Erin Balsa

Content Marketing Consultant and Writer 

I build and execute content marketing strategies for sales-led B2B SaaS startups that sell complex, enterprise-ready solutions.

Erin enjoys B2B content marketing, keeping the Halloween spirit alive year-round, and talking about herself in the third person. 

No but really ... 

I've been working in content since 2011 when I landed my first job as an editor. Since then, I've worn a bunch of hats like:

- Content marketing agency leader
- Inc. 5000 B2B SaaS marketing director
- Freelance content strategist, writer, and editor

Over the years, I've written for a bunch of brands you probably know including:

- HubSpot
- Drift
- G2
- Intuit
- And a Fortune 100 that shall not be named

These days, I help marketing teams at B2B SaaS companies (Series A-C) survey a representative sample of their ICP and write a 𝒃𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 original research report that positions their brand as a credible authority — to secure press mentions and close enterprise deals.

If you're ready to publish research that builds trust instead of skepticism, let's chat. And if you just want to connect with a fellow marketing nerd who decorates for Halloween in July, I'm here for that too.

Hausofbold.com

Content Marketing Consultant

I build and execute content marketing strategies for sales-led B2B SaaS startups that sell complex, enterprise-ready solutions. 

Unlike some strategists and agencies, I don't hand you a content strategy and say, "Best of luck!" I ensure your success by helping across four buckets:

▶ People 
▶ Process 
▶ Strategy
▶ Execution 

Learn more and read client testimonials at: hausofbold.com

Anyone else feeling like a bear coming out of hibernation today?

After taking extended time off for the holidays, I'm simply not ready for the onslaught of peppy "Behold my 25 top New Year's resolutions!" posts.

I want less of that and more of this:

- I need a nap but also a marketing strategy. 
- Slowly remembering how to be a professional human.
- Desperately searching for things to say at the start of the Zoom call.
- Pretending to remember what we decided before the break.
- Trying to inspire others while feeling like a potato. 
- Eh, that can probably wait until Wednesday. 

Here's to giving yourself (and others) some grace. 🥂

I help B2B marketers create original research reports

An influencer once posted about how to publish an original research study in a week. 

When I asked a technical question about data analysis, it was clear we weren't talking about the same kind of "research."

I could end the story here because IYKYK. 

But for those of you newer to publishing survey-based research reports, I'll add a pinch of color.

*𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘚𝘢𝘭𝘵 𝘉𝘢𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘫𝘪*

You can NOT publish a 𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 study in a week. 

Even if you collect enough quality responses in two business days — and even if you use AI to analyze the data and surface trends — that leaves you only THREE business days to do everything else:

Report strategy
Survey design
Soft launch
Data cleansing
Human review of AI output
Outline building 
Outline review
Copywriting
Editing
Revisions
Graphic design
Proofreading
More revisions
Autoresponder creation and testing
Nurture campaign creation and testing
Rev ops
Sales enablement
PR
Launch day prep
etc. etc.

Shoot, I spend an entire day writing survey questions!

So yeah, it's possible to publish 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 in a week. But there will be trade-offs, like:

- Potential inclusion of AI hallucinations 
- Rushed survey design that produces obvious, shallow insights
- Limited analysis (no time for meaningful cross tabs or synthesis)
- Weak narrative cohesion that undermines thought leadership
- A report that screams "we built dis 4 leads!"

If your goal is credibility, increased trust, and research that actually shapes the conversation in your space, one week simply won't cut it.

I help B2B marketers create survey-based research reports 📈 Next available report kickoff date → April 6

Turns out the rumors are true. 







Washing machines really DO eat socks. 

I’m enjoying a typical morning of juggling work and home responsibilities. 

Today, the appliance repair guy is here fixing our front load washing machine, which has been leaking due to a rip in the door gasket. 

As the guy was fishing around inside the recesses of the machine, he pulled out a freaking sock. 

45 years old and I’m still learning something new almost every day. 🤭

The most difficult part of transitioning from a retainer-based biz to a project-based biz?

Scheduling 

Survey-based research reports are complex projects with lots of moving pieces. 

