Mike Rizzo works on marketing operations education and community-building. Rizzo's posts focus on how teams manage the technology, data, and processes behind go-to-market work, and on helping marketing operations professionals develop their skills and leadership.
Mike Rizzo is most useful for practical insight on marketing operations ownership and go-to-market execution.
Best for
B2B marketing technology brands seeking marketing operations leaders for co-marketing or sponsored research.
Not for
Paid influencer work for brand or creative marketers focused on creative testing and ad-spend optimization.
Key takeaways
Incorrect audience data made a campaign miss its target while dashboards looked healthy.
Asking CMO and CRO separately who owns GTM tech stack can reveal ownership gaps.
CMOP first cohort was foundational; experienced participants wanted deeper budgeting, ROI, revenue alignment work.
Check first: Ask about cost, deliverables, lead times, and audience job-title data before committing.
Main ideas
Go-to-market technology has an ownership vacuum, not a tooling problem · Marketing operations is not marketing — it is the translation layer · One wrong input upstream quietly poisons everything downstream
Co-branded cohort with an outside expert (5C Leadership Performance System × MarketingOps(.com)) · Pro membership and member benefits · Virtual conference (MOPZA26 Online, October 21–22)
Mike Rizzo writes about marketing operations as the work of making go-to-market plans function through people, processes, data, and technology—not simply running campaigns or buying software.
They argue that the systems behind campaigns need a clear owner with the authority to make decisions.
Their posts make that case through practical examples, including a campaign that reached the wrong audience because of incorrect data and a test for whether company leaders agree on who owns the go-to-market technology stack.
They also share ideas on practitioner development through CMOP training and the MarketingOps(.com) community.
Follow their work for a hands-on view of the operational decisions that shape how teams execute and measure go-to-market plans.
Rizzo turns abstract operations problems into concrete lessons.
In an early ad-operations story, the dashboards looked healthy, but incorrect audience data meant the campaign was missing its target—showing how a faulty input can undermine downstream reporting and decisions.
In another post, they suggest asking the CMO and CRO separately who owns the go-to-market technology stack: conflicting answers, or no answer, point to an ownership problem.
Across these examples, they distinguish having a tool from owning the system it runs on, and argue that automation without accountability can speed up bad assumptions.
They apply the same focus on ownership to professional development: a post about CMOP describes a foundational first cohort, while noting that some experienced participants wanted deeper work on budgeting, ROI, and revenue alignment.
For readers, the value is a mix of operational diagnosis, pointed questions to use with their teams, and attention to the skills needed to lead this work.
Mike Rizzo's writing keeps returning to one problem: companies treat go-to-market technology as a stack of tools when the real gap is ownership.
Read more
No single person is accountable for the system underneath the campaigns, so nobody can say whether it supports the motion the business claims to be running.
Around that argument sit several connected ideas: marketing operations is a translation job that deserves recognition rather than a support function; the data model matters more than the interface; and the people doing the work learned on the job and need training and standards built for it.
They make these points through concrete operational stories and platform deadlines rather than vendor scorecards.
Go-to-market technology has an ownership vacuum, not a tooling problem
Mike Rizzo's central argument is that the go-to-market tech stack usually has no named owner.
Read more
After a conference, they asked roughly 40 people who was in charge of running their go-to-market tech stack.
Only one could name a person.
Everyone else described a map: marketing ops holds marketing, sales ops holds sales, RevOps holds the dashboard — so no one holds the system.
They call this an ownership vacuum, not a tooling or alignment failure, and argue that the rarest skill in a company is translating a go-to-market hypothesis into technology that reflects it — work that almost always comes from a marketing operations background.
But naming a function does not create authority: RevOps was supposed to be this, they write, but became “Sales Ops with a dashboard” because the title arrived before the authority did.
Mike Rizzo's test is to ask the CMO and CRO separately who owns the GTM tech stack. Two different names mean a problem; no name means a bigger one.
Mike Rizzo notes that “GTM Ops” is appearing regularly in job postings and reads it as a name following a need — but warns the same pattern could repeat if the title again arrives before the decision rights.
Marketing operations is not marketing — it is the translation layer
Mike Rizzo distinguishes marketing operations from both marketing and marketing automation.
Read more
Their shorthand: revenue is not profit, MCP is not AI automation, and marketing automation is not marketing operations.
Leadership mistakes the visible platform for the system underneath it: the platform is the interface; the data model is the machine.
Automation without ownership executes bad assumptions faster, and a tool cannot know who is accountable when routing breaks.
A person can — and that person is in ops.
They describe go-to-market as a product made of people, process, and technology, and say people from marketing operations are best suited to translate business language into tech-stack capability.
