I've spent 15+ years inside growth-stage companies watching this pattern repeat. That experience led to two bodies of work—one for professionals building independent practices, one for revenue operators navigating what comes next.

The Fractional Institute — for professionals building expertise-based practices

Going fractional sounds simple: you have expertise, companies need it, you connect the two. But most people who make this leap aren't failing because they lack skill. They're trapped by outdated expectations and roles that no longer fit how companies buy.

Three books address different parts of the journey:
→ The Fractional Operator — the reality of executive-level work without a safety net
→ The Fractional Practice — the complete operational playbook (positioning through exits)
→ The Fractional Trap — why revenue specialists are losing ground, and what replaces them

The Fractional Practice Course turns those frameworks into a 90-day launch plan with templates, scripts, and artifacts.

More at TheFractionalInstitute.com

Chief Revenue Architect — for revenue operators evolving past execution

The Fractional Trap names a problem. Chief Revenue Architect is the solution, specifically for fractional CMOs, CROs, and RevOps leaders feeling the hard edges of their roles fade as AI absorbs execution.

Most companies don't have a marketing problem. They have a systems problem. The Rise of the Chief Revenue Architect defines the role emerging as execution automates and system design becomes the real leverage.

The CRA Course (coming soon) is for operators ready to move into work AI can't replace: designing systems, governing decisions, creating leverage across revenue.

AA+OS is the operating system I built for founder-led companies that need their revenue engine to run without constant oversight.

More at ChiefRevenueArchitect.com

The throughline:

If you're considering going fractional, start with the practice.
If you're already fractional in revenue and feeling the ground shift, the architecture work is where this is heading.

Different starting points. Same destination: building leverage that compounds.

Will G.

I stopped calling myself a fractional CMO.

Not because the work I did changed. But, because the title stopped describing what I actually do.

When I started fractional work, I did marketing. Campaigns, content, demand gen, brand. I stayed in my lane because that's what the title implied.

But the engagements that worked, the ones where I actually moved the needle, were never just marketing.

They were untangling the handoff between marketing and sales. Fixing a CRM that no one trusted. Rebuilding a pipeline that leaked at every stage. Facilitating conversations the exec team had been avoiding.

The work kept crossing boundaries. So I stopped pretending it wouldn't.

I call myself a Chief Revenue Architect now. Not because it's a better title. Because it's a more honest description of the skill set required.

Revenue architecture isn't really a title. It's the ability to see across functions and diagnose where the system breaks.

It means understanding: 
→ How marketing generates pipeline 
→ How sales converts it 
→ How ops keeps the data clean 
→ How CS protects the revenue you already won 
→ Where the handoffs fail and why

Most fractional CMOs I know are already doing this work. They just haven't named it yet.

The title you carry shapes the expectations you walk into. "Fractional CMO" puts you in a box. "Revenue architect" signals you're not staying in one lane.

I'm not saying everyone needs to change their title. I'm saying the skill set has to expand — whether the title does or not.

The fractionals who thrive in 2026 and beyond won't be the ones who do marketing really well.

They'll be the ones who see the whole system and know how to fix it.

What do you call the work you actually do?

Will Gould

Helping fractionals own revenue: From first touch to lifetime value | Author, Coach, fCMO | Human+AI+Automation Org Evolution

Five product lines. Zero alignment. And they thought the problem was messaging.

Last week I got on a discovery call. Referral. Good company.

They wanted to refresh their messaging framework. The way they talked about their products wasn't landing. Could I help them find better words?

Sure. I started asking questions.

"Walk me through the product lines." 
"Which ones are you investing in for 2026?" 
"Where do you see the growth coming from?"

The answers got slower. The pauses got longer.

Turns out the executive team couldn't agree on which of their five product and service lines to advance. Sales wanted to double down on one. Product wanted to sunset another. The CEO was stuck in the middle.

They weren't talking about it wrong. They had a fundamental disagreement about the direction of the company.

No messaging framework was going to fix that.

When I named it, "this isn't a messaging problem, this is a strategic alignment problem," the relief in the room was visible.

They knew the problem. They just didn't have language for it.

Companies post for a fractional CMO. They write a recycled job description. But underneath it, the real problem is rarely just marketing.

The CRM is a mess — but that's ops. 
Leads aren't converting — but that's sales. 
Churn is climbing — but that's CS. The exec team can't agree on direction — but that's strategy.

