In memoryBlue’s recent webinar session, “Clients Only: The Benchmarks, the Bets, and What They Mean for Your Pipeline,” viewers were exposed to the kind of information clients do not usually get from a public report: KPIs, campaign data, conversion trends, regional differences, and behind-the-scenes work the team is using to improve customer outcomes.

Led by Aurelien “Ray” Mottier, President of memoryBlue, the broadcast covered what memoryBlue is seeing across outreach, response, conversion, hold rates, dial efficiency, lead quality, and pipeline velocity heading into the rest of 2026.

The point was not only to share where the numbers are today. It was also to give customers a view into where memoryBlue is going as a business, what is being tested behind the scenes, and how those investments could shape the next phase of outbound performance.

The numbers behind the pipeline

In 2025, memoryBlue secured 65,000 meetings for clients. Around 52,000 of those meetings took place, with an 80% meeting show rate and more than 27,000 qualified opportunities created. That puts the conversion rate from meetings to qualified pipeline at 52.7%.

Those numbers say a lot about where outbound performance needs to be measured. Meeting volume still matters, but it is only one part of the picture. The stronger view is what happens after the meeting is booked: whether it holds, whether the prospect is qualified, and whether the opportunity moves forward.

Ray also shared how performance varies by region. In North America, meetings tend to happen faster after they are booked. Across international markets, including EMEA and APAC, attendance rates are slightly higher, with prospects around 10% more likely to show up compared with their U.S. counterparts.

Lead scores stayed fairly consistent across regions, with some international programs trending slightly higher. Part of that comes down to ramp. New campaigns usually need four to six weeks before activity reaches a more stable rhythm, and North America had a higher volume of new program launches.

The phone is still doing the heavy lifting

memoryBlue remains a phone-first organization, supported by email, LinkedIn, voicemail, and other touches across the sequence.

In Q1 2026, slightly over 80% of meetings that took place were booked over the phone. In 2025, the mix was similar: 85% by phone, 8% by email, and 7% through LinkedIn.

Email and LinkedIn still matter. Ray noted that email appears to perform slightly better in North America than in Europe, while LinkedIn remains consistent across markets, contributing around 9% to 10% of successful outreach.

But the phone remains where the strongest qualification happens. It gives SDRs and BDRs space to understand context, handle objections, test urgency, and create a real reason for the prospect to take the next step.

Ray also called out one metric he cares about more than raw call volume: conversations with prospects. Activity means very little if reps are not connecting with the right people. That is why memoryBlue is investing in better data and tools that help reps focus on the prospects most likely to engage.

The strongest programs are built before they launch

Some of the best client results shared during the broadcast came from programs that did the right work upfront.

Ray highlighted standout wins from IDC, StrongDM, and Avery Dennison where the common thread was preparation. The strongest programs were not rushed into activity. They had clear ICPs, stronger messaging, aligned processes, clean data, and a shared view of what success should look like.

That does not mean waiting months to launch. Ray pointed to a two-to-four-week setup period as the difference between “just start dialing” and giving a campaign the foundation it needs to scale. When both sides take the time to align on targeting, messaging, measurement, and accountability, the output changes.

Where the market is showing appetite

Public sector and government have seen a noticeable surge, especially in North America, driven by interest in automation, AI, cybersecurity, and big data. Finance and professional services remain strong. Industrial and engineering, healthcare and life sciences, and technology and security are also showing strong engagement.

Other sectors are moving more slowly. Media, legal, energy and infrastructure, and supply chain and logistics are still producing opportunities, but buyer appetite around innovation is not showing up with the same urgency. That context matters because outbound does not perform in a vacuum. The same motion can behave very differently depending on the vertical, the maturity of the market, and how urgent the problem feels to the buyer.

AI should amplify what is already working

Ray’s view on AI was direct: it is useful when the go-to-market motion is already validated.

If the ICP is unclear or the message is still unproven, AI can simply scale the wrong thing faster. But once the market, message, and motion are working, AI can help with research, prioritization, coaching, quality control, inbound qualification, and productivity.

The goal is not to replace the SDR. It is to remove the repetitive work that gets in the way of better conversations.

A client-only community built around what works

The broadcast also introduced The Herd, memoryBlue’s client-only collective. The Herd is designed to give customers access to exclusive content, events, partner perks, and a more direct line to memoryBlue leadership.

It is also meant to connect clients with each other more intentionally. The idea is simple: memoryBlue customers are solving similar pipeline, expansion, and go-to-market challenges. Bringing them together creates more space to share what is working, compare ideas, and learn from teams facing the same market shifts.

Where outbound goes from here

Outbound is not getting easier. Buyers are harder to reach, inboxes are crowded, and sales teams are being asked to create pipeline more efficiently. But the fundamentals have not disappeared. The strongest programs still need clear ICPs, sharp messaging, accurate data, strong rep execution, and tight feedback loops. The difference now is that those fundamentals need to be supported by better intelligence and a more honest view of what is actually happening in the funnel.

To hear the full breakdown from Ray, watch the on-demand broadcast of “Clients Only: The Benchmarks, the Bets, and What They Mean for Your Pipeline.”

The post Clients Only: The Benchmarks, the Bets, and What They Mean for Your Pipeline appeared first on memoryBlue.

Should we build this in-house or outsource it?

The answer is rarely black and white.

On a recent webinar hosted by memoryBlue and TechCXO, a panel of revenue, marketing, and business leaders shared their experiences with outsourcing everything from SDR teams and marketing programs to finance and executive leadership. Their insights revealed a common theme: outsourcing can be a powerful growth lever when used strategically, but it can also create problems when approached as a shortcut.

Here’s what they learned.

Outsource When You Need Expertise Faster Than You Can Build It

One of the strongest arguments for outsourcing is access to expertise.

Growing companies often encounter challenges they’ve never faced before. Maybe they’re building their first outbound motion, launching a new marketing channel, or scaling beyond the capabilities of their current team.

In these situations, outsourcing allows companies to leverage years of experience immediately rather than spending months or years developing those capabilities internally.