That is why they treat “Marketing Engineer” and “GTM Engineer” as new names for work marketing operations professionals already do, and why their stated goal is to get those people recognized and certified as GTM product managers and architects.
The routing example is the clearest: when lead routing breaks, no platform knows who owns the failure. Mike Rizzo's point is that accountability belongs to a person, not the software that ran the rule.
One wrong input upstream quietly poisons everything downstream
Mike Rizzo argues that operational judgment is learned through failure, and tells a first-person story to show how.
Read more
Early in their career, in ad trafficking and account management at Specific Media around 2011 — years before marketing operations was a widely recognized job title — they handed the ad ops team the wrong code.
The target pixel existed, but the needed audience was not tied to it.
The client's campaign was live, the budget was pacing, dashboards looked fine, and the ads were not reaching the people who mattered.
Nothing in the platform looked broken, and nobody was being lazy; the data was wrong at the source, making every downstream metric, optimization decision, and client conversation suspect.
The broader claim is that the non-linear path into ops — events, SDR work, email production, ad ops — is where that kind of pattern recognition is learned.
Those roles are not side quests.
Specific Media, around 2011: a live campaign, a pacing budget, healthy-looking dashboards, and an audience never connected to the pixel. Mike Rizzo calls it an early lesson in how one bad upstream input can quietly corrupt everything downstream.
Practitioners learn the job on the job, so training should start there
Mike Rizzo's education work responds to a research finding: the 2025 State of the MO Pro research found that more than half of organizations provide no formal training for marketing operations, and most people learned on the job.
Read more
CMOP was built in response, with a foundational curriculum covering campaign operations, technology and data management, reporting and attribution, finance, and cross-functional GTM work.
The first cohort rated it 9.08/10 on likelihood to recommend, with zero detractors, though some experienced graduates said it leaned easy.
They call that fair and say it was never meant to cover the whole job.
The loudest feedback called for more depth in budgeting, ROI, and revenue alignment, which they classify as ownership skills rather than tooling skills.
Their position: companies are already posting roles to own the GTM tech stack, but no one has set a vendor-neutral standard for what that person should know.
A personal caveat runs alongside the result: Mike Rizzo says NPS scores never fully painted a person's picture and they have never had a great relationship with them, then reports running the survey anyway and getting zero detractors.
Platform news is really a set of operational deadlines
Mike Rizzo treats vendor and regulatory announcements as work to be sorted out, not commentary.
Read more
In one update, they cover Salesforce shipping itself into Claude with pre-built sales skills, Claude becoming the default model in Slack, the EU AI Act transparency rules taking effect, an acquisition, and a Marketo UI refresh with an AI script builder.
Their reading: the user interface is becoming optional, bringing permissions models, business rules, data governance, field validation, and sharing logic closer to the center of the go-to-market system — unglamorous work marketing operations teams have done for years.
The most actionable items are deliberately mundane: a Marketo REST API access-token change that has already broken legacy scripts, and a September 30 failure on static lists of 10,000 or more leads.
They advise auditing API calls first because those deadlines will hit teams before the bigger AI shift does.
The post ends with a concrete task — audit your Marketo API calls today — not a general recommendation to keep up with technology.
Build the field through the community, not just the audience
A steady priority across Mike Rizzo's posts is creating programs and events that bring marketing operations, RevOps, and GTM professionals together.
Read more
MOPZA26 moved online for October 21–22 to improve access: people who had said they could not attend now could, and Pro members received tickets plus three guest passes each to share.
A separate post lists community features including an AMA channel, a job board, a member newsletter and vault of templates and guides, an event calendar, and a certification cohort.
Leadership development is part of the same work: a 12-week leadership performance system launched with executive coach Carly Caminiti, capped at 20 participants and beginning September 8.
Guest passes are described as peers pulling each other into the community rather than as a growth mechanic, which is how Mike Rizzo frames the value of the programs.
Answers "what is the argument this person is known for?" in a single post: the ownership thesis running through much of their other writing.
Read more
After a conference, Mike Rizzo asked roughly 40 people: who is in charge of running your go-to-market tech stack?
Only one could name an actual person.
Everyone else described a map — marketing ops holds marketing, sales ops holds sales, RevOps holds the dashboard — leaving nobody in charge of the system.
They call this an ownership vacuum, not a tooling or alignment problem, point to "GTM Ops" showing up in job postings, and warn that RevOps followed the same arc when a title arrived before the authority did.
They close with a test anyone can run: ask your CMO and CRO separately who owns the GTM tech stack, then compare the answers.
For brands planning a campaign
The CMO/CRO test gives webinar polls or research surveys a ready-made question about who owns the stack, and gives co-marketing partners a concrete diagnostic to build a session around.
