Jay Baron writes about B2B demand generation and advises marketing teams on building offers, buyer narratives, and distribution that competitors cannot easily copy.
Jay Baron writes about B2B demand generation and how companies can build marketing advantages that competitors cannot quickly copy.
Across these posts, the recurring argument is that paid ads, SEO, content, and familiar campaign tactics have become standard—and that improving them can produce short-term gains without creating lasting momentum.
Their work challenges marketers to look beyond the next campaign: what offer, buyer narrative, or distribution mechanism could give a company a durable edge?
Baron connects a familiar marketing problem—campaign results that rise and fade—to a concrete strategic test: would a competitor need significant investment or a meaningful change in how it operates to copy the advantage?
They apply that test to three areas: offers, narratives, and distribution.
For example, they contrast a standard white paper or demo request with an offer built alongside a product that could bring buyers back and generate useful signals.
They acknowledge that repairing a broken paid account can lift results quickly, but argue that optimization has limits once the obvious problems are fixed.
The next step is to give marketing something competitors do not already have.
They also argue that this kind of work can take six to twelve months, so it belongs in long-range planning, not just a quarterly campaign calendar.
Jay Baron makes one argument in several forms: B2B demand generation is stuck because nearly every company runs the same channels and tactics, which are now the cost of entry rather than a source of advantage.
Read more
The proposed way out is to build something a competitor would have to spend real money or change how it operates to copy — an offer, a buyer narrative, or distribution. Baron treats brand as a byproduct of that work rather than the long game, puts the build time at six to twelve months, and argues planning has to start before the new year rather than at a Q1 kickoff.
Channels are the cost of entry, not the advantage
Jay Baron describes paid ads, SEO and AEO, content, social, and account lists as oversaturated channels and tactics that every company in a category runs against the same lists and intent signals.
Read more
Because copying is fast, whatever works decays within weeks or months, and growth arrives in bumps that teams then spend cycles trying to recreate. The sharp version of the claim: these channels are not how demand generation wins — they are what a company needs before it can compete.
In a post on why momentum is missing, Jay Baron writes that any tactic is replicated across the category within weeks, winning creative stops lasting, and no one can ride an algorithm change for long. Another post puts it directly: these are not how demand generation wins; they are simply the cost of entry now.
The most concrete framework names three sources of advantage: an offer that creates a large acquisition-cost advantage and cannot be replicated without real investment; an ownable buyer narrative that would force a competitor to shift business strategy to tell the same story; and distribution that gives reach or access competitors cannot recreate by opening the same ad platform or buying the same list.
Read more
For all three, copying should require considerable investment, a meaningful change in how the competitor operates, or both.
Jay Baron turns the framework into questions marketing leaders can answer about their own programs: Is anything in our marketing hard to replicate?
Is our distribution something competitors cannot copy?
Do our offers require real investment?
Does our narrative work without our name on it?
The offer question is pointed: Is it just “request a demo,” a few white papers, and an ROI calculator that can be built overnight?
Brand is treated as a byproduct, not the long game
One post takes direct aim at the widely repeated advice that channels and tactics handle the quarter while brand builds long-term momentum.
Read more
Jay Baron calls that the trap, clarifies that this is not an anti-brand position, and says brand is not on the planning radar going into the next year. In their view, brand should emerge from building offers, narrative, and distribution competitors cannot copy, rather than produce demand on its own.
The post describes the conventional wisdom as “build awareness, build the brand, and eventually it turns into demand,” then says that brand “isn't even on our radar” for the coming year's work and is a byproduct of everything else being built. Jay Baron presents this as a position, not a settled fact.
Jay Baron draws a line between standard demand-gen offers and offers worth building.
Read more
They set aside whitepapers, landing pages, research reports, webinars, and ROI calculators as things anyone can produce quickly.
The alternative runs in parallel with the product, may use the company's own product data, creates its own signals to act on, and brings buyers back so one conversion compounds into more.
Baron says this will feel to a marketing leader more like championing an internal product initiative than launching a campaign, and predicts it will become a standard go-to-market component in 2027, with a large payoff for whoever does it first in a category.
The most developed version describes something that runs alongside the product and would force a competitor to bring real time, resources, engineering, and budget to copy. An earlier framing asks what offer only you can create, ruling out another landing page, research report, or webinar.
