• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube
• RSS Feed

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

What’s up everyone, today we have the pleasure of sitting down with Mary Keough, Fractional Demand Gen for B2B at DemandLoops.

Summary: Mary wrote a LinkedIn post listing every fear a senior marketer has about taking a Marketing job, and it hit a nerve loud enough to become this entire episode. We take the fears apart one at a time: the goalpost that moves the week after your team clears it, the executive dinner that becomes 6 more events, the launch strategy your boss never opens. Then we build the 3 sentence job description she’d sign tomorrow and the written SLA that stops sales from eating 4 days of your designer’s week.

In this Episode…

• How to Run an Honest Goal Setting Conversation With Your Founder
• Why Marketing Always Catches the Scope Creep at Startups
• How New Marketing VPs Establish Credibility in Their First Month
• How Women in Marketing Leadership Get Out of the Marketing Girl Box
• How to Tell if a Founder Who Doesn’t Get Marketing Will Trust You
• What a VP of Marketing Job Description Should Actually Say
• When to Fight for a Broken Marketing Role and When to Leave
• How to Vet a Marketing Role by Talking to People Who Left

About Mary Keough

Mary Keough is a fractional demand gen marketer at DemandLoops, where she builds B2B demand programs that are designed from day one to be handed back to a permanent hire. She has spent 15 years across B2B SaaS and industrial manufacturing marketing, most recently as Director of Demand Generation at CoLab Software, and before that as Head of Marketing at Map My Customers and Senior Marketing Strategist at Gorilla 76.

Her roots are in industrial and manufacturing demand gen, a niche she cut her teeth on at Spraying Systems Co. and still speaks about at events like the Industrial Marketing Summit. She’s built an audience of roughly 30,000 on LinkedIn writing candid, fundamentals-first posts, and she co-hosts the Purposeful Marketing Podcast.

How to Write LinkedIn Posts That Hit a Nerve Without AI

You can spot them before you finish the first line. Same hook shape, same clipped one-line paragraphs stacked into a wall, same closing question nobody answers. B2B LinkedIn has gotten very good at producing posts that read like posts, and the feed is worse for it.

Then something like Mary’s shows up. Her post about VP of Marketing roles was a stacked list of fears, one after another, written against the line founders keep repeating about not being able to find good candidates. It went around because a lot of senior marketers had been carrying those fears for years without the words for them. That feeling of reading your own thought in someone else’s sentence is rare, and it’s almost never something a hook formula produces.

“If your company is the only company that can write this content, this podcast, this video, do it. If everybody, if like 10 other companies could do it, don’t do it.”

Originality is the entire filter for her, and applying it kills most content calendars on contact. Mary doesn’t pre-plan posts. An idea sits with her for a while, usually something that’s been bothering her that she can’t quite name yet. Then a conversation does it: a marketer venting, a thread she can’t scroll past, a call with a potential client. Something tips her over the edge and the post writes itself.

“I’ll just, over 5 to 10 minutes, just rage write, do some minor editing, and then send it off into the LinkedIn world to see how people respond.”

Not a single one of her posts has been written with AI. She says it flatly, and you can tell from the drafts: the scar tissue is right there on the page, and the sentences go where an editor would have smoothed them. The cost of that is inconsistency. She posts when she has something, and only then. The return is that when she does post, it carries the one thing a language model cannot manufacture, which is the specific irritation of a person who has actually lived the problem.

The volume play is finished. When any competitor can generate a competent, on-brand, keyword-aligned post in 30 seconds, competence stops being a differentiator and originality becomes the only moat left. Most B2B content operations are structurally incapable of producing it, because they’re built to hit a cadence rather than to publish the thing only their company could say.

Key takeaway: Run every idea on your content calendar through Mary’s filter before it gets assigned: if 10 other companies in your category could publish the same piece, kill it. Replace the slots you clear with a standing prompt to your team, asking what has annoyed them at work this month that they can’t fully explain yet. Those are the posts that travel.

Back to the top ⬆️

How to Run an Honest Goal Setting Conversation With Your Founder

Marketing targets in most startups get set the way weather forecasts get set in a bad novel, which is to say somebody decides what would sound good and then everyone agrees to act surprised when it doesn’t happen. The CMO needs a board-friendly story. The investor update needs an AI angle. Almost none of it starts from historical numbers, and the marketing leader gets handed the result and asked to commit.

Mary’s diagnosis starts a layer above the number. Companies keep saying they need a great VP of Marketing, an awesome VP of Marketing, an amazing director of demand gen. Very few of them are willing to do the work that makes a great one want the job. And the work starts with a company vision that has actual business goals underneath it.

“What I see a lot of is, ‘We need to triple revenue.’ That’s a very nice wish list. That’s not a company vision. That’s not something that people can rally and get behind.”

