Steve Hunt coaches CISOs and security leaders on building executive credibility, winning budget, and framing cybersecurity in business terms. Hunt also advises security vendors on selling security products through measurable business value.
Steve Hunt is most useful for coaching security leaders on executive credibility and advising vendors on measurable business value.
Best for
A cybersecurity leadership coaching company co-branded series on CISOs building executive credibility and winning budget.
Not for
A privacy management software vendor series built around Forrester Wave rankings.
Key takeaways
Security leaders can have authority inside security but still need credibility outside.
Understanding the business is a trap; understanding the people matters more.
Vendors should explain measurable business value rather than lead with product features.
Check first: Confirm terms, deliverables, editorial control, and audience data before committing.
Main ideas
Security leaders already have authority inside security; the work is earning it outside · “Understand the business” is a trap; understand the people · A security pitch should name four kinds of value — most pitches name two
Steve Hunt is a cybersecurity leadership coach whose LinkedIn posts focus on helping CISOs earn credibility and influence beyond the security team.
They argue that security leaders can know the technical risks and still struggle to win budget if they frame their case in terms executives do not act on.
The posts describe Orbit as a tool for mapping stakeholders and shaping an approval strategy.
They also write for security vendors, urging them to explain measurable business value rather than lead with product features.
A separate post reacts to a Forrester privacy-management report, showing a more conversational interest in industry trends.
Follow them for practical arguments about executive meetings, stakeholder relationships, and connecting security decisions to business outcomes.
Hunt makes the credibility problem concrete: a CISO can lead a room of security professionals yet get only a few minutes on an executive agenda.
The remedy is not simply better slides or more business vocabulary.
They emphasize understanding the people involved, mapping who influences approval, and framing a security initiative around what each stakeholder needs.
For vendors, the same value-first approach becomes a testable question: what can the customer's business do after buying the product that it could not do before?
These examples make their work useful to readers looking for a people-centered way to discuss security with executives.
Steve Hunt returns to one gap from several angles: security leaders have authority inside the security organization but lose influence when the conversation turns to budget, margin, growth or a product launch.
Read more
The missing piece is not technical depth, more data or a bigger financial vocabulary, but credibility with the executives who decide — earned by understanding the people who must say yes and framing security as measurable business value.
Hunt says they spent years telling CISOs to learn the business by reading filings, but now argues that was the wrong instruction.
The same value-first logic applies to vendors, who should stop pitching threats prevented and better/faster/cheaper.
Security leaders already have authority inside security; the work is earning it outside
Across several posts, Steve Hunt argues that a CISO’s problem is not competence.
Read more
The same person who runs a security organization can become a minor item on someone else’s agenda because the ask is framed in security logic. The fix is to translate security into the language of business outcomes: stop asking for budget and start shaping decisions, so the organization no longer treats security as a cost center.
In the most concrete version, a CISO who commands a room of 50 security professionals walks into the executive staff meeting and becomes the fifth agenda item: three minutes, a polite nod, “let’s revisit this next quarter.” Better slides, more data, a stronger ROI case and even an MBA do not move the budget, because the CFO hears cost, the CEO hears compliance, and the board hears a problem that is not theirs yet.
“Understand the business” is a trap; understand the people
Steve Hunt argues that the standard advice to CISOs — read the annual report, study the filings, build a bigger business vocabulary — does not unlock budget.
Read more
In this account, CISOs who consistently win budget and a seat at the table do not understand the business better than everyone else; they understand the people.
They speak to a CIO as a peer, build relationships with those who influence the decision, and design strategy around the purchasing committee instead of asking it for approval.
Hunt’s method is to map the stakeholders who control the yes, learn each one’s operating style, and build a value case around what that person actually cares about.
Steve Hunt writes that they gave this advice themselves for years.
One client even earned an MBA in the hope that a bigger vocabulary would mean a bigger budget — and it did not.
The shift is from “help me understand your business” to “I understand what you need and here’s how this serves you.”
This post is an explicit reversal. Steve Hunt says they gave that same instruction to CISOs they coached, and now treat a people-first approach as the correction, not a refinement.