And even though I’ve developed — and refined — my report project management template over the past 8 years, scheduling multiple overlapping timebound reports has been surprisingly challenging. 

That said … 

Back in my agency days, I used to manage writer resources for 15+ full-time writers to the 30-MINUTE UNIT! 

Imagine your agency has 350 clients.  Each client gets different types and amounts of content. In order to maximize profits, you need to assign each writer as much work as they can humanly handle — and keep their assignment log full at all times, in spite of frequent delays on the client side. And now imagine that one 30-minute unit is equal to 200 words of “standard content,” 150 words of “premium content,” 100 words of “responsive content,” 1 page of an e-book, a 250-word “gold infographic,” a 500-word “silver infographic,” a 300-word video script (and so on and so forth). 

It was nuts. 🥜 

But that’s the kind of workload I managed — by hand, inside various spreadsheets, long before ChatGPT — for 3.5 years. 

So yeah, scheduling multiple report projects for myself is tricky, but I got this.

No alternative text description for this image

🎬 Behind the scenes of making a Navattic research report 🎬 l

Multiple marketing leaders have told me they love Navattic's reports, so Natalie Marcotullio and I figured it would be cool to show you how Navattic "makes the sausage."

I'll be sharing bits of our 30-minute Q&A across a few different posts.

Erin: When did the idea for your "State of the Interactive Demo Report" first come about?

Natalie: The first report was published in 2023, which means the idea came about in 2022. We kept getting questions from customers and prospects asking for data. When you sell to marketers, they really love data — so it was a no brainer! Let's build a resource that succinctly answers all these questions that we can share whenever someone asks a question.

Erin: What questions were your customers and prospects asking?

Natalie: Customers ask questions like, "How long should I make my demo?" and "What kind of language should I use?" Prospects usually want help making their case internally. So with the benchmarks in hand, they can say to their leadership: "Demos convert at a higher rate than other assets we use," or "If we invest in this, here's what we can expect."

Erin: What was the primary question you were trying to answer when you created your first report?

Natalie: What do top-performing interactive demos have in common? 

Erin: How has that primary question evolved, if at all?

Natalie: In the 2026 report, we're still trying to answer what top-performing interactive demos have in common ... but we're getting more granular. People don't just want to hear how their demo compares against ALL the demos built on Navattic — they want to measure performance within their industry or for their company size. Also, we now have lots more features, and people have specific questions about those. For example, "That extra CTA banner that's always across the demo — is that commonly used in the top 1% of demos?"

👉 Navattic's 2026 State of the Interactive Product Demo 2026 report drops next week. 

Want to be the first to see it?

Get early access here: https://lnkd.in/edZ_e7aJ

Meanwhile in Boston ... 

Just sitting here playing the "Should I try to get some work done even though there are five children in the next room?" game. 

Considering it took me 15 minutes to hear myself think long enough to write this three-word post, I’ll see myself out.

Your research report launched ... and nobody seemed to care. 

What do you do?

Welp, your first instinct might be to stick your head in the sand in shame. Totally understandable. But just know that this is fairly common.

(I recently spoke with a former colleague who spent MONTHS and THOUSANDS on a survey-based research report that didn't do a damn thing for the business.)

Fortunately this is a solvable problem — if you're willing to run a project post-mortem. Here's a simple plan of attack plus the kinds of questions that reveal what went wrong:

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗼𝗻𝗲 - 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱. 

𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘪𝘵?
𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥?
𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵?

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝘁𝘄𝗼 - 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰.

𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘐𝘊𝘗 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵?
𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨?
𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘴?

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 - 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆.

𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?
𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵? 
𝘐𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴, 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮?

𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗿 - 𝗔𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴. 

𝘋𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸?
𝘋𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘦?
𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘢 𝘫𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴?

And if you'd like an outside opinion on where things broke down, I'm always here to help!

The 2026 State of the Interactive Product Demo report just dropped! 👀 

Navattic analyzed the top 1%, 10% and 25% of demos built on their platform to uncover what actually works.

They found that top 1% interactive demos do 7 specific things:

1) They keep it short (5-13 steps).