The version she wants runs down a ladder. There’s the grand vision, the thing that got the company funded in the first place. Under it sits a 1-year and a 3-year picture of what changes in the market if the company wins. Under that sit the business goals that get you there, segmented by department, so product, marketing, and sales each know what they own.

She walks through it with an attribution example, mostly because it’s easy and partly because she can’t resist. Say the company vision is to get founders, CEOs, and marketers to start caring about attribution. Fine. Now what does product build in the next 12 months to make that true? What does marketing publish? What does sales say on calls? Every function can answer that question, and the answers can be checked against each other.

That ladder is almost completely gone from the startups she sees. What’s left is the revenue multiple, which is a wish, and a set of quarterly targets that get reverse-engineered from it. Marketing is usually the first function asked to sign for the gap.

The line that stuck with me is her framing of the whole discipline: everything about marketing is simple and fundamentals driven, and simple has nothing to do with easy. The hard part isn’t figuring out what to do. The hard part is that you’re doing it inside politically driven motivations, shifting strategies, and goalposts that move whenever the board asks a new question.

How to Push Back When Product Wants to Change the ICP

Anyone who has worked at a startup knows the move. You spend a year building a content engine around marketers, the quarter goes well, product decides the real opportunity is salespeople, and suddenly your entire library is pointed at the wrong buyer. Product changes a few things in the roadmap. Marketing starts over, and the results of that restart won’t show up for 12 months.

Mary’s honest about the limits here. Preventing the shift is difficult, so you mitigate it as it comes up, and you do that with numbers in the room. Her script goes something like this: we can absolutely do that, and we’re starting from square zero, not square one, because there’s no pipeline, no historical MQLs, no lead volume, nothing to model from. I’ll need market research first. Meanwhile, we created $5 million in pipeline last quarter in the segment we already serve, and what I keep hearing on sales calls is that buyers love how well we track LinkedIn and keep hitting a gap on Facebook.

That reframe gives the leadership team a cheaper option they hadn’t considered, which is improving attribution for a channel their existing buyers already care about. Product will always be excited to evolve the product. The marketer’s job in that room is to supply the customer’s perspective, with evidence, before the decision hardens.

How to Respond When Leadership Moves the Goalpost

Sometimes the goal changes anyway. Mary’s answer to that is curiosity first, ground held second, and both in the same breath.

“Six months ago we decided the goalpost was here. My team hit that. I would like you to please recognize my team for hitting that, first of all. And second of all, why do we feel like this needs to be shifted right now?”

The second half of that is a real question, and she means it as one. Founders are on sales calls the marketing leader never sees. Boards ask for things that never get relayed. Asking whether they’re hearing something in the market that you aren’t gets you the actual reason, and it costs you nothing. Coming in closed and defensive gets you a worse version of the same decision.

The recognition ask matters as much as the reframe. A team that hits a target and watches it silently move learns that hitting targets is not a thing that gets noticed, and that lesson is expensive to unlearn. The companies complaining loudest about a marketing talent shortage are usually the ones that trained 3 cohorts of good marketers to stop trying.

Key takeaway: Write the ladder down before you accept a number: company vision, the 1-year and 3-year picture, then the business goals per department that ladder up to it. If the founder can’t fill in the middle 2 rungs, the target you’re being handed is a wish, and you should say so in the goal-setting conversation rather than in the postmortem. When a goalpost does move, ask for recognition on the one your team already hit before you discuss the new one.

Back to the top ⬆️

Speaking of setting metrics and leads and sales qualified targets… are you still operating like it’s 2013 and you haven’t updated your chatbot? We recently started collaborating with the Docket team and what they are building with their Inbound Demand Agent is super cool. Check it out.

Why Marketing Always Catches the Scope Creep at Startups

2 of the fears in Mary’s post land harder on ops people than on anyone else. The first is being hired to fix positioning or product market fit and then quietly inheriting internal comms and events, with no direction and no budget. The second is worse, because it punishes competence: show the slightest ability at project management or documentation, and it gets added to your plate permanently.

AI has given this a fresh coat of paint. Orgs are flatter, headcount is harder to justify, and there’s now a respectable-sounding reason to hand one person the work of 3. You have Claude Code. You’re a VP, so you should be technical anyway. Just build an agent for it. Every one of those sentences is doing the same job, which is converting a resourcing decision into a personal capability question.

Mary laughed at the question, then gave the structural answer. Most founders are technical founders. They built the product, or they lived the job the product serves. The founder she worked with at CoLab was a mechanical engineer who made a tool for mechanical engineers, which is genuinely great, and which also means he wasn’t a marketer.

“What is really difficult for a technical founder to understand is that marketing, I mean, I might get some heat for this, is more art than math or science.”