Jay Baron walks through the familiar paid-media turnaround — optimizing for SQLs instead of MQLs, rebuilding account structure, optimizing for account penetration, cutting wasted spend, and changing landing pages — and grants that it produces a fast lift.
Read more
The harder question is what happens next.
Once the obvious problems are fixed, most teams settle into optimizing creative, audiences, formats, and landing pages, gaining a percentage here and there until the strategy is exposed as the same oversaturated playbook every competitor runs.
The argument: paid media eventually needs something competitors do not have.
The post frames the plateau as the point where strategies fall apart, then returns to the three sources of advantage: an offer with compounding effects, an ownable narrative, or defensible distribution. Everything else is optimization.
The timeline: six to twelve months, starting before the new year
Jay Baron puts the build time for an offer, narrative, or distribution mechanism at six to twelve months of committing, building, and running.
Read more
The reason: if it were quick, it would not be an advantage.
That timing drives a planning claim: work for the following year is not a first-quarter kickoff; it has to start in the current year.
Baron describes the effort as slow and selective, noting that moving even one of the buckets can take quarters of work with a marketing leader.
The planning post closes the timing argument with the line that the work for 2027 “isn't a Q1 kickoff, it's now.” It also says there is room to work with one more marketing team, tying the argument to Jay Baron's availability.
The ideas are delivered partly through a recurring unscripted series
Jay Baron reaches people partly through a weekly live discussion, not just written posts.
Read more
They co-host Marketing Momentum with Joergen Aaboe, described as Fridays at 1pm CT, with no slides or planned discussion, tackling the momentum problem head on.
A separate post points readers to a weekly webinar on building momentum in B2B marketing.
The series revisits the same arguments.
The announcement describes the format as two people who live the problem day in and day out, with no slides or planned discussion. Joergen Aaboe is named as co-host; the positions in this section are Jay Baron's.
This is the clearest short statement of the problem Jay Baron keeps returning to.
Read more
Start here for the argument behind the recommendations.
The post argues that nearly every B2B marketing motion now relies on oversaturated channels and tactics: paid ads, SEO and AEO, content, and social, aimed at the same account lists and intent signals as every competitor.
Tactics get copied within weeks, so winning creative stops working, new landing pages and headlines quickly lose impact, and no one can ride an algorithm change for long.
Growth comes in bumps, followed by cycles spent trying to recreate them.
Jay Baron says targets are rising sharply, and that firing up channels, tightening positioning, using AI to mine sales calls, and optimizing campaigns won’t close the gap.
The post also announces Marketing Momentum, a weekly live series with Joergen Aaboe on Fridays at 1pm CT, described as unscripted and without slides.
For brands planning a campaign
A strong fit when a brand wants a partner who will challenge its current plan, not just execute it. Jay Baron diagnoses a stalled demand motion and traces it to a lack of defensible advantage—the kind of opening a campaign brief can build on.
This is the diagnostic version of the argument, with four questions a marketing leader can apply to their own program today.
Read more
The trap, as described, begins when campaigns stop delivering.
Leaders blame execution, scrutinize landing pages, ask why the company isn’t showing up in a Google search, and review the data, while continuing to optimize channels and tactics that have become the cost of entry rather than a source of advantage.
The post offers four tests: Is distribution reaching buyers in a way competitors can’t copy, or does it rely on paid ads, content, and email?
Do offers require real investment, or are they demos, white papers, and an ROI calculator that could be built overnight?
Does marketing rely on the product to create momentum?
Does the narrative work without the company’s name on it?
Jay Baron notes that moving even one of these takes quarters of work with a marketing leader, let alone all of them at once.
For brands planning a campaign
The four questions work as a scoping tool. A brand can answer them internally, then ask a creator or consultant to respond, turning a vague differentiation problem into a specific brief with a defined deliverable.
The clearest description of the offer Jay Baron urges teams to build—and why it works differently from a typical campaign asset.
Read more
The post describes the standard motion for mid-market and enterprise B2B: brand and awareness, creative to stand out, events, SEO and AEO, and request-a-demo as the core offer.
Demos are expensive and getting more so.
Because copying is fast, what works decays within weeks or months; hitting monthly targets then requires more people, budget, tactics, and channels.