A security pitch should name four kinds of value — most pitches name two
Steve Hunt writes that most security vendor pitches cover the same ground — threat landscape, product, better/faster/cheaper, logo slide — and get a polite nod.
Read more
The argument: every security investment creates value in four ways: objective (it helps meet a mandatory goal), risk (it reduces measurable exposure), infrastructure (it consolidates and simplifies what is already there), and agility (it lets the business do more, faster).
Most pitches touch only objective and risk.
Agility is where the money is, because it connects to revenue, speed to market and competitive position — and it is the value a CISO and a CFO can both get behind.
Steve Hunt’s diagnostic is one sentence: what can the customer’s business do after buying this that it simply could not do before? If the team cannot answer in one sentence, the pitch is not ready.
Sell the buyer’s better life first, then the measurable gain
Steve Hunt tells security vendors not to lead with how many bad things the product prevents or how much better, faster or cheaper it is.
Read more
Instead, show how the CISO’s life will be better with the product than without it, and name the measurable value the business gets that it could not get otherwise. The same rule applies in reverse: a CISO trying to win over a CFO or CIO should explain how the investment makes that executive’s life better.
Steve Hunt writes that building pitches this way changed their career — bringing invitations to the table, bigger paydays, and the respect and acknowledgment they wanted.
What does Steve Hunt tell CISOs to do instead of studying annual reports?
Read more
Start here for the trap and the people-first alternative.
Steve Hunt describes giving CISOs advice that did not work: read the annual report, study filings, and, in one case, earn an MBA to build a bigger business vocabulary.
The budget still did not follow.
The post says CISOs who win budget and a seat at the table do not understand the business better; they understand the people.
It urges them to look a CIO in the eye as a peer, build relationships with people who influence decision-makers, and design strategies for the purchasing committee instead of begging for approval.
The shift is from “help me understand your business” to “I understand what you need, and here is how this serves you.”
For brands planning a campaign
A co-branded series on executive credibility can open with this argument: security leaders need to show stakeholder mapping, operating styles, and value cases tailored to each buyer—not learn more finance vocabulary.
What does the credibility gap feel like in a real executive meeting?
Read more
Start here for a clear before-and-after picture of a CISO moving from authority inside security to a low-priority agenda item outside it.
The post contrasts a CISO who commands 50 security professionals with that same person in an executive staff meeting: fifth on the agenda, three minutes, a polite nod, and “let's revisit this next quarter.”
It says the problem is not intelligence or commitment; the room and its rules changed, and nobody told them.
The usual responses—better slides, more data, stronger ROI analysis, learning the business, even an MBA—still do not produce budget.
The issue is framing: a security-logic ask lands like a foreign language.
The CFO hears cost, the CEO hears compliance, and the board hears a problem that is not theirs yet.
Steve Hunt says they built Orbit for this credibility gap, not a knowledge gap, and describes running one stalled initiative through it to see where operating styles collide and how the approval pipeline looks from the approvers' side.
For brands planning a campaign
The two-room contrast is a strong hook for a series on how CISOs build executive credibility. Open with the meeting scene, then move to practical stakeholder-mapping exercises.
Why did Steve Hunt build a coaching product around executive influence?
Read more
Start here for the origin story and core belief behind the CISO credibility work.
Steve Hunt writes that for 30 years they watched security leaders lose budget, influence, and heart because they lacked a real seat at the table—and the trust to use it.
The post says most CISOs rose through technical ranks and received a pseudo C-level title without coaching on earning influence with CFOs, CEOs, and boards.
In meetings, security leaders explain risk while the rest of the room protects EBITDA, expands into new markets, or keeps a product launch on track.
The result is a credibility gap: authority inside the security organization, but five minutes at the end of the agenda everywhere else.
The post says Orbit is built on the belief that translating security reality into business outcomes turns a security leader from someone begging for budget into an executive leading the conversation, and security from a cost center into a strategic lever.
For brands planning a campaign
This gives the series a mission: help security leaders become executives with trust and influence, not just better communicators. Frame each partner episode around an executive room where that shift matters.