She knows that one will earn her comments, and she’s right anyway. A technical founder can measure the code. They can see the code’s output. The chain from input to result is short and legible, and a career built on that legibility makes an illegible function feel like a place where effort disappears. Marketing isn’t linear, and telling a linear story about it is hard even when the work is going well. So the function that can’t produce a clean chart becomes the function that absorbs whatever else needs doing.

Her answer to the pile-on has some give in it, which is what makes it usable. Say yes to some of it. Saying yes shows you’re committed to the company succeeding, and a VP who treats every request as an encroachment burns credibility fast. The trick is what rides along with the yes.

Take the executive dinner, which she says comes up at every series A startup on earth roughly 3 weeks after a marketing leader starts. Of course I’ll set up the executive dinner. I can see why it matters. And if it works and we keep getting requests like this, we need to look at hiring additional resources, because this is going to start pulling my attention away from the product market fit problem you hired me to solve. Same yes. Different downstream.

“If your CEO has a problem with you drawing boundaries like this, I think it’s probably okay to reconsider if this is the best place for you to grow and thrive.”

That last line is a diagnostic worth keeping. The resourcing conversation costs the company nothing to have, so a founder who won’t have it is telling you the pile-on is the plan. The function whose output resists measurement will keep catching the extra work for as long as marketing attribution stays a story people tell rather than a number people trust, which means this problem outlives whatever the current AI headcount argument happens to be.

Key takeaway: Attach a resourcing clause to every yes you give outside your remit, out loud and in the same sentence. Say what you’ll do, why you can see it matters, and what has to happen if the request repeats. Then watch how the founder reacts, because the reaction tells you more about the next 2 years than anything in the interview did.

Back to the top ⬆️

How New Marketing VPs Establish Credibility in Their First Month

Getting hired and getting heard are separate events, and the gap between them is where a lot of marketing leaders quietly give up. Mary’s post named the version of this fear that stings: they’ll hear your inputs to business strategy and execution, and they won’t listen to them. Marketing ops people recognize the shape of it instantly. You’re told the work is critical, the request is urgent, the launch depends on you, and then your recommendation goes in the notes and nowhere else.

Her tactics for closing that gap are specific, and she’s either run them herself or watched friends in VP seats run them.

“Say yes to something big and say no to something small.”

• Take the big swing early, then decline something minor. Yes to the executive dinner, partnered with the VP of Sales, run properly. No to the weekly product comms blast, because it’s a random act of marketing with nothing behind it. Offer to roll it into the AI announcement 3 months out instead, and the no reads as strategy rather than resistance.
• Speak in leadership meetings before you feel ready. New hires default to listening, observing, and absorbing, and Mary says that default costs women more than it costs men, based on how often she hears about it. If something doesn’t make sense, say it doesn’t make sense. Politely intervening when something’s wrong is allowed on day 4.
• Run an enablement training with sales and a messaging workshop for product. She watched MJ do this at CoLab and earn an enormous amount of respect for it. You’re showing every department how marketing changes their outcomes, and collecting buy-in from each department head while you do it.

The third one is the sleeper. Enablement and workshops read like service work on a calendar, which is exactly why they slip past the politics. What you’re actually building is a net of influence that doesn’t route through your own boss. When the next debate happens, the VP of Sales and the head of product already understand what you do and why it moves their numbers, and you have people in the room arguing your side before you open your mouth.

Her small test is worth stealing too. Say the first leadership meeting produces a vague ask for marketing to be more involved in product updates. Instead of agreeing or refusing, describe how you’ve seen product updates go well and how you’ve seen them go badly. Weekly emails for every minor feature, sent to a customer base where a sliver cares about any given release, is the bad version. Quarterly announcements with real weight behind them is the good one. That exchange costs you nothing and tells you exactly how much room you have.

How to Say No Without Becoming the Difficult Hire

Everyone thinks they can do marketing. Everyone has watched Mad Men and come away believing the job is whiskey, a good line, and a billboard. So the expert you hired to be an expert gets asked for advice, gives it, and watches the room go with the other thing. Push back every time and you become the difficult hire. Agree every time and you become the yes person nobody consults, which is a slower version of the same ending.

Mary’s answer reframes the balance question entirely. You were brought in to solve a problem, and the goal is for the company to feel the problem getting solved. That means spending your energy on showing why marketing matters and how it works, and demonstrating that the minor request in front of you does nothing for the reason you were hired.

“Save 10 to 20% of your time to handle those random requests that are coming in, but make sure it doesn’t ever exceed that 10 to 20%.”

The budget is the point. Random requests are going to arrive whether or not you have a policy for them, so you fund them deliberately and cap the fund. What blows the cap is always the same story: the biggest client, the million-dollar contract, the 37 slide deck that needs a designer for 4 days, right now, because sales asked.

