Episodes

  • What Does Brand-Aware Search Really Measure? | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 14

    What Does Brand-Aware Search Really Measure? | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 14
    Oct 15 2026
    Most B2B marketers have heard that share of search tracks share of market. Far fewer have asked where that idea came from, or whether it survives contact with a B2B market. It was drawn from a handful of B2C examples, and it only holds when products, prices and routes to purchase are close to uniform — which, as Dale W. Harrison puts it, is the difference between a tub of yogurt and a multimillion-dollar ERP system.In Episode 14, Dale W. Harrison and Liam Moroney ask what brand-aware search actually measures. They cover the conditions under which share of search does reflect market share, the price spreads, basket sizes, free trials and indirect sales that break it in B2B, why Buffer can hold nearly half the search volume in its category and about 1% of the revenue, how Sprout Social grew while its branded search fell, and why the metric is far more useful as a measure of category demand.Timestamps0:33 Back for another episode — Dale and Liam reunite0:47 This week's topic: what does brand-aware search actually measure?1:08 Liam's starting point: years of branded search data1:53 How a few B2C examples became a universal rule2:25 A tub of yogurt versus a multimillion-dollar ERP system3:01 You can't outsource your thinking — to research or to AI3:45 The original claim: share of search reflects share of market4:50 Share of search as a stand-in for share of voice5:29 Brands do not grow: market share barely moves6:30 When a leader stumbles: the password management example7:53 It's actually measuring a lot of other useful things8:24 Slides: when share of search does track market share8:54 Product parity, price parity and how things are sold10:37 The supermarket with an unwatched back door11:41 No door-to-door detergent salesmen12:24 Price discrepancy: $20 versus $200,00013:15 Volume: one search, a thousand licenses14:16 Microsoft Office, Exxon and 100,000-fold basket sizes15:10 Drinks, houses and boxes of Tide: why B2C variance is small16:31 Ehrenberg's own caution about uniform basket size17:01 Light and heavy buyers in B2B search data17:46 Free trials: noise that inflates search volume18:35 Penetration is not revenue20:43 Partners, procurement and cross-selling: revenue that never searches21:42 Liam's in-house story: the vendor that sold itself in22:29 Ideal conditions versus the typical B2B picture23:35 Real data: the social media management category23:59 Buffer versus Sprout Social: volume versus value25:54 Nearly half the search volume, about 1% of the revenue27:16 Sprout Social: branded search down, revenue up28:17 Two stories: the company picture and the category demand picture29:03 Growth from bigger contracts, not more customers31:08 Detergent for families with 12 kids32:37 Penetration and market share are two different things33:06 HubSpot's users versus Salesforce's money33:43 “Our revenue's never been better”34:37 Hightouch and the declining CDP category35:51 Defining penetration: the Tide example36:55 HubSpot: 50% greater penetration, a fraction of the revenue38:00 The Fortune 1000: 85% versus 0.4%39:34 Where a brand's revenue actually comes from41:28 Audience question: can you segment around the variances?42:14 Branded search as a measure of demand43:37 Fax machines and Ricoh: share up, category collapsing46:02 Category demand: missing from B2B conversations46:22 The bowtie and trying to outrun a lack of new business47:50 The 95:5 rule and stationary markets48:33 Why laundry detergent grows at about 2% a year50:26 Dynamic tech categories: fax machines and CRM51:45 Conditional win probability and the odds a lead is in market52:37 Why a hot category makes you look like a genius53:01 Televisions and the 8K flop54:14 When good enough is good enough54:59 Marketing automation and mechanical lead scoring55:16 The lessons: active demand and category health56:25 B2B demo software and a 99:1 market57:11 NFTs and the crypto bros58:04 Wrapping upKey Topics Discussed- Where the idea that share of search reflects share of market came from, and why it doesn't generalize to B2B- The conditions that make the proxy work: product parity, price parity and a single way to buy- Price discrepancy, seat-based volume and 100,000-fold differences in basket size- Free trials, partner ecosystems, procurement and installed bases: revenue that never shows up in search- Buffer versus Sprout Social: share of search against share of revenue- Two stories in one decline: company growth versus category demand- Penetration is not revenue: HubSpot versus Salesforce- Branded search as a gauge of category health, and what it means for the 95:5 rule- Why growing and shrinking categories make marketers look like geniuses or failuresNotable Quotes“Nobody wants 100% of a market of which there are no customers.” — Liam Moroney“Market penetration is not the same thing as revenue, certainly not in B2B.” — Dale W. Harrison“HubSpot have lots and lots and lots of users, and Salesforce have lots and lots and lots of money....
    Show More Show Less
    59 mins
  • You Cannot "Work Backward From Success" | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 13