Start here for a four-part value model and a simple question to sharpen a pitch.
Steve Hunt describes hundreds of security vendor pitches that follow the same slides: threat landscape, product, better/faster/cheaper, logo slide.
The CISO nods and moves on.
The post says every security investment creates value in four ways: objective, risk, infrastructure, and agility.
Most pitches touch only objective and risk.
Agility—what the business can do more of or faster—is where the real money is, because it connects to revenue, speed to market, and competitive position.
The practical test: ask what the customer's business can do after buying the product that it could not do before.
If the team cannot answer in one sentence, the pitch is not ready.
For brands planning a campaign
A vendor-facing co-branded episode can turn this into a worksheet: map one product to objective, risk, infrastructure, and agility, then write a one-sentence answer on how it changes the business.
What is the shortest version of Steve Hunt's sales message?
Read more
Start here for a compact, repeatable rule and its application to CISOs.
The post gives a direct recipe for selling a security product to a CISO: do not lead with how many bad things the product prevents, or how much better, faster, or cheaper it is.
Instead, tell the CISO how their life will be better with the product, and name the measurable business value the organization can get with the solution that it could not get without it.
Steve Hunt extends the same rule to CISOs trying to win over a CFO or CIO: show how the investment makes that executive's life better.
The post says this approach changed their career, bringing invitations to the table, bigger paydays, and the respect and acknowledgment they wanted.
For brands planning a campaign
This is a short, social-ready rule for a series clip or carousel. Pair it with a CISO-facing prompt: write the “better life” and measurable business value for one stalled initiative.
What does Steve Hunt sound like discussing industry analysts and privacy?
Read more
Start here for a lighter, conversational side of their cybersecurity commentary.
This post reacts to a Forrester Wave report.
Steve Hunt says Forrester Waves are sometimes insightful, sometimes controversial, and always worth a look, but found this report surprising—partly because they had not kept up with privacy management and partly because of the vendors listed.
They ask readers what they make of Forrester's take and why it matters for cybersecurity.
The post invites discussion of analyst rankings and privacy trends rather than offering a developed framework.
For brands planning a campaign
This shows Steve Hunt can host analyst and privacy commentary. A partnership could include a recurring “what changed in the analyst landscape” segment if the brand wants broader industry discussion.
The CISO credibility gap: strong inside the security org, sidelined outside it
Across the posts, Hunt argues that security leaders lose budget and influence not because they lack technical knowledge, but because they frame security in terms that do not land with CFOs, CEOs and boards.
Read more
They describe a leader who commands a room of fifty security professionals becoming the fifth agenda item in an executive meeting, waiting for a polite nod and a “let's revisit next quarter.”
Better slides, more data, an MBA and a stronger ROI analysis do not close that gap because the ask is still built in security logic.
Hunt calls this the credibility gap and contrasts it with the knowledge gap.
Repeated contrasts between the security org and the executive room, with second-person address and a closing question asking readers which room is hardest for them.
For brands planning a campaign
For a series on CISOs building executive credibility and winning budget, this is the central argument to build episodes around. The inside/outside contrast gives each episode a ready structure.
Business value frame: objective, risk, infrastructure, agility
Hunt advises security vendors to stop pitching features and explain what the customer's business can do after buying that it could not do before.
Read more
The post lays out four types of value a security investment can create: Objective (helps meet a mandatory goal), Risk (reduces measurable exposure), Infrastructure (consolidates and simplifies) and Agility (lets the business do more, faster). Most pitches cover only objective and risk; Hunt argues that agility is where revenue, speed to market and competitive position live—and that it is the value CISOs and CFOs can both get behind.
A four-part named framework with a single-sentence test: if the team cannot state the post-purchase business capability in one sentence, the pitch is not ready.
For brands planning a campaign
A co-branded series can turn each value type into an episode or worksheet, while the one-sentence test gives the audience a practical exercise for each episode.
Selling to a CISO: describe their life with the product, then the measurable gain
Hunt tells vendors not to lead with how many bad things the product prevents or how much better, faster or cheaper it is.
Read more
Instead, they should describe how the CISO's life is better with the product and the measurable value the business gets that it could not get otherwise.