Explains how Rizzo frames the role's identity and recurring title debates — the ground they return to whenever the discipline is renamed.
Read more
Rizzo restates a claim they have made for years: marketing operations is not marketing, because the job is to translate a company's unique go-to-market hypothesis into what technology can actually do.
They note that the market now talks about GTM Engineers and Marketing Engineers, and argue these are new names for marketing operations professionals — with GTM engineers often resembling the older "growth hacker" idea.
They believe people with a marketing operations background are best suited to translate business language into tech-stack capability, and should be recognized and certified as GTM product managers and architects.
For brands planning a campaign
A natural backbone for sponsored research or a panel on role naming, skills, and recognition; the "GTM product manager" framing maps directly to job descriptions and training programs.
A compact statement of the platform-versus-system distinction that makes the ownership argument legible in a few lines.
Read more
A short post built on three pairs that aren't the same thing: revenue isn't profit, MCP isn't AI automation, and marketing automation isn't marketing operations.
Rizzo's point is that leaders keep mistaking the visible platform for the system underneath it.
The platform is the interface; the data model is the machine.
Automation without ownership just executes bad assumptions faster, and the tool itself can't know who is accountable when routing breaks — a person does, and that person is Ops.
For brands planning a campaign
The "platform vs. system" contrast is a sharp hook for a webinar title or a first survey question that separates tool adoption from operator accountability.
Gives a concrete origin story and shows why Rizzo treats data integrity and handoffs as the heart of the job, not a side concern.
Read more
Rizzo tells an early-career story from ad trafficking and account management at Specific Media around 2011, before "marketing operations" was a widely recognized job title.
A client campaign was live, the budget was pacing, and the dashboards looked healthy — but the target audience wasn't tied to the pixel, so the ads weren't reaching the people who mattered.
Nothing in the platform looked broken, and nobody was being lazy; the data was wrong at the source, making everything built on top of it suspect.
Rizzo's lesson: the non-linear path into ops — events, SDR work, email production, ad ops — teaches the pattern recognition the job requires.
For brands planning a campaign
A vivid opener for a live session and a supporting anecdote for messaging about data quality, tracking, and routing underneath the stack.
Shows the education arm of Rizzo's work and the survey data behind it, connecting the community to actual research.
Read more
Rizzo cites their 2025 State of the MO Pro research finding that more than half of organizations provide no formal training for marketing operations, and notes that most people learned on the job.
In response, they built CMOP, a foundational program covering campaign operations, technology and data management, reporting and attribution, finance, and cross-functional GTM work.
The first cohort rated it 9.08/10 with zero detractors, though some experienced participants said it leaned easy.
The strongest feedback called for deeper coverage of budgeting, ROI, and revenue alignment — what Rizzo calls ownership skills, not tooling skills.
For brands planning a campaign
An anchor for sponsored research collaboration: the training gap, survey instrument, and "ownership skills" agenda are already framed as a study a partner could fund or extend.
Shows how Rizzo covers platform change in practical, deadline-driven terms rather than through abstract commentary.
Read more
Rizzo walks through a month of developments — Salesforce's integration with Anthropic, EU AI Act transparency rules taking effect, an acquisition, and a Marketo UI refresh — then argues that as interfaces become optional, underlying permissions models, business rules, data governance, and sharing logic matter more.
The most actionable details are two Marketo deadlines: a REST API access-token change and a failure on static lists of 10,000-plus leads, which Rizzo says will likely hit teams before the bigger AI shift does.
They urge teams to audit API calls today.
For brands planning a campaign
A format a partner could co-produce or sponsor: operational change analysis with real dates, error codes, and troubleshooting steps an audience can act on.
A quick look at the community side of Rizzo's work — the events, memberships, and programs that sit alongside the writing.
Read more
Rizzo explains the decision to move MOPZA26, held October 21–22, online.
The stated reasoning is access: people who had said they couldn't attend can now join.
Pro members get tickets included, along with three guest passes each to share, which they frame as peers bringing each other into the community rather than as a marketing mechanic.
For brands planning a campaign
Points to concrete event and community sponsorship opportunities: guest passes, virtual attendance, and an audience of marketing ops, RevOps, and GTM professionals.
Community programs and cohort-based professional education4
Ownership of the GTM tech stack3
Marketing ops is not marketing — or just automation2
Platform-change monitoring and deadline-driven operational alerts1
Career paths and operational failure stories1
Feedback, standards, and what practitioners want to learn next1
Ownership of the GTM tech stack
A recurring argument across Mike Rizzo's posts is that go-to-market technology has no named owner in many organizations.