As Whitney Myers, CEO of Zuar, explained, she’s often less interested in buying someone’s time and more interested in buying their experience. The real value comes from partnering with people who have already solved the problem dozens of times before.

Rather than spending months figuring out what works, companies can move faster by working with specialists who already know the playbook.

Outsource When You’re Testing Something New

Several panelists highlighted an often-overlooked use case for outsourcing: experimentation.

Launching a new outbound program. Testing a new market. Exploring a new marketing channel. Building an SDR function from scratch.

These initiatives carry uncertainty. Outsourcing can reduce risk by allowing companies to test a strategy before making long-term hiring commitments.

Instead of hiring a full team, investing in management, and building processes from scratch, companies can work with a partner to validate whether the approach works.

Once the motion proves successful, they can decide whether to scale internally, continue with a partner, or adopt a hybrid model.

The key is to treat outsourcing as a way to learn quickly, not simply as a way to reduce costs.

Outsource Functions That Are Difficult to Scale Internally

Some functions require specialized management, training, and ongoing development.

SDR teams are a great example.

John Norton, CRO at Intradiem, explained that smaller teams often struggle because they don’t have the scale to support dedicated leadership, coaching, and development resources. An outsourced partner can provide that infrastructure immediately.

The same logic applies to areas such as:

• SDR and outbound sales development
• SEO and AEO programs
• Paid media management
• Marketing operations
• Specialized revenue operations functions

When success depends on deep expertise and constant optimization, outsourcing can often deliver better results than trying to build the capability from scratch.

Don’t Outsource and Disappear

One of the biggest mistakes companies make is assuming outsourcing means becoming completely hands-off.

It doesn’t.

Multiple panelists shared examples where outsourced programs underperformed because leadership expected the partner to handle everything independently.

The best outsourcing relationships function like an extension of the internal team.

Successful companies invest time in:

• Sharing messaging and positioning
• Training outsourced teams
• Providing feedback
• Reviewing results
• Aligning on goals and expectations

Outsourcing execution does not mean outsourcing ownership.

The companies that see the strongest results remain actively involved in the process.

Don’t Choose a Partner Based Solely on Price

Nearly every leader has a story about choosing the cheapest option and regretting it later.

The issue isn’t necessarily cost. It’s capability.

When evaluating partners, companies should focus on questions such as:

• How are team members trained?
• What does management oversight look like?
• How much experience does the team have?
• How is quality measured?
• What does onboarding look like?

A low-cost provider that lacks structure, coaching, or expertise can ultimately become far more expensive than a premium partner that delivers results.

As several panelists noted, the cheapest option often becomes the most costly mistake.

Protect Your Brand at All Costs

Your outsourced team represents your company.

Prospects don’t distinguish between an internal employee and an outsourced partner. Every email, call, LinkedIn message, and interaction reflects your brand.

One lesson shared during the webinar was the danger of outsourcing not just activity, but also messaging and intent.

Companies must remain involved in defining:

• Brand voice
• Messaging
• Target audiences
• Customer experience standards
• Outreach strategy

Even the best partner cannot represent your company effectively without clear guidance.

Outsourcing execution is valuable. Outsourcing brand ownership is risky.

Fractional Leadership Can Be a Powerful Bridge

Outsourcing isn’t limited to tactical functions.

Fractional executives have become increasingly popular for companies navigating periods of growth or change.

Organizations often bring in fractional CROs, CMOs, CFOs, or other executives when:

• They’ve outgrown their current structure
• They need specialized expertise
• They’re preparing for scale
• They’re searching for a full-time executive
• They need transformation leadership

In many cases, a fractional leader can help build the strategy, processes, and team structure needed before handing the reins to a permanent hire.

For growing companies, this approach can provide executive-level guidance without the cost or commitment of a full-time executive.

The Best Outsourcing Relationships Feel Like Internal Teams

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the discussion was that successful outsourcing doesn’t feel outsourced.

The strongest partnerships share several characteristics:

• Clear goals and expectations
• Frequent communication
• Mutual accountability
• Deep understanding of the company’s culture and customers
• A commitment to continuous improvement

When those elements are present, outsourcing becomes less about reducing workload and more about accelerating growth.

Final Thoughts

Outsourcing is neither a magic solution nor a last resort.

The most successful companies use outsourcing strategically to access expertise, test new initiatives, fill capability gaps, and scale faster than they could alone.

At the same time, they remain actively engaged, invest in onboarding and alignment, and choose partners based on expertise rather than price.

The question isn’t whether outsourcing works.

The question is whether you’re using it for the right reasons, with the right partner, at the right stage of your growth journey.

And when those three things align, outsourcing can become one of the most effective growth levers in your GTM strategy.

The post When to (and When Not to) Outsource Your GTM appeared first on memoryBlue.

Quick answer: CISOs buy software based on trust, relevance, and peer reputation. They want vendors who understand their team’s specific pain points before asking for time, avoid overpromising, and engage through multiple channels with a personalised, account-based approach. Generic outreach is the fastest way to lose them and their network.

Understanding how CISOs buy software is one of the most valuable and most misunderstood challenges in B2B cybersecurity sales. We hosted a panel lunch at RSA and asked CISOs directly: how do you actually want to be sold to? What builds trust? What kills a deal before it starts?

The conversation was candid, occasionally surprising, and full of insight that challenges conventional sales and marketing wisdom. Our panellists were a mix of CISOs, CROs and CMOs  who brought perspectives from both sides of the table. Here is what every sales and marketing leader at a cybersecurity vendor needs to know.

What Do CISOs Look for When Buying Security Software?

CISOs consistently prioritise three things when evaluating vendors: trust, relevance, and fit. They are not looking for the vendor with the boldest claims or the longest feature list. They are looking for partners who understand their specific environment, speak honestly about what they can and cannot solve, and respect their time.

Trust, in particular, came up again and again across the panel as the defining factor in purchase decisions, and it is built or destroyed long before a formal evaluation begins.

5 Insights on How CISOs Buy Software

1. Surround the Castle Before You Knock on the Door

One of the most resonant points came from Nick Mansour, Senior Vice President Sales, Americas @ Saviynt who made the case for a true Account-Based Marketing (ABM) approach in cybersecurity sales, and not the surface-level personalisation that most vendors pass off as ABM.