2) They offer choices. 

Demos that give people options (explore different product lines, personas, or use cases) have a 57% completion rate vs. single-flow demos, which have a 35% completion rate.

3) They get Step One right.

On step one, 29% use "you/your" language, 24% add visual beacons to indicate where users should look, and 15% give explicit instructions. 

4) They use multiple CTAs inside the demo.

Believe it or not, they use 4-5 CTAs per demo on average! Most CTAs are actionable (Try for free, Book a demo, Get started).

5) They deploy interactive demos all over the dang place.

50% of top performers have demos in multiple places:

- Product pages: 62% (up from 19% last year)
- Homepage: 48% (up from 8%)
- Demo centers: 45%

6) They tend to be ungated. 

7) They use HTML/CSS web capture. Web captures refer to HTML/CSS cloning of the front end of your product. This means the demo looks and feels real and you can edit the product data for personalization. 

👉 Download the full report for more helpful insights — like interactive demo performance and adoption by industry! 

Link in the comments.

And keep an eye out for more posts from my "Behind the scenes of making a Navattic research report" interview with Natalie Marcotullio!

Chart from Navattic's State of the Interactive Product Demo report

Yesterday I was a bear coming out of a cave. Today I'm a marketer talking about research reports.

More specifically, how brands do it wrong.

Mistake no. 1: Sloppy methodology.

You may have heard the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out."

If you build your report on a foundation of garbage data, you wind up publishing a garbage report that spreads misinformation.

And that's likely at odds with what you're trying to accomplish as a brand. 

Got 30 seconds? Watch the clip.
Got 30 minutes? Watch the full video. 

Thanks Justin Vajko for inviting me on your podcast!

What's the ROI of a research report?

As I told Justin Vajko, while there's nuance, you should generally see two outcomes:

1) In the short-term, press mentions.

There are three things you gotta get right here. 

- Your research has a newsworthy angle.
- Your report is built on high-quality data.
- You let the market know about your study.

If you get those things right, you should see press hits right away. As an example, one of my clients got a write up in an industry publication with 2.6 million daily readers on day one of their report going live.

2) In the longer-term, deal impact.

It generally takes a couple of months to see deals you can confidently attribute to the report, which is why I check in with my clients at the 3-month mark.

At the time of this recording, the same client had just told me that their report had already influenced a few enterprise deals and a few renewals.

Enterprise deals are big, and they take time. 

If the report was that one thing that helped buyers think, "This brand gets it. They seem credible," then I've done my job. 

👉 Liked this clip? Check out the full interview where I explain my approach: Believable Research.  

I'll drop the link in the comments as per usual.

My face when I see someone make sweeping claims about an industry based on their survey of 50 people.

(jk jk — I’m not here to judge, I’m here to help.)

If your survey sample was itsy bitsy teeny weeny, don't present your findings using words like:

everyone
no one
all

That's like walking into a room where all 50 people are wearing Nike sneakers and declaring, "Everyone wears Nike sneakers!" 

No. 

Everyone in that ROOM wears Nike sneakers.

There’s nothing wrong with surveying a small group and sharing what you found. It's a great way to spark interesting conversations on social. 

Just don't frame your findings as universal truths.

Instead, use language like:

"Of the 50 senior leaders we surveyed ... "
"The majority of respondents said ... "
"1 in 3 surveyed BDRs ... "

That way you come across as credible instead of just another vendor who stretches the truth to push their narrative and sell shit.

Ideometry

Connect with Ideometry, an agency that jump-starts your marketing, extends your brand, and builds full-scale campaign strategies that create engagement, generate leads, and drive sales.

Co-Owner

Marketers in Demand

B2B marketing for small, scrappy teams. Marketers in Demand is a collection of agencies including New North, Motion, and Spoke. We all work together to help marketing teams do more with less.

Co-Founder

New North

The B2B marketing agency that actually rolls up its sleeves. Content. Paid. ABM. Reporting. Get the right mix of services for your scrappy B2B tech marketing team.