Read more
One post describes dozens of conversations at Unbound26 where only about one person could name who runs the GTM tech stack; others offered a map — marketing ops has marketing, sales ops has sales, RevOps has the dashboard — but no system owner.
They frame this as an ownership vacuum, not a tooling or alignment problem, and argue that the rarest skill is translating a GTM hypothesis into technology.
Related posts say RevOps became "Sales Ops with a dashboard" because the title arrived before authority, and that a function without a named owner means a heavier workload.
The practical test: ask the CMO and CRO separately who owns the GTM tech stack.
Two different names is a problem; no name is a bigger one.
Frames the issue through a recurring audience question and diagnostic test, not a vendor scorecard.
For brands planning a campaign
A webinar or sponsored research piece on GTM tech-stack ownership fits a campaign on the same topic.
The strongest angle is decision rights and accountability: who owns the system, who can change it, and how teams measure whether it supports the motion.
Use Mike Rizzo's CMO/CRO test as an audience participation prompt and build the session around concrete ownership models rather than another tool demo.
Marketing ops is not marketing — or just automation
Mike Rizzo repeatedly distinguishes marketing operations from marketing and from marketing automation.
Read more
Posts state that "we have marketing automation" is not the same as having marketing operations; the platform is the interface, while the data model underneath is the machine.
Automation without ownership executes bad assumptions faster, and the tool does not know who is accountable when routing breaks.
They also describe GTM as a product made of people, process, and technology, and say the people best suited to translate business needs into tech-stack capabilities often come from a marketing operations background.
The argument extends to titles such as Marketing Engineer and GTM Engineer, which they treat as new names for work marketing operations professionals already do.
For brands planning a campaign
For a martech company targeting marketing ops leaders, this is a positioning theme: sponsor content that treats ops as system owners and translators, not campaign support.
A co-marketing webinar can contrast the platform/interface layer with the underlying data model, ownership, and measurement design.
Avoid a product feature tour; the posts show the audience values recognition of the work beneath the interface.
Platform-change monitoring and deadline-driven operational alerts
One post focuses on a cluster of platform and compliance changes: Salesforce and Anthropic launched Claudeforce with pre-built sales skills and Claude inside Slack; Mike Rizzo reads it as the UI becoming optional and the work underneath — permissions, business rules, data governance, field validation, sharing logic — moving closer to the center.
Read more
The post flags Marketo API changes: the access token query parameter died on August 31, and on September 30 getLeadActivities and getLeadChanges begin failing on static lists with 10,000+ leads (error 1003).
It also notes EU AI Act transparency rules, Integrate acquiring CaliberMind, an Adobe Marketo UI refresh and AI script builder, HubSpot Agent Hub, and MarTech data showing that only 49% of B2B marketers fully trust the data shaping budgets.
The recommended first action is to audit Marketo API calls.
Uses dated platform deadlines and a "check this first" action to move readers from news to an operational audit.
For brands planning a campaign
A sponsored technical briefing or migration checklist is a natural fit.
The content can help marketing ops teams audit API calls, understand platform deprecations, and prepare for governance and permission changes.
For a martech vendor, focus on practical readiness — deadlines, failure modes, and who owns remediation — rather than general AI commentary.
Community programs and cohort-based professional education
Several posts promote community and learning programs.
Read more
MOPZA26 is described as a virtual event on October 21–22, with Pro members receiving tickets plus three guest passes each.
A separate post lists community features: Ask Me Anything channel, job board, Deep Cut member newsletter, member vault of templates and guides, event calendar, and a certification cohort with a waitlist.
Another announces the 5C Leadership Performance System with executive coach Carly Caminiti, a 12-week cohort capped at 20 participants and beginning September 8.
A further post describes CMOP, a certification built from five areas — campaign ops, tech and data management, reporting and attribution, finance, and cross-functional GTM work — and says the first cohort rated 9.08/10 on likelihood to recommend with zero detractors.
The CMOP post says some experienced graduates found the course leaned easy; Mike Rizzo calls that fair, says it was never meant to be the whole job, and points to deeper topics including budgeting, ROI, and revenue alignment.
For brands planning a campaign
A co-marketing webinar, sponsored research collaboration, or cohort sponsorship can plug into an existing education pipeline.
A campaign on GTM tech-stack ownership aligns with CMOP's focus on ownership and revenue alignment.
A brand could sponsor a session on ownership, budgeting, or ROI, or support the community event.
Because the first leadership cohort is intentionally small, a sponsor should expect a focused practitioner audience rather than broad reach.
Mike Rizzo uses first-person operational stories to explain why marketing operations judgment is hard-won.
Read more
One post recounts an early ad-trafficking and account-management role at Specific Media around 2011: the target pixel existed, but the needed audience was not tied to it; the campaign was live, budget was pacing, and dashboards looked fine, even though ads were not reaching the right people.