The proposed shift is to build an offer only you can create—not a whitepaper, landing page, research report, webinar, or ROI calculator, but something that runs alongside the product, possibly on your own product data, and generates your own signals to act on.
A competitor copying it would need real time, engineering, resources, and budget.
Jay Baron says it will feel less like an offer and more like championing a product initiative internally, because it brings buyers back repeatedly and turns one conversion into several.
The post calls this a standard go-to-market component by 2027 and a large advantage for whoever does it first in a category, and points to a weekly webinar.
For brands planning a campaign
A useful piece for a product marketing team with budget for one differentiated asset that needs to justify it internally. The argument makes the business case in terms of acquisition cost, repeat engagement, and a copy barrier—not a slot on the content calendar.
The three-part framework and timing argument in one place.
Read more
A strong starting point for annual planning.
Jay Baron calls the belief that channels and tactics handle this quarter while brand builds long-term momentum a trap.
The post isn’t anti-brand; it argues that brand should be a byproduct of other work.
It names three sources of advantage: an offer that produces a large acquisition-cost advantage and can’t be replicated without real investment; an ownable buyer narrative that would require competitors to shift their business strategy; and genuinely defensible distribution, rather than paid ads or a newsletter.
For all three, copying should require considerable investment or a meaningful change in how a competitor operates—ideally both.
The post says each takes six to twelve months to commit to, build, and run, so planning for the following year starts now, not at a first-quarter kickoff.
It closes by noting room to work with one more marketing team.
For brands planning a campaign
A strong fit for a brand whose paid program has been rebuilt and is now plateauing. The post shifts the next request away from more creative testing toward an asset or narrative that gives the channel something new to sell, with a timeline and copy-resistance test to support a slower program.
For teams already running paid media, this explains why fixing a broken account only buys limited time.
Read more
The post walks through a familiar turnaround story: optimizing for SQLs instead of MQLs, rebuilding the account structure, optimizing for account penetration, cutting wasted spend, and changing landing pages—after which performance jumps and SQLs rise sharply.
Jay Baron agrees that fixing a broken paid account can produce a large, fast lift, then asks the harder question: what comes next?
Once the obvious problems are solved, most teams settle into optimization, testing creative, audiences, ad formats, and landing pages, and improving by a percentage a month.
The post says this is where strategies fall apart: the eventual strategy turns out to be oversaturated channels every competitor runs, dressed in brand and creative.
The argument concludes that paid media needs something competitors don’t have: an offer with compounding effects, an ownable narrative, or defensible distribution.
For brands planning a campaign
A strong fit for a brand whose paid program has been rebuilt and is now plateauing. It reframes the next request from more creative testing to an asset or narrative that gives the channel something new to sell.
Oversaturated channels are the cost of entry, not an advantage5
Defensible advantage comes from three places: offer, narrative, distribution3
Offers that behave more like product initiatives3
Recurring live formats carry part of the message3
Brand is treated as a byproduct, not the long game1
Paid media turnarounds plateau once the obvious problems are fixed1
The blame-the-execution loop1
Planning horizon measured in quarters, starting before the new year1
Oversaturated channels are the cost of entry, not an advantage
Across all five posts, Jay Baron makes one claim: paid ads, SEO and AEO, content, events, and account lists are the same play every competitor runs.
Read more
Each tactic gets copied within weeks, so any lift fades quickly and the team is left chasing bumps. The sharpest version of the argument: these channels are not how demand generation wins — they are what a company needs before it can compete.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand buying content or a campaign from Jay Baron should expect work that takes a stand against undifferentiated demand gen, not a channel tutorial. Useful brief: ask them to assess which parts of the brand's current motion any competitor could copy by opening the same ad platform or buying the same list.
Defensible advantage comes from three places: offer, narrative, distribution
The most concrete framework in the corpus names three buckets: an offer that creates a large acquisition-cost advantage and cannot be replicated without real investment; an ownable buyer narrative that would force a competitor to shift business strategy to tell the same story; and distribution that gives reach or access competitors cannot recreate.
Read more
The bar is the same for all three: copying should require considerable investment, a meaningful change in how the competitor operates, or both.
For brands planning a campaign
This is a usable structure for a campaign brief. A brand can ask Jay Baron to assess its offer, narrative, and distribution against the copy-resistance test, then pick one bucket to work on rather than spreading effort across all three.