Motion

Own the media. Own the market.™ Done-for-you video series and podcasts for small scrappy B2B marketing teams. We plan, create, and manage content you’re proud to share with customers.

Spoke

We turn your best recordings into your most profitable content. Transform recordings into high-quality blog posts, white papers, ebooks, dynamic videos, social images and more.

522 Productions

As the Co-Founder of 522 Productions I was accountable for all major functions of the business including Sales & Marketing, Operations, Finance, Legal and HR

Docs In Progress

Board Member, Treasurer

Oracle Corporation

Sr. Consultant

IBM Global Services

Consultant

PricewaterhouseCoopers

WHAT I DO: As the Co-Founder of Marketers in Demand, I help small marketing teams at B2B technology companies do more with less. Our holding company consists of three agencies: New North, Motion, and Spoke.  

At New North, we provide your company with a full marketing engine, connecting the dots between content creation, paid media, ABM, and reporting.

At Motion, we build your owned media program with video series and podcast production services.

And with Spoke, we turn your best conversations into high-quality blog posts, white papers, ebooks, dynamic videos, social images and more.

WHO I WORK WITH: I specialize in working with small marketing teams at B2B technology companies. These are teams of less than 4 or 5 people, often stretched thin and pulled in a million directions. They understand the value of a comprehensive marketing strategy but lack the time or resources to implement it effectively.

MY BACKGROUND: My early career in consulting at large firms like Oracle and IBM taught me the challenges of articulating the value of technology. To overcome these, I pursued an MBA in Marketing and launched a video production company, which I led to the Inc. 5000 list before selling my stake. Now, I'm leading the work at Marketers in Demand and help coordinate resources across all of our agencies. In 2024, I helped lead Marketers in Demand to the Inc. 5000 list as well.

CONTACT ME: Connect with me here on LinkedIn or send me an email at tristan.pelligrino@newnorth.com

Tristan Pelligrino

Most agencies are stuck building tools in spreadsheets. Over the holiday break, I stumbled onto something better.

As an agency owner, I've tried everything to build internal applications:

→ Quickbase
→ Bubble
→ Notion
→ WordPress plugins
→ ClickUp + Zapier + Google Sheets + Slack notifications + [insert whatever other tool]

I've also been talking with other agency owners facing the same problem: they want custom tools that match their business process but can't justify hiring developers.

So they end up with Frankenstein spreadsheets that break every quarter. A zap doesn't fire. An automation gets corrupted. Someone links to the wrong Google Sheet.

Or worse—they overextend by paying $50K+ for enterprise software that does 70% of what they need and 0% of what makes them unique.

For the last few months, I've been building in Cursor and deploying via Render with Supabase as the database. Then over the break, I picked up Claude Code.

The breakthrough wasn't just Claude Code (though it's impressive). It was the combination: Claude Code for backend logic + Lovable for frontend UI.

I have them working in tandem—using each to cross-check the other.

Here's what I've built so far with this stack:

→ Client reporting dashboards pulling from 6 different data sources
→ Content inspiration & trends agent that crawls reddit, twitter and specific websites
→ A private market snapshot tool for agency founders
→ An agency optionality blueprint

Claude Code handles the heavy lifting—data processing, business logic, integrations. Lovable makes it look professional and actually usable, with clean Google OAuth that works with Supabase out of the box.

Total cost: ~$350/month (Claude Max, Render, Supabase, Lovable).
Development time: Days, not months.
Maintenance: Minimal.

I'm not suggesting agencies become software companies.

But every agency has workflows too complex for spreadsheets and too specific for off-the-shelf tools. At this point, it's easier to build an application around your existing workflow than to change your business process.

This stack lets you build exactly what you need without hiring a dev team or waiting 18 months for vendor customizations.

The agencies winning on operations aren't using better spreadsheets. They're building tools designed for their exact processes.

Partner @ Aragon Holdings | Acquiring Founder-Led Agencies | 3x Inc. 5000 Entrepreneur | Co-Founder @ Marketers in Demand

Everyone's talking about AI making agencies "leaner." But I saw this thing called Jevons Paradox that states the opposite.

