Apple •Spotify• Pocket Casts •Youtube •Overcast •RSS

What’s up folks. We’ve got a fun episode today. If you’re a regular listener, you’ve heard me mention an article that’s been living rent free in my head for a while now. 

Casey Winters, the former CPO at Eventbrite and an Instructor at Reforge, wrote an article titled “The Problems With Martech, and Why Martech is Actually for Engineers”. I’ve asked a lot of recent guests what their thoughts were on some of the arguments raised in the article. So today we’re going to respond to his claims.

Summary: Should you buy a 3rd party martech solution or build your own in-house tool, the answer is almost always buy. Let your in-house engineers focus on product and data while leveraging the cutting-edge solutions and support offered by specialized martech vendors. Unless you’re planning on building a martech company, leave the martech to the experts. Homegrown tools aren’t appealing to marketers, they’re hard to scale, most have a shitty UI and it’s not a recognisable martech tool you can add to your resume. Not only are homegrown martech tools not appealing to marketers, they are even less appealing to engineers. Engineers can’t stand the chaos of marketing and effective martech implementation requires collaboration between engineers and marketers, highlighting the need for cross-functional translators and disproving the claim that martech is actually only for engineers.

Jump to a Section 👇

• Martech Has Continued to Explode as a Category
• Why Engineers Might Never Fully Embrace Martech
• Why the Answer is Almost Always Buy Instead of Build
• Martech Will Always Require a Translator
• A Hybrid Approach Involving Both Marketers and Engineers

Martech Has Continued to Explode as a Category

So the article we’re debating was written in 2019, that’s 5 years ago. That’s a boatload of time in martech so we can’t fault the author too much and I respect his bold claims. He starts off by stating: 

“I hate martech, and think martech will decline as a category, and most martech businesses will not be very successful.” – Casey Winters, The Problems With Martech, and Why Martech is Actually for Engineers (source).

Now we could spend a whole episode disproving this prediction… but obviously we have 5 years of hindsight. 

But it is worth mentioning that he made this prediction on the year (2019) where the martech landscape exploded past 7,000 tools. Pretty bold to claim that it will decline as a category given the meteoric rise of tools up from only 350 in 2012. Scott Brinker recently released the state of martech in 2024 report which his team says they’ve seen the “largest number of new apps added to the martech landscape in the 13 years they’ve been curating it: net new growth of approximately 3,000 new tools.”

We’ve crossed 13,000 tools, nearly doubling the landscape from 2019 when Casey made his “bold prediction” that martech will decline as a category. 

Number of tools isn’t the only way to evaluate whether martech has declined or not. 

I’m not a big fan of Gartner reports but if that’s a more trusted source for you, they reported that in 2023 client organizations spent over 1/4 of their marketing budgets on technology.

In terms of VC investments, LUMA reported a steady rise in martech acquisitions in Q3 of 2023, averaging over 40 per quarter, alongside substantial capital inflows into new ventures. This financial backing underscores confidence in the industry’s future​​.

Okay… so Casey was wrong about martech declining as a category. But he did have some interesting arguments about why. 

His main thesis is that: Martech faces decline due to in-house engineers who are increasingly handling tailored solutions in-house, and the success of vendors hinges primarily on serving those engineers, not marketers.

I’ve asked 8 recent guests on the podcast to read Casey’s article and share their thoughts 👇

Why Engineers Might Never Fully Embrace Martech

Martech Just Isn’t that Appealing for Most Engineers

Vish Gupta, Marketing Operations Manager at Databricks (recently joined People.ai) shared her perspective on whether martech is truly designed for engineers, challenging pretty much every single one of Casey’s viewpoints. 

She started by expressing her disagreement with the idea that martech will decline due to competition from in-house engineers and platform limitations. “I don’t think martech is the sexiest thing for an engineer to do,” she noted. Vish argued that talented engineers building martech are more likely to work for CRM companies to enhance their products rather than find in-house martech development appealing.

Vish explained that building a CRM in-house is often not the best approach. She emphasized that knowing popular systems like Customerio, Marketo, and HubSpot adds more value. She questioned the practicality of finding the right talent for in-house solutions, given the complexities and specialized skills required.

Regarding the idea that successful martech companies cater primarily to engineers, Vish disagreed. “Martech teams are actually part engineer, part product marketer, part IT person, part biz ops,” she said. She believes the value of an operations professional lies not in owning and maintaining tech but in resolving business problems by aligning the right people, technology, and tools to accelerate pipeline generation. The engineering work in martech spans across data, data engineering, IT, and business operations, but this is just one aspect of a martech professional’s role.