Hunt says the same rule applies in reverse: a CISO trying to win over a CFO or CIO should explain how the investment makes that executive's life better.
The post credits this approach with a career turn that brought invitations to the table, larger paydays and respect.
A DON'T/DO reversal list, with vendor and CISO cases side by side to show how the same rule applies in both directions.
For brands planning a campaign
The two-sided framing lets a partner series run matched episodes from the same core message: one for vendor audiences and one for security-leader audiences.
Stakeholder mapping and operating styles, promoted through Orbit
One post argues against the common advice to “understand the business” by reading annual reports and filings; one client even earned an MBA without unlocking budget.
Read more
Hunt's alternative: CISOs who consistently win budget understand the people.
They speak to the CIO as a peer, build relationships with those who influence the decision and design strategy around the purchasing committee instead of simply asking for approval.
The mechanics are to map stakeholders, learn each one's operating style and build a value-based case tuned to what each person cares about.
The post points to Orbit, described as a tool that shows where a leader's operating style will collide with a stakeholder's before the ask, and mentions a Leadership Snapshot.
Opens with the personal admission “Don't fool yourself like I did” to disarm readers before the contrarian instruction, then closes with a three-step action list and a free-account call to action.
These posts promote a named product, Orbit. Before partnering, ask whether Hunt can present the underlying method separately from the product promotion.
For brands planning a campaign
The stakeholder-mapping steps are directly usable in a campaign brief. Clarify the Orbit promotion as a commercial constraint before building co-branded assets around it.
One post comments on a Forrester Wave on privacy management software.
Read more
Hunt says Forrester Waves are sometimes insightful and sometimes controversial, found this one surprising, had not kept up with privacy management and was partly surprised by the vendors listed.
They ask readers what they make of Forrester's take and why it matters for cybersecurity.
The format is shorter and more reactive than the credibility and value-selling posts, inviting the audience to supply the analysis.
First-person reaction and an open question; the post offers no framework or recommendation.
Use this analyst-commentary post as an occasional format rather than a signature one.
For brands planning a campaign
Hunt could provide lightweight reaction content to a report, but the credibility and value-selling material is more distinctive and better suited to a campaign on those topics.
Across the six LinkedIn posts, the only commercial entity Steve Hunt names is Orbit, a tool they describe building for security leaders.
Read more
The posts present Orbit as their own product: they write that they built it, link to it repeatedly, and invite readers to create a free account.
None documents a sponsorship, affiliate arrangement, client engagement, or investment involving another company.
Vendor and buyer references are generic (vendors, CISOs, CFOs), rather than named commercial partners.
Orbit
Owned business
Hunt says they built Orbit, a tool that maps a security leader's operating style against the people who approve budget and produces a strategy for the room.
Read more
They link to it as a free sign-up and frame it as the fix for the credibility gap they say they watched for 30 years.
Steve Hunt writes about a recurring gap: security leaders can be authoritative inside the security organization yet lose influence when the conversation turns to budget, margin, growth, or a product launch.
Read more
Start with the posts contrasting the security room and the executive room, then read the reversal on understanding people rather than business filings and the vendor-facing posts on framing value.
The tags below map recurring topics, specialties, formats, and audiences.
For another creator to follow, compare Sandra Roberts, Val Tsanev, and Anand Thangaraju.
CISO executive credibilitySecurity leadershipSecurity budget justificationBusiness value sellingCybersecurity salesStakeholder mappingSecurity vendor go-to-marketExecutive communicationContrarian reversalFramework and checklistAnalyst report commentaryCISOs and security leadersSecurity vendors and founders
Both write for CISOs and security leaders about topics beyond hands-on controls.
Read more
Roberts covers quantum readiness, business value, AI adoption, data privacy, and regulatory compliance; Hunt covers executive credibility, budget justification, and stakeholder persuasion. Both treat the CISO's ability to communicate with boards and executives as a central concern.
Roberts tends to write in a more formal, list-oriented style, surveying focus areas and technology shifts such as quantum computing.
Hunt writes short, direct coaching posts built around a single credibility gap, a reversal of earlier advice, or a named framework.
