looking, you don't have a growth system. You have a capture operation.

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗗𝗧𝗖 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴.
They treat brand and revenue as competing priorities.

They're not. They're 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 priorities.

Here's the framework I use with PE-backed and founder-led teams:
𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲 (high equity, low urgency) → Protect it. LTV > CAC. Community, content, loyalty. Don't blow it on conversion hacks.
𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲 (high equity, high urgency) → Brand IS the lever. Retargeting that tells a story converts better. Paid + organic as one system.
𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲 (low equity, low urgency) → Stop running paid. You don't have brand yet. Build positioning first or you're just buying traffic that won't stick.
𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲 (low equity, high urgency) → Hit the number. Paid search, conversion pages, urgency mechanics. But do NOT delay brand investment — run both or you'll be back here in 12 months.

The mistake most teams make: jumping straight to Revenue Capture mode 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 of where they are in the matrix.

The result? Fragmented channels, wasted spend, and a growth story you can't defend.

Know your quadrant. Build the right system.

Your CAC isn't too high. Your payback window is too fragile.

Most boards aren't panicking over the number. They're panicking because no one can explain why it moved — or when it'll stabilize.

That's a systems failure. Not a CAC problem.

Here's what a fragile payback window actually looks like in practice:

1. Channel dependency without redundancy. One channel carries 60–70% of new pipeline. When it softens, the whole model softens. No one saw it coming because no one owned the system.

2. CAC tracked. Payback not modeled. You know what you spent. You don't know when it returns — by cohort, by segment, by motion. So the number means nothing when a PE sponsor asks what's real.

3. Attribution that flatters, not informs. Last-touch models make CAC look efficient until a quarter drops. Then the story falls apart in the room.

4. No early warning signal. In 7 of 10 growth audits I run, there is no leading indicator tied to payback. Just lagging reports that explain what already happened.

The fix isn't spending less. It's building a system where payback is modeled forward, not explained backward.

A defensible CAC story has three parts: what drove acquisition, when it converts, and what the model looks like if the primary channel degrades by 30%.

If you can't answer the third question, your payback window is fragile — regardless of the number.

PE-backed operators: Is your CAC problem actually a modeling problem?

𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗕2𝗕 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. 𝗣𝗘 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗩𝗖 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀.

Here's the difference no one talks about clearly enough:

One-time purchase thinking measures success by what closed this month. 

It's campaign-driven. It's reactive. And when your PE sponsor asks "what drives our growth?"—you're stitching together four agency decks and hoping for the best.

Subscription economics thinking measures LTV, NRR, and CAC payback. It builds systems where retention multiplies the value of acquisition. Your revenue becomes model-able. Your growth narrative becomes defensible.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗚𝗧𝗠.

Most mid-market marketing stacks look like a one-time purchase business: 

SEO from one vendor, paid from another, CRO somewhere else, analytics in a dashboard no one trusts. Every channel optimizes for its own metric. No one owns the compound curve.

The companies that command 8–15x ARR multiples aren't running better campaigns. They're running a better system.

Predictable pipeline from an integrated funnel
A single narrative that connects spend to revenue
Metrics their board can model, not just admire

If you're walking into QBRs with a folder full of channel reports instead of a growth system, that's the gap.

Build the system. Own the story.

taplio

The Battle

Tyler Jordan

Adam McLane

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreTyler Jordan's LinkedIn Performance

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);}Tyler Jordan's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreAdam McLane's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreTyler Jordan's LinkedIn Performance