They call it an early lesson that one wrong upstream input can quietly poison downstream metrics and client conversations.
The post argues that non-linear paths — events, SDR, email production, ad ops — are not side quests; they are where operators learn what happens when handoffs, UTMs, lead routing, budgets, or reporting foundations break.
It ends by asking readers which pre-MOps role taught them the most.
Uses a specific personal failure story and an audience question to make an abstract data-quality point concrete.
For brands planning a campaign
A brand can use this as a storytelling or community angle: collect and feature practitioner origin stories that connect early operational pain to current system ownership.
For a co-marketing campaign, a case-study series or webinar segment on "where ops judgment comes from" would fit the practitioner audience.
Preserve the concrete failure detail rather than sanding it down into a generic careers message.
Feedback, standards, and what practitioners want to learn next
Mike Rizzo's posts treat feedback and standards as part of building the field.
Read more
One notes a long gripe with NPS scores — they never fully painted a person's picture — but reports zero detractors on a program.
The same post cites 2025 State of the MO Pro research finding that over half of organizations provide no formal training, and says most people learned on the job.
CMOP is presented as foundational by design.
The loudest feedback was to go deeper: practitioners wanted budgeting, ROI, and revenue alignment.
They call that an ownership skill and say companies are already posting roles to own the GTM tech stack, but no one has set a vendor-neutral standard for what that person should know.
The post asks what readers wish someone had taught them sooner.
Mike Rizzo says NPS never gives a full picture of a person, but reports using it anyway and getting zero detractors — an example of acting on the result despite that caveat.
For brands planning a campaign
Sponsored research on the marketing ops training gap and the emerging GTM tech-stack owner role is a strong fit.
A brand can co-create a vendor-neutral skills framework or benchmark survey, then use a webinar to discuss budgeting, ROI, and revenue alignment.
The audience signal points to demand for deeper ownership content, not introductory tool training.
Rizzo’s posts present MarketingOps.com as the community and promote its programs, including MOPZA26 Online, Pro membership resources, and the CMOP certification.
Read more
Rizzo also announced a joint 5C Leadership Performance System cohort with executive coach Carly Caminiti.
Separately, Rizzo states that they worked at Specific Media in ad trafficking and account management around 2011.
Other company names in the posts are industry examples or tooling analysis, not sponsorships or client work.
MarketingOps.com
Disclosed partnership
Rizzo’s posts call MarketingOps.com “our community” and promote its Pro membership, MOPZA26 Online event, member vault, job board, newsletter, and CMOP certification.
Read more
They say “we built CMOP” and refer to “our 2025 State of the MO Pro research.” The posts don’t clarify whether Rizzo owns or works for MarketingOps.com; ask about their relationship to the company before contracting.
Follow Mike Rizzo's argument from ownership to execution: who is accountable for the go-to-market tech stack, and what happens when no one can name that person.
Read more
Posts distinguishing marketing operations from marketing and from automation explain why they see the data model underneath a platform as the real system.
Platform-change updates put the same argument into practice, with dated Marketo API deadlines, governance shifts, and an instruction to audit API calls first.
Community and training posts show what they build around these ideas: events, a newsletter, a member vault, certification cohorts, and leadership development for people already carrying the work.
Read the training and feedback posts last for their clearest account of where the field is heading and what practitioners say they still need to learn.
Writes for marketing operations practitioners about the same unsettled ground Mike Rizzo covers: what the job is becoming, how AI and automation are changing the stack, and why old practices like lead scoring, nurture, and attribution feel out of date.
Read more
Both treat marketing operations as a field under pressure, not a set of platform tasks.
Moni Oloyede's posts take a job-market and role-definition angle, including a panel discussion on whether marketing automation is dead and what the next stack might look like. Mike Rizzo focuses on ownership and decision rights inside a company, rather than where the profession is heading on the conference stage.
Shares practical, first-person guidance for people building a marketing operations career, including being analytical, process-oriented, and collaborative.
Read more
Like Mike Rizzo, Sonnia Hove writes from inside the work rather than from a vendor position, and treats skills and judgment as things learned on the job.
Sonnia Hove's posts here are earlier—April and August 2021—and lean toward career advice, recruiting referrals, and foundational practices. Mike Rizzo's recent posts focus on GTM tech-stack ownership, platform deadlines, and the argument that marketing operations is not marketing.
Covers the same territory of marketing operations, data governance, and platform decisions, including a detailed argument about how customer data should be separated and governed.
Read more
Both write about the operational consequences of vendor choices and what teams owe the data they hold.