Roberts' posts draw on a study and broad CISO priorities; Hunt's draw on personal coaching experience and promote a specific tool, Orbit.
Both analyze how cybersecurity products get bought inside enterprises and why pitches fail.
Read more
Hunt offers a value framework and stakeholder mapping for CISOs and vendors; Tsanev interviews founders and reports from thousands of CISO meetings about champion-led deals, renewal risk, and the gap between what startups build and what CISOs prioritize.
Tsanev works primarily through a podcast format and market observations drawn from running a CISO meeting platform, focusing on founders, champions, and product categories such as AI agent security and vulnerability management. Hunt writes short first-person LinkedIn posts coaching individual security leaders on executive credibility, with less emphasis on startup GTM mechanics or product renewals.
Both explain why security purchases stall after practitioners validate the product.
Read more
Thangaraju writes about the difference between the user and the buyer, the need for a champion to defend the spend, and system-design myths; Hunt writes about credibility with executives, value framing, and mapping the people who control the yes. Both also challenge common security industry assumptions.
Thangaraju writes longer analytical posts aimed at security founders and GTM teams, using buying-committee dynamics, Gartner research, and program-design critiques. Hunt focuses more on the CISO's personal influence and executive presence, with second-person coaching prompts and a product called Orbit.
The only measured audience figure is 7,061 LinkedIn followers, observed 8 October 2026.
Read more
The six posts show a clear topical match for a cybersecurity leadership partnership: Hunt writes for CISOs and security leaders seeking budget and influence inside the business, and for the security vendors who sell to them.
For a co-branded series on building executive credibility and winning budget, the subject matter lines up well.
The posts cover the credibility gap CISOs face outside the security org and how a value-based business case changes a buyer’s answer.
But follower count alone cannot show how many target buyers see the posts, their seniority or regions, or their budget authority.
Before committing, ask Hunt for recent performance data on comparable credibility-and-budget topics, and whether an audience survey or platform demographic report covers industry, job level, seniority, or geography.
If a large share of the readership is other security vendors rather than CISO buyers, the partnership looks very different.
Steve Hunt's posts do not disclose a sponsorship, co-branded series, other partnership format, or official inquiry route.
Read more
On LinkedIn, they promote the coaching-and-software product Orbit and advise security vendors on how to pitch CISOs.
Their commercially oriented posts point to an Orbit sign-up page, not a sponsorship or collaboration contact.
A brand considering a co-branded series on how CISOs build executive credibility and win budget should ask directly about terms, deliverables, editorial control, and lead times.
Brief A: a cybersecurity leadership coaching company wants Hunt for a co-branded series on how CISOs build executive credibility and win budget.
Read more
This need is the one Hunt's posts support most directly, and the support is specific rather than thematic.
Four of the six posts make the same argument from different angles: a security leader can be the authority inside the security organization and still be fifth on the agenda in the executive meeting, waiting for a polite nod and a promise to revisit next quarter.
One frames this as a credibility gap, not a knowledge gap, and says better slides, more data, a stronger ROI analysis and even an MBA did not move the budget.
Another says the advice Hunt used to give — read the annual report, study the filings — was a trap: leaders who win budget understand people better than business.
A third describes watching security leaders lose budget, influence and heart for thirty years because their title arrived without coaching on earning influence with CFOs, CEOs and boards.
A coaching company selling exactly that support is buying content built around the creator's repeated argument.
The formats suit the message.
Hunt's posts offer reusable structures: an inside-versus-outside contrast that gives each episode a ready scene; a four-part value model (objective, risk, infrastructure, agility) with a one-sentence test; a do-this-not-that reversal for two audiences; and a three-step stakeholder-mapping list plus a Leadership Snapshot that becomes a filled-in worksheet.
A partner series can adapt those structures into episodes and companion assets without inventing a framework.
The strongest hook is the line that the problem was never the data or the slides but the framing: the series would not be another explainer on security terminology.
Three buyer questions remain.
First, agree before production whether Orbit, which appears alongside Hunt's credibility material in three posts, will be named, excluded or treated as one available tool among several.
