Liam Moroney

MarTech

Contributing Writer

Storybook Marketing

Owner

Revenue Collective

Member

Suas Marketing

Founder

RevGenius

Notarize

SVP Revenue Marketing

Vibes

VP Revenue Marketing

Rocketrip

VP, Marketing

Techstars

Mentor

Monetate 

Sr. Director, Growth Marketing

Co-Founder, Storybook Marketing | Full-service demand generation agency

I lead Storybook Marketing, a consultancy that specializes in brand marketing strategy, to help companies become the brand that buyers think of, using an evidence-based approach to marketing.

We offer customized services, consulting, team workshops and training, to level up marketing programs so they are capturing market share and not just leads.

Meaningful product differentiation is always a temporary thing as competitors inevitably catch up, but it's also what gives rise to brands and even categories in the first place.

And, more importantly, it's also often a matter of pure semantic classification.

The big debate in marketing about whether distinctiveness is what really matters over differentiation, in my opinion, has a blind spot that comes from looking from the perspective of large brands in established categories. 

In the earlier days of product and category lifecycles, there is often real differentiation. There has to be or we'd never see new products.

But when products deliver value in their differentiation and gain market traction, it doesn't just disappear through more competition - it also evolves the category classifications themselves, which eliminates differentiation far more and in permanent ways.

Take the simplistic example of the milk category, where the release of non-dairy options brings clearly differentiated options - so long as the buyer considers them all in the mental category of milk.

Some options gain more popularity than others, which gives rise to new category classifications as marketers think of them - suddenly there is dairy and plant-based, possibly narrower again in the form of nut milks, and thus there is less differentiation as we see them in new groups.

But that doesn't guarantee that buyers mentally classify that way, and when they stop thinking of them as one category is subjective and a condition of category maturity.

The pedantic point is that once categories mature, whether it's milk or enterprise ERP solutions, once we create new classifications and categories of COURSE it makes differentiation a moot point.

But it doesn't mean it doesn't matter on the path to growth. 

It's not unlike evolution, where subtle change is common until one day it's meaningful enough and widespread enough to become its own species. Then, suddenly and because of a classification, everyone in that species is more similar than they are different.

But, all things evolve, including markets.

Brand Marketer | Storybook Marketing | MarTech contributor

Much as we’d like it to be, marketing is not deterministic or meritocratic.

Great ideas and execution often fail, and mediocre ones can thrive - the common variable is the conditions in which the marketing happens. 

Yet so much of marketing advice and thinking, from downloadable playbooks to reputable marketing science bestsellers, talk about how to grow as though it will happen so long as you follow their advice.

We see discussions asking “what’s still working in marketing?” and books explaining how brands grow, but neither tends to include the critical addendums of “in these current conditions” or “under the right conditions”.

It’s become a lost persepctive in much of marketing to begin with an understanding of the market before getting tactical.

Instead, growth is attempted from the inside out. 

Rather than trying to understand how many people might be buying a tool like ours or solving a problems like we solve, we pay technology and ad vendors to simply find them by monitoring behavior that might resemble buying. 

Rather than trying to balance how much we advertise with the brand exposures that our audience are receiving from competing solutions, our attribution tools instead talk about how many days it will take or how many exposures we need in order to turn someone into a buyer. 

When we operate from this position, we end up seeing our CAC and ROI change but lack any context about what might be causing it.

We stare down the barrel of big quarterly targets, often without any clue if the conditions are favoring us getting there, instead being treated like we’re doing less effective work in which we hold all the cards and control all the variables.

None of this is to say that marketing is futile and growth impossible, but to say that growth is conditional and situational. 

If have have amazing conditions giving us a tailwind, we can see amazing things with relative ease, but we have to act very differently if the conditions aren’t as favorable. 

Great businesses closed during Covid, not because of their poor marketing but because extreme conditions came their way without warning. Similarly, many online businesses were overcome with demand they certainly didn’t generate.

Does it make one better than the other - of course not. In fact, both may well have been running identical plays.

This is the nature of markets.

We can’t control them, or even predict them, but we can better understand them. 

And I truly believe that those who see the world from that bigger market position are best set up to make effective decisions about marketing strategy.

If we accept that mental availability is what’s needed in order to grow a brand, then we also have to put that into the context of the zero-sum market it needs to happen in.