The insight: go wider and deeper into an account before you try to reach the CISO. Engage with the security engineers, architects, and analysts, the people who live inside the pain every day. By the time you get in front of the CISO, you should already have a detailed picture of their team’s needs, frustrations, and priorities.

CISOs do not want to be your discovery call. They want you to arrive already knowing. Vendors who have done the groundwork with the wider security team walk into that conversation with credibility, and credibility is the foundation of trust.

GTM takeaway: Structure your ABM strategy around the security team first. Use those conversations to map use cases and organisational context before you pursue the CISO. Earn your way to the top.

2. Know Your Persona Better Than Your Product

Craig Carney, VP Global Sales @ Mindtickle made a point that resonated strongly across the table: the best sellers are not product experts, they are people experts.

CISOs are not a monolith. A CISO at a 200-person fintech has entirely different priorities to a CISO at a global enterprise. Regulatory environment, board relationships, team maturity, budget cycles, all of it shapes how they think and what they are willing to buy. Generic outreach that ignores these nuances signals immediately that you have not done your homework.

Craig also noted that AI tools are now making persona and account research significantly more scalable. There is no excuse for showing up unprepared.

Crucially, sellers do not need to be the product experts in the room. Their job is to grab attention, identify the right use cases, and get the right people involved at the right moment. When a CISO wants to go deep on product, bring in your product team. When they want a peer-level conversation, bring in your executives. Knowing which moment you are in, and having the right resource ready, is what separates high-performing cybersecurity sellers from everyone else.

GTM takeaway: Invest in persona-level sales enablement alongside product training. Use AI tools to help reps research and tailor outreach at scale. Build playbooks around CISO segments, not just product categories.

3. Stop Selling Silver Bullets, CISOs Can Spot Them Immediately

Both Mea Clift, CISO & Executive Advisor, Cyber Risk Engineering @ Liberty Mutual Insurance and Jennifer Raiford, CISO & Chief Digital Trust and Risk Officer @ ENIGMA Protocol were direct on this point, and it needed to be said.

CISOs know there is no single tool that eliminates a category of risk. They have heard every bold claim, and they are deeply sceptical of vendors who oversell. When your pitch implies your product is a silver bullet, you do not just lose credibility on that point. You lose trust entirely.

What CISOs actually want to hear about is specific use cases and measurable business outcomes. Be honest about what you solve and equally honest about what you do not. Vendors who acknowledge their limitations and focus on genuine fit stand out precisely because so few do it.

Differentiation in a crowded cybersecurity market does not come from the loudest claim. It comes from the most relevant and credible one. You also need to understand your competitive landscape. CISOs know it, and they will test whether you do too.

GTM takeaway: Audit your positioning and sales messaging. If it relies on superlatives or category-killing language, pull it back. Train reps to lead with specific use cases and to have honest conversations about fit, even when that means saying “we may not be the right solution for you right now.”

4. Multi-Channel, Multi-Touch, and Do Not Abandon the Phone

Here is where the lunch table got interesting.

The CISOs on the panel said they prefer LinkedIn over phone calls. The sales and marketing leaders at the table disagreed, and the debate that followed actually proved the point better than any single answer could.

The real insight is not which channel wins. It is that no single channel wins consistently. Different CISOs engage differently. The same CISO will respond to different channels at different moments. LinkedIn might be where you get noticed. Email might be where you get a reply. A well-timed, well-prepared phone call from the right person might be what actually gets the meeting.

The critical variable across all channels is relevance. Every touchpoint needs to be tailored, prepared, and grounded in genuine understanding of the person you are reaching. Generic sequencing is noise. Personalised, multi-touch outreach is signal.

GTM takeaway: Do not let “CISOs prefer LinkedIn” become a justification for pulling back on other channels. Build coordinated, multi-touch sequences tailored to the individual. Relevance and preparation matter far more than channel choice.

5. CISOs Are a Tight-Knit Community and Your Reputation Travels Fast

This was perhaps the most underappreciated insight from the entire lunch, and both Mea Clift and Jennifer Raiford were emphatic about it: CISOs talk to each other, constantly and candidly.

They have Slack channels. They have peer groups, industry forums, and executive networks. When they have a genuinely good experience with a vendor, they share it. When they have a bad one, they really share it, and their peers listen.

This means your market reputation is not built through your marketing alone. It is built through every single interaction your team has with every CISO, including the ones who are not a fit right now. A CISO who does not need your product today might refer you to three peers who do, but only if you respected their time, were honest about fit, and treated the relationship as worth nurturing regardless of immediate commercial outcome.

GTM takeaway: Treat every CISO interaction as a long-term reputation investment, not a short-term pipeline activity. The cybersecurity CISO community is smaller and more interconnected than most vendors realise. One bad experience does not stay contained.

Frequently Asked Questions: How CISOs Buy Software

How do CISOs prefer to be contacted by vendors? CISOs are split on channel preference. Many cite LinkedIn, but peer conversations, referrals, and well-prepared outreach across multiple channels are all effective. What matters most is relevance and preparation, not the channel itself.

What do CISOs value most in a vendor relationship? Trust is consistently the top factor. CISOs value vendors who are honest about capabilities and limitations, understand their specific environment, and do not waste their time with generic or overhyped pitches.

How should cybersecurity vendors approach CISO sales? Use an ABM approach to engage the broader security team before reaching the CISO. Understand the organisation’s specific use cases and pain points. Bring in executives and product experts at the right moments. Avoid silver-bullet messaging and focus on specific, relevant outcomes.

Do CISOs respond to cold outreach? Rarely to generic cold outreach. Personalised, well-researched outreach that references their specific organisation, team, or challenges performs significantly better. Referrals and warm introductions through peer networks are the highest-converting entry points.

How important is peer reputation in CISO buying decisions? Extremely important. CISOs actively share vendor experiences within their networks. A strong reputation, built through honest and respectful interactions, can drive significant referral pipeline even from non-customers.

The Bottom Line

The vendors who win with CISOs are not the loudest or the most feature-rich. They are the most prepared, the most trustworthy, and the most relevant to the specific context of each account they pursue.