Andy Mullings's posts center on data privacy and platform governance—including HubSpot's data policy reversal and a case for Adobe technology investment—from a data-architecture and vendor-evaluation angle. Mike Rizzo focuses on ownership: who runs the GTM stack, who can change it, and who answers when routing breaks.
For a B2B marketing technology company trying to reach marketing operations leaders, Mike Rizzo’s posts establish their relevance in marketing operations and GTM technology ownership.
Read more
Consider them for a co-marketing webinar or sponsored research collaboration on GTM tech stack ownership if the campaign can be judged on topic fit and community access, rather than verified audience composition.
The posts speak to marketing operations practitioners.
They cover ownership of the GTM technology stack, the difference between marketing automation and marketing operations, data governance, Marketo API deadlines, professional training and certification through CMOP, the MOPZA26 online conference, and community programs such as a job board, AMA channel, member vault, and leadership cohort.
That makes the profile a fit for campaigns aimed at marketing operations leaders: the posts show Rizzo convenes and speaks to a professional community around the campaign’s subject matter.
The audience’s composition is not shown.
Their LinkedIn profile lists 21,123 followers observed October 8, 2026.
The full LinkedIn posts do not show employer, occupation, job seniority, geography, age, or gender.
Before committing budget, request recent results for comparable topics and formats, such as webinar registration and completion rates or sponsored research download data broken out by job title, company size, and geography.
Also ask whether they have audience survey results or another documented source for employer, occupation, and seniority, and match those answers against the campaign’s target audience.
LinkedIn followers
21123
LinkedIn profile page, attached account record · 2026-10-08
Mike Rizzo’s partnership activity sits inside the MarketingOps(.com) community and education business rather than a published sponsorship menu.
Read more
The clearest example is a co-branded program: 5C Leadership Performance System × MarketingOps(.com), a 12-week leadership cohort delivered with executive coach Carly Caminiti, capped at 20 participants and starting September 8.
Other offerings are member- and cohort-based: Pro membership, which includes passes to the MOPZA26 Online conference on October 21–22 plus guest passes members share with peers; a job board; a members' resource vault; a member newsletter; an event calendar; and the CMOP certification cohort.
For a co-marketing webinar or sponsored research collaboration, treat the co-branded cohort as the closest example and request terms directly, including pricing, deliverables, audience data, lead times, and whether formal sponsor packages exist.
Co-branded cohort with an outside expert (5C Leadership Performance System × MarketingOps(.com))
Buyer requirement
Expect to build the program jointly with a named outside expert — here, executive coach Carly Caminiti — under the MarketingOps(.com) banner.
The first cohort was deliberately small at 20 participants, with a fixed September 8 start, so plan around limited seats and a dated enrollment window rather than an always-on placement.
Ask for the sponsor fee, deliverables, and audience metrics.
Pro membership and member benefits
Buyer requirement
Member programs run on a paid Pro membership, not open sponsorship inventory.
Pro members received MOPZA tickets included plus three guest passes each to distribute through their own networks, so reach spreads peer-to-peer and is not directly controllable by a partner.
The job board, resource vault, newsletter, and event calendar sit behind membership; arrange any partner presence with the community rather than buying it self-serve.
Virtual conference (MOPZA26 Online, October 21–22)
Buyer requirement
The audience is marketing operations, revenue operations, and GTM professionals.
Attendance works through Pro membership or a standalone ticket purchase, and members were asked to claim tickets and send guest passes in the weeks before the event.
Confirm availability and cost before planning budget against the event.
CMOP certification cohort
Buyer requirement
CMOP is built around foundational curriculum — campaign operations, technology and data management, reporting and attribution, finance, and cross-functional GTM work — and recruiting was still at the waitlist stage. A partner backing or co-delivering a cohort would be joining an early-stage program with a small first intake and unproven scale, not a recurring, established course with published enrollment figures.
A B2B marketing technology company wants to reach marketing operations leaders with a co-marketing webinar or sponsored research collaboration on GTM technology-stack ownership.
Read more
Reasons
The brief's theme is Mike Rizzo's signature argument, not a topic they would be borrowing for the occasion. One post describes roughly 40 conference conversations where only a single person could name who runs the go-to-market tech stack; everyone else described a map of split responsibilities with no system owner. The same post offers a ready-made diagnostic: ask the CMO and the CRO separately who owns the GTM tech stack, and compare the answers. That is a poll, a survey question, or a webinar opening already written.
The supporting arguments are theirs too: marketing operations is not marketing or marketing automation; the platform is only the interface, while the data model underneath is the machine; and automation without ownership just executes bad assumptions faster. A sponsor can build content on those distinctions without having to teach the creator the subject.