The main reason that brand awareness alone doesn’t guarantee growth is because that awareness needs to be connected to and recalled during buying situations.

Otherwise, it’s just a brand you’ve heard of but never think of, and that’s much of where mental availability has come to popularity. 

But because buyers typically only hold a few brands in their mental consideration set, being recalled during more situations also means someone else needs to be recalled less.

And that is a very non-trivial part of the equation, because it means the efficacy of our efforts are directly affected by the efforts or our competitors.

If, while we’re putting effort into reaching the broadest audience with our distinctive assets, creating associations with Category Entry Points (CEPs), then we also have to be balancing that with how much everyone else is doing the same. 

Because if everyone else is matching our reach efforts, then nothing is likely to change much. 

That’s where the thinking of Les Binet and Peter Field still has so much relevance - Excess Share of Voice (ESOV) is a major variable because we need to be upsetting the balance of things if we are to change the balance of things.

One of marketing’s biggest flaws, I believe, is in how often we forgot that our efforts are part of a complex system. 

Just because someone likes our ad and finds it funny doesn’t mean they’ll buy us over the competition they hear about much more often. Just because they come to recognize our brand assets doesn’t mean they’ll think of it more unless it’s more familiar AND more seen and experienced than before.

That’s a function of reach, but crucially in relation to the reach of alternatives.

It’s also why I’ve come to be much more partial to Dale W. Harrison’s Brand Recall at Purchase (BRaP) because it is a much more clear reminder that we’re trying to enter an exclusive and zero-sum position. 

Marketing needs to be grounded to the rules of the market, because it’s all to easy to see our jobs as to increase what we think of as a static and isolated thing, be it brand awareness, mental availability, created demand, or some other concept. 

In reality, we’re always trying to take up space and upset the status quo - in how often buyers hear about brands and in who they recall. 

We grow through disruption of the current order, and that only happens when our efforts are directly weighed against them.

It’s often said in B2B tech that marketing’s job is to make sales easier, and I see that as a deep-rooted problem. 

Not just because of how self-minimizing this perspective is, but how strategically limiting. 

In a world where marketing has been reduced to just promotion, this mindset of a sales support function is somehow even more narrow. 

And that narrowness affects our thinking, where we don’t even ask the kinds of questions we might with 4P thinking.

Questions like: 

❓ Do we actually need a sales team?

❓ Are we organised around how we want to sell instead of how customers want to buy?

Of course, the answer is very often yes to needing sales, but the question is something which should be possible to ask, if not essential. 

It is often exactly the kind of question that is needed to be asked when brands are trying to carve out a part of the market for themselves. 

The books are littered with these questions, too: 

Dyson asked “do vacuum cleaners even need a bag?” 

Apple asked if smartphones even needed physical keyboards. 

Netflix asked if rentals needed a store. 

Salesforce asked if software needed to be installed. 

Saturn asked if buying a car needed to be such a negotiation. 

And Carvana and Tesla, back to the core point, asked if it needed sales at all. 

For sure, these brands might not been the only people asking these questions, or even the first to answer it, but the decision to answer comes from thinking about how best to serve the customer. 

Not how best to serve sales.

Marketing strategy should ultimately start from the market-level, but the truth is we've pushed out much of that ability. 

With the reduction of marketing to just promotion, with the hyper-focus on performance, and with the way we judge marketing in measurement. 

We instead reward marketing that is doing the least amount possible to get a conversion, and for that marketing to be happening at a micro level. 

It's only further deepened with how much of marketing has become some form of "GTM Engineering", collecting data until we spot possible signs of buying and hoping that we can squeeze in at the last minute. 

But this type of marketing doesn't grow brands into market leaders, and it becomes very ineffective and inefficient when the market isn't booming. 

What changes markets is disruption at the macro level.

Brands who take up more space in the world, own more Share of Voice, and shift the balance of perception. 

The thinking and work of Les Binet and Peter Field on how Excess Share of Voice (ESOV) is every bit as relevant as it was when released a decade ago - maybe even more so when underlying growth has slowed in many categories.

Buyers choose the brands they think of, and they think of the brands they see and hear most about. 

The industry obsession with getting a placement in an LLM answer is assuming that buyers are blank slates and completely unaware of the category, which is not true, and completely the opposite to what research like Kerry Cunningham and the 6sense Buyer Experience Reports are showing. 