Selling to CISOs requires doing the work before you ask for the meeting: understanding the person, the team, the organisation, and the competitive landscape. It requires honesty when others oversell, specificity when others are vague, and patience when others push too hard.

That is what CISOs told us at lunch at RSA. And from the conversation around the table, the best sales and marketing leaders in cybersecurity already know it. Now it is time to build it into every motion.

Insights gathered from a CISO panel lunch hosted at RSA 2026. Panellists included Mea Clift – CISO & Executive Advisor, Cyber Risk Engineering @ Liberty Mutual Insurance, Jennifer Raiford – CISO & Chief Digital Trust and Risk Officer @ ENIGMA Protocol, Nick Mansour – Senior Vice President Sales, Americas @ Saviynt, Craig Carney – VP Global Sales @ Mindtickle, Mary Yang – Fractional Cyber CMO and Glenn Haertel – CRO @ memoryBlue

The post How CISOs Buy Software appeared first on memoryBlue.

In the earlier articles in this series, I wrote about the forces that shape a founder-led, PE-backed organisation as it scales: holding on to the founder’s spark, translating intent when pressure rises and keeping ambition, execution and long-term value aligned. There is another dimension that matters just as much, although it tends to reveal itself later. A company can grow up without growing old.

Some organisations reach maturity and become sharper, clearer and more confident. Others harden. They become cautious, inward-looking, perhaps a little too pleased with their own systems. The difference is rarely about strategy. It is almost always about energy.

The question is simple enough: how do you keep the hunger of a young company when you no longer have the excuses of youth

Curiosity as a leadership habit

Start-ups are driven by curiosity. People ask questions constantly, partly because there is no alternative and partly because everything feels possible. As the business matures, roles become defined, processes appear and curiosity becomes optional. Leaders stop wandering into problems that are not technically theirs. They wait for information rather than going to find it.

Most organisations do not notice this shift. They call it professionalism. In truth, it is the early sign of creative atrophy.

A Chair cannot manufacture curiosity, but they can protect the conditions that allow it to flourish. They can encourage leaders to spend time with customers, not only with dashboards. They can ask questions that cut across silos. They can challenge assumptions that have settled too quickly.

Curiosity fades quietly… and returns the same way.

The difference between scarcity and fear

There is a particular mindset that emerges in high-growth environments where resources are tight. Some leaders see scarcity as an invitation to rethink the problem. Others freeze. They wait for certainty or capital or headcount, and in that waiting they lose momentum.

The leaders who thrive under scarcity are not reckless. They are simply willing to experiment without waiting for the perfect conditions. They will pilot an idea with one customer, or repurpose a team for a month, or cut a process that is slowing the organisation down.

You can usually spot them because they talk about possibilities rather than constraints.

The Chair’s role is to notice who is energised by creative constraint and who is paralysed by it. Not to judge either group, but to make sure the organisation is led by people who can move when conditions are imperfect.

They always are.

Creative reallocation and the quiet ROI

One of the biggest misconceptions in scaling businesses is that innovation requires more capital. More investment, more people, more time. Sometimes that is true, but often the real breakthroughs come from reallocating what already exists.

I once watched a company shift two underutilised teams into a joint “problem-solving sprint” for six weeks. The result changed the trajectory of the product roadmap. Another organisation removed a legacy reporting process and freed enough leadership bandwidth to fix a performance issue that had lingered for years.

These actions rarely appear in Board papers. They do not fit neatly into financial models. Yet their ROI is unmistakable.

A Chair can encourage this mindset simply by asking a different set of questions.
“What could we stop doing?”
“What would we try if we could not hire another person?”
“Where is effort exceeding impact?”

These sound like operational questions. They are actually cultural ones.

Bold bets without bravado

In founder-led companies, bold bets often come naturally at the start. The entire business is a bet. As the company grows and governance strengthens, people become more careful. Sometimes too careful. They do not want to disappoint the Board. They do not want to jeopardise a forecast. They do not want to make the wrong call.

The irony is that the best mature organisations are usually the ones still willing to take measured risks. Not wild gambles, but thoughtful, bounded experiments.

A Chair can help here by framing risk as part of the organisation’s identity rather than a deviation from it. You give permission to explore. You remind people that discipline and imagination are not opposites. You make it clear that the absence of risk is not the presence of wisdom.

Recognising when the company is becoming “old”

Age in an organisation is not measured in years. It shows up in behaviour. Decision-making becomes slower. Meetings become longer. People defend processes rather than outcomes. The founder starts hearing versions of “that’s not how we do it here.” Managers define success by avoiding mistakes rather than creating value.

The company has not lost its ability. It has lost its nerve.

These are the moments when the Chair must intervene gently but firmly. Not with criticism… with curiosity.
“When did we stop experimenting?”
“What decision would we make if we were still ten people in a room?”
“Are we solving the problem or managing the process?”

These questions create movement. They remind people that maturity is meant to improve judgement, not limit possibility.

Growing up well

When a company grows up well, you can feel it. It has discipline, but not rigidity. Structure, but not bureaucracy. Confidence, but not complacency. People understand the destination and are still willing to challenge the route. Leaders think in decades but operate with the urgency of months.

The Chair cannot manufacture this balance, but they can help hold it. They can keep the founder’s spark alive, translate intent when tensions rise and bring people back to the shared destination when they drift.

And, occasionally, they can remind the organisation of a truth that is easy to forget: maturity is optional. Curiosity is not.

The post The balancing act: growing up without growing old appeared first on memoryBlue.

In the earlier essays in this series, I wrote about two forces that shape most PE-backed, founder-led organisations. First, the need to preserve the founder’s spark as the company grows. Then, the Chair’s role as translator when pressure heightens and people start mishearing each other’s intentions.

There is a third element that sits behind both. Alignment. Not the superficial kind where everyone nods in meetings, but the deeper, harder work of ensuring that ambition, execution and long-term value all point in the same direction.

This is often where companies stumble. People believe they are aligned because they share the same vocabulary. Growth. Scale. Margin. Efficiency. Innovation. Yet beneath the language, there are different interpretations of what these things mean and what must be traded to achieve them.