    You Cannot "Work Backward From Success" | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 13
    Oct 8 2026
    Most marketing teams can tell you what their best customers have in common. Very few can tell you how those customers differ from the ones they lost — and that second question is the only one that carries any information. Looking at your winners in isolation is, as Dale W. Harrison puts it, probably the single biggest failure point in marketing's attempt to use data.In Episode 13, Dale W. Harrison and Diego Sosa take on the habit of working backward from success. They cover lookalike lists that could just as easily have been built from your losing accounts, a vendor report that mistook a company-page visit for a revenue signal, why a random number generator matched an elaborate lead scoring system, how averages hide your losses, and why LinkedIn-influenced pipeline says more about the platform's incentives than about your buyers.Timestamps0:32 Back for another episode — Diego, a split of three1:16 This week's topic: differences, not similarities1:35 Why working backward from success is marketing's biggest failure point2:21 The classic example: target account and lookalike lists3:23 Diego: the same reasoning in the signal debate4:16 The attribution report and the LinkedIn company page4:58 The question nobody asked: what about closed-lost?5:51 Vowels in your name — a 100% correlation6:47 Diego: when a data point actively misleads you7:58 The number was right. The conclusion was wrong.8:24 Why “data-driven” is a warning sign9:00 Data is the bucket, not what's in it9:16 Points-based lead scoring counts buckets10:04 The roulette wheel: lots of data, no information10:40 Decisions as discrimination between options11:36 What an MQL actually is13:33 Zoho's lead scoring versus a random number generator15:28 Diego: information as the reduction of uncertainty16:05 Betting under uncertainty: the coin toss17:18 Beating a random pull from ZoomInfo17:53 Two slot machines that look identical19:22 A flawed sales-cycle analysis from a RevOps podcast20:20 Measure against your opposite, not your average21:39 What is your average actually averaging?23:05 Diego: averages and non-normal distributions24:02 Why we do it: “I blame it on martech”24:25 Dashboards full of dancing monkeys25:04 LinkedIn-influenced pipeline26:10 Closed-lost deals get more engagement27:38 The foundational question: compared to what?28:41 Diego: touch the whole market, count only the winners30:45 Grading their own homework31:00 Not accidental: incentives behind the dashboards31:47 LinkedIn's own advice on company pages32:51 The dashboard, the CFO and your credibility34:02 Two key questions for every piece of data34:35 Why common characteristics mean nothing35:50 The value of uncommon characteristics37:11 What AI gets wrong when it mines your CRM38:04 Diego: put in the dirty work and test the platforms38:55 Be driven by information, not data41:15 One article, ten articles, a hundred articles42:41 Diminishing returns on every additional data point44:35 Diego: gaming engagement scores45:33 Driving people through the company page45:58 Ice cream sales and drownings46:25 Lead nurturing and the evil genius47:06 Wrapping upKey Topics Discussed- Why a description of your winners contains no usable information on its own- Lookalike and target account lists, and what happens when your losers look the same- Revenue signals that look strong among closed-won deals and are stronger still among closed-lost- Data versus information: information is whatever reduces your uncertainty- Marketing decisions as discrimination, and the random number generator as the benchmark to beat- How averages hide your losses — and what “average revenue per deal” usually leaves out- LinkedIn-influenced pipeline and the incentives behind martech dashboards- Why AI tends to surface common characteristics, and why uncommon ones carry the signal- Diminishing returns: why the hundredth data point tells you almost nothing newNotable Quotes“Data is not what should be driving your decisions. Information should be doing it.” — Dale W. Harrison“The number was right, but the conclusion was completely wrong.” — Diego Sosa“If all you do is keep a tally of all your wins, the two slot machines look identical.” — Dale W. Harrison“Data is not the problem. It's just that it shouldn't be your stopping point. It should be a starting point for you.” — Diego SosaResources & Mentions- A marketing attribution vendor's report on LinkedIn company page visits among closed-won accounts- Zoho CRM's RevOps test of lead scoring against randomly selected leads- LinkedIn's own marketing guidance on investing in company pages- LinkedIn-influenced pipeline reporting- Previous episodes in this series on why information is not dataNext Episode“What does Brand-Aware Search Actually Measure?”Subscribe & FollowCatch every episode of B2B Effectiveness: Evidence-Based Marketing Ideas for B2B Practitioners on your favorite podcast platform, and subscribe here on YouTube for future ...
    Show More Show Less
    48 mins
  • How To Measure Sales Effort - Or Where's The Sandbagging? | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 12