Second, ask for engagement, seniority, region and employer data: the available figure is 7,061 LinkedIn followers, observed 8 October 2026, and the number of CISO-level buyers who see the posts is unverified.
Third, ask about deliverables, editorial control and lead times; the posts do not document a sponsorship, co-branded series or inquiry route.
When to choose a specialist
Brief B: a privacy management software vendor wants a sponsored commentary series on privacy, AI governance and movement in the analyst landscape, built around Forrester Wave rankings.
Read more
This is the harder fit because the material is thin, not because the subject is mismatched.
One post out of six touches the topic: a short reaction to a Forrester Wave on privacy management software.
Hunt says the Waves are sometimes insightful and sometimes controversial, calls this one surprising, notes they had not kept up with privacy management and were partly surprised by the vendors listed, then asks readers what they make of it and why it matters for cybersecurity.
That is a question, not a position.
It offers no framework, data, prediction or argument for a sponsor to build a series around, and explicitly hands the analysis to the audience.
A sponsor would be buying a demonstrated specialism that the posts do not show.
There are secondary frictions.
A recurring analyst-ranking segment based on one post risks presenting an occasional format as a signature one; the topics section identifies it as the only analyst commentary in the set.
The same commercial questions apply as for a series on CISO credibility and budget: ask about sponsorship format and inquiry route, and how Hunt would handle a sponsored position or a subject they have said they had not followed closely.
That last point matters because a sponsored series invites a point of view, while the one relevant post declines to give one.
Hunt could research privacy management properly and build a position; the audience overlap with privacy buyers is unknown, not known to be wrong.
Before assessing this as a fit, ask for the proposed primary research and a clear commercial arrangement.
If the vendor wants to reach the security-leader audience Hunt writes for, the credibility-and-budget material is the better starting point, even though the product category differs.
A worked campaign example
Worked angle for Brief A: a co-branded series titled around the room where the budget lives, built from the posts rather than around them.
The spine is Hunt's own contrast.
Episode one opens with the meeting scene — a leader who commands fifty security professionals becomes item five on the agenda with three minutes and a polite deferral — then states the premise: the gap is credibility, not competence.
Episode two takes on the failed remedies, using the admission that reading filings, learning the business and, in one case, earning an MBA did not unlock budget.
The promise: viewers will not be taught more finance vocabulary.
Episode three turns practical: map the two or three people who control the yes, learn each one's operating style, and identify where the leader's style collides with theirs before making the ask.
Episode four introduces the four-part value model — objective, risk, infrastructure, agility — with agility as the part most pitches miss because it is where revenue, speed to market and competitive position live.
Episode five is the reversal: the same rule applied to the security leader, who writes how the investment makes the CFO's or CIO's life measurably better.
A closing episode can run the whole chain on one stalled initiative from a real or anonymised case.
Each episode needs a companion asset that works away from the page, where this material is strongest: a fillable stakeholder and operating-style map for episode three; a four-box value worksheet and the one-sentence test for episode four — if the team cannot say in one sentence what the customer's business can do after buying that it could not do before, the pitch is not ready — and a short writing prompt for episode five asking the leader to name the better life and measurable value for one pending decision.
Recurring closing questions, in the style Hunt already uses, give the partner a comment and lead-capture surface without turning the series into a survey.
A one-line clip rule from the value-selling post travels easily on social: stop pitching features, answer what the business can do afterwards.
This should beat a generic sponsored explainer because the episodes closely read the creator's actual arguments, the exercises come from the posts rather than being invented, and readers finish with something filled in.
Settle the editorial tradeoffs first.
Agree how to handle Orbit, which appears alongside the credibility method in three posts and may be a competing product the partner does not want named in every episode.
Ask Hunt for recent performance on comparable credibility and budget topics, plus any audience survey or platform demographic information: 7,061 followers with no engagement or seniority data will not carry a budget decision.
Also negotiate scope, editorial control and lead times directly; the posts do not document a sponsorship, co-branded series or inquiry route.
Sandra Roberts is a better choice if the coaching company wants the series to start with board-level risk governance and long-term strategy, rather than the personal credibility gap.