A Chair rarely resolves these tensions outright. The more realistic task is to keep them visible without letting them become destructive.

Founders set the destination

Most founders carry a picture in their heads that others cannot see. It is partly vision, partly instinct, partly memory. They know what the company should become, although they do not always articulate it cleanly. When the business is small, this does not matter much. People absorb the direction by proximity.

As the company matures, that shared understanding starts to fragment. New leaders join. Investors bring their own horizon. Managers interpret the strategy through operational constraints. A founder might still have the clearest idea of the destination, but fewer people can feel it.

The Chair’s role is not to invent the destination. It is to help the founder name it. Once it is named, the organisation can align around it rather than around assumptions.

When investor expectations need to bend

Private equity partners are often portrayed as rigid. In my experience, the best ones are anything but. They are disciplined, yes, but the good ones understand that long-term value is rarely created through unwavering adherence to a spreadsheet.

What they need is clarity. What they sometimes lack is the context that explains why the long-term path is the right one, even if the short-term picture becomes uncomfortable.

Here is where the Chair often steps in. Not to defend the founder and not to placate investors, but to ground the conversation in reality. Is this pressure a signal that the strategy is flawed
Or is it simply what progress feels like at this stage

Sometimes the right answer is to adjust the plan. Other times the right answer is to hold the line. Knowing which is which is the work.

Early warning signs that alignment is slipping

Misalignment rarely announces itself. It creeps. A project slows without explanation. A leadership meeting feels heavier than usual. People start interpreting questions as threats. Reporting becomes ornate rather than useful.

When you see these patterns, something underneath is off. The Chair’s task is to surface the tension before it turns into conflict.

One question I often ask is a simple one:
“What story do you think we are in right now?”

If you get three different answers from three senior leaders, you know the company is operating on parallel narratives. It cannot scale that way.

Repairing trust when there has been a fracture

Every organisation experiences a break in trust sooner or later. A missed forecast, a strategic disagreement, an unexpected departure. What matters is not the incident itself but the way people respond afterwards.

Trust is rarely repaired by grand gestures. It returns through smaller, steadier behaviours… consistency in communication, honesty about uncertainty, a willingness to revisit decisions without embarrassment.

The Chair cannot force trust to return, but they can create the conditions in which it becomes possible again. Often that means naming the fracture, giving it shape rather than allowing it to linger as something half-spoken.

Governance rhythms that keep alignment alive

There is a misconception that governance exists to keep people in line. Good governance does not behave that way. It creates space for alignment to be checked regularly so it does not drift into misalignment by accident.

This does not mean more meetings. It means better ones. Forums built around the right questions:
Are we still aligned on the destination?
Do the numbers reflect the underlying strategy?
Are we prioritising the right problems?
Where is execution diverging from intent?

When the Board and management team can answer these questions honestly, alignment becomes less fragile.

The Chair’s part in holding the centre

The Chair is not the owner of ambition, execution or long-term value. But they do hold the thread that ties them together. They remind the founder why discipline matters. They remind investors why purpose matters. They remind the team why clarity matters.

A Chair who does this well is often nearly invisible. Meetings feel steadier. Decisions land more cleanly. Disagreements become productive rather than personal. The organisation feels like it is leaning in the same direction again.

The ongoing balancing act

Alignment is not a destination. It is something that must be renewed continually as conditions change and the company evolves. The Chair helps maintain that renewal by keeping conversations honest, tensions visible and purpose intact.

In the next part of this series, I will explore how companies can hold on to their hunger and curiosity as they grow. Maturity need not mean complacency. The best organisations grow up without growing old.

The post The balancing act: aligning ambition, execution and long-term value appeared first on memoryBlue.

In my last article, I wrote about preserving founder spirit as a company evolves from instinct to structure. But there is another, quieter responsibility that often defines whether a growing organisation stays aligned or drifts apart. The Chair becomes a translator. Not of language, but of intent.

Every leadership team speaks in its own shorthand. Founders speak in possibility – their thinking is rooted in the future. Investors speak in probability. Operators speak in practicality. When the business is small, these conversations happen in the same room and misunderstandings get resolved quickly. As the company grows, the distance between these viewpoints widens, and so does the room for misinterpretation.

A surprising amount of organisational conflict comes down to people hearing the same words but attaching different meanings to them.  This can also often be exacerbated by cultural misalignment.

The Chair sits in the middle of these worlds, sometimes uncomfortably, and helps make sure the right messages reach the right ears.

Pressure changes how people hear things

One thing I have learned is that financial pressure alters the emotional temperature of an organisation. Investors become more focused. Founders become more reactive. Teams start solving for the next deadline rather than the long-term plan. It is not illogical. It is human.

In these moments, a simple request can be misread as criticism. A strategic adjustment can be taken as a loss of faith. A question can sound like a judgement. The Chair’s job, often, is to slow the moment down and translate what is actually being said.

Something as simple as…
“Here is why this matters”
or
“This is the trade-off we are navigating”
can prevent weeks of drift.

It is the sort of work that does not appear on any governance checklist, yet it holds the organisation together in ways that formal structures cannot.

When founders and investors miss each other’s signals

Founders and private equity investors want many of the same things, although you would not always know it from the way conversations unfold. Founders care deeply about the product, the customer, the legacy they are building. Investors care about risk, return and the pace of value creation.

None of this is actually in conflict, but the lens through which each group interprets decisions is very different.

I have watched founders speak passionately about a long-term vision and investors hear it as a reluctance to face short-term realities. I have seen investors push for operational discipline and founders interpret it as an attempt to dilute the original mission.

The Chair stands between these perspectives, offering a kind of quiet calibration:
“Let me explain what they’re trying to solve for.”
“Here is the context behind that question.”
“This isn’t a challenge to your direction… it is a request for clarity.”

Most disagreements lose their heat once both sides understand the other’s intent.

Keeping strategy intact when the ground is shifting

It is one thing to define a strategy during a Board meeting. It is another to keep it alive when conditions change. During periods of uncertainty, the organisation can start to contract around what feels safe. Reporting increases. Projects get paused. People interpret silence as risk.