    How To Measure Sales Effort - Or Where's The Sandbagging? | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 12
    Oct 1 2026
    Ask a revenue operations team how long the average deal takes to close and you will get an answer. Ask how long it takes to lose one and the room goes quiet. In most organisations it is three times longer — and across roughly 90% of the companies Dale W. Harrison has examined, somewhere between three and seven times longer. That gap is not a quirk of the reporting. It is the reporting being wrong, in ways that flow into every other number on the dashboard.In Episode 12, Dale W. Harrison and Diego Sosa take on sales effort — the input that pipeline velocity, cost per acquisition and segment efficiency all depend on, and the one number in the CRM that can be 700% wrong. They cover why dead accounts stay on the books, how a maintenance drip feed exposes a rep who has already given up, why deals held out of the system make your win rates look spectacular, and how to read a win-rate chart without drawing exactly the wrong conclusion from it.Timestamps0:30 Back for another episode — Diego standing in again0:52 Where sales effort sits inside the Buyer-Seller Fit Model1:08 The metric that never appears on a dashboard but feeds most of it2:44 The traditional proxy: days active in the CRM3:29 The perfect measure nobody will ever build — a 24/7 rep diary4:20 Not 10% wrong. 700% wrong.4:59 Data is not information: context is what creates meaning5:45 Diego on the rep's own incentive to make the data look good6:50 High-side and low-side errors, often in the same organisation8:17 The one metric Dale has never seen a rev ops team produce9:08 Why it takes three times longer to lose a deal than to win one9:48 90% of companies land between 3x and 7x10:10 Zombie accounts, and why reps keep touching them10:54 The never-say-die rep — and why you want that instinct12:38 Diego: conversion rate as a quarterly performance measure13:30 Pipeline value, bragging rights and adverse incentives16:52 The maintenance drip feed17:16 Plausible deniability: “still, quote, working the account”18:18 “Nobody is going to tell you I'm sandbagging my numbers”18:21 Diego: when does a rep actually create the deal?18:50 Low-side errors: 80% of the work done before it hits the CRM20:23 CRM discipline, and the trigger point that forces a deal into the system22:36 Diego: why effectiveness collapses if this number can't be trusted23:30 What an ICP should actually be24:17 Biotech: a P-card in a university lab versus three months with Pfizer27:26 Deal value and win rate are unambiguous. Sales effort is not.28:29 Diego: the slot machine, and treating accounts as a portfolio30:01 Why optimising for a single metric produces confidently wrong answers31:41 Bureaucratic inertia on the buyer side, and what you cannot control33:44 Real sales data, across multiple years, from a real company34:11 Activity density explained35:36 The unweighted activity measure, and the fallacy inside it37:01 Reading the chart: 4.5% at one end, 82.1% at the other38:24 The same mistake everybody makes with lead scoring39:09 Why the 24% bar is the honest one40:01 Wittgenstein's ruler: is the win rate real, or is the data wrong?40:49 Late entry, and the burst of activity around a priced proposal42:20 The 4.5% end: stretching a deal that is already lost43:28 Two touches a month is not a pipeline, it is cover45:18 Both distortions running inside one sales organisation45:53 Backing it out: weighted activity and days with activity47:59 The 97% rule and the 81-day cutoff49:10 Run it weekly, and close by default50:26 Why the true believers are the more expensive problem52:15 Diego: using data to raise better questions53:30 What AI lacks is the context around the process that made the data54:25 The real danger: turning your brain off and outsourcing the thinking55:23 Multiple versions of the world, one set of dataKey Topics Discussed- Days active as a proxy for sales effort, and why the error can reach 700% rather than 10%- The closed-won to closed-lost ratio: a five-minute calculation almost no rev ops team runs- Zombie accounts, and the difference between a true believer and a rep buying cover- Adverse incentives that appear even when management never mentions the numbers driving them- Low-side errors: deals held out of the CRM until the outcome is already clear- Wittgenstein's ruler applied to a win-rate chart — measuring the table, or testing the ruler- Why the middle of the distribution is usually the honest part of it- Better proxies: weighted activity, days with one or more activities, and weighted days- The 97% rule: closing zombie deals by default and making the rep argue to keep them openNotable Quotes“This metric, this proxy for sales effort, can be massively wrong. And when I say massively, I mean not 10% wrong — I'm talking about like 700% wrong.” — Dale W. Harrison“There's nobody is going to tell you I'm sandbagging my numbers.” — Dale W. Harrison“I'm also not incentivized, so to speak, to represent my work as directly relatable to reality, ...
    Show More Show Less
    58 mins
  • The Buyer-Seller Fit Model - A Technical Dive into Lead Scoring | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 11