Vish also questioned the notion that the rise of in-house engineers creating tailored solutions for their companies will lead to a decline in martech. “Just because you can, should you?” she asked. She emphasized the importance of a good quantification model and total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis when comparing in-house engineering teams to martech solutions.

She highlighted the challenges of integrating customer and product data in a compliant manner, which often requires a holistic approach. “It’s not just your martech stack; where’s your customer data living? Where is your product data living?” Vish noted. These challenges often make martech an operational project rather than just a marketing function.

Ultimately, Vish believes that martech will never be just for engineering. The value of a martech professional lies in understanding what marketers want to achieve and enabling them to get there. “The value is being able to see this is what the marketer wants to do, and here’s how we can enable them to get there and measure success,” she explained. This holistic view is crucial for martech to function effectively, a perspective she feels engineers alone may not fully capture.

Hear directly from Vish below 👇

Key takeaway: In-house martech development is off-putting for most seasoned marketers. The preference is usually with established 3rd party tools. Also, Martech just isn’t that appealing to most engineers. So martech can’t just be for engineers, it requires a blend of skills from marketing, IT, and operations. The real value of martech lies in enabling marketers and measuring success, a role not easily filled by engineers. 

Back to the top ⬆️

Engineers Can’t Stand the Chaos of Marketing

So far we’ve uncovered two themes: Marketers don’t find homegrown tools that appealing and engineers don’t find martech sexy. But why? Why isn’t martech appealing for engineers?

Let’s hear from the legendary Sara McNamara, former Senior Manager, Marketing Operations at Salesforce. Her answer stemmed from the complexities and cultural challenges of integrating engineering into marketing operations.

Sara began by acknowledging the trend of engineers becoming more involved in creating custom solutions for marketing. However, she expressed skepticism about marketing operations teams becoming predominantly composed of engineers. She explained, “A lot of the engineers I’ve worked with cannot stand the chaos of marketing.” 

Engineers typically prefer clear requirements and stable projects, while marketing often involves rapid changes and frequent adjustments. This cultural clash necessitates a middle person who understands both marketing needs and technical possibilities.

She also highlighted practical challenges in adopting homegrown solutions. Custom-built systems, while tailored to specific needs, often lack scalability and are difficult to manage. Recruiting talent for such specialized systems is another significant hurdle. Sara noted, “It’s hard to recruit marketing ops people because no one wants to take this job. It’s not transferable.”

Moreover, engineers are expensive. For many companies, the cost of maintaining a team of engineers to build and manage custom marketing solutions may not be justifiable. “I see these as potential roadblocks,” Sara commented, emphasizing the financial and logistical constraints.

Despite these challenges, Sara acknowledged that marketing operations are becoming more complex and frequently involve custom solutions. Her team collaborates with engineers regularly, but this collaboration is more of a necessity than a preferred working style. “It’s tolerated, not loved,” she quipped, pointing out the chaotic nature of marketing and the unique personality traits required to thrive in such an environment.

Additionally, budget constraints pose another challenge. Marketing departments often receive less funding compared to product teams, impacting their ability to attract and retain top talent. “Unless that perception changes, I think that could be another potential challenge,” Sara concluded.

Hear directly from Sara below 👇

Key takeaway: Sara agrees that there’s a trend of engineers entering marketing operations but she doesn’t agree with this idea of a full transformation based on a bunch of challenges. Most engineers dislike marketing’s chaos, you’re always going to need a translator role. Also, homegrown solutions are hard to manage and recruit for, essentially making them really costly. In her experience, larger companies with custom solutions always struggle to find staff because those roles aren’t transferable. So for many reasons, chaotic marketing environments and budget challenges will always prevent this shift to engineer-centric teams in martech.

Back to the top ⬆️

Why the Answer is Almost Always Buy Instead of Build

Big Internal Builds Only Make Sense If It Becomes a Product Offering for Customers

Another important question in the build vs buy debate is how you want to spend engineering resources. Just because you have the eng resources to build internal martech… does it mean you have to? Should a Fintech or Health tech company really be spending eng resources on martech?

Jacqueline Freedman, CEO and Founder at Monarch Advisory Partners and former Marketing Ops Leader at Grammarly and WeWork had some spicy counter arguments. 

She began by challenging the notion that martech should be engineered from scratch within companies. “If someone is already dedicated to building it, why reinvent the wheel?” she asked. She recounted an experience at a large company where they attempted to build their own internal CRM instead of using Salesforce, with the help of consultants. The endeavor wasn’t successful and actually ended with hiring those consultants to manage their Salesforce instance instead, proving the futility of duplicating well-established solutions.