So write the guardrail before the ask lands. Mary’s version uses the target account list and the pipeline stage together. Anyone on the top 100 account list, past stage 2, already qualified by sales, with an active opportunity and an identified champion, gets dedicated marketing resources. Everyone else gets the template, adjusted however the rep sees fit, with a standing offer to help the moment the deal reaches stage 2.

Then agree that with the VP of Sales, write it down, and point at the documentation when the request comes in. At that point the rep is being shown an agreement their own sales leader signed, which is a very different conversation. Cross-functional documentation is the cheapest authority a marketing leader can manufacture, and most teams never build it because it feels like bureaucracy until the first time it saves 4 days of design work.

Key takeaway: Book 2 sessions in your first month, an enablement training with sales and a messaging workshop for product, and treat them as credibility infrastructure rather than favors. In the same month, agree a written SLA with your sales leader that ties custom marketing work to a pipeline stage and an account tier. Cap ad hoc requests at 20% of your team’s time and track it, so the cap is a number you can show rather than a feeling you defend.

Back to the top ⬆️

How Women in Marketing Leadership Get Out of the Marketing Girl Box

The box has a very specific shape. You do the marketing stuff. You do the arts and crafts, you plan the events, and surely you have a good eye for the website. Mary put it in her post as the fear that even with the title, she’d always still be the marketing girl. Darrell asked her how women get out of that box and set leadership expectations from day one, and her first answer was that it happened to her.

She’d been hired as head of marketing for about a week. The team was talking about the website, and someone said they were sure Mary had a really good eye for the design part of it. She said, out loud, in the meeting: actually, I suck. Really bad at design. Not my strong suit. You could see the CEO sit back a little.

“Go ahead, admit your weaknesses up front. I suck at design, and we are going to need resources for design ’cause that ain’t me.”

There are 2 moves in that sentence, and the second one is the important one. She declines the assignment, and in the same breath she converts it into a resourcing requirement the company now has on record. Design work still has to get done. It just stopped being something that quietly lands on the marketing leader because someone assumed she’d be good at it.

Most people do the opposite, especially in a first month, because saying you’re bad at something feels like handing over ammunition. It’s cheaper than the alternative. Take the design work once and you own design forever, and the org will file you under the person who does the pretty stuff, which is the exact box you were trying to climb out of.

Separating Your Self Worth From Your Performance Review

Then she went somewhere harder, and prefaced it by saying it was a lesson that hurt to learn and one she’d like other women to get to earlier. It’s harder for women to separate their self-worth from their job.

Her own version started with taking a role for reasons she can now see were thin. This sounds fun. Head of marketing sounds like a good time. I love MJ, I can go work at CoLab, that sounds like a good time. Nowhere in there was an answer to what she was trying to get out of it. MJ eventually pushed her on exactly that, told her to step back and define what she wanted and then build steps toward it together, and Mary still describes that as one of the more useful things a manager ever did for her.

The moment it all came into focus was a performance review where nothing had gone wrong. Mary, you’re doing great. You’re meeting expectations.

“Me meeting expectations, you might as well have just chopped my arm off.”

She’s a straight-A student, a self-described total nerd, obsessed with high performance. Meeting expectations read as failure. What am I doing wrong, how do I fix this, I can’t believe I’m not exceeding. It cost her a full weekend of feeling genuinely sad about a review in which nothing had gone wrong, and that weekend is what showed her how much of her sense of herself was sitting inside a rating her manager controlled.

What she pulled out of it is a sentence worth sitting with: no part of how you perform at work says anything about who you are outside of the workplace. Once she believed that, decisions got easier, because a role that stopped fitting became a logistics problem rather than a verdict on her.

There’s an uncomfortable read here for anyone managing high achievers. If a person’s identity is fused to their rating, the calibration meeting is doing damage that no amount of career-pathing conversation will undo, and the highest performers on your team are the most exposed to it. The industry has spent a decade optimizing performance systems for fairness and almost no time on what those systems tell people about their worth.

Key takeaway: Name a weakness out loud in your first month and pair it with the resource the company now needs to fund, so the gap becomes a budget line instead of an assumption about you. Separately, write down what you want out of this specific role before you start, in your own words. Without that written answer, every performance review becomes a referendum on you rather than a status update on a job.

Back to the top ⬆️

How to Tell if a Founder Who Doesn’t Get Marketing Will Trust You

There’s a piece of advice that circulates on LinkedIn every few weeks: you’ll never be happy unless you work for a boss who gets marketing. As career guidance it’s close to useless, because the supply is tiny. Founder-led companies run by marketers exist, and they’re rare, and the ones that do exist usually already have a marketing leader they’re happy with. Filter for that and you’ll be searching for a long time.