There is practical, non-promotional material to work from. One post ties Salesforce's Anthropic integration, EU AI Act transparency rules, an acquisition, and a Marketo UI refresh to two dated Marketo API failures, then tells readers to audit their API calls. A partner gets real operational detail for a session or briefing rather than general AI commentary.
The community and education side gives a collaboration somewhere to live. Posts document a virtual conference, a certification cohort built around campaign operations, technology and data management, reporting and attribution, finance, and cross-functional GTM work, and a co-branded 12-week leadership cohort delivered with an outside coach and capped at 20 participants. A joint program is a documented pattern here; the co-branded cohort is the closest precedent to cite when asking about terms.
The posts are written for marketing operations practitioners, matching a campaign aimed at that audience. The one audience figure is 21,123 LinkedIn followers observed 8 October 2026.
Gaps to resolve
No sponsorship policy, rate card, media kit, or public partnership inquiry route appears in the posts. Ask directly about cost, deliverables, lead times, and whether formal packages exist.
The posts provide no audience demographics, engagement data, or results from a comparable webinar or sponsored research project. The follower count establishes size on one platform, not whether the audience holds the target job titles. Ask for breakdowns by job title, company size, and geography, or for audience survey data.
The posts are short-form and carry no publication dates inside the text. Request examples of comparable long-form or sponsored work if format history matters.
Verdict
Strong fit on subject matter and the audience the material actually addresses. Before committing budget, confirm commercial terms, audience composition, and past campaign results.
When to choose a specialist
A media-measurement or paid-media vendor wants a paid influencer series aimed at brand and creative marketers, covering creative testing and advertising-spend optimization.
Read more
Reasons
The recurring subject is the system underneath campaigns, distinct from the campaign itself. Posts argue that the platform is the interface, the data model is the machine, and the person who owns the stack determines whether the team can execute a campaign and prove it worked. That is an argument about ownership and measurement infrastructure, not creative performance or media-budget allocation.
The one advertising story in the posts is a career origin, not current media expertise. It describes an early ad-trafficking and account-management role around 2011, where a target audience was not tied to a pixel, the campaign ran, and the dashboards looked healthy while the ads missed the right people. Mike Rizzo uses it to explain why data errors at the source make every downstream metric suspect, and why non-linear career paths build that pattern recognition. The story does not establish present-day paid-media practice.
The posts address marketing operations, revenue operations, and GTM professionals. They provide no indication of a brand-marketer or creative-marketer following. Ask for audience composition data before targeting those groups.
No paid-post, influencer, or media-buying format appears in the posts. The documented commercial activity is conference attendance, a paid membership community, certification cohorts, and one co-branded leadership cohort. A paid-post product is not a documented offer.
A brief with this shape would push against the tone of the material. The posts repeatedly tell practitioners they are brought in after big decisions are made and their work is mistaken for something simpler. A brand creative-testing message would be a different conversation with a different room.
Verdict
Poor fit. The posts point to an operations and systems audience, with platform ownership as the subject—not creative or media-buying strategy.
A worked campaign example
Angle
Open with a live poll: ask attendees who owns their go-to-market tech stack, then whether their CMO and CRO would give the same name. Use the conference finding as the frame: of roughly 40 conversations, one person could name an owner, and everyone else described a map of split responsibilities. Move from the diagnosis to why the title often arrives before the authority, using the argument that RevOps became sales ops with a dashboard. Then make ownership concrete for the second half: the difference between the platform and the data model underneath it; why permissions, business rules, field validation, and sharing logic carry more weight as interfaces become optional; and a dated worked example of two Marketo API failures that break old scripts and large static lists. Close with the three questions from the posts: does the stack support the motion the team says it is running, does it measure what the business says matters, and who has the authority to change it when the answer is no.
Concept
"Who owns the GTM stack?" A co-hosted webinar with a short sponsored survey, built on the CMO/CRO ownership test and the alarm response it produces.
Format
One live webinar woven into an existing community touchpoint, paired with a practitioner survey underwritten by the sponsor. The sponsor presents a framework, not a product tour; the session helps attendees answer the ownership question in their own organization.
Measurement
Agree in advance on registration and completion by job title, survey response counts, and follow-up engagement. If the partner cannot break those out, plan on topic fit alone and say so before the campaign goes live.
Next steps for the buyer
Treat the co-branded leadership cohort as the closest documented precedent for a joint program. Ask directly for sponsor terms, available dates, audience data, and whether formal packages exist; confirm those before setting budget or promising the webinar publicly.
Sponsor placement
The sponsor appears as research underwriter and co-host, contributes the framework segment, and is named in the survey report and session follow-up. Keep the product in the framework, not the diagnosis.