Jacqueline stressed that martech is about servicing marketers, not engineers. She noted that while engineers could theoretically handle certain aspects, the strategic and consultative components are best managed by those with a deep understanding of marketing needs. She underscored the importance of leveraging existing platforms that are built by experts, rather than attempting to create new, proprietary tools without substantial justification.

However, Jacqueline acknowledged scenarios where building custom tools makes sense—if it becomes part of the company’s core functionality and has dedicated support. But she warned of the career and training implications, stating that expertise in proprietary tools doesn’t always translate well in new roles.

Most engineers, she agreed, don’t find martech appealing unless they have a specific dedication to it. Jacqueline highlighted the invaluable role of “unicorn” martech engineers who have helped her develop technical skills by explaining complex concepts simply. Yet, she emphasized the inevitability of churn and turnover within teams, making the need for clear focus on UI, UX, and core functionality critical.

Regarding martech vendors selling to engineers or marketing ops folks, Jacqueline recommended focusing on marketers. She recounted her experience at Grammarly, where a rigorous evaluation of ESPs involved her engineers deeply in the process. Their input was crucial, but the ultimate decisions were driven by marketing needs. “They might not be the decision makers, but their decision is required in order for you to move forward,” she concluded.

Jacqueline’s episode is dropping later next month. Don’t miss her full episode and all the key takeaways: Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Key takeaway:  The only time it makes sense to do a big internal martech build is if it becomes core to the company’s product offering or functionality and have dedicated support as well as a UI for end users. But if you go down this route, prepare that you might struggle to attract marketers as proprietary tools aren’t necessarily seen as transferable career skills. 

Back to the top ⬆️

Build vs Buy Comes Down to Cost Benefit Analysis

Debbie Mayen – Head of Marketing Operations at Logitech – questioned the need for building everything internally within a company. “Why would you want to reinvent the wheel? You’re just going to lead to customization bloat,” she remarked. 

For her, relying too heavily on custom-built solutions can signal a disregard for industry best practices and lead to inefficiencies. She illustrated this with an example from her team, where a need for a new vendor arose. Despite the option to build the solution in-house, she opted for an external vendor, believing it to be more cost-effective and allowing engineers to focus on more impactful projects.

The conversation shifted to AI’s role in potentially increasing internal builds. Debbie mentioned her husband’s enthusiasm for AI tools like Copilot, which amplify an engineer’s productivity. However, she argued that while AI might make internal solutions more feasible, it doesn’t necessarily mean they should always be pursued. “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should,” she stated, highlighting the importance of cost-benefit analysis.

Debbie also pointed out the risks associated with heavily customized internal systems. When the original developers leave, the remaining team might struggle with maintenance and updates, leading to potential disruptions. She advocated for a balanced approach where some solutions are built internally while others are outsourced, depending on the specific needs and resources of the company.

Hear directly from Debbie below 👇

Key takeaway: Evaluate the balance between internal builds and external solutions in martech, considering cost-effectiveness, maintenance, and the potential risks of customization bloat. Opt for a practical approach that leverages both internal and external resources wisely.

Back to the top ⬆️

Martech Will Always Require a Translator

Martech is at the Intersection of Engineering, Marketing and Data

Most companies still have engineering constraints and we still need third-party martech. But even if we did live in this utopia, most of the time it still wouldn’t make sense to have engineers build all marketing tools internally. Any marketer who’s been stuck using homegrown tools probably has PTSD and appreciates that friendly user interface of third-party tools, something that is usually deprioritized in internal tooling.

Natalie Miles – Head of Marketing Technology at Chime – challenges the notion of relying solely on in-house engineering for marketing solutions. She disagreed with the idea that martech’s evolution as a response to engineering constraints means companies should always build in-house solutions.

Natalie pointed out that most companies do not have unlimited engineering resources. Therefore, third-party solutions become necessary. She noted that marketers often have negative experiences with in-house tools, particularly because these tools frequently lack user-friendly interfaces. “Our ultimate customer is the marketing team,” she said, emphasizing the need for tools that enable marketers to perform their jobs effectively.

She highlighted the reality of limited engineering resources, especially in specialized sectors like fintech. Companies need to align their engineering efforts with core business competencies. For example, fintech companies should focus on developing financial technology products rather than martech products. “Do you really want to spend your limited engineering resources on building martech products or on products that drive growth?”

Even in an ideal scenario with unlimited resources, Natalie argued that a person is still needed at the intersection of engineering, marketing, and data privacy. This role, whether a product manager or martech specialist, is crucial for understanding marketing problems, creating roadmaps, defining requirements, and ensuring that solutions are built and delivered effectively.