Jay Baron draws a line between standard demand-gen offers and offers worth building.
Read more
Whitepapers, landing pages, research reports, webinars, and ROI calculators are explicitly set aside as things anyone can produce quickly.
The alternative is something that runs in parallel with the product, possibly on the company's own product data, creates its own signals to act on, and encourages buyers to return so one conversion compounds into more.
They note this will feel to a marketing leader more like championing an internal product initiative than launching a campaign.
Uses a short sequence of diagnostic questions — what is the offer only you can create, does your distribution reach buyers in a way competitors cannot copy, does your narrative stand without your name on it — and treats a negative answer as the starting point for the work.
For brands planning a campaign
For a B2B SaaS company, this points toward a content or campaign engagement that involves product, data, and engineering input, not just marketing assets. Briefs with a data asset or product signal to build on are a better fit than briefs asking for a lead magnet.
Brand is treated as a byproduct, not the long game
One post takes direct aim at the common advice that brand builds long-term momentum while channels handle the quarter.
Read more
Jay Baron calls that the trap, says they are not anti-brand, and notes that brand is not on the planning radar going into the next year. Instead, they describe it as a byproduct of building offers, narrative, and distribution competitors cannot copy.
This is the only post that addresses brand directly, and it argues against a widely held view in B2B marketing. Read it as Jay Baron's stated position on brand spending, not as a claim that brand work has no value.
For brands planning a campaign
Brand-awareness campaigns are a poor fit for this positioning. A brand whose campaign is primarily aimed at awareness or reach should either reframe it around a defensible mechanism or expect an argument against the premise.
Paid media turnarounds plateau once the obvious problems are fixed
Jay Baron walks through the standard LinkedIn paid-ads turnaround — switching from MQLs to SQLs, rebuilding account structure, optimizing for account penetration, cutting wasted spend, changing landing pages — and grants that it produces a fast lift.
Read more
The harder point is what happens next: teams incrementally optimize creative, audiences, formats, and landing pages, gain a percentage here and there, and eventually expose the strategy as the same oversaturated playbook every competitor runs, dressed in brand and creative.
Uses the reader's likely experience as a setup, then reframes the plateau as a strategy problem rather than an execution problem.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand that has already fixed its paid account and is looking for the next step is the natural audience for this argument. A brief asking for creative testing or incremental optimization is likely to be redirected toward giving paid media something competitors do not have.
One post describes how marketing leaders respond when results fade: questioning the ads, asking to see the landing pages, checking whether the company shows up in search, reviewing the data, then launching new campaigns.
Read more
Jay Baron's claim is that this loop blames execution while the underlying motion remains identical to every other company in the category, keeping teams from building an advantage beneath the demand motion.
For brands planning a campaign
Useful as a diagnostic frame for a brand stuck in a cycle of campaign reviews. A brief asking Jay Baron to identify why repeated optimizations are not compounding is a closer match than one asking for another round of asset production.
Planning horizon measured in quarters, starting before the new year
The stated reason the advantage work is hard is time: building and running an offer, narrative, or distribution mechanism takes six to twelve months; if it were quick, it would not be an advantage.
Read more
Jay Baron frames the work for the following year as something to start now, not at a Q1 kickoff.
For brands planning a campaign
Sets expectations for engagement length. A brand should plan for a multi-quarter relationship with visible work before results, not a single-quarter campaign.
Jay Baron uses recurring live discussions alongside written posts.
Read more
One post announces a weekly series, Marketing Momentum with Joergen Aaboe, Fridays at 1pm CT, with no slides or planned discussion.
Another points readers to a weekly webinar on building momentum in B2B marketing.
A separate post links to a fractional demand gen team for B2B companies, while another notes room to work with one marketing team going into the next year.
Short, single-idea posts in one-line paragraphs, with a repeated signature phrase about oversaturated channels and tactics, numbered frameworks, and closing calls to a webinar, series, or service link.
For brands planning a campaign
A recurring series gives a brand repeatable placement rather than a single post. Brands considering sponsorship should look at the live discussion format as the main recurring surface and note that Jay Baron also sells fractional demand-gen services, which may shape how commercial recommendations are framed.