In the 1800s, an economist noticed something weird: when steam engines got more efficient at burning coal, coal consumption didn’t drop. It exploded.

Why? Because efficiency doesn’t just reduce cost. It unlocks demand that wasn’t possible before.

Most agency owners I talk to are thinking about AI backwards.

They’re asking: “How many people can I cut if AI handles X?”

Wrong question.

I believe this is a better question: “What couldn’t we do before that we can do now?”

Across our agencies, we’re not using AI to shrink. We’re using it to offer things that weren’t feasible 18 months ago:

→ Real-time customer portals so clients see exactly where their projects stand
→ Standardized meeting minutes delivered within hours, not days
→ Automatic logging of every paid media change and why it was made
→ On-demand status reporting instead of waiting for the monthly call
→ Automated leadership reports and account status reports (on-demand)

None of these cut headcount. 

Efficiency doesn’t shrink agencies. It expands what’s possible.

We have an entire roadmap of additional initiatives for '26.

The agencies that win in the next 3-5 years won’t be the ones who used AI to cut costs. They’ll be the ones who used it to serve clients in ways that weren’t economically viable before.

The constraint was never ambition. It was capacity.

That constraint is disappearing.

I'm launching a newsletter for agency owners who are tired of growth advice from people who've never signed a payroll check.

It's called The Aragon Holdings Newsletter. No catchy name. No separate brand. Simple.

Here's who it's for:

You run a marketing agency between $500K and $3M in revenue. You're founder-led. You're probably doing most things right but a few things are quietly breaking. You see a ton of opportunity, but feel the daily grind. And you're not sure if you should scale, hold, or start thinking about an exit.

I've spent the last 4+ years evaluating over 100 agencies and doing multiple deals. 

I also operate multiple agencies day-to-day.

That means I see both sides—what founders think matters and what actually moves the needle when it's time to grow, professionalize, or sell.

Every issue has four sections:

The Signal — One personal insight or experience that cuts through the noise
The Lever — A tactical framework you can use now
The Market Pulse — What I'm seeing across the agencies I run and evaluate
The Next Move — One action to consider this week

No fluff. No "10x your revenue" nonsense. Just what's actually working from someone in the space.

First issue comes out tomorrow morning.

I'm wide open for ideas, questions, etc. to incorporate in future issues. 

Link in comments to subscribe.

Agency owners hit the same wall around $1M in revenue.

You can't do both delivery AND growth anymore.

Up until this point, you've been wearing every hat. Managing client delivery, jumping on calls when projects go sideways, AND handling business development, strategic planning, and new client acquisition.

It worked when you had 3 clients and 5 team members.

It doesn't work when you have 12 clients and 15 team members.

Here's what I've seen happen as I’ve done several agency acquisitions:

The owners who try to keep doing both hit a ceiling. Hard.

→ They're constantly in reactive mode, firefighting delivery issues
→ Business development becomes sporadic—feast or famine cycles
→ Strategic initiatives get pushed to "next quarter" indefinitely
→ They become the bottleneck for every major decision
→ Growth stalls, margins compress, and stress levels explode

The agencies that break through make a choice.

Option 1: Focus on delivery and operations
Hire a Head of Business Development or fractional VP of Sales. Let's face it, agencies require biz dev, not just bursts of SEO or PPC initiatives. Your job then becomes systems, processes, team development, and ensuring quality delivery.

Option 2: Focus on business development and strategy
Promote or hire a Director of Operations. Your job becomes new business, strategic partnerships, market positioning, and high-level planning.

Either choice works. What doesn't work is trying to do both.

The more interviews I do with agency founders, the more I see the same pattern.

The constraint isn't time—it's focus.

Make the choice that plays to your strengths. Then build the other side of the business around people who excel where you don't.

The one weakness I see in almost every agency under $3M: They don’t know where their cash is going.

Most founders at this stage can tell you their revenue.
Some can tell you their profit margin.
Almost none can tell you their cash position 90 days from now.

And it’s the number that actually matters.