Natalie also dismissed the view that martech consists solely of third-party solutions. She advocated for a hybrid approach that combines both building and buying. “Even if you’re buying a solution, it takes engineering resources to integrate it into your existing data architecture,” she explained. Most martech stacks blend both in-house and third-party solutions to meet complex needs.

She acknowledged the friction that can occur when marketers purchase tools without consulting engineers, leading to compatibility issues. “I can empathize with engineering teams when marketing buys a tool that doesn’t fit with our existing architecture,” she said.

Ultimately, the answer is context-dependent. It hinges on how closely embedded the engineering team is with marketing and whether there is a dedicated resource to bridge the gap between marketing needs and technical capabilities.

Hear directly from Natalie below 👇

Key takeaway: Natalie disagrees with Casey’s article suggesting that companies should build everything in-house if engineering constraints are lifted. Homegrown solutions often lack user-friendly interfaces for marketers and are hard to manage. Third-party tools improve alignment of engineering resources with business goals. She also mentions that a key individual is essential to bridge marketing, engineering, and data privacy, and also notes that it doesn’t always have to be build vs buy… there can be a hybrid approach.

Back to the top ⬆️

Marketers can be Technical, but can Engineers be Strategic About Marketing?

Ashleigh Johnson is a Marketing Technologist at Microsoft, she started her answer pretty bluntly: “Martech is for marketers.” She thinks that most professionals in the martech space come from marketing backgrounds, not engineering. While a marketer can learn technical skills, Ashleigh questioned whether engineers could effectively strategize marketing initiatives.

Ashleigh emphasized the dual nature of her role, requiring both technical knowledge and strategic planning. “I have to be technical in what I do, but at the same time, I have to be able to strategize with marketers and the business on how we should use these tools,” she explained. This balance is crucial, and she doubted that engineers could easily transition to these strategic aspects without extensive learning.

She acknowledged that martech professionals are akin to engineers in many ways, though they might not code or have a computer science background. Tools that require no coding are simplifying processes, but the essence of martech is about solving marketers’ problems. “Martech is about servicing marketers. It’s working with them to understand their pain points and building systems and processes that enable them to work faster and more efficiently.”

Ashleigh also noted that while engineers could be involved in the platform side, such as integrations and customizations, the consultative piece remains firmly within the marketer’s domain. “Working with marketers and strategizing around their needs is a perfect role for a marketer,” she said, adding that assigning this to an engineer would require them to spend significant time learning the intricacies of marketing.

Reflecting on her own experience, Ashleigh shared how expanding her knowledge of coding and integrations has been beneficial. However, she pointed out that these tasks are not always so complex that they necessitate an engineer. “A marketer can be technical, but an engineer can’t necessarily be strategic,” she concluded, underscoring the unique value marketers bring to martech.

Ashleigh’s episode is dropping later next month. Don’t miss her full episode and all the key takeaways: Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Key takeaway: Successful martech is fundamentally designed for marketers, not engineers. While marketers can acquire technical skills, the strategic insights necessary for effective marketing are less easily attained by engineers. Martech thrives on understanding and addressing marketers’ needs, making it a domain best suited for those with a marketing background.

Back to the top ⬆️

A Hybrid Approach Involving Both Marketers and Engineers

A New Breed of Marketing Specialists

Josh Hill is best known for creating the marketingrockstarguides blog for 7 years, one of the top blogs supporting marketing technologists. He began by acknowledging that martech originally emerged as a response to engineering constraints. This historical context is crucial for understanding martech’s evolution.

In the early days of marketing automation platforms, around 2009-2010, the appeal was clear: bypass the engineering team and build what you need using templates. Josh highlighted how marketers were enticed by the promise of self-sufficiency, “Don’t wait for the web team. Don’t wait for engineers to build you a form. You can do it yourself, because you have templates.”

However, this empowerment led to a new breed of marketing operations specialists—people like Josh, who had a technological knack but were primarily marketers. They bridged the gap between traditional marketing and the emerging martech tools. “Having a background in marketing and sales is very helpful in understanding how to apply the technology,” he emphasized.

As martech matured, the need for real-time, omni-channel personalization grew. The data needed for campaigns and sales triggers were no longer confined to marketing automation platforms (MAPs). Companies began to require marketing engineers or data engineers to handle more complex integrations and deliver personalized experiences at scale. Josh mentioned, “Now they need marketing engineers, or more coders to do certain things more effectively, to build that experience.”