    The Buyer-Seller Fit Model - A Technical Dive into Lead Scoring | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 11
    Sep 24 2026

    HubSpot holds roughly 7% of the CRM market. Inside the Fortune 1000 it holds 0.4%, while Salesforce holds about 85%. Same category, same buyers on paper, and a gap that has almost nothing to do with product quality — large companies are averse to buying from small ones, and small ones would rather not be Exxon's smallest account. No volume of intent data will ever tell you that.

    In Episode 11, Dale W. Harrison goes solo for the most technical instalment of the series so far, opening up the back end of the Buyer-Seller Fit Model. He covers why the team committed to a glass box rather than a black box; why nobody above sales and marketing cares about your close rate; the vowels-in-the-name problem sitting inside every lookalike list ever built; and the maths that turns a CRM full of wins and losses into a ranked view of where sales effort actually pays.

    Timestamps

    0:23 Solo episode this week — no co-host

    0:33 Why this one is a technical dive into the Buyer-Seller Fit Model

    1:43 Glass box, not black box: why you should be able to see the working

    3:32 Defining buyer-seller fit

    3:54 HubSpot vs Salesforce: 7% of the market, 0.4% of the Fortune 1000

    5:58 The biotech example: same product, completely different customers

    9:05 The CFO's black box

    10:40 Nobody at corporate level cares about your closed-won rate

    11:15 The 20% benchmark, and paying for the 80% you lose

    13:45 Siloed ICPs and the 100 dream accounts problem

    14:59 “They will, in fact, crush your dreams”

    17:31 The vowels-in-the-name fallacy

    18:35 Lead scoring and MQL designation

    19:36 25 years of intent data, and a process that fails 99% of the time

    20:21 There is no such thing as intent data

    22:46 HubSpot's scoring model: 90% made-up intent, 10% firmographic fit

    23:46 Sales effort, and why it dwarfs what marketing spends

    26:32 Why pipeline velocity on its own tells you nothing

    28:47 Slot machines, not vending machines

    31:31 One unified model, from ICP through to sales allocation

    33:05 Why great reps can smell a win

    36:05 Unicorns, goats, whales and workhorses

    39:21 The maths: mismatched units, benchmarks and log efficiency space

    45:40 Beyond industry: revenue band, headcount, geography and tech stack

    49:14 Reading the output: the efficiency and scale quadrant

    57:56 Why no AI model can show you its work

    1:05:17 Whatever you were bad at last quarter, you're still bad at

    Key Topics Discussed

    - Glass box versus black box: why a model you cannot audit is a commercial risk, not just a technical one

    - Buyer-seller fit as two separate questions — will they buy from someone who looks like you, and are you equipped to sell to someone who looks like them

    - Why the business cares about revenue per unit of sales effort, not close rate, deal size or pipeline velocity in isolation