Mary’s take flips the premise entirely, and it surprised me.

“I love working for founders who don’t get marketing. But the key is you have to work for a founder who doesn’t get marketing and is willing to admit that.”

The variable that actually predicts the job is whether the founder can say that sentence out loud. She describes the best version of the relationship as a founder telling her straight: I don’t get marketing, I’m willing to admit it, and I need your help to fix it. Her reaction to that hypothetical was close to longing.

What you’re actually sorting for in the interview is which of 3 founders you’re sitting across from.

• Doesn’t get marketing and admits it. The one you want. The gap is acknowledged, which means your recommendations arrive as expertise rather than as an argument.
• Doesn’t get marketing and won’t admit it. This founder tells you they get marketing, they know the customer, they’ve seen what works. Mary’s response to that is the obvious one nobody says in the room: there’s a reason you’re out here looking for a VP of Marketing.
• Has too much marketing experience. The one people underrate as a risk. This founder wants into the nitty-gritty. Mary’s example is Udi from Gong, whose CEO had done a lot of marketing and would get into full-blown fights with him over SEO, because the founder genuinely knew SEO. Udi’s position was that he knew SEO too, and they were going to do these other things regardless.

The third one isn’t automatically bad, which is the useful part. Some marketers thrive with a founder who has opinions and will scrap about them, and some find it exhausting. You have to decide which environment you actually want to work in, and then screen for it honestly, because the interview process rewards people who claim to be fine with anything.

Admitting the gap is only step one. The founder also has to trust you and hand over the authority to fix what you were hired to fix, which is the part that gets skipped. They hired you for a reason, and the reason should still be operative in month 6.

Darrell offered the version that worked. His boss knew marketing operations mattered and had no idea how it got done, so she brought him in because he knew how, and then let him do it. That’s the good middle ground: the founder who doesn’t get marketing but knows they need it. The bad end of the spectrum is the founder who doesn’t get it and quietly believes it’s worthless, and there’s no tactic that survives that one.

Marketing leadership hiring keeps getting screened on the wrong axis. Candidates are asked to prove domain fluency to people who can’t evaluate it, while the trait that actually predicts whether the role works, a founder’s willingness to say they don’t know something, never appears on a scorecard.

Key takeaway: Ask the founder directly what part of marketing they understand least, and listen for whether they can answer without defending themselves. Follow it with a question about the last time they changed their mind because a marketer showed them something. Score the role on those 2 answers rather than on how much marketing vocabulary the founder can produce.

Back to the top ⬆️

What a VP of Marketing Job Description Should Actually Say

Give a marketing leader a blank page and a founder saying write the role you’d sign for tomorrow, and most people start adding. Mary started subtracting. Her answer came back to the thing she’d said at the top of the conversation, that marketing is simple and simple is not the same as easy, and the job posting is where companies prove they understand the difference.

The version that would get her excited runs about 3 sentences.

“You are our first VP of marketing. We want you to own the marketing strategy. We have the company vision, we have business goals, and we know our customers and market well. But we need you to come in, tell us what we’re doing wrong, fix it, and create amazing results.”

Read it again and notice how much load the second sentence carries. We have the company vision, we have business goals, and we know our customers and market well. A company that can write that line honestly has already done the work Mary spent the first half of the conversation describing. A company that can’t write it honestly is hiring a VP to go find the vision, which is a different job at a different price with a different failure rate.

What she sees instead is the laundry list. Hiring a VP of Marketing to own events, marketing ops, demand gen, the website, sales enablement, and product marketing. Every discipline in the field, stacked into one posting, as though listing them all is a sign of ambition rather than a sign that nobody has decided anything.

“In my opinion, the longer the job description is, the more the red flags.”

Darrell also asked what she’d write down as explicitly not her job, and she answered it sideways, which is telling. The laundry list is the answer. Every discipline on it that the company can’t say why it belongs there is the part that shouldn’t be in the role, and the reason nobody can name that part up front is the same reason the pile-on happens 6 months later.

Her shortest possible posting is basically an offer rather than a spec: here’s what we know, here’s what we need, are you willing to come in and give us your time and energy. That reads soft until you consider who it’s aimed at. High-talent individuals are optimizing for autonomy right now, and they can, because they can command the salary, the equity, and the freedom, and increasingly they can write their own job description somewhere else. They hold the stronger hand and they know it.

“It’s up to you, if you want a top-tier talent, to create the environment where they will thrive.”

The job posting is the highest-fidelity artifact a company publishes about its own clarity, and almost every company treats it as a compliance document written by someone who wasn’t in the strategy meeting. If you want to know whether a startup has a vision, skip the careers page copy about mission and read the responsibilities list. The length tells you everything.