Despite this shift, Josh argued that martech is still primarily designed for marketers, not engineers. The real debate lies in whether this is the right approach. Most marketers don’t use these tools extensively; it’s the operations teams that dive deep into the functionalities. 

Hear directly from Josh below 👇

Key takeaway: Martech was born out of engineering constraints but has evolved to necessitate a hybrid approach involving both marketers and engineers. While the tools are designed for marketers, effective implementation often requires technical expertise, highlighting the importance of cross-functional collaboration.

Back to the top ⬆️

Decentralizing the Role of Engineering

Stephen Stouffer – VP, Digital Transformation & Innovation at SaaScend – acknowledged that while martech tools often cater to those with technical backgrounds, the role of engineers within companies has evolved significantly. 

“I don’t think he’s wrong, necessarily. But I think there’s some messaging being missed there,” he started. Stephen pointed out that understanding AI, maintaining data integrity, and managing system integrations requires a technical skill set. However, he emphasized that the engineering function has become decentralized across departments.

Ten to fifteen years ago, engineering departments handled all technical requests from marketing, sales, and customer success. Now, each department, including marketing, is hiring its own engineers. This shift means that marketers are increasingly expected to possess technical skills. “I can’t tell you how many content folks who are writing emails and social media posts also know HTML, CSS, and work with APIs a little bit,” Stephen explained.

This blurring of lines between roles is reshaping the landscape. Engineers are now integral parts of marketing, sales, and customer success teams, rather than being confined to a separate engineering department. They bring technical expertise directly into their respective areas, allowing for more tailored and efficient solutions.

Stephen concluded by highlighting the growing overlap between roles: “You tell me the difference between a sales ops person and a sales engineer or an engineer. They all know Python, they know JavaScript, but they use those skills in different systems and ways.”

Hear directly from Stephen below 👇

Key takeaway: Martech is increasingly integrated within departments, requiring marketers to possess technical skills, as the traditional boundaries between engineering and other functions blur.

Back to the top ⬆️

Episode recap

So let’s recap some of the main counter arguments here:

1 – Homegrown tools aren’t appealing to markers

We built our own CRM or MAP… isn’t actually an appealing thing to tell to a seasoned marketing technologist. It’s hard to scale, most have a shitty UI and it’s not a recognisable martech tool you can add to your resume that arms you with transferable skills to a company using the same platform. Countless martech experts have made a career on the back of expertise in a platform or two.

2 – Working on internal martech isn’t sexy for engineers

Not only are homegrown martech tools not appealing to marketers, they are even less appealing to engineers. Let’s face it, working on the product, pushing features that get seen by thousands of customers, is a lot more attractive than building internal tools for a handful of marketers. And those marketers you’re servicing like in a chaotic and unstructured world, something most engineers would loathe. 

3 – We don’t live in a utopia of unlimited engineering constraints that can be diverted from product

Do you want to pivot and become a martech company? Because usually the cost benefit analysis of build vs buy favors build only when you can not only service internal marketers but add it to your core product offering and add value to your customers. A company building in fintech or healthtech should be ultra focused on their industry and not divert engineering resources to tools they can’t offer to customers. Not when there’s 13,000 potential third party alternatives.

4 – Engineers will always need translators to speak marketing and vice versa

If martech is actually for engineers, it means engineers can also handle the process and the people side of the gig. Marketing operations isn’t just about the tech afterall. But engineers don’t understand a day in the life of a marketer or the nuanced use cases. Martech will never be just for engineers. We’ll always need a translator. Someone who can bridge technical counterparts with other cross functional teams across data, privacy, IT and marketing. 

5 – Decentralizing the role of engineering

Martech might have been born out of engineering constraints but has evolved to necessitate a hybrid approach involving both marketers and engineers. While the tools are designed for marketers, effective implementation often requires technical expertise, highlighting the importance of cross-functional collaboration with engineering.

Here’s my main takeaway: Should you buy a 3rd party martech solution or build your own in-house tool, the answer is almost always buy. Let your in-house engineers focus on product and data while leveraging the cutting-edge solutions and support offered by specialized martech vendors. Unless you’re planning on building a martech company, leave the martech to the experts.

Listen to the full episode ⬇️ or Back to the top ⬆️

✌️

—
Intro music by Wowa via Unminus
Cover art created with Midjourney (check out how)

Apple •Spotify• Pocket Casts •Youtube •Overcast •RSS

Related tags

See all episodes

Future-proofing the humans behind the tech

Apple •Pocket Casts•Google •Overcast •Spotify •Breaker •Castro •RSS

• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube
• RSS Feed