This work is designed for organisations where the cost of getting decisions wrong is material.
Typically, that means established businesses operating at scale, or moving into it, where marketing performance affects revenue predictability, organisational confidence, and board-level outcomes.
Clients are usually carrying one or more of the following realities:
- Revenue accountability sits at senior level
- Performance feels busy but fragile
- Spend exists without commensurate progress
- Confidence requires explanation rather than evidence
- Structural decisions made years ago are now constraining growth
This work assumes authority, access, and consequence. Without those conditions, intervention does not hold.
Organisational characteristics
Organisations this work fits tend to share structural traits, regardless of sector.
They are large enough that:
- Decision-making is distributed
- Incentives are misaligned across teams
- Performance data is abundant but inconclusive
- Marketing activity is high but confidence is low
They are small enough that:
- Senior leaders remain exposed to outcomes
- Decisions still have visible consequences
- Structural change is possible without institutional paralysis
This work is most effective where leadership recognises that the problem is not effort, talent, or tooling, but system design.
Who this does not work for
This work does not suit organisations looking to delegate responsibility without exposure.
It is not designed for teams seeking channel management, campaign execution, or reassurance through activity.
It does not fit environments where decisions are deferred, authority is symbolic, or accountability is fragmented across committees.
Organisations uncomfortable with challenge, constraint, or structural change will find this approach unproductive.
This is not a failure of intent. It is a mismatch of operating conditions.
Signals that engagement is warranted
Organisations that benefit from this work usually recognise certain signals early.
Performance requires increasing explanation rather than speaking for itself. Progress depends on individual effort rather than system strength. Confidence erodes despite sustained activity.
There is often a growing gap between what leadership believes should be happening and what the organisation can reliably produce.
When these signals are present, structural intervention becomes necessary. Not to accelerate activity, but to restore alignment between ambition, execution, and reality.