Most buyers form their consideration sets through their experience of being in the world and by how much those brands are present in them. 

That's the reality of the market, and why markets are slow to change.

Those who can't see and understand the full market picture are heavily disadvantaged in changing it.

Everybody likes a big swing ad campaign that draws huge views and social chatter, but what always matters is whether it changes buying behavior.

That's true for both the short-term and long-term effects.

One really interesting example of this is the now infamous "Snoop Goes Smokeless" campaign that resulted in the Solo Stove CEO stepping down.

In Adland it was celebrated, winning Cannes Lions, Clios, Webbys and more. It placed no 18 in Ad Age's 40 Best Ads of 2023, and it drove huge earned media metrics - 19.5 billion impressions.

What it didn't drive, however, were sales. 

In the financial reports, Q4 sales around the campaign ended up down 16.2%, a result that was bad enough to get the CEO to resign.

But, Adland didn't accept that it was a failure, talking about how it was a "top-of-the-funnel" awareness initiative, not designed for immediate, short-term sales conversions.

Except it didn't do that, either.

The Branded Search data tells a really clear picture here, and one that aligns with the company financials. 

That same quarter, where sales were down 16%, the brand search fell similar amounts compared to the year prior. And that didn't pick up as time went on. In fact, the picture is even worse now, with November 2024 down nearly 40%.

This is where brand marketing often gets into real trouble - if nothing positive happens in the short-term it probably won't in the long-term either.

When we measure big brand campaigns, looking at all the earned media and attention it got in the moment, we need to anchor that to something tangible in buying interest and behavior.

It's of course true that we put too much of the measurement value in how many sales happened in the immediate, but long-term brand impact still has to be rooted in something.

And, usually, short-term and long-term aren't anywhere near as divided as the Adland narratives make them out to be.

Category disruption is certainly not reserved for the tech industry alone. 

Real disruption - the kind that changes market share - is definitely not a common thing, but it does happen in young categories or ones experiencing strong underlying growth that ends up attracting competition.

But, the competition typically needs to be coming with either strong funding, reach, distribution, or all of the above for it to make real dents.

One really interesting category that shows how different kinds of brands can accomplish this, however, is non-alcoholic beer.

Below is a snapshot from the US market, using Share of Search and validated against real reported market share data. 

A fast growing category, the space has been steadily owned by Athletic Brewing, even against legacy beer brands, where it has owned about 20% of the market closely followed by Heineken 0.0 at about 18%.

This picture follows closely in the search data, despite it not being a product category that gets purchased online, which shows how well it acts as a brand proxy.

But, since late 2024, this category has been dramatically changed with two very different entrants.

The first was Bero, a brand owned by actor Tom Holland, and which has been getting heavy promotion through is celebrity along with advertising efforts on social media.

The initial surge in attention shows up clearly on the SoS view, and while the initial buzz has faded the brand has kept a presence with sales reaching $10m already (compared to Athletic Brewing's $100m 2024 revenue), making it a real player in the space and quickly.

The other brand was Michelob Ultra Zero, which came roaring into 2025 with all the distribution power that Anheuser-Busch has to offer, and it has reached 7% market share already by its own press release claims.

Two very different brands, but one common element - major reach ability at their disposal. 

How the category will look in 2026 is anyone's guess but, as a fan and consumer of Athletic, they are in for different competitive landscape, as their own search is trending down and new players are coming in strong, and with legacy beers all aiming for more of the market.

It is the very definition of disruption, and Share of Search data can paint a powerful picture that correlates with the financial reality.

And if you'd like to see how Storybook can build a view for your category, just send me a DM or fill out a form on the site.

Share of Voice (SOV) is not a concept you hear as often anymore, because performance marketing has shifted so much of our thinking towards precision. 

We think instead about how we can reach the exact right people at the exact right moments, but the space we take up in the world with our marketing is genuinely important. 

The reason that big brands tend to stay big is ultimately a structural one. 

The brand's share helps them to take up a lot of space in the world, both in the word of mouth generated by their existing share as well as the literal exposures caused by being there. And on top of that is their marketing spend to keep them visible and increase that visibility farther. 

