Measuring Business Impact

Here's the number that should reframe every B2B marketing team's LinkedIn strategy: only 3% of employees share content about their company, but those shares generate roughly 30% of a brand's total engagement on the platform. A distribution architecture most teams are ignoring. Meanwhile, your company page is reaching about 1.6% of your followers. LinkedIn replaced its entire ranking system with 360Brew, a 150-billion-parameter AI model that reads content semantically. It's no longer counting likes. It's evaluating expertise, professional context, and whether engagement signals real value. Andddd Corporate broadcasting didn't make the cut. It gets more consequential. 64% of hidden decision-makers (finance, legal, procurement, compliance) trust thought leadership content over marketing materials... (yes, it's happening!!) These are the people influencing deals who never show up in your CRM. Employee voices on personal profiles are the only mechanism that reaches them at scale. As we see by the parade of people posting the same company media... most advocacy programs are breaking down bc they optimize for posting frequency when the real gap is having something coherent to say. Twenty employees posting in twenty different directions is noise. Twenty employees who understand the brand's point of view and can articulate it in their own voice The AI layer makes this urgent. LinkedIn is now the second most-cited domain across ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, and Google AI Mode. What your employees post is becoming the source material for how AI systems describe your brand and your industry. No employee voice on LinkedIn means you're invisible to the AI discovery layer that B2B buyers increasingly use to build shortlists. Ten employees with brand clarity will outperform a hundred with a content calendar and a Slack reminder. The platform has already decided. The question is whether your team has. Full piece via State of Brand : https://lnkd.in/gwef6SWk

Carbon reporting is a mess. Take the 2 news items below. 2 companies have committed to Net Zero and one of them (F1) is even on target to hit that milestone by 2030. The other (Aldi) is going to take a bit longer, aiming to hit Net Zero by 2050. What's the problem? 99.9% of people would read the 2 companies aim of 'Net Zero' and assume they were the same thing. They are not. ❌ Aldi's target covers their full carbon footprint. F1's does not. F1 do not appear to have published their GHG Inventory but the summary data indicates that it is far from a full footprint - excluding much of the goods & services purchased, likely all of the capital investment in vehicles, equipment & facilities, not to mention spectator travel to all of the races. ❌ Aldi will use a maximum of 10% carbon offsetting to hit their target. F1 have allowed themselves 50%. (How Aldi will achieve this whilst growing at their planned rate and still selling vast quantities of meat & dairy is a whole other question...) Net Zero as an aim for society has never been more urgent but as a label for business carbon targets its usefulness diminishes by the day. You need an in-depth understanding of the GHG Protocol and decent investigative skills to be able to make sense of what it means in each case. The Science Based Targets initiative is attempting to fix this of course but their 'one-size-fits-all' approach to targets makes little sense for too many businesses. Maybe their ongoing revision to their Net Zero standard will improve things but in the meantime... The answer IMHO is that we must go beyond the easy labels and encourage businesses to tell their carbon stories: ✅ What level of carbon reduction are you aiming for? ✅ What parts of your footprint are excluded from that? ✅ What action have you identified so far to deliver reductions and what gap remains? ✅ What barriers might prevent you from achieving the target? ✅ What changes are needed in your supply chains and in wider society for you to be able to hit the target? What authentic, transparent carbon stories have you seen or been involved in? Stories that go beyond the easy labels. I'm keen to gather a selection so please drop suggestions in the comments below.

After working at Virgin for more than 16 years, I've seen firsthand how embedding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a catalyst for innovation and success. Research consistently shows that companies who value DEI perform better. Indeed, organisations with diverse hiring practices see a 35% higher likelihood of financial returns above their industry’s average. A LinkedIn study also found that companies with a DEI team were 22% more likely to be seen as ‘an industry-leading company with high-caliber talent’. Embracing DEI isn't just about representation; it's about creating environments where every person feels valued, understood, and empowered to contribute. This leads to richer ideas, stronger teams, diversity of thought, and better business outcomes. Now, more than ever, we must champion DEI – not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the smart thing to do. #diversity #inclusion #DEI #innovation