The lines have blurred. The problems don't fit neatly into functions anymore.

But what happens when the real problem is outside your skill set?

You have four options:
1. Name it and refer it out.
"This isn't a marketing problem, this is executive alignment. That's not my lane, but I know someone who does this well."

You stay credible. You become the person who diagnoses accurately, even when the answer isn't you.

2. Name it and partner.
"I can lead the marketing piece, but we need someone to facilitate the strategy conversation. I'd like to bring in a partner."

You stay on the engagement. You expand your network. You deliver a better outcome than you could alone.

3. Name it and let them decide.
"I can take a run at this, but I want to be honest, this is adjacent to my core expertise. We can try it together, or I can help you find someone who's done this exact thing before."

Transparency builds trust. Some clients will want you anyway. Some won't. Both are fine.

4. Name it and walk away.
"This isn't something I can help with. Here's what I think you need instead."

Hardest to do. But sometimes the right call. Better to leave money on the table than damage your reputation with mediocre work.

The wrong move:
Take it, fake it, figure it out as you go, without telling them.

That's where credibility dies. Not because you failed, but because you weren't honest about the risk.

Every option starts with "name it."

The skill isn't knowing everything. It's seeing clearly and being honest about what you see, including your own limits.

I've been in revenue leadership long enough to know what I believe. Here's where I've planted my flags.

AI won’t replace marketers.
IT will replace marketers who refuse to redesign their role.

More leads will not fix your growth problem.
If your funnel leaks, you’re just pouring faster.

A fractional CMO who only “does marketing” is already obsolete.
Revenue doesn’t respect departmental boundaries.

Most marketing problems are leadership problems.
Slow decisions kill revenue more than bad ads ever will.

Weekly reporting is a false sense of control.
If you’re not changing behavior, you’re just producing slides.

Sales and marketing alignment is a myth.
Shared incentives and shared data are what matter.

Your website is not your growth engine.
It’s infrastructure. Treat it like plumbing.

“We need a rebrand” usually means “we have no idea why it’s not working.”
Confusion isn’t solved with new colors.

Speed is a revenue lever.
The slower your internal decisions, the lower your ceiling.

Most RevOps stacks are expensive junk drawers.
Tools don’t create systems. Architecture does.

Brand awareness is not a strategy.
If you can’t trace it to revenue architecture, it’s theater.

Agree with all of them? Probably not. That's the point. Which one made you flinch?

Before: I help B2B companies from $5-15M grow revenue.
After: I help healthcare systems fix their patient acquisition funnel and stop referral leakage. (this isn't a positioning post)

Same skills. Completely different results.

Before: 5 clients max. Always blowing through my projected hours. Capped financially and drowning in context-switching.

After: 9 clients. Systems that repeat. Computer off by Friday afternoon.

Here's what changed.

When I started fractional work, I cast a wide net. B2B companies. $5-15M. Any industry.

My thinking: I have broad marketing skills. They transfer anywhere. Why limit myself?

And technically, that was true. I could work with anyone.

But "anyone" is a terrible market.

Here's what I didn't understand:

Every new vertical costs you time.
New industry. New language. New buyer psychology. New competitors. New objections. Every engagement started from scratch.

I was reinventing the wheel with every client.

When you narrow, everything compounds.
One vertical means: 
→ Systems you've already built 
→ Campaigns you've already tested 
→ Language you already speak 
→ Credibility you've already earned 
→ Case studies that actually transfer

The second client in a vertical takes half the ramp time. The fifth takes almost none.

Every referral or testimonial matches your problem>solution>benefit.

Scaling becomes possible.

When your market is "B2B companies $5-15M," your outreach sounds like everyone else's. You're competing with every fractional CMO on LinkedIn.

When your market is "B2B manufacturing companies with broken sales handoffs," you're the only one in the room.

I know some of you are flinching right now.

"But I don't want to be known for just one thing."

"My skills are broader than that."

"What if I pick wrong?"

I get it. I felt the same way.

But here's the reality:
You're not an employee anymore. You're a business.

And your business needs: 
→ Speed to revenue 
→ Repeatable systems 
→ Scalable positioning

Saying "I work with anyone" feels like freedom. 

It's actually a trap.

You end up spending twice the hours for half the impact, competing with everyone, and wondering why your pipeline is empty.

Quit working on your brand. 