Jay Baron's LinkedIn posts promote a linked, unnamed fractional demand generation service and a weekly "Marketing Momentum" series co-hosted with Joergen Aaboe.
Read more
Neither post names a client, sponsor, partner, employer company, or business behind the work, or describes a formal relationship with a named brand.
Jay Baron writes about B2B demand generation as a differentiation problem: paid ads, SEO and AEO, content, events, and account lists are motions every competitor can copy, making them the cost of entry rather than the advantage.
Read more
Recurring subjects include defensible offers, an ownable buyer narrative, and distribution competitors cannot easily recreate, as well as the argument that brand is a byproduct of that work rather than the long game.
Start with the posts that name those three buckets, then read the paid-media turnaround post for the plateau argument and the posts announcing the weekly Marketing Momentum discussion for the live format.
Richard Newton applies a similar diagnostic style to ecommerce SEO and product and collection pages; Martin Davies works tactically in Google Ads audits and PPC; Kainan Pires focuses on email and landing-page conversion for ecommerce brands.
Both use short LinkedIn posts to challenge a common marketing practice with a diagnostic question.
Read more
Jay Baron questions whether demand-generation channels create any defensible advantage; Richard Newton questions treating structured data as the finish line and collection pages as product grids, pointing to unanswered buyer questions as missed demand.
Jay Baron writes about B2B demand-generation strategy and differentiation across offers, narrative, and distribution. Richard Newton writes about ecommerce SEO and organic revenue, with concrete attention to product pages, collection pages, and how shoppers search.
Both write for marketing practitioners trying to diagnose performance rather than add more tactics.
Read more
Jay Baron asks what is hard for competitors to copy; Martin Davies gives a specific audit step for deciding whether slower sales come from lower market demand or competitor activity, and how to read brand traffic in Performance Max.
Martin Davies is tactical and specific to Google Ads and ecommerce PPC, with scripts and campaign settings. Jay Baron works at the level of demand-generation strategy, positioning, and compounding advantage.
Both look past the visible channel to the structural gap underneath it.
Read more
Jay Baron argues that optimization only goes so far without a defensible offer or narrative; Kainan Pires shows an email team looking past subject lines to the landing page, and a supplement brand rebuilding the whole acquisition system.
Kainan Pires focuses on ecommerce conversion, email, and post-click landing pages, often with campaign performance numbers from CPG and supplement brands. Jay Baron focuses on B2B demand generation and how a marketing leader builds an advantage competitors cannot copy.
The five LinkedIn posts, published between 25 September and 7 October 2026, target people who own B2B demand generation: marketing leaders choosing offers, narratives, and distribution, and practitioners running paid, SEO, and content programs.
Read more
That professional-audience signal helps buyers judge whether Jay Baron’s framing fits their category.
The only measured audience figure shown is 10,165 LinkedIn followers, observed on 8 October 2026.
The posts provide no breakdowns by geography, age, gender, employer, job function, company size, or seniority, and no sponsored-delivery results.
Before committing budget, ask Baron for recent sponsored or organic results on comparable topics and formats, plus audience survey results or platform demographics covering job function, seniority, company size, and geography.
Jay Baron’s posts do not mention a sponsorship policy, rates, disclosed brand partnerships or an official partnership inquiry route.
Read more
They show the commercial relationship Jay Baron pursues directly: a fractional demand-generation team that works alongside a client’s marketing organization, and a weekly webinar series on building marketing momentum.
In their most recent post here, they say the team has room to work with one marketing team going into 2027, making capacity limited and planning timing important.
A brand should expect to compete for a slot rather than book a one-off placement.
Ask directly about sponsorship terms and available partnership formats before committing budget.
Need: a mid-market B2B SaaS company has already rebuilt its paid program — switched from MQLs to SQLs, restructured the account, cut wasted spend and rewritten landing pages — and is now plateauing.
Read more
The marketing leader has budget for one differentiated asset and wants a campaign angle and narrative they can defend internally before annual planning.
Decision: accept.
Jay Baron's posts speak directly to this situation.
The paid-media post describes this sequence, acknowledges that the rebuild produces a fast lift, then asks the question this company is stuck on: once the obvious problems are fixed, what gives the channel something new to sell?
The answer is an offer with compounding effects, an ownable narrative or defensible distribution.
The company needs one of those three, not another round of creative testing.