Here’s what a couple of founders, who did multi-billion $ IPO’s in the recent years, shared with me, which nobody is talking about openly: For them, it was the ultimate dream—the billion-dollar milestone they’d been working towards for a decade. But it was also the most extreme loss of control they’d ever experienced. 🤯 In other words, they’d experienced the “We made it!” moment. But here’s the plot twist: going public isn’t the finish line. It’s more like stepping into an entirely new race… with a lot more spectators than ever before. And guess what, these external spectators now define what your company is worth based on their perception. 💰 An IPO is probably the biggest financial moment of your life as a founder. But for these founders, it was also the moment they realized they’d lost something precious: control. Before the IPO, your valuation was defined by yourself, your team and a room of board members and VCs who at least understood your business and strategy to some extent. After the IPO? It’s in the hands of the public—a crowd of strangers who might only know your company as “that app my cousin once mentioned.” Suddenly, your stock price becomes a rollercoaster. And guess what? You’re not the one driving any longer. You’ve now become the spectator, who’s constantly updating the trading app, to see how the stock is performing. 📉 Watching the stock soar and plummet, powerless to “fix” it - and because of your lock-up period (often up to 180 days from IPO) you’re just stuck for the ride as an investor. And it’s not like you’re just owning a couple of stocks in a company - like any other investor - no, this is most of your fortune that’s tied up into one stock. If you ask any investment advisor, they would tell you that this is the worst way of investing. Never ever put your entire fortune into one single stock. But this is your reality as a founder going through an IPO. Needless to say, it’s an amount of stress and loss of control you’ve never experienced before. The IPO is supposed to be a victory parade, but for the founders who actually make it, it’s an emotional minefield. 💣 The founders I talked to, told me they felt more depressed than ever, because their sense of control vanished overnight. It’s wild how little this gets talked about. The conversation always seems to stop at, “When we IPO…” as if that’s where the story ends. That's not the case.

If I’m the CFO, I don’t need a sustainability report. I need a business case. That means we don’t start with targets or frameworks — we start with real questions. Where can we cut costs with lower-emissions inputs? How does energy use vary by site, and what would it take to reduce it? What’s the cost of inaction if a customer makes emissions part of vendor selection? If sustainability can help me answer those questions — we’re in business. But that only works if the data holds up. I need to know where the numbers come from, what assumptions are baked in, and what we’re doing to improve accuracy quarter over quarter. And I need it structured in a way that speaks the language of finance: capex, opex, margin, payback, risk. Not just “carbon reductions,” but “cost per unit improvement.” Not just “engaged suppliers,” but “procurement risk exposure cut by X%.” If we can get to that level of clarity, sustainability stops being a reporting obligation. It becomes a line of influence in budget decisions, product roadmaps, and investor conversations. But that alignment has to be built — not assumed. So if I’m the CFO, here’s the conversation I want to have with the sustainability lead: • What data do we have today that’s decision-ready? • Where are the gaps? • What’s the first business case we can validate together — and how do we measure it? From there, we build trust. And from trust, we build outcomes. Because when sustainability is framed in business terms — it gets funded. When it’s not — it gets delayed.

What’s the ROI of LinkedIn? For Refine Labs, it’s $50MM in HIRO pipeline and $14MM ARR in net new closed won revenue over the past 2 years since we implemented self-reported attribution in July 2021. I think most people would agree - pretty damn good ROI. But if we measured the ROI of LinkedIn using multi-touch attribution like most B2B SaaS companies do, it only shows $977k in closed won revenue (93% lower measured ROI). And that’s why most B2B companies don’t take LinkedIn or other forms of dark social seriously, while we’ve generated tremendous ROI for 5 years straight. And that's because most B2B companies still use the same underlying principles to measure the success of Marketing & content that they did in 2013 when B2B professionals went into the office, booted up their desktop computer, and consumed blogs & PDFs - based on tracked digital touches and form fills that were easy to track on a desktop computer from a company IP address. Basically everything has changed about the internet since then - including content formats, distribution, tracking & privacy policies, rapid evolution of social media, etc. Yet the way we measure success basically hasn’t changed. There's more tech and jargon around it, but the underlying tech & principles haven't changed. In today’s World, it’s time to focus on the bigger picture. STOP trying to prove the “ROI” of each individual piece of content using touchpoint-based digital attribution. Instead, understand that the results are built through the accumulation of tons of content & touch points over a sustained period of time - most of which never get tracked by digital attribution tools. START measuring the “ROI” of each channel overall by getting direct insights from customers about what they say is working in your Marketing. -Self Reported Attribution / How did you hear about us? Automate in SF / MAP -Sales rep asks on first call, use tags in conversation intelligence tools to automate  -Execute market research surveys to ICP buyers at target accounts that are not in-market  -Conduct win/loss analysis using primary market research interviews In a World where the most impactful programs & activities don’t get tracked by digital attribution, it’s time to be customer-centric and get insights directly from the market. #demand #marketing #b2b #sales p.s. To be clear, Attribution software, Salesforce campaigns, and UTM tracking are great ways to measure Demand Capture. But are definitely not appropriate to measure the entire marketing mix across demand creation, demand capture, and demand conversion. Step 1 in unlocking the next level of growth is changing the Marketing KPIs and Attribution models that keep Marketing teams stuck in the past.