Revenue is a story.
Profit is an opinion.
Cash is a fact.

I’ve looked at over 100 agencies in the $500K–$3M range in the last few years. The pattern is consistent:

- No rolling cash flow forecast
- No clear picture of receivables timing
- No plan for what happens when a big client pays late—or leaves

Most agency owners fly blind and call it “gut instinct.”

Here’s why this kills agencies:

You can be profitable on paper and still miss payroll.

You can have your best revenue month ever and still not cover a tax bill you forgot was coming.

Cash flow issues don’t announce themselves. They compound quietly until you’re scrambling.

The fix isn’t complicated:

Build a 13-week rolling cash flow forecast. Update it weekly. Know exactly what’s coming in, what’s going out, and where the gaps are.

It takes an hour a week and removes 90% of the financial anxiety that keeps founders up at night.

If you can’t see 90 days ahead, you’re not running your agency. You’re just reacting to it.

I used to think agencies got stuck at $500K-$1M because of operational issues.

Better systems. Clearer processes. More disciplined project management.

After evaluating dozens of agencies in this range, I've changed my mind.

The real barrier isn't operational. It's psychological.

Every founder who's broken through to $2M+ has one thing in common: they increased their risk tolerance right when it felt most dangerous to do so.

The agencies that stay stuck? They optimize what's already working instead of betting on what could work.

They won't hire an ops leader before they "need" one. They stick to proven marketing channels instead of testing new ones. They avoid service lines that require upfront investment.

I get it. At $750K in revenue, you've built something real. Taking bigger risks feels like gambling with what you've already earned.

But here's what I've observed: the founders who make it past $1M don't wait for certainty. They get comfortable placing bigger bets with the information they have available.

The first time I did this myself? I was able to get my first agency on the Inc. 5000 by hiring a head of sales. Without that investment, I would have been stuck closing deals on my own at a max $1.25 - $1.5M per year.

It's not about reckless bets. It's the calculated ones.

What have you seen from other agency owners? How do you evaluate risks?

When it comes to agency strategic planning, I get into a lot of dialogue around EOS.

For those not familiar, EOS is the Entrepreneurial Operating System. It's a set of tools & frameworks that structure how you run a company.

But with agencies, it's not always clear WHEN to use EOS or WHY. 

I come across owners asking:

"When should we start using it?" 
"Is our agency too small?" 
"Should we wait until we hit $2M?"

Most consultants will tell you to wait. EOS is designed for companies with $2M+ revenue and 10-15+ team members. That's the conventional wisdom. 

Most will tell you it's too much infrastructure when you're small.

I ignored this logic completely.

9 years ago, when we were building Motion, I implemented EOS from day one. We were nowhere near $2M. We didn't have 15 people. Hell, we barely had a real business yet.

But here's what I learned: having any framework beats having no framework.

It's not about EOS being perfect for early-stage agencies. It's about consistency. When you're small, you make decisions reactively. You plan when you remember to plan. You set goals when things feel chaotic.

A framework forces rhythm. Quarterly planning happens every quarter, not when you feel like it. Annual planning actually happens annually. Long-term thinking gets time on the calendar instead of getting pushed aside by client fires.

EOS gave us structure when everything else was fluid. And honestly, the specific system mattered less than just picking one and sticking with it.

I see too many agency founders waiting for the "right time" to get organized. Meanwhile, they're burning cycles on inconsistent processes and wondering why growth feels so messy.

Anyone else implement systems way earlier than the experts recommended? Curious what worked and what felt like overkill.

P.S. - How did your 2026 strategic planning go?

Every agency I’ve evaluated for an acquisition is different.

Different service mix. Different client base. Different founder personality. Different reason they’re even considering a sale.

Early on, that used to overwhelm me.

I’d approach each deal like it was brand new. Custom analysis. Custom structure. Custom everything.

It was exhausting — and I missed things.

Here’s what changed:

• I stopped trying to make the process itself unique and started building a repeatable system around acquisitions.
• Standard intake questions.
• Consistent financial analysis framework.
• Clear criteria for what moves forward and what doesn’t.
• Methodology for crafting pro forma financials (and what variables drive "best case" and "worst case").
• Consistent deal summary to share with partners and investors.