Key takeaway: Rewrite your open marketing leadership role down to 3 sentences before you post it: who they are to you, what they own, and what you already have in place for them to build on. If you can’t honestly claim the vision, the business goals, and a real understanding of your customers, say that in the posting and price the role accordingly. Treat every discipline you add to the list as a claim you’ll have to fund.

Back to the top ⬆️

When to Fight for a Broken Marketing Role and When to Leave

Here’s the honest objection to everything above. There’s no such thing as a perfect role. You’ll never get the perfect CEO or the perfect sales counterpart, you’ll never fully escape the assumption that marketing is arts and crafts, and going independent swaps one set of trade-offs for another. Phil raised it as devil’s advocate and then admitted he disagreed with his own question, which is the right way to raise it. Most of the problems in Mary’s post are solvable from the inside by someone willing to stay and grind on them.

So do these roles ever actually get fixed? Her answer was immediate. 100%. And her proof is her first marketing job, which she didn’t get because she was a marketer.

She was a technical writer with an English background who’d come in from editing college textbooks, working in a manufacturing company’s special projects division, which was R&D wearing a quieter name. Her boss’s mandate included training new engineers who knew engineering and knew nothing about the products, so she wrote the material that taught them what the products did and which industries cared. When she brought him an idea or a problem, the answer never changed: do it.

Then 2020 shut everything down, including the in-person training sessions where customers toured the facility and learned the products. She suggested moving it online. Do it. She defined the whole thing, the content, the subject matter experts, how they’d get anyone to show up.

“The first one was a total bust. We had like 25 people. It was mostly internal. But the content was really good.”

That last clause is why the story matters. The salespeople who sat in on the flop went back to their accounts and started inviting customers, asking when the next one was. Within 6 months the series had roughly 500 registrants. A first-attempt failure with good substance underneath it turned into a channel, and it happened because a leader gave a technical writer with no marketing background the resources to try, within reason, and then got out of the way.

Then she got promoted into the actual corporate marketing department, brought the same posture with her, and built a complete launch strategy for a new product. Research plan, every asset, distribution through channels the company already owned.

“My leader didn’t even read it and said, ‘That’s not how we do things.’ And within three months I was gone.”

Same person, same instincts, same company, 2 completely different outcomes, separated only by who she reported to. That’s the argument for staying and the argument for leaving in a single career, which is why her answer to when you fight is less of a framework than a practice: you just know. People give you signals. In every role she’s left, the signals were there and she paid attention to them and trusted her read of the situation.

Which is unsatisfying advice if you want a decision tree, and probably correct anyway. The thing worth taking from it is that the signal is rarely about the work. It’s about whether the person above you will engage with your thinking at all. A leader who reads your strategy and disagrees with it is a fight worth having. A leader who doesn’t read it has already told you how the next 2 years go, and marketers routinely spend another 18 months trying to earn a hearing that was never on offer.

Key takeaway: Stop scoring your role on outcomes and start scoring it on engagement. Track how many times in a quarter someone above you read your work and responded to the substance of it, and how many times a recommendation vanished without a reply. Use that count as your stay-or-go signal, because it tells you whether the problems in front of you are solvable long before the results do.

Back to the top ⬆️

Why Fractional Marketing Leadership Works as a Stopgap and Fails Long Term

Fractional is having a moment, and the pitch writes itself. A company that has burned through 2 marketing leaders in 3 years gets senior judgment without the equity conversation, and the marketer gets to work on interesting problems without inheriting anyone’s org chart. Everybody wins, at least on the slide. So when Darrell asked whether fractional is the answer for companies that can’t get the role right, the expected answer was yes.

Mary runs a fractional practice and said no.

“I actually do not think that fractional is a good long-term solution for companies, but it is a good stopgap solution.”

DemandLoops is built around that belief in a way that costs them money. They write contracts designed to end. The engagements are shaped like gaps: maternity leave coverage, an ABM implementation, standing up a demand gen program from nothing. And every remit includes an off-boarding process, which in practice means they help the company hire the person who replaces them. An agency that engineers its own exit is a strange business decision until you hear her reasoning.

Some roles need someone embedded with a stake in the outcome. She lists them without hedging: VPs of marketing, directors of demand gen, heads and directors of marketing ops. Those jobs run on accumulated context, and context is the one asset a fractional engagement can’t build fast enough to matter.

Ops people feel this more sharply than anyone, because martech is where the context is buried. Bounce a company between 5 fractional heads of martech and nobody can tell you why a decision was made, what the audit trail looks like, or which ghost of a past implementation is still running. Mary hit exactly that while helping a company implement an ABM vendor. Someone flagged a Salesforce campaign that was still adding members despite having expired 2 years earlier. Nobody at the company knew what the campaign was or why it existed, because everyone who might have known had left.