Read more
In the two posts available, Roberts writes that CISOs must show how security investments support broader business goals, and that boards and executive leadership need to partner with CISOs on multi-year roadmaps for threats like quantum computing, because the average CISO tenure is often less than three years.
A series built on that frame would give CISO viewers language for the boardroom and a five-point agenda — business value, AI adoption, data privacy, security culture, regulatory compliance — for a credential-building curriculum.
The coaching company could position the series as board-ready security leadership rather than negotiation coaching; Roberts' material provides a ready list of topics for each episode.
The tradeoff is that Roberts' posts offer explanatory summaries and listicles, not a tested coaching method.
They explain what CISOs should focus on, but don't show a repeatable exercise, a stakeholder-mapping tool or a personal story of a budget win.
Hunt's material centres on one argument — the credibility gap — with a product, Orbit, attached and reusable frameworks: the four-part value model and the three-step stakeholder map.
Choosing Roberts means trading that ready-made method and first-person narrative for broader subject coverage and a more formal, board-level tone.
The coaching company would need to supply the exercises and personal coaching voice itself.
Val Tsanev is a better choice if the coaching company wants the series aimed at cybersecurity founders and vendors who sell to CISOs, rather than CISOs themselves.
Read more
The two posts available focus on the buying side of the same budget problem: Tsanev interviews a founder about why the enterprise champion closes the deal, not the vendor, and describes the 5–20 meetings and nine-month cycles it takes to get a CISO to buy.
Another post breaks down why CISOs are cutting legacy vulnerability management and standalone SOAR in 2026: the products still work, but the definition of value has changed, and CISOs now ask whether they can get 80% of the value from a platform they already own.
For a coaching company that also serves vendor clients, or wants to teach CISOs how vendors see them, this material offers a view from the other side of the table that Hunt's posts don't.
The tradeoff is a shift in audience and purpose.
Tsanev's content is podcast- and GTM-oriented: it reports what CISOs and founders say and explains vendor sales cycles, but doesn't coach CISOs on building their credibility or winning budget inside their organisations.
The exercises and frameworks focus on selling, not executive presence.
A series based on Tsanev would suit a vendor-facing audience, but wouldn't fulfil a brief about helping CISOs win budget.
The coaching company would need to decide whether one series can serve both audiences or whether it should be a separate track.
Anand Thangaraju is a better choice if the coaching company wants to build the series around the mechanics of buying decisions and the system-design view of security culture, rather than the CISO's personal credibility.
Read more
One post draws a sharp line between the practitioner who loves a product and the economic buyer who has to approve it, and argues that deals stall when founders treat the user as the buyer; the fix is to give the champion the business-case language to sell internally.
That's close to Hunt's value-selling argument, but told from the vendor's side, and maps cleanly onto a session about how CISOs can equip their own champions — their teams, their peers — to win budget.
Another post challenges the 'humans are the weakest link' myth and reframes security as a system-design problem, giving the coaching company a distinct angle on security culture and leadership.
The tradeoff is that Thangaraju's posts are written for security startups and security program designers, not CISOs seeking coaching.
The material explains buyer behaviour and design failures, but doesn't offer a step-by-step method for a CISO to map stakeholders, prepare an ask or change a budget conversation.
Hunt's posts include those exercises and a named product to deliver them.
Choosing Thangaraju means gaining a product-GTM and system-design lens but losing the personal coaching narrative and ready-to-run tools that make a co-branded series easy to produce.
The coaching company would need to build the CISO-facing exercises itself.
This profile draws on all six full LinkedIn posts attributed to Steve Hunt, covering CISO executive credibility, budget justification, business value selling, cybersecurity sales, and one reaction to a Forrester privacy-management report.
The posts have no visible publication dates, so the profile does not establish a chronology or claim lifetime coverage.
These posts document no sponsorship, affiliate, client, or investment relationship involving other companies; the only commercial entity named is Orbit, which Steve Hunt describes as Steve Hunt’s own tool.
Audience composition, engagement, and sponsorship terms are not available, so those remain open gaps rather than findings.