Before you get the luxury of working on your brand you have three problems that need solving first. Pipeline, conversion, and A "nobody knows we exist" problem.

And you're spending money on logo refreshes, brand guidelines, and "visual identity systems" because a consultant, a new hire, or an agency told you that's what serious companies do.

It's not. It's what companies with money to burn do.

Here's the truth no one who makes a living doing logo refreshes, brand guidelines, and visual identity systems will tell you.

Your brand is a luxury of scale.

At $1-5M, every dollar needs to come back. You need leads. You need conversions. You need revenue. You need marketing that you can measure and hold accountable.

Brand awareness campaigns don't pay rent.

"But we need to look professional."

Fine. Get a clean logo. Pick two fonts. Choose three colors. Write a clear message. That's brand hygiene. Ping me and I can help you find a good designer on Upwork. This takes a weekend and a few hundred dollars.

That's not "brand building."

Brand building is what Coca-Cola does. It's what Nike does. It's a long-term play to shape perception across millions of people over years.
You're not Coca-Cola. You're trying to make payroll and close three more deals this quarter.

Here's what I've seen too many times:

A founder gets sold on "brand strategy" by an agency. They spend $30K on a brand book no one reads or uses. Meanwhile, their website doesn't convert, their outbound is nonexistent, and their sales process leaks at every stage.

Brand doesn't build pipeline. Real marketing operations do. Sales does. 

Customer experience does.

Brand emerges from those things. It's not a substitute for them.

The time for brand investment is when: 
→ Your pipeline is healthy 
→ Your conversion rates are solid 
→ Your customers are happy and referring 
→ You have money that isn't earmarked for survival

Until then, spend your dollars on marketing ops that moves the needle.

Brand is what people say about you when you're not in the room. You earn that by delivering results, not by hiring a brand agency.

Disagree? Tell me why. I'm ready for the high heat.

"Can you do it for less?"

Every fractional hears this eventually. Here's how I handle it.

First, every great fractional needs to remember what they are selling. Not hours. Not activities. Outcomes.

A client isn't paying for 10 hours a week of my time. They're paying for a pipeline that works, a sales process that converts, a revenue system that doesn't leak.

When someone asks me to lower my price, I don't get defensive. I start asking questions.  They are the same questions every time. 

"Help me understand,  is it the budget, or is it the scope?"

Because here's what I've learned:
As a fractional executive you can't just remove parts of your services and expect you can deliver the same outcomes. You will deliver a product or outcome that is subpar, disappoints the client, and likely flat out doesn’t work.

If a client wants to pay less, something has to give. And there are only two levers:
 
Timeline.
"I can work at a reduced rate. But it will take longer to reach the outcome we discussed. Instead of 90 days, we're looking at 6 months. Are you okay with that?"

Outcome expectation.
"At this investment level, we need to adjust what success looks like. Instead of rebuilding the full revenue system, we focus on one piece, maybe just the pipeline. The rest waits."

Both are honest conversations. Both protect the integrity of the work.
What I won't do is pretend I can deliver the same outcome for less money in the same timeframe. That's a lie. And it sets us both up for failure.

Sometimes the client adjusts. They find the budget, or they accept the tradeoff.

Sometimes they don't. And that's when I walk away.

Not every client is your client. The ones who want full outcomes at half the investment aren't looking for a partner. They're looking for someone to blame when it doesn't work.

Protect your pricing by protecting your outcomes.

The best clients understand this. The rest weren't going to work out anyway.

How do you handle the "can you do it for less" conversation?

"Go back to CA."

That was the note on my car at the end of my first week.

I was in the Midwest (a crazy note for such nice people). Hired to unwind sales and marketing operations that had been off track for a couple of years. Everyone at the company knew that the problems had been metastasizing and needed correction.  

Yet, everyone feared what was coming.

I hadn't even started the real work yet.

My first thought was "what did I do?" But I hadn't done anything. I was just the outsider. And that was enough.

I never found out who left it. Which meant I spent the rest of the engagement working alongside someone who felt viscerally about my presence to put thought to paper, and paper to my car.

Having an outside consultant, come into to fix problems can be very threatening to people. Are they going to have a job? Is this person here to make them look bad? They don't know your intentions. They only see the risk.

Here's what I learned:

It's rarely my job to stay long-term. I'm not there to build relationships that ease the anxiety. I'm there to do a job and leave.