That match is specific: the same post warns that a campaign asking for incremental optimization will become the same oversaturated playbook every competitor runs, dressed in brand and creative.
The company also has a concrete deliverable to work toward.
The three-bucket framework — offer, narrative, distribution — gives the engagement a scope, and each bucket comes with a test the company can apply to its own program: would a competitor need to make a real investment, shift business strategy or both to copy this?
A differentiation diagnosis calls for a diagnosis, not a channel tutorial.
Two conditions matter.
First, timing.
The work is described as taking six to twelve months to commit to, build and run, so it does not fit a single-quarter campaign window; planning has to start before the year turns.
Second, capacity.
They state there is room to work with one marketing team going into 2027.
The commercial relationship described is a fractional demand-generation team working alongside a client's marketing organization, so a brand should expect to compete for a slot and plan around that constraint rather than assume availability.
A company that can accept a multi-quarter engagement and wants an argument against its current plan is a strong match.
When to choose a specialist
Need: a consumer app or packaged-goods brand wants a broad awareness push — reach, recognition and a one-off sponsored post with a published rate card and fast turnaround.
Read more
Decision: reject, for four reasons drawn from Jay Baron's posts.
First, the premise runs against the stated position.
The post that addresses brand directly calls the idea that brand is the long-term momentum builder a trap.
They say brand is not on the planning radar going into the next year; it is a byproduct of offers, narrative and distribution that competitors cannot copy.
An awareness-first campaign is not an extension of that position; it is the position being argued against.
A brand that wants this should expect to hear that rather than have the campaign executed.
Second, the audience does not match.
Their posts address people who own B2B demand generation — marketing leaders choosing offers, narratives and distribution, and practitioners running paid, SEO and content.
The only measured audience figure they publish is a LinkedIn follower count of 10,165.
Ask for demographic, audience-survey and sponsored-delivery data before assessing reach against a consumer buying committee.
Third, there is no standard placement to book.
They publish no sponsorship policy, rate, format or partnership inquiry route.
Sponsorships are not ruled out, but a brand expecting a rate card and a one-off post has no published offer to work from; it would need to establish terms directly.
Fourth, the commercial shape is wrong for a one-off.
Their posts show a fractional demand-generation team and a recurring weekly live discussion format, with stated room for one marketing team going into the next year.
That is a multi-quarter working relationship, not a single placement, and a poor container for a short awareness burst.
A brand in this position should either reframe the campaign around a defensible mechanism aimed at B2B marketing leaders or look at a different creator.
A worked campaign example
Worked campaign angle for a mid-market B2B SaaS company whose paid program has plateaued and which has budget for one differentiated asset.
Step one — diagnostic.
Open with the four questions from the trap post, applied to the client's own program: Is distribution reaching buyers in a way competitors cannot copy, or is it paid ads, content and email?
Do the offers require real investment, or are they demos, white papers and an ROI calculator that could be built overnight?
Is marketing reliant on the product to create momentum?
Does the narrative work without the company's name on it?
Answer with the client's own numbers and assets.
The output is a one-page read on which bucket is weakest, giving the engagement its starting deliverable.
Step two — pick one bucket, not three.
Jay Baron's posts make clear that moving even one of these takes quarters of work with a marketing leader.
For a SaaS company with usable product data, the natural pick is the offer: something that runs in parallel with the product, possibly on the company's own product data, generates its own signals to act on and brings buyers back so one conversion compounds into several.
They frame this as feeling less like an offer and more like championing a product initiative internally, which sets the internal audience for the work: product and engineering, not just marketing.
Step three — the copy-resistance test.
Measure every candidate asset, narrative line and distribution mechanism against one bar: would a competitor copying it need considerable investment, a meaningful shift in how they operate, or both?
Label anything that fails the bar cost of entry and drop it from the plan.
This filter keeps the engagement from collapsing back into another landing page, webinar or research report.
Step four — narrative and distribution to carry it.
The narrative has to stand without the company's name on it; a story that only works with the brand attached is not ownable.
Distribution has to be a mechanism competitors cannot recreate by opening the same ad platform or buying the same list.
The recurring live discussion format is the closest thing in their posts to a repeatable surface, so a weekly or biweekly unscripted session on building momentum is a reasonable carrier.