    - Paying for your losses: any honest model has to account for the 80% of deals that produce no revenue

    - The vowels-in-the-name problem: why a lookalike list built only from closed-won data carries no information

    - What intent data actually measures, and why digital touchpoint data is not intent

    - Unicorns, goats, whales and workhorses: separating sales efficiency from commercial scale

    - Closing the loop: one model running from ICP definition through campaign targeting, lead scoring and sales resource allocation

    Notable Quotes

    “Just because someone is buying something that looks like what you sell doesn't mean they will ever buy from you. And just because they're potentially willing to buy from you doesn't mean you're really prepared to sell to them.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “Your guesses, and your hopes and wishes are not the same thing as an evidence-based approach.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “Just because someone is showing intent doesn't mean they're showing intent toward you. Nor will they ever show any intent toward you.” — Dale W. Harrison

    Resources & Mentions

    - Gartner B2B sales funnel benchmark data

    - HubSpot and Salesforce Fortune 1000 market share data

    - Slide deck from this episode — link to follow in the comments

    Next Episode

    Back next week with more on the buyer-seller fit model.

    Subscribe & Follow

    Catch every episode of B2B Effectiveness: Evidence-Based Marketing Ideas for B2B Practitioners on your favourite podcast platform, and subscribe here on YouTube for future episodes.

    #B2BMarketing #DemandGeneration #LeadScoring #MarketingAnalytics
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 7 mins
  • The Buyer-Seller Fit Model - What is it & How to Measure it | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 10

    The Buyer-Seller Fit Model - What is it & How to Measure it | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 10
    Sep 17 2026

    Twenty years ago, Dale W. Harrison built a system that de-anonymized roughly 90% of website traffic down to a named individual, then checked his scoring model against what actually happened next. The result: each of his two buckets — “likely to buy” and “not likely to buy” — was only about 60% correct. A small, genuine improvement over a coin flip, not the confident precision the intent data industry has been selling ever since.

    In Episode 10, Diego Sosa joins Dale again for the most detailed breakdown yet of what should actually replace the broken MQL. They cover why you don't need to know why something works, only that it reliably does; the two-sided idea of buyer-seller fit; why thinking in slot machines beats thinking in vending machines; and why the data you need has been sitting in your CRM the whole time.

    Timestamps

    0:00 Cold open: intent data vendors are lying to you

    0:20 Welcome back

    0:33 Setting up today's topic: what replaces the old lead scoring model

    2:53 20 years, still a 99%+ failure rate

    5:34 It's just a slot machine, not a vending machine

    6:07 Causality without correlation: the biotech and drug analogy

    6:47 Viagra vs. antidepressants: two kinds of “we don't know why it works”

    9:16 Defining buyer-seller fit

    9:50 HubSpot vs. Salesforce in the Fortune 1000

    10:39 Why Exxon won't buy from a six-month-old company

    11:13 Seller fit: the biotech researcher-vs-government-lab example

    17:26 Thinking in slot machines, not vending machines

    19:32 The ROAS story, and “this is where marketers get stupid”

    21:55 Why win rate and sell cycle are both the wrong things to optimise

    23:27 Rolling buyer fit and seller fit into one metric: revenue per unit of sales effort

    44:06 The Pampers analogy: reverse-engineering demographic targeting

    47:26 Why the data you need is already sitting in your CRM

    48:15 The vowels-in-the-name story, one more time

    50:35 Diego's first sales job, and the deals that looked too easy

    52:26 The notion of opportunity cost

    55:48 Dale's own 20-year-old experiment: de-anonymizing 90% of traffic

    59:47 Click monkeys, and the people who show up ready to buy with no warning

    1:01:00 Naming it: Dark Social

    Key Topics Discussed

    - Why you don't need to know why something works, only that it reliably correlates with the outcome

    - Buyer-seller fit: why it's not enough that a buyer would buy from you — your sales team has to be equipped to close them too

    - The HubSpot vs. Salesforce Fortune 1000 gap, and why tenure and trust matter more than product quality

    - Thinking in slot machines: why win rate and payout size can't be judged in isolation