That’s the strongest case for a permanent hire anyone made in the whole conversation, and it came from the fractional consultant.

What It Costs to Hire a Fractional Marketer Full Time

Which raises the obvious follow-up. If the role really needs a permanent person, and the best people have gone independent, what does it take to pull one back?

“If you’re looking for somebody like me, for example, double the salary. I’m not kidding.”

Her logic is straightforward once you accept the premise. Fractional talent is usually top-tier talent, carrying contextual knowledge from a dozen different companies and a clear sense of which systems work and which ones only look like they work. Long-term fractional is bad for companies and pretty good for her personally, because she chooses her clients and sets her own schedule. Asking that person to trade autonomy for a W2 is asking them to give up the thing they left to get.

And the compensation math is worse than most startups admit, because salary is only the visible half. Your benefits are probably terrible. So if the offer sits at exactly median market rate, with a startup benefits package, against someone who currently controls their own calendar, there is no incentive on the table at all.

Phil’s frustration with public salary bands lands in the same place. Pay transparency laws were supposed to end this, and instead companies post a band wide enough to be meaningless. A VP of marketing ops role listed at 120K to 315K is a refusal to answer dressed up as transparency, and it reads that way to the exact person the company claims it can’t find. Someone billing 350 or 400 on their own is not going to spend 4 hours in an interview loop to discover which end of that band they’re being offered.

The fractional boom gets discussed as a talent-side story about freedom and burnout, and it works better as a diagnosis of role design. Companies reach for fractional to stop the bleeding on a role they can’t keep filled, then institutionalize the churn they were trying to escape, and the accumulated context that made the role valuable never gets rebuilt.

Key takeaway: Scope every fractional engagement with a written off-boarding plan and a named end condition before it starts, including who takes over and what documentation gets handed across. If the role you’re covering is a VP of marketing, a demand gen lead, or anything in marketing ops, treat the engagement as a bridge to a permanent hire and budget for that hire now. When you make the permanent offer, price it against the person’s current independent income rather than your salary band.

Back to the top ⬆️

How to Vet a Marketing Role by Talking to People Who Left

Every list of interview questions to ask your future employer promises the same thing, which is that the right question will make a company reveal itself. Darrell asked Mary the sharpest version of it. She’s taken roles that turned into exactly what her post warns about. What could she have asked the founder or the hiring manager that would have tipped her off?

She sat with it and then said no. Nothing. There isn’t one.

“Companies can sell you a lot in the interview process because you only have like three to four interviews. So that’s like only four hours to get to know the entire company.”

4 hours, split across people who have each been coached on what to say, most of whom genuinely believe the version they’re telling you. The things that make a role unlivable are cultural and cumulative, and they don’t show up until you’re deeply embedded. Any framework promising otherwise is selling you comfort.

What she does trust is going around the process entirely.

“Look up who the marketers were who left that company and maybe interview them.”

People do this to her about CoLab, and her answer is a genuine recommendation. CoLab is fantastic, absolutely interview for the role, amazing culture, amazing workplace, and she left for personal reasons that had nothing to do with the company. That’s a useful demonstration of the method, because a leaver with no axe to grind is exactly the source you want, and you only find out which kind you’ve got by asking. One-on-one, with someone you know reasonably well, you can get things out of people that no interview panel will produce.

Phil and Darrell ran a whole job market series on this and came to the same tactic, including the cold version. Message someone who was there for under a year and moved on, admit you’re being nosy, and ask for the lowdown on the real reality. Plenty of people won’t reply. Some will tell you more in 15 minutes than the interview loop told you in 4 hours.

Weight what you hear, though. One person’s terrible experience can be a fine fit for you. If the company hated asynchronous work and that’s what drove someone out, and you’re extroverted and thrive in a calendar full of live meetings, you’ve just learned something useful about the company that happens to point the other way for you. The signal is in the specifics of why they left, not in the verdict they deliver.

Hiring processes are structurally incapable of surfacing the conditions that actually determine whether a marketing leader succeeds, and everyone involved knows it. So the only real due diligence available runs through personal networks, which means the marketers best protected from a bad role are the ones who already have the network, and the people most exposed are the ones early enough in their careers to need the protection most.

Key takeaway: Before you accept an offer, find 2 marketers who left the company in the last 3 years and ask each of them for 20 minutes. Ask what specifically changed their mind about staying, rather than whether they’d recommend the place, so you get facts you can weigh against your own preferences. Treat the back-channel as a required step in your process, not a favor you’re embarrassed to ask for.