Survey design
Ask practitioners who owns the GTM tech stack, whether marketing and sales leadership agree on the name, where decision rights sit, and what training they have had. The training question connects directly to the finding that more than half of organizations provide no formal training and most practitioners learned on the job, as well as to the stated demand for deeper work on budgeting, ROI, and revenue alignment.
Why this angle
It uses an argument the audience already recognizes, gives the sponsor a defensible research asset instead of an advertisement, and turns the strongest line in the posts into an audience participation moment.
Choose Moni Oloyede when the campaign is about what marketing operations, GTM engineering, and marketing engineering roles are becoming, rather than who owns the stack.
Read more
A 5 October 2026 post describes reviewing roughly 100 MOps-related job descriptions and concluding that the title matters less than the problem a company is solving: complexity creates demand for operations, the need for more automation and leverage creates demand for GTM engineering, and the limits of off-the-shelf technology create demand for marketing engineering.
A 29 September 2026 post frames the same shift for a conference panel, arguing that lead scoring, weekly nurture, attribution, and the MQL look dated; AI arrives as both revolution and burden; and the open question is what the marketing operations job becomes.
For a sponsor whose product sits in the role-definition or skills conversation, or whose research asks what the next MOps hire should look like, this is closer to the subject than an ownership diagnostic.
You give up the stack-ownership argument that could become a ready-made poll, along with the community machinery behind it: a paid membership, certification cohorts, a virtual conference, and a co-branded leadership cohort as a documented joint-program precedent. Mike Rizzo's posts here offer commentary plus one original research piece, giving a sponsor a strong topic but little evidence of a delivery vehicle for a webinar or underwritten study.
Choose Sonnia Hove when a campaign is about entering, hiring into, or training for marketing operations rather than running the stack.
Read more
The posts include a 2021 recommendation of a recruiter who works at the intersection of marketing and marketing technology, plus the first in a planned series of marketing ops notes built on three behaviors: be analytical and look for where tools and automation solve problems; be process-oriented; and be collaborative by leading without direct reports. A buyer selling training, certification, or recruitment services to practitioners, or running research on which skills to hire for, maps directly onto that framing.
Mike Rizzo's posts here stop in 2021 and offer no detail on ownership, governance, or platform changes, so they cannot support sponsored research about the current GTM stack.
Only two posts were available, with no community, event, or co-marketing program described.
Ask for current materials confirming audience composition and any partnership format.
Choose Andy Mullings when the campaign is about data governance, platform-vendor conduct, or the Adobe and Marketo ecosystem.
Read more
One post describes a HubSpot change that pooled customer enrichment data across its customer base by default and fed it to AI models, then connects it to earlier marketing operations work at Bank of New York, where Americas, EMEA, and APAC data was never visible across regions and administrator access required training and compliance clearance.
It draws out a concrete competitive consequence: a hard-bounce signal leaving one company's list can teach a rival not to mail the same person, so one company's list hygiene ends up subsidizing a competitor.
It also notes that the vendor reversed the change within days.
A second post argues for investing in Adobe technology in 2026 across marketing automation, work management, CDP, content supply chain, and personalization.
For a governance, privacy, or vendor-selection brief aimed at Marketo or Adobe users, that is a sharper subject than stack ownership.
The governance post criticizes a competitor platform, making a HubSpot sponsor a poor match; the Adobe post reads as vendor advocacy, putting an Adobe-ecosystem sponsor at risk of a promotional tone.
The recurring subject is platform conduct rather than technology ownership, so the CMO and CRO ownership test at the center of the Mike Rizzo campaign does not carry across.
Ask for evidence of a community, research, or education format before proposing a collaboration.
This profile draws on nine LinkedIn posts written by Mike Rizzo.
The posts carry no publication dates, so they are presented without a fixed timeline; several refer to dated events, including a conference on 21–22 October, a training cohort beginning 8 September, and platform deadlines in August and September.
Mike Rizzo's LinkedIn following was 21,123 on 8 October 2026.
For the similar-creator comparisons, posts by three other marketing operations writers are included: Moni Oloyede (September and October 2026), Sonnia Hove (April and August 2021), and Andy Mullings (December 2025 and July 2026).
There are limits worth knowing.
Only short-form LinkedIn posts are included.
No transcripts, long-form articles, video, visuals, or other pages are available here, so claims about what Mike Rizzo covers rest on the posts alone.
Company and tool names that appear in industry commentary — Salesforce, Anthropic, Slack, Marketo, Adobe, HubSpot, Integrate, CaliberMind, and others — are treated as examples or news, not as commercial relationships.
No sponsorship policy, rate card, media kit, audience demographic data, or engagement metrics are published here, so the campaign-fit section weighs subject matter and documented format precedent rather than verified commercial terms or audience composition.