This is why performance marketing hits very quick plateaus, too, since all of this structural advantage is what we would need to overcome in order to take share away from them.

That's what Share of Voice ultimately is - how much space we take up relative to competition, and how big that occupied space makes us seem when people are weighing options.

What makes it hard is that it need to be sustained - a one take LinkedIn takeover change the world much if most of those who see it won't be in-market for months or even years because it will be long forgotten. 

Share of Voice matters over the longer term, and to occupy a bigger SOV for any meaningful amount of time requires either healthy capital or a thoughtful segmentation approach to make budget go farther.

Markets are changed when they are disrupted, and that doesn't happen in hyper-targeted, last-minute message focused on conversion.

My big passion with Storybook is about giving strategic shape to brand.

One of the big reasons that I believe brand gets underinvested is because the way our measurement has been set up favors short-term direct response efforts and causes brand marketing ones to look fuzzy and expendable.

I still see the narrative on LinkedIn from prominent voices that brand is what you earn the right to do after you get the demand gen numbers in a good place.

But that's a false dichotomy - often the very reason for the decline in performance marketing numbers is because of underlying issues that brand efforts needs to address.

Here's one example of where a tangible brand picture can tell a critical story.

The brand in question, when looked at through the lens of branded search, has been in decline for several years, especially within is key markets. 

That alone creates potential performance marketing problems, as there are simply fewer people searching for the brand quarter over quarter, which means automatic inclusion in fewer deals through Brand Recall at Purchase (BRaP) (credit to Dale W. Harrison for the term).

But that story becomes even more contextual when we look at the other competitors in the cohort, building a Share of Search view. 

The brand decline is not category-wide, in fact even looking at the search volume it's clear that the branded search has been transferred to the others, who had all been seeing growth over the last 4 years.

But, in 2024 something dramatic happened to an already challenging picture - one of the main competitors was acquired by a global brand.

Suddenly, there was a massive shift in the available reach and resources for that brand, and the search volume picture has shifted in quite extreme ways. 

Often acquisitions create initial spikes in interest but return to normal, but that's not what has happened here. In fact, the divide has only increased.

Now, there's no doubt a lot of extra context that could be missing here that explains the story, but objectively, our brand in question is facing very different and compounding challenges, and we can see that all in very tangible form in pictures like this.

When we have access to this information, we can much better make decisions about how we invest our marketing dollars, and how much needs to be allocated to brand and performance.

This, in my opinion, gives CMOs a truly strategic view that puts them in a position to drive the strategy, and in cases like this it might very well be crucial to success.

With the Semrush acquisition news, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the SEO competitor cohort from a Share of Search perspective.

What stuck out to me was how brand searches for the category leaders are down in 2025, despite all of the AEO/GEO conversation. 

Clearly, all of the brands are going all-in on the AI search future, but it seems plausible that brand search is going elsewhere to evaluate alternatives while these brands strengthen their positioning and capabilities around AI.

What's also been fascinating is just how stable the market share has been in the last few years in what is absolutely a competitive category (though I can hear Dale W. Harrison in my ear telling me I shouldn't be even the least bit shocked).

Semrush, Ahrefs, and Similarweb have all held its place as the leader with remarkable consistency, collectively owning nearly 85% of this cohort search.

The volatility, as it usually the case is in that 15%, where Moz has been declining in share while SE Rankings climbed up quickly this year.

It will be very interesting to see what being in the Adobe portfolio does for this category. History in tech tends to show that being owned by big tech isn't aways the advantage you'd expect, especially over the long-term.

For those deep in planning for 2026, I truly believe that one of the most valuable things you can bring in is research about the broader market.

There are a great many ways to get it, and of course Share of Search is my personal preference, but what we frequently lack is a picture of the conditions of the market and our place in it.

When we look at historical data in target setting, we're often making a bet that the conditions will remain as they were such that we'll see the same kind of outcomes, but the market has been much more volatile for many.

And there are a lot of conditions that can change:

Overall demand for our solution set can decline, especially if confidence about the economy changes or if there is category disruption like with AI in tech.

Competitors come into funding and get acquired, which can change the balance of the budgets they are able to work with, the reach they're able to have, and the share of voice they're able to command. 

New competitors can arrive, sometimes entering our category and often taking demand into adjacent ones.

That's a lot of ways to upend the conditions that were present in our historical data. 