This is when the Chair must help ensure the company does not lose its strategic spine. Not through grand speeches, but through small interventions… reminding teams of the long-term direction, framing decisions within the broader context and helping translate the investor logic into something the organisation can act upon.

A Chair does not tell the team what to do. They help the team understand why.

Balancing liquidity and growth without confusing people

One of the more subtle challenges in a PE-backed environment is balancing cash discipline with growth ambition. These are not mutually exclusive, but they can feel that way when you are inside the business.

A CFO will often speak in guardrails. A founder speaks in runway. A PE partner speaks in return profiles. Meanwhile, employees simply want to know whether their work still matters.

If these conversations are not translated, the organisation defaults to rumour. You see teams oscillate between over-caution and over-confidence.

The Chair helps frame these tensions in a way that people can absorb:
“Yes, we need to manage costs carefully.”
“Yes, we are still investing in growth.”
And crucially…
“These two ideas can be true at the same time.”

Honest communication, even when it is uncomfortable

One of the most damaging dynamics in a high-growth business is selective communication. Leaders share the parts of the story they think people want to hear, and the rest gets tucked away. Eventually, the distance between what is said and what is felt becomes too wide, and trust slips.

A Chair cannot force honesty, but they can model it. They can ask the questions others avoid, encourage the uncomfortable conversations and create the space where people feel able to speak plainly. There is an art to this. You do not catastrophise. You do not sugarcoat. You tell the truth in a way that allows the organisation to stay steady.

When done well, teams begin to adopt the same behaviour. They speak more openly about trade-offs. They make sharper decisions because they are no longer second-guessing the hidden narrative.

The Chair’s quiet influence

Most of a Chair’s real work happens out of view. It lives in side conversations, subtle reframings and the occasional, well-timed question that unlocks a stuck discussion.

In founder-led organisations, especially those backed by private equity, this translation work is not an add-on. It is essential. It keeps strategy coherent. It prevents minor misunderstandings from becoming major conflicts. And it ensures that the organisation continues to move with purpose rather than anxiety.

In the next essay, I will explore a different but related question… how the Chair helps align ambition, execution and long-term value. In many ways, it is the natural extension of the translator role. Once people understand each other, the organisation can start building towards the same destination.

The post The balancing act: translating vision, pressure and performance appeared first on memoryBlue.

In this environment, one pattern shows up consistently across high-performing B2B tech organizations: when marketing and sales are fully aligned on revenue metrics and actually work together, pipeline moves faster. When they’re not, even well-funded teams struggle to gain traction.

I recently hosted a webinar, ‘Marketing that keeps sales moving forward’, where we explored this challenge alongside CROs and CMOs working inside fast-growing and scaling B2B tech companies. After hearing the same issues surface again and again – pipeline pressure, misaligned expectations, and unclear handoffs – I wanted to pull together the most practical insights GTM leaders can apply right now to keep pipeline moving (while keeping budgets on track)

1 – Alignment is not a ‘nice to have’

In today’s market, misalignment is no longer just inefficient. It is expensive. When marketing optimizes for lead volume while sales prioritizes deal quality and velocity, the outcome is predictable: poor conversion rates, longer sales cycles, and growing frustration across teams.

The most effective teams align earlier, at the strategy level and around shared pipeline and revenue goals, beyond MQLs. Marketing plans are built around the realities of the sales motion, not just funnel math. That means understanding deal size, buying committees, sales cycle length, and customer lifetime value before defining channels, campaigns, or content.

Alignment isn’t about more MQLs or more meetings. It’s about all teams working together to achieve the same goals: pipeline, revenue, deal velocity and LTV.

2 – Revenue-driven marketing starts with clarity, not activity

One of the biggest mistakes GTM teams make under pressure is equating motion with progress. More campaigns, more leads, more activity – without a clear line back to revenue impact.

High-performing marketing teams start by answering a few hard questions:

• What part of the funnel are we trying to influence?
• What behavior needs to change to move deals forward?
• How will we know this effort worked?

ROI discipline doesn’t mean every initiative must generate immediate pipeline. It does mean there is a clear business case for why the work matters – whether it supports near-term revenue or lays the foundation for future growth.

Data plays a critical role here, but numbers alone are not enough. The strongest strategies combine quantitative insight with qualitative feedback from sales conversations, customers, and lost deals. That combination is what turns reporting into decision-making.

3 – When budgets are tight, the middle of the funnel matters more than ever

When resources are constrained, many teams instinctively push harder at the top of the funnel. In practice, that often creates more noise without improving outcomes.

In B2B tech, the biggest bottlenecks frequently sit in the middle of the funnel. Deals stall because:

• Prospects lack confidence
• Messaging doesn’t clearly articulate value
• Sales teams don’t have the right proof points at the right time

Improving mid-funnel assets i.e. case studies, customer stories, validation content, and sales enablement can have an outsized impact on conversion rates and deal velocity.

The same thinking applies to events. Large conferences may deliver visibility, but smaller, targeted gatherings often drive higher-quality conversations. Intimate breakfasts, roundtables, or executive sessions give sales teams space to build trust and move deals forward more effectively.

Another overlooked lever is social selling. Encouraging founders and senior leaders to be more visible can build credibility faster than paid campaigns, particularly in complex B2B buying environments where trust plays a central role.

4 – Optimize before you ask for more

Before requesting additional budget, leading teams take a hard look at what they already have.

Tech stack sprawl is common, especially in growing organizations. A simple audit often reveals underutilized tools, overlapping capabilities, or unused licenses that can be eliminated. Reallocating that spend into higher-impact GTM activity not only improves efficiency but it signals commercial discipline to executive leadership.

Partnerships are another lever. Co-marketing with complementary vendors allows teams to extend reach, share costs, and access new audiences without significantly increasing spend.

5 – Brand and demand are not opposites

A recurring tension in GTM organizations is the perceived trade-off between brand and demand. In reality, the two exist on a spectrum.

Strong brand activity creates familiarity and trust, which makes demand generation more effective over time. Meanwhile, consistent demand programs reinforce brand visibility in-market.