Not because every agency is the same. They’re not.

But because having a process for the predictable stuff frees you up to focus on what actually matters — the unique aspects of each deal.

• What’s the founder’s real motivation?
• Where’s the hidden risk in this specific client mix?
• What team members are driving the agency forward—beyond what the founder is contributing?
• How does this agency fit into the broader hold co. vision?
• What’s the right structure for this particular situation (there are hundreds of different ways to get a deal done)?
  
Those are the questions that make or break a deal. 

And you can’t think clearly about them if you’re reinventing your spreadsheet every time.

If this type of stuff interests you and you're wondering how agency deals get done, I'll be writing more about it in a newsletter I'm launching. Hit me up and I'll add you to the list for the first issue.

I used to feel guilty every time I stepped away from client work to focus on operations.

Like I was abandoning the team. Like I was becoming one of those founders who gets disconnected from the real work.

I'd catch myself in spreadsheets or reviewing financials and think: "My team is grinding on deliverables while I'm over here playing with numbers."

That guilt really got to me with my first agency venture.

Here's what I figured out after acquiring several agencies and seeing this pattern over and over:

Founders who don't understand their operations, financials, and risk exposure aren't protecting their teams—they're putting them in danger.

→ You can't insulate your agency from market shifts if you don't know your numbers.
→ You can't make smart hiring decisions if you don't understand cash flow cycles.
→ You can't negotiate better deals or spot warning signs if you're not tracking the right metrics.

The founder who stays buried in client work feels noble. But when that agency hits a rough patch—and they all do—that same founder has no visibility into what's actually broken or how to fix it.

Meanwhile, the team is wondering why leadership seems reactive instead of strategic.

Stepping back from delivery isn't selling out. It's stepping up.

Anyone else struggle with this dynamic? I'm curious how other founders made that mental shift.

As an agency, growing your biggest clients sounds smart. Until it isn’t.

Agency consultants love the “expand existing accounts” playbook.

And honestly? They’re not wrong. Upsells are efficient. The trust is already there. The sales cycle is shorter.

But there’s a point where smart growth turns into dangerous concentration.

I’ve seen it happen:

A $4K/month client grows to $20K.
Then you do it again with another.
Now your top 2 clients are 40% of revenue.

On paper, you’ve grown.
In reality, you’ve created a fragile agency.

Here’s the rule I use: No single client should exceed 10% of revenue.

Past that threshold, you’re not growing—you’re playing with fire. 

Because when that big client leaves (and eventually, one will and it’ll probably be out of your control), you’re not just losing revenue. 

You’re battling cash flow issues. You’re facing layoffs. You’re losing institutional knowledge. You’re scrambling to backfill while morale craters.

The agency gurus & consultants pushing aggressive account expansion aren’t thinking about this. They’re optimizing for quick wins that look good in a 90-day engagement.

The better approach:

Upsell, yes. But set a ceiling.

When an account hits 10%, stop expanding and start diversifying.

Add new clients instead of new scope.

It’s slower. It’s less exciting. But it’s what builds an agency that isn’t one phone call away from a crisis.

With AI workflows, I see a lot of agencies trying to automate chaos.

Here's what I see when I evaluate agencies for acquisition:

Every client gets a "custom" strategy. Every deliverable is built from scratch. Every process is reinvented.

Agencies wear this as a badge of honor. "We're bespoke. We're consultative. We don't use templates."

But here's the reality: You can't scale chaos. And you definitely can't automate it.

The agencies that are actually winning with AI have done something first: they've normalized their data.

Take paid media planning. Most agencies create a unique plan for every client.

The better approach:

Break it into components. 

→ Audience definitions & segmentation (who's the audience and how do we break apart our approach)
→ Budget allocation (how do we prioritize creatives across platforms)
→ Channel selection (what's our plan for different channels, what's the priority)
→ Creative strategy (what's the messaging and mediums we're using to share with audiences)
→ Performance benchmarks (what are the historical metrics we're starting from)
→ Reporting processes (where's the data, how frequently is it curated/analyzed)

These elements, or variations of them, exist in every plan. The variables change, but the framework stays consistent.