It also produces a stream of short, single-idea posts that feed the offer's audience.
Step five — timing and measurement.
Start before Q1: the stated build-and-run cycle is six to twelve months, and the advantage comes partly from being first in the category.
Measure three things: acquisition cost against the pre-engagement baseline, repeat engagement and compounding conversions from the offer, and the copy-resistance verdict on each shipped asset.
Keep the paid program running underneath as cost of entry; the point is to give it something competitors do not have, not to replace it.
Practical handoff: expect a competitive slot, since they state there is room to work with one marketing team going into the next year, and frame the engagement as a multi-quarter partnership rather than a campaign. If the client cannot commit past one quarter or put product data and engineering time behind the offer, this is the wrong angle for them.
Choose Richard Newton over Jay Baron when the need is an ecommerce organic revenue solution rather than a B2B SaaS differentiation solution.
Read more
The two posts work through a specific buyer task: finding the high-intent questions a product or collection page fails to answer, then turning those into an organic channel.
One argues that complete product structured data is wasted when the page around it cannot answer a shopper’s obvious question, and notes Google listing Discover as a place product videos can appear.
The other frames store expansion as a collection-page problem: a shopper who discovers a brand in a physical store often continues online with a category search, and the collection page has to meet that search.
If your plateau traces to shoppers landing on a grid of filters and leaving because the first screen never explains why the category is for them, this is the closer match.
Both posts include a check readers can run immediately, making them useful to a team seeking a diagnosis before committing budget.
The tradeoff is scope.
Both posts stay at the page and query level for ecommerce; neither offers a way to choose between an offer, a narrative and distribution—the decision the company needs to make.
The posts focus on ecommerce page-content and organic-search work, not a multi-quarter B2B engagement or a B2B SaaS audience.
A B2B SaaS company with no product or collection pages to fix would get little from this approach.
Choose Martin Davies over Jay Baron when the plateau sits inside the paid account and the first question is diagnostic: is this lower market demand, or a competitor taking share?
Read more
One post describes auditing ecommerce Google Ads accounts during a slow sales stretch and lays out the test: run an impression share report by day over a period that includes before the dip.
If impression share holds while sales fall, the problem is market demand; if it drops, the cause is more likely a competitor sale or an aggressive share push.
The post also warns against wholesale account changes that reset learning before performance settles.
The second post offers a narrower tactical tip: use a script to compare brand and non-brand clicks, conversions and brand revenue share in Performance Max; if brand is taking a high share of that traffic, move brand to search campaigns and exclude it.
For a team about to change paid strategy because of a soft month, this is the more directly usable read.
The tradeoff is that both posts cover paid-search account tactics, not demand-generation strategy.
Neither addresses what to sell once the obvious paid problems are fixed, nor presents an offer, narrative or distribution framework.
The account-level advice is written for ecommerce, and the second post dates from 2024.
Ask whether the approach reflects current practice and can extend beyond campaign-level work.
Choosing this creator means solving the measurement question first and leaving the differentiation problem open.
Choose Kainan Pires over Jay Baron when the leak is after the click on warm traffic, or when you want an account of a brand-vision conflict before committing budget.
Read more
One post works through an email campaign where open, click and deliverability were fine but conversion sat under benchmark: the team tested a dedicated landing page for the offer against the product page for non-buyers only, and reported 14.1% add to cart and 9.4% conversion on the landing page against 7.7% and 4.2% on the product page, with the same emails and the same offer.
The argument is that the page decides whether they buy while the email decides whether they click.
The second post describes a supplement-brand rebuild—creator-led ads, a new landing page, email flows, the offer and the pop-up—where a single high-performing ad was paused at the brand’s request, a second-product test beat the CAC target but drifted from the founder’s intended identity, and the engagement ended after four months.
For a team weighing a post-click test, or wanting to understand the failure mode of a data-versus-brand disagreement first, this is the closer fit.
The tradeoff is that the posts cover consumer and DTC, not B2B SaaS, and the long engagement described ended rather than scaled.
They show conversion-measurement rigour and give an honest account of a client relationship that did not continue, but do not address which differentiated asset to build or which narrative is ownable.
A B2B SaaS company taking this route gets post-click and offer-test discipline applied to consumer traffic; ask how it would translate to B2B demand generation.