    - Why win rate and sell-cycle length are both the wrong things to optimise for

    - Revenue per unit of sales effort: the one metric that rolls buyer fit and seller fit together

    - Reverse-engineering targeting from your own CRM data instead of buying generic intent scores

    - Click monkeys and dark social: the two failure patterns any real scoring model has to account for

    Notable Quotes

    “What we're really looking at here are slot machines, not vending machines.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “You cannot work backwards from success. You have to look at how the winners are different from the losers, not how the winners are similar to one another.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “Three minutes on the phone with someone will give you more information than 1,000 touch points from your intent data provider.” — Dale W. Harrison

    Resources & Mentions

    - Gartner B2B sales funnel benchmark data

    - HubSpot and Salesforce Fortune 1000 market share data

    Next Episode

    Back next week with more detail on the buyer-seller fit model.

    Subscribe & Follow

    Catch every episode of B2B Effectiveness: Evidence-Based Marketing Ideas for B2B Practitioners on your favourite podcast platform, and subscribe here on YouTube for future episodes.

    #B2BMarketing #DemandGeneration #LeadScoring #MarketingAnalytics
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 3 mins
  • Data Does Not Equal Information - and AI Is Not The Solution | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 9

    Data Does Not Equal Information - and AI Is Not The Solution | B2B Effectiveness - Episode 9
    Sep 10 2026

    For roughly five hundred years, bloodletting with leeches was standard medical treatment — and even decades after doctors realised it was probably killing people, they kept doing it, because patients demanded it. That's Dale W. Harrison's analogy for the intent data industry today: happy customers and glowing reviews that prove nothing about whether the product actually works.

    This week, Diego Sosa joins Dale in Liam Moroney's usual seat for a deep, methodical breakdown of the idea the show keeps returning to: data is not information. Diego and Dale walk through why ten ebook downloads don't mean ten times the certainty, the name-tags-at-a-networking-event analogy for how information actually works, and why nobody in the intent data industry has ever produced a single graph proving their product does what it claims.

    Timestamps

    0:00 Cold open: data is not information

    0:26 Welcome back, with a new guest in Liam's seat

    0:34 Meet Diego Sosa

    1:08 The core question: why do we think more data is the answer?

    2:07 What “information” actually means

    6:59 The ebook download example, and why more never means better

    8:18 Why marketers keep falling for this anyway

    14:22 Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise, and rebranding touch points as signals

    16:06 The classic failure: intent data

    20:59 A real correlation graph, built from actual sales data

    21:27 The name tags analogy: how much information is really in the data

    26:46 The iceberg: what you don't see still matters

    27:20 Dark social, and why the two buckets end up identical

    36:48 Working backwards from success doesn't work, and the measles analogy

    38:44 The real closed-won vs. closed-lost numbers on LinkedIn engagement

    42:07 The billboard story: proving impact without a click

    44:35 The Google ads scam agencies run on branded search

    46:17 Diego's first data analytics job, and asking the question before the data

    48:36 Intervention vs. no intervention: the umbrella and headache examples

    49:06 “They're lying to you”: why intent data doesn't exist

    Key Topics Discussed

    - Why data is not information, and why more data usually isn't more information

    - The ebook download example: why the information curve flattens long before the points curve does

    - The name tags analogy: how prior knowledge determines how much a data point can tell you

    - Why no intent data vendor has ever produced a real correlation graph

    - Working backwards from closed-won accounts doesn't work, illustrated with a measles analogy

    - The real numbers: closed-lost deals were more likely to visit the LinkedIn company page than closed-won deals

    - The billboard story, and the branded-search scam some agencies run on Google Ads accounts

    - Why you have to ask the question before you look at the data

    Notable Quotes

    “Data is not information. Data is a bucket. It's the bucket that information comes in.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “What you see is not all there is, and you don't know how much there isn't.” — Diego Sosa

    “They're lying to you. It's a straight lie when they tell you they're selling you intent data, because intent data does not exist.” — Dale W. Harrison

    Resources & Mentions

    - The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver

    - Bombora and 6sense (intent data providers)

    - Forrester, Gartner, and BCG B2B benchmark data

    Next Episode

    Back next week with a new episode of B2B Effectiveness.