Back to the top ⬆️

How to Use a Family Value System to Decide What Deserves Your Energy

The last fear in Mary’s post is the one nobody will confirm in an interview. The culture will emphasize 60-hour weeks and an always-on mentality, even while the company insists it doesn’t. No hiring manager has ever said out loud that everyone here works their butts off and daycare pickup is your problem, so you’re left reading tone and hoping. Burnout is running high, and we’re looking for someone with an entrepreneurial mindset has quietly become the phrase companies use when they mean we’d prefer you didn’t have boundaries.

Which makes the show’s closing question land harder than usual with this guest. Mary is a fractional demand gen marketer, a mom of 3, a runner, a coed soccer player, and a part-time Uber driver for kids in sports. How does she decide what deserves her energy?

She prefaced the answer by calling it dorky, which it is, and which is why it works.

“We have four core values that we commit to as a family. That’s joy, integrity, presence, and health. So if something doesn’t meet those four core values, I don’t do it.”

She defined the system partly for herself and partly with her family, which is the detail that gives it teeth. A personal value written in a journal is easy to override at 9pm on a Tuesday when a client needs something. A commitment your household has agreed to is a different object. The decision is already made, so the ask becomes a simple check against a list rather than a fresh negotiation you’ll lose while tired.

It also connects straight back to the hardest thing she said in the whole conversation, about separating self-worth from performance. You can’t run a filter like this until you’ve decided who you are outside the job, because otherwise every opportunity looks like it might be the one that finally proves something.

What I liked most is that she refused to moralize about it. Some people are genuinely happy living the 60-hour workweek life. They want it, they want it on the resume, they want it as an achievement, and Mary says that’s amazing. Her only condition is that you’ve actually chosen it as a core value rather than absorbed it from an employer who benefits from you never asking. It isn’t a value for her, so she knew it was something she didn’t want, and that clarity is what let her walk away from roles other people would have white-knuckled for another 2 years.

Work-life balance discourse mostly argues about how many hours are correct, which is unanswerable and beside the point. The useful question is whether the person working them picked the number, and most of the industry’s burnout is concentrated among people who never made an explicit choice at all.

Key takeaway: Write down 3 or 4 core values and agree them with whoever you live with, so the list belongs to your household rather than to your own willpower. Run new commitments against the list before you answer, including the interesting ones. The point of deciding in advance is that you stop relitigating the same choice every time someone asks for your evening.

Back to the top ⬆️

Episode Recap

Mary Keough spends this episode arguing that the marketing talent shortage is a role design problem wearing a hiring problem’s clothes. Companies say they can’t find a great VP of Marketing, and the candidates they want are reading the same job postings and deciding not to apply. Her viral post named the reasons out loud, fear by fear, and the conversation works through them as a set of fixable design defects rather than a list of complaints.

Almost every fear traces back to a missing decision somewhere above marketing. Goalposts move because there’s no vision with business goals underneath it, so quarterly targets get reverse-engineered from a revenue wish. Scope creeps because the function whose output resists measurement is the easiest place to put unassigned work. Authority never materializes because nobody wrote down what marketing owns and what it doesn’t, so every request becomes a negotiation. Her fixes are mechanical and cheap: a ladder from vision to departmental goals, a resourcing clause attached to every yes, a written SLA with sales that ties custom work to a pipeline stage, a cap of 10 to 20% of the team’s time for ad hoc requests, and a job description short enough that the company has to have decided something to write it.

The parts aimed at marketers are more personal and land harder. Admit a weakness in your first month and convert it into a budget line. Separate your sense of yourself from a performance rating, because a manager controls the rating and you need to still be standing when it comes back mediocre. Read engagement rather than outcomes when deciding whether to stay, since a leader who won’t read your strategy has already answered the question. And go find the marketers who left before you sign, because 4 hours of interviews cannot tell you what a year inside the company will.

There’s a real tension she doesn’t paper over. She diagnoses a role she personally declined, and the fractional path she took is not available to everyone at every career stage. She’s also unusually clear that fractional is a bad long-term answer for companies, to the point that DemandLoops writes off-boarding into its contracts and helps clients hire the replacement. That leaves an honest gap in the middle: the roles most in need of an embedded, long-tenured owner are the ones companies keep filling with a series of temporary ones, and pulling top talent back full time now costs roughly double what these companies have budgeted.

Which is the uncomfortable conclusion for anyone hiring right now. The candidate market did not get worse. It got better informed, and it went and read your job posting. The companies that fix the role first are going to have their pick of people, and the ones still writing 14 responsibilities into a single VP posting will keep saying there’s a shortage until the phrase stops meaning anything at all.

Connect with Mary on LinkedIn, where the post behind this episode still lives, and find her fractional demand gen work at DemandLoops.

Full episode ⬇️ or Back to the top ⬆️

✌️

—
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