The challenge arises when expectations are misaligned internally. Brand work rarely delivers immediate leads, which can frustrate sales teams if that context isn’t clearly communicated. The solution is transparency: setting clear objectives, timelines, and success metrics upfront. One of the most effective ways to validate brand impact is simply asking buyers how they heard about you. Self-attribution often surfaces podcasts, content, communities, or conversations that traditional attribution models miss entirely.

6 – SDRs are the bridge between marketing and sales

One of the clearest indicators of strong alignment is how closely SDRs and marketing work together.

When SDRs understand campaign intent and are enabled to lead with education such as content, events, insights rather than jumping straight to pushing demos, engagement improves and sales cycles shorten. Industry data shows that accounts influenced by both marketing and SDRs shorten sales cycles by 36% compared to those driven by either function alone.

Just as important, SDRs are a critical feedback loop. Their exposure to real objections, pain points, and buying behavior should directly inform messaging, positioning, and content strategy.

Final Thoughts: An Alignment Checklist You Can Use Today

Marketing and sales alignment is not a one-time initiative. It is an ongoing leadership decision that directly impacts pipeline velocity and revenue efficiency.

Based on the above, here are actions GTM leaders can put in place immediately:

• Review the funnel to identify where deals stall before increasing lead volume
• Set shared success metrics, such as Pipeline, Revenue and deal velocity
• Ensure SDRs are fully enabled with campaign context, content, and events
• Audit your tech stack and reallocate spend from unused tools into GTM activity
• If budgets are tight, prioritize smaller, targeted events over large, expensive sponsorships
• Encourage leaders and customer-facing teams to be active on social channels like LinkedIn, to amplify your company’s message
• Create regular feedback loops between sales, SDRs, and marketing

If you’d like to go deeper, the on-demand webinar Marketing That Keeps Sales Moving Forward, explores these ideas in more detail.

Because when marketing and sales move together, pipeline doesn’t just grow, it moves faster.

The post Marketing that keeps sales moving: a practical guide to marketing and sales alignment appeared first on memoryBlue.

In the first article in this series, I wrote about the organisational chasm that appears when a company shifts from instinct to structure. I have been thinking about that again, particularly the personal side of it. Growth is rarely just an operational change. It is emotional, especially for founders and the people who have backed them.

People often describe founders and private equity investors as if they sit at opposite ends of a very long table. One full of urgency and vision, the other focused on predictability and return. In practice, the distance between them is not as wide as it seems… and when a business is maturing, the real question is not who is right, but how to make both perspectives useful at the same time.

This is where the Chair usually finds themselves, whether they expected it or not.

The founder’s spark

Founder energy is difficult to define, yet you know it when you see it. There is a kind of restless curiosity, a willingness to act before the data is perfect and a clarity about why the company came to exist in the first place. That spark gives young organisations momentum. It also gives people something to believe in.

Over time, though, the same instinct that made the early years exhilarating can become a source of friction. Decisions involve more people. Risks carry different consequences. Teams cannot operate on adrenaline forever. And investors, understandably, want to know that progress will be repeatable rather than accidental.

This is usually the moment when founders start to feel the walls closing in a little. They sense something shifting but cannot always articulate what has changed.

When structure feels personal

It is easy to speak about structure as if it were neutral. It rarely is. A new reporting line or governance routine can feel like commentary on a founder’s capability, even when that is not the intention.

I have seen this play many times. Someone introduces a planning process or a budget discipline and, almost immediately, the founder feels as if a piece of their freedom has gone missing. They rarely say this aloud. You see it in small ways instead… delays, resistance, a certain hesitancy.

The Chair’s job is to help everyone slow down and separate practicality from identity. Structure is not there to narrow the founder’s world. It is there to preserve the founder’s vision by making it easier for others to execute without requiring the founder to be everywhere at once.

Knowing when outside experience is needed

There is a quiet moment in nearly every growing organisation when the founder realises that the company has outpaced their original leadership model. It is rarely dramatic. It feels more like a series of questions that become harder to answer:

• Why is decision-making so slow now?
• Why is the team struggling to deliver at the pace we used to?
• Why am I still in the middle of everything?
• Why do people want to know about ‘strategy’ when we just need to get on and deliver now?
• If it was still my business, I know exactly what I’d do. Why can’t this happen?

It takes honesty to notice these signs and even more courage to act on them. Bringing in outside executives can feel, to a founder, like altering the story they have been telling themselves about the business.

A Chair can help here. Not by forcing the issue, but by offering perspective. Growth brings complexity. Complexity requires capability. None of this diminishes the founder. It simply acknowledges that no one scales alone.

Loyalty, performance and the awkward in-between

One of the most difficult dynamics in a founder-led business is loyalty to early employees. These individuals helped build the company’s culture and carry its institutional memory. Asking whether they are still the right people for the next chapter is uncomfortable… sometimes painful.

Yet it is necessary.

The Chair often plays the role of the honest friend. Not a critic and not a judge, simply someone who says what others are tiptoeing around. What does the organisation need now What skills are truly required What gaps are we choosing not to see

Handled with care, this strengthens relationships. Mishandled, it can fracture them. The difference usually comes down to tone and timing.

Helping founders grow with the business

There is a misconception that founders either “have it” or they do not. In reality, the best founders evolve. They learn to lead through others. They build new habits around communication. They find ways to step back so the organisation can step forward.

This is where a Chair can have the greatest impact. Not through formal programmes, but through steady guidance… a question here, a reflection there, a nudge when needed. You do not change the founder. You help them expand their capacity.

In parallel, you help build a senior team that can operate independently and still stay aligned with the founder’s intent. When that balance works, you see a business shift from effort to momentum.

Holding on to the why

As systems mature and processes take root, there is always a risk that a company becomes efficient but uninspired. The pendulum swings. Everyone focuses on delivery metrics. Meetings become predictable. The organisation feels tidy… perhaps a bit too tidy.

Founder visibility reduces

This is usually the sign that the founder’s original why has slipped into the background. Not intentionally. It just gets crowded out.  Often you hear a murmuring: “Is their heart still in it?”