Now you can build once and apply everywhere. This is what gives you higher quality and consistent production.

And this is what unlocks the ability to layer workflows on top.

But you can't jump into n8n if your data lives in 47 different formats across 23 different tools.

Standardization isn't the enemy of customization. It's what makes real customization feasible.

The agencies that figure this out first will have an operational advantage that's nearly impossible to catch.

Here's the rule to think about: Before you ask what AI can do for your agency, ask what your agency needs to standardize for AI.

Pretty standard take in the agency acquisition world:

“If the business largely depends on the founder, it’s not really sellable.”

I’ve said versions of this myself.

But it’s not the full picture. 

A founder-dependent agency isn’t worthless. It’s just valued differently.

Here’s the reframe:

If the founder IS the product (👉the relationships, the expertise, the sales engine), then the deal structure needs to reflect that.

That’s where acquihires and earn-outs come in.

Acquihire: You’re not buying the business. You’re buying the founder and their team. The “acquisition” is really a hiring event with extra steps. The value is the talent, not the entity.

Earn-out: The founder stays on for 1–3 years. A portion of the purchase price is tied to performance. The buyer gets continuity and reduced risk. The founder gets a path to exit while proving the business can transition.

Are these structures as clean as buying a fully systematized agency? No.

Is the multiple as high? Rarely.

Is there a ton of cash offered at close with no performance requirements? Typically not. 

But here’s what I’ve learned after 100+ evaluations of agencies:

Some of the best agencies I’ve seen are founder-dependent. The founder is highly skilled. The client relationships are deep. The work is exceptional.

They’re not unsellable. They just require a buyer who’s willing to structure around reality instead of waiting for a perfect asset that doesn’t exist.

If you’ve built something valuable but it still runs through you — that’s not a disqualifier.

It’s a conversation about deal structure and setting realistic expectations.

AI isn’t coming for agencies. It’s already here. 

The question is what you do about it.

I’ve been in a lot of conversations with agency founders trying to figure this out. 

Some are paralyzed. Some are moving fast. 

Most are somewhere in between — experimenting but unsure what’s actually working.

Here’s what I’m seeing from the agencies that are evolving well:

1. Start with operations, not delivery.

Before you overhaul how you serve clients, look at your internal workflows. Reporting. Research. First drafts. QA. There’s usually low-hanging fruit that saves hours without touching the client experience. Experiment internally before creating friction with clients.

2. Audit your services for AI leverage.

Not everything changes equally. Some of your offerings will be commoditized. Others will become more valuable because they require judgment, taste, or relationships AI can’t replace. Know which is which.

3. Protect your margin — don’t just pass savings to clients.

If AI lets you do something in 2 hours instead of 10, that’s not automatically a discount for the client. That’s margin. The agencies winning right now are capturing efficiency gains, not necessarily giving them away. Instead, invest the extra time to improve your service and offer more than before.

4. Upskill before you downsize.

The instinct is to cut headcount. But the better move might be training your team to work alongside AI — making them more leveraged instead of more replaceable. 

5. Talk to your clients before they talk to you.

Clients are wondering what AI means for what they’re paying you. They wonder how you're using AI to give them more value. Get ahead of it. Show them you’re evolving. Silence creates suspicion.

6. Revisit your pricing model.

Hourly billing is getting harder to justify. Retainers and value-based pricing make more sense when delivery gets faster. If you haven’t rethought pricing yet, now’s the time.

None of this is a complete playbook. It’s evolving too fast for that.

But standing still isn’t an option.

The agencies that figure this out will be more profitable and more valuable.

The ones that don’t will be wondering what happened.

taplio

The Battle

Erin Balsa

Tristan Pelligrino

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreErin Balsa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreTristan Pelligrino's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Erin Balsa

Tristan Pelligrino

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Erin Balsa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreTristan Pelligrino's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreErin Balsa's LinkedIn Performance