So I adjusted.
→ I documented everything: every step, every milestone, every decision 
→ I got signatures and approvals at every stage 
→ I made sure no one could say I operated in the shadows

Not because I needed to cover myself. Because transparency was the only card I had.

The engagement ended when I hired my permanent replacement. I handed off the work and moved on.

That note stayed with me though. It was a reminder: you're always walking into someone else's story. And in their story, you might be the threat.

Have you ever felt that resistance walking into a new engagement? How did you handle it?

Marketing leaders are expanding into sales. But sales leaders are expanding into marketing. Who is winning?

I'll be honest, this question keeps me up at night.

Several months ago I started noticing something. Fractional sales leaders and ops leaders reaching out, asking me how to learn marketing. How to position themselves. How to use the AI and automation tools that make marketing more accessible than it's ever been.

They're not dabbling. They're serious.

And the tools are letting them in. AI can write copy. Automation can run campaigns. The execution layer that used to require years of marketing experience? It's compressing fast.

Meanwhile, I've (we've all) been doing the same thing in reverse, learning sales process, pipeline management, RevOps, retention. Expanding because I had to.

But I thought I was expanding into their territory.

I didn't realize they were expanding into mine.

Here's the uncomfortable truth:

Marketing as a standalone discipline is disappearing.

Not because marketing doesn't matter. It does and it will.  But because the walls around it are gone. The tools have democratized execution. The org charts haven't caught up, but the work has.

Sales leaders are running demand gen. RevOps leaders are building campaigns. CS leaders are owning retention marketing.

And marketing leaders? We're doing sales enablement, CRM architecture, forecasting.

Everyone is in everyone else's lane now.

So who wins?

Not the person who protects their territory. There is no territory left to protect.

The winners are the ones who stop asking "how do I stay a marketing expert?" and start asking "how do I become a revenue expert?"

The ones who learn fastest. Who see across the system. Who can diagnose problems that don't fit neatly into one function.

I'm not going to pretend I'm not threatened by this. I am.

But I'd rather be threatened and adapting than comfortable and irrelevant.

The fractional CMO title is already losing meaning. Not because we failed, but because the work outgrew the label.

The question isn't how do I protect what I know.

The question is: who am I when marketing as a standalone discipline disappears?

I'm still perfecting my answer.

What's yours?

AI + Marketing | VP Marketing & Strategy @ HatchWorks | Host of the Built Right Podcast 🎙

AI isn’t coming—it’s already reshaping how we work, build, and compete.

I help companies prepare their teams for this shift through practical, hands-on AI training tailored to your industry and team needs.

From exec briefings to full-team workshops, I make AI accessible and actionable—no jargon, no hype. Just real use cases, real tools, and real skills your team can use immediately.

Whether you're just starting your AI journey or looking to go deeper, I’ll help your team build the confidence and capability to lead in the age of AI.

Let’s talk if you’re ready to future-proof your team.

Matt Paige

I can’t unsee this visual…

Blue = what AI can do to your job category.
Red = what it’s actually doing right now.

Anthropic just published their Labor Market Impact Report, and this chart is a view into the gap between the models ability TODAY and current adoption in the market…

That’s why HatchWorks AI exists.

To help you make up the gap between the red and the blue before your competitors do.

♾️ VP Strategy @ HatchWorks AI | Host of the Talking AI Podcast 🎙 & HatchWorks AI Labs 🤖

OpenAI just made the most expensive handshake in tech history and Anthropic is reaping the benefits.

OpenAI signs a deal with the Department of Defense. Within 48 hours:
→ ChatGPT uninstall rates surge 300%+
→ Downloads drop, 1-star reviews jump 775%
→ Claude hits #1 in the App Store, beating ChatGPT in daily downloads for the first time ever

Meanwhile, Anthropic publicly said they wouldn't partner with the DoD.

This isn't just a PR win.

It's a masterclass in what happens when your competitor hands you the moral high ground and you actually take it.

We're entering an era where your AI choice says something about you. Like choosing organic.

But Sam's not going down easy.

He dropped "5.4 sooner than you think" yesterday.

Gotta imagine that timeline wasn't exactly planned.

So… are you switching to Claude or holding out for GPT-5.4?

taplio

The Battle

Will G.

Matt Paige

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreWill G.'s LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMatt Paige's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Will G.

Matt Paige

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);}Will G.'s LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMatt Paige's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreWill G.'s LinkedIn Performance