    Subscribe & Follow

    Catch every episode of B2B Effectiveness: Evidence-Based Marketing Ideas for B2B Practitioners on your favourite podcast platform, and subscribe here on YouTube for future episodes.

    #B2BMarketing #DemandGeneration #MarketingAnalytics #IntentData
    Show More Show Less
    51 mins
  • Rising/Falling Markets: Category Growth and Share of Search | Episodes 8 - B2B Effectiveness

    Rising/Falling Markets: Category Growth and Share of Search | Episodes 8 - B2B Effectiveness
    Sep 3 2026

    For years, LastPass dominated the password manager category. Then it suffered a string of serious data breaches, trust collapsed, and competitors like Bitwarden absorbed the fallout. Bitwarden's marketing team could be forgiven for thinking their campaigns did that. Almost none of it was marketing.

    In Episode 8, Liam Moroney brings real branded-search data to back up an argument Dale W. Harrison has been building for weeks: marketing very rarely grows a business — the category does. Using a live three-slide case study of the password manager category (plus a second, more mature category for contrast), Liam and Dale walk through how to actually read share of branded search, why market share barely moves except after one of two specific shocks, and why AI is now eating entire software categories the same way email once ate the fax machine.

    Timestamps

    0:00 Cold open: marketing doesn't grow the business, markets do

    0:15 Welcome back (Dale's in the UK this week)

    1:04 Setting up today's topic: rising and falling markets

    2:22 Why 99.99% of growth comes from riding the category, not beating competitors

    3:54 The disruption myth, and why tech clings to it

    5:04 Disruption happens in engineering, not marketing

    6:22 Bitcoin, NFTs, and fads that look like marketing genius

    7:57 Welcome to the life of a fax machine salesman, circa 2005

    9:20 Marketing automation platforms as a case study

    11:06 Categories that self-disrupt through over-promising

    12:37 Why intent data and de-anonymization providers are collapsing

    15:16 How AI is uniquely positioned to eat interactive demo software

    16:14 Liam's data: a tale of three slides (the password manager category)

    17:32 Bitwarden vs. LastPass: the branded search view

    19:17 What “share of branded search” actually measures

    20:50 Why campaign changes show up in the data almost instantly

    22:59 The LastPass data breach, and what it cost them

    25:11 Defining “category”: Tide detergent vs. Tide Pods on TikTok

    31:36 Dale's own hypergrowth story: 100x growth, same market share order

    32:50 The collective view: how the category grew even as LastPass fell

    39:09 A mature category case study: content management platforms

    41:03 What an accelerating category decline looks like

    43:40 Rolodexes, CRMs, and where declining categories' customers go

    47:23 Optimizely's rebrand, and repositioning into an adjacent category

    47:47 Why categories almost never fully vanish

    57:50 The tool behind today's data, and where to learn more

    Key Topics Discussed

    - Why 99.99% of business growth comes from riding a category, not beating competitors

    - The disruption myth: why tech assumes a great product creates its own momentum

    - Fads vs. real category shifts: Bitcoin, NFTs, and fax machines

    - Why AI is uniquely positioned to eat categories like interactive demo software

    - How to actually read share of branded search as a proxy for market share

    - The LastPass/Bitwarden case study: a real market-share transfer, and why it wasn't about marketing skill

    - Why market share is remarkably sticky, and the two things that actually move it

    - What a declining category looks like from the inside, using a mature CMP category example

    Notable Quotes

    “Marketers live in this fantasy world where they think it's their marketing that's growing the business.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “You're not growing the category. This is another one of these silly myths that people love to blather on about.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “It is these category-level and market-level dynamics that are really driving things — the fish are jumping out of the water into the boat by themselves.” — Dale W. Harrison

    Resources & Mentions

    - Ehrenberg-Bass Institute research

    - Bitwarden, LastPass, 1Password, Dashlane, and NordPass branded search data

    - Optimizely, AEM, Contentful, and Sitecore (content management platform category)

    - Kantar market research

    - Liam Moroney's category-tracking tool (Storybook)

    Next Episode

    The show is taking a short break for the Fourth of July and the following week while Dale's still travelling in Europe — back with a new episode on the 18th.