Past, as they say, is not prologue.

Building category views and narratives with brand search data is highly accessible, and Storybook can deliver it in in a fully managed dashboard in as little as a week, with a view backwards of up to four full years across every brand and region.

We can't predict the future, but we can do better than looking only at the past in our internal metrics. 

It can provide a lot of context about what we should do, and allow us to track it as we go do it in 2026.

The challenge with marketing science and effectiveness research is that it tends to be anchored around large brands, but wants to deliver advice to both large and small ones. 

This is not a criticism of the work, which is always excellent, but the natural bias that comes from data availability and the missing perspective about contstraints that exist at the small end which make initial growth much more difficult.

For reasons that are totally understandable, most data that we see from institutes like Ehrenberg-Bass Institute or the IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising) come from large brands within stable or mature categories, or self-reported data from large category leaders.

Even research done explicitly on ‘tiny’ brands - commendable efforts all - still rely on brands for whom there is panel data enough to do research.

This in itself skews the definition of ‘tiny’ upwards, with some survivorship bias group selection. 

What the research gets incredibly right, especially EBI, is in the things that DON’T work to achieve growth - such as trying to grow through increased loyalty over penetration.

That insight matters and bears repeating, since I’ve personally seen in tech how many rallied around ‘bow-tie models’ that promised big return through customer expansion in a fictional mathematical growth model.

But pointing out what doesn’t work isn’t the same as advice on how to accomplish what does. 

Growth through penetration, reaching as many category buyers as possible misses very important nuance at very small scale. 

Take B2B categories or long inter-purchase period consideration products, where maximum reach to maximum audiences can easily result in most of the spend being seen once and long-forgotten before in-market moments.

There are very real constraints that make this advice hard to accomplish, not the least of which is sufficient capital.

Gaining initial momentum at truly small scales is messy, segmented, differentiated as well as distinctive, and gradual before it can adopt the advice of large brand research. 

It may very well find itself affected by the same laws as big ones in unfair quantity, but gaining escape velocity into bigger leagues is a world of study itself. 

The research being done is critical, and I’m thankful for it always, but I do think we need more acknowledgment about the challenge it takes for brands to make it past the early evolutionary stages at all.

As buyers, we base a lot of our perceptions about the landscape on how much we hear about brands relative to each other. 

Not just in terms of advertising, but in overall brand exposure, including how often we see brands out in the world, mentioned by peers and influencers, etc.

It's one of the reasons that market share is so hard to move, since a brand ten times bigger than you will create ten times more brand exposures than you simply by its current share.

So, when we focus so much of our advertising spend on showing up the least amount necessary to convince someone, we can end up showing much less in the world than is actually needed to maintain our place, much less grow it.

That's why it's so important for marketing think from a market-level perspective, factoring in all of the things that happen around our promotional efforts, and which play a huge role in how effective they are.

“Aside from the price, I actually like the idea.”

In a post I read recently detailing a failed product launch from a YouTube celebrity, this line stood out.

In this short sentence, there's a huge amount of insight into just why marketing needs to be a 4P endeavor, and the real costs when it's not part of our thinking.

Price is one of the most important and impactful levers in marketing strategy, and a change in price can impact demand more and more quickly than even huge amounts of promotion.

There's great evidence of this all around us on all sides of the equation.

Despite more promotion than most could ever dream of, the Apple Vision Pro simply couldn't overcome the price tag of $3,499, especially when compared to the anchor price of other headsets around $500, however technically superior it was. 

In the other direction, much of the early growth in big tech, from Uber to ChatGPT, comes because of deep price subsidies to gain users, which would be impossible if not for the VC funding model. These brands often lose huge sums in a bet that market share gains will create future profit.

In consumer electronics, some of the biggest reasons for products to become mainstream has been due to the lowering of cost through innovation. From desktops, to televisions, to cars, mass production and improved efficiency was the big driver in a niche idea becomes a household standard.

In all cases, price was a huge lever in the success or failure of the product as well as the rate of its adoption.

But, when marketing is reduced to Promotion, price often becomes a static force that we just have to accept and operate around, when we should be able to question it and understand its role in the strategy.

Because often, price is the whole problem.

New innovative products like technology are frequently expensive to start, and this reality impacts the level of demand materially.

We also see this play out