Your influence in the board room and executive team is 90% communication with measurable examples. The words you use can make or break you. Naturally, I've been compiling a list of "instead of saying this, say this" with measurable results. Many are based on my gotcha moments where I've failed miserably at explaining what marketing does. I've said things like: “We’re increasing brand awareness.” “Our demand generation efforts are working.” “We’re improving our SEO strategy.” Every marketing leader has said some version of these. The problem? Nobody in the boardroom or executive team cares about (or understands) marketing buzzwords. They care about revenue, efficiency, and business impact. Let's flip the script. I've compiled a list of marketing-speak and translated these statements into terminology a room full of non-marketers would understand. And bonus, I've included the right metrics to back them up. Example: 🚫 Don’t say: “We’re generating a lot of leads.” ✅ Say this instead: “We’re bringing in people who are actually interested in buying.” 📊 Measure it with: Organic Traffic, Demo Requests, MQL-to-SQL Conversion Rate I put together a full table of these translations and a template so you can ensure your marketing efforts land in the boardroom. I'll share the list and other communication tips this weekend in my newsletter, but if you just want the table. Let me know. Drop a “TABLE” in the comments, and I’ll send it over.

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗦𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 $𝟵𝟬𝗠 & 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗜 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁... Scaling a Cyber Security and Identity practice from $20M to $90M taught me something I didn't expect: the hardest challenge was changing how people think about security… When I took on leading this transformation, I thought success would mainly come from better processes and smarter tech stack-partner decisions. I was wrong. The real breakthrough came when we stopped positioning security as another “bolt on” that was required for compliance and to reduce the attack surface and started showing how it could accelerate growth in the business while providing outcomes and ROI. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗹𝗲: Getting executives to see security differently Instead of leading with compliance and risk, we led with business enablement. When you can show a CFO how identity management reduces operational overhead and enables faster customer onboarding, budget conversations change completely. Building the right team for growth We went from managing a practice to building a 200+ person global organization. The people who thrived were the ones who could connect security solutions to business problems clients actually cared about and become a trusted advisor assisting in organizational change management and adoption of the new solution- ensuring the outcomes committed were realized. 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿:  Our work with partners like CyberArk and SailPoint focused on solving real client challenges together. That approach helped us maintain over 95% client retention while expanding our client base.  𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀:  We tracked business impact beyond security metrics. When you can show 40%+ year-over-year growth while maintaining operational excellence, people pay attention. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁? A repeatable operational framework and a practice that became a real growth driver and trusted partner to our clients and partners. Looking back, the biggest lesson is that transforming technology organizations is really about transforming how people think about technology's role in the business. What's been your experience with changing mindsets around technology investments? Have you found ways to shift the conversation from cost to value?

I would love nothing more than for DEI programs to become obsolete. Surprised? Actually, I think most people involved in DEI would agree with me. The goal of DEI has always been to create workplaces where leadership equity across gender, race, ability and sexuality is the norm, eventually eliminating the need for DEI programs altogether. So much progress we’ve made over the past decade is now at risk due to the current rollback, or watering down, of DEI initiatives and resources. Whether it’s blamed on activists, a lack of need, or the “executive order”, the impact will be significant. It already is. Despite the rationale provided by leaders and executives, I would encourage people to take a step back and remember why DEI began in the first place. The focus on diversity, equity and inclusion was originally established to help organizations thrive by ensuring leaders learnt from those with diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences. Programs were intended to drive innovation, spark creativity, and help make smart decisions. Later, put in place to support employees from historically underrepresented groups, including the creation of affinity networks or E/BRGs (employee/business resource groups), and how those communities could come together inside an organization to support each other. Somewhere along the way, people lost sight of DEI’s real purpose. It's not about checking a box and for those doing it right, it wasn’t. It was about something much more fundamental: creating workplaces where people feel valued, heard, and empowered to contribute. As an athlete, I’m a fundamentals kind of person. Let’s go back to basics. At its core, DEI was designed to: ✅ Increase employee engagement and retention. When people see themselves represented, they’re more inclined to stay. ✅ Build stronger, more innovative teams. Diverse perspectives lead to better ideas, smarter decisions. ✅ Improve business outcomes. A Boston Consulting Group (BCG) survey found that companies with more diverse leadership teams saw up to 19% higher profits. ✅ Create better representation internally that reflect their customers/audience. Today DEI has become so politicized that some have forgotten (or ignored) these facts. The truth is, inclusive companies don’t just retain talent, they attract it. And when they represent their employees, they’re also better set up to reflect the needs of their customers and keep them. We know that having a more diverse workplace contributes to the bottom line and drives ROI. Diverse companies earn 2.5x higher cash flow per employee, according to a 2022 Research and Markets study. So let’s refocus. If DEI is done right, it helps everyone—including leadership—become more effective, more informed, and more customer-centric. It’s not just good ethics; it’s good business. And maybe if we truly achieve equity, instead of removing DEI, we actually won’t need it anymore. That would be a real success. #DEI #equity #leadership Luminary