    Subscribe & Follow

    Catch every episode of B2B Effectiveness: Evidence-Based Marketing Ideas for B2B Practitioners on your favourite podcast platform, and subscribe here on YouTube for future episodes.

    #B2BMarketing #BrandMarketing #MarketingStrategy #MarketingAnalytics
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr
  • A Better Lead-Scoring System Can Create Better Targeting | Episode 7 - B2B Effectiveness

    A Better Lead-Scoring System Can Create Better Targeting | Episode 7 - B2B Effectiveness
    Aug 27 2026

    Dale W. Harrison likes to run a poll: imagine a company about to sign a $5 million annual contract, renewed every year for five years. Who's on the buying committee? Most people guess the CFO, maybe the CEO. Then he reveals the deal: it's Google's contract for toilet paper in the employee restrooms. Nobody's CFO is in that meeting.

    In Episode 7, Liam Moroney and Dale W. Harrison flip the usual playbook: can better lead scoring actually define better targeting, instead of the other way around? Dale walks through why lookalike lists built from your closed-won accounts alone are structurally guaranteed to fail, why “buying groups” are an 80-year-old idea being resold as something new, and why the real de-anonymization numbers are nowhere near what most targeting strategy assumes.

    Timestamps

    0:00 Cold open: massively overshooting who will buy

    0:20 Welcome back, and teasing about the solo episode

    1:42 Can better lead scoring define better targeting?

    5:20 The feedback loop model, explained

    10:56 Buying committees, and the summer intern who did the real work

    15:21 The 90% de-anonymization era, and what changed

    23:31 What Meta's lookalike algorithm actually does

    25:07 The vowels-in-the-name story, revisited

    29:12 The stock-picking sales pitch analogy

    31:25 Glengarry Glen Ross, and the problem with intent

    32:47 The $5 million toilet paper deal

    35:38 Buying groups: a 1965 Harvard Business Review idea, not a new one

    39:48 Why buying committees are confidential, and the HR risk of naming names

    41:21 The real de-anonymization numbers

    45:18 Reverse-engineering targeting from your own closed-won and closed-lost data

    51:09 How to verify it's actually working: MQL-to-SQL rate

    52:10 The slot machine analogy

    54:21 Home runs vs. the Tour de France: buyer-seller fit in sports

    56:47 The roulette wheel: data is not information

    59:35 Seventh-grade math, and why the models aren't complicated

    1:02:17 Teaser: rising and falling markets, and categories being eaten by AI

    Key Topics Discussed

    - Why lead scoring data should define targeting, not just measure it after the fact

    - How lookalike-list algorithms actually work, and why they keep pointing at your losses too

    - Why “buying groups” are an 80-year-old idea, not a new market shift

    - Why buying committees are treated as confidential, and what happens if you name one publicly

    - The real de-anonymization numbers: ~65% at the account level, 5–7% for named individuals

    - Working backwards from your own closed-won and closed-lost history instead of guessing

    - How to verify a scoring improvement is real: tracking MQL-to-SQL acceptance rate

    - Why data is not information, illustrated with a roulette wheel

    Notable Quotes

    “The perfect lookalike list would be for us to go out and find more prospects that also have vowels in their name.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “Data is not information. Data is the bucket that information comes in.” — Dale W. Harrison

    “If you have two slot machines, and one pays off one out of a hundred pulls, and one pays off one out of fifty pulls, which one do you want to put your money in?” — Dale W. Harrison

    Resources & Mentions

    - Gartner B2B sales funnel benchmark data

    - Harvard Business Review, 1965 article on buying committees

    - 6sense and Bombora (intent data providers)

    - Ocean.io (lookalike list provider)

    Next Episode

    Next week, Dale and Liam get into rising and falling markets — why a category being quietly “eaten alive” can mean there's no one left in-market at all, no matter how good your targeting is.

    Subscribe & Follow

    Catch every episode of B2B Effectiveness: Evidence-Based Marketing Ideas for B2B Practitioners on your favourite podcast platform, and subscribe here on YouTube for future episodes.

    #B2BMarketing #DemandGeneration #LeadScoring #ABM #MarketingAnalytics
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 7 mins