A Chair must notice this early. Purpose is not the opposite of discipline. It is what gives discipline meaning. A company that remembers it’s “why” tends to make better strategic choices and, interestingly, usually performs better as well.

The ongoing balance

Preserving founder spirit in a PE-owned company is not about choosing between instinct and structure. It is about keeping both alive in the right proportion. Some days this balance is easy. Other days it requires patience from everyone involved.

The Chair stands in the middle of all this, often quietly, making sure the founder does not lose their spark and the organisation does not lose its shape.

In the next essay, I will explore another side of this work… the Chair as translator. Because when pressure builds, someone must help the organisation understand not just what decisions are being made, but why they matter.

The post The balancing act: preserving founder spirit in a PE-owned company appeared first on memoryBlue.

“Let’s revisit this in January.”

I get it. I did the same thing.  Budgets are tight, teams are tired and everyone’s trying to close the year strong. But here’s the truth and I learned it the hard way: if you wait until January to bring on new team members or outsourced sales support, you’re not just losing a quarter. You’re probably losing the first half of your year.

Ramp time is real

New internal team members take the longest to ramp, especially in smaller firms with less management support and technology investment. And outsourced SDRs don’t start producing pipeline the day you sign the contract. There’s onboarding, message alignment, list building, system setup and collaboration with your internal team. Even with a well-run partner, it takes 30–60 days to fully ramp.

If you wait until January to start, that means your team isn’t hitting stride until March…and that’s before you even factor in your own sales cycle.

The math doesn’t lie

If your typical sales cycle is 90 to 120 days, those first opportunities generated in March or April won’t close until late Q2 or even Q3. That means you’ll spend half the year before you see measurable results.

Hiring in Q4 isn’t about getting a head start. It’s about avoiding a late start.

Q1 is for execution, not onboarding

January is when most companies hold their sales kickoffs, launch new plays and roll out territories. It’s the moment when your team aligns around the plan for the year.

If your demand generation team isn’t already trained and in sync, they’ll miss that window and spend Q1 catching up instead of contributing.  Wouldn’t it be a nice change to be ahead at the start of the year?

Public sector sellers can’t afford to wait

For teams selling into government or education, fiscal years typically run from October through September. That means active buying happens from fall through mid-summer.

If you wait until spring to ramp your team, you’re entering the slowest part of that cycle, when agencies are focused on execution, not evaluation. By then, your best window has already closed.

Early alignment pays off

Most companies refresh messaging and enablement materials in early Q1. Bringing your outsourced SDR partner onboard in Q4 ensures they’re part of that process: learning alongside your internal team and ready to hit the ground running once the new campaigns drop.

Less noise, better conversations

December often gets written off as “quiet time,” but it’s one of the most productive periods for outbound. Decision-makers are planning budgets, researching vendors and setting priorities. Inbox volume is lower and conversations tend to be more strategic.

When your competitors go dark, your team can stand out.  While not everyone is working, those that do are more reachable and open to conversations.

Partner momentum starts now

If your go-to-market motion involves partners, remember that most joint campaigns and MDF allocations get locked in during Q4. Having your outsourced SDRs already operational means they can activate those plays as soon as they launch, rather than waiting another quarter to participate.

Talent moves fast in January

January is peak demand season for SDR talent. Everyone’s staffing up at once. Engaging early gives you first pick of talent, start dates and team configurations. Waiting just limits your options.

You can start small and scale fast

Engaging outsourced sales support doesn’t have to mean a huge commitment. Start with a small team, prove the motion, then scale once you see results. What matters is getting the engine in motion now, not in Q2.

Don’t lose half your year

If you need pipeline in Q1, you have to build it in Q4. Waiting until January doesn’t delay the start of the work…it delays the start of your results.

Start now. Train now. Build now. So when the new year hits, your team is already running -not warming up.

The post Waiting until January to get sales ramped? That will cost you a quarter (and a pretty penny). appeared first on memoryBlue.

Our first discussion zeroed in on a classic scaling dilemma: how to hire a VP of sales who truly fits the stage you’re in.

It’s a topic that ties directly to a recent blog from Richard Fifield, our chairman, on what organizations look like at every stage of growth. His piece makes an important point: structure and scale go hand in hand. You can’t hire a VP who’s used to flying a 747 and expect them to thrive while you’re still building the runway. (Read Richard’s post.)

Grit over glamour: Right-sizing leadership hires based on where your organization was our starting theme. For example, during the early stages of a company, there’s a seductive logic to hiring someone who’s “done it at scale.” Big brand, big title, big numbers. But the stories that ended well in our Inner Circle roundtable had a different pattern.

They started with someone who understood the specific mess your stage brings: thin brand, inconsistent pipeline and a CRM held together by duct tape… and who got to work immediately.

As Dan Panesar, CRO at Certes, put it: “No one writes that they’re rubbish.” He doesn’t start with CVs. He probes for stage-fit: same chaos, same resource constraints. “I want to hear how you diagnosed real problems, built from scratch, and got back up in an hour when things went sideways.” His filter? Bounce-back-ability and the willingness to build playbooks without brand air cover.

Forecasting reality: Early in a new VP’s tenure, forecasting misses happen because optimism outruns rigor. “People are like puppies. They get excited about the deal,” one participant said.

That’s why methodology and discipline have to arrive fast: MEDDIC or MEDPIC to enforce discovery quality, exit criteria to prevent stage inflation, and weighted forecasts to keep optimism honest. Some leaders are even layering in AI-assisted deal velocity, not to replace judgment, but to illuminate it: who’s really engaged, who’s gone dark, where the last meaningful touch happened.

Context beats credentials: Compensation came up too, and it’s another example of why reflexes must match stage. Designing plans that reward long-term, value-anchored selling without torching cash is hard. Get it wrong and you either burn runway or teach the wrong behavior.

The best VPs navigate those trade-offs clearly… with finance…not against it.

Bottom line

The right VP of sales for your stage won’t always have the flashiest résumé. Look for grit over glamour: the builder who thrives in ambiguity, installs discipline quickly, and lifts the team’s performance measurably.

The post Hiring the right sales leader for your organization (at each stage) appeared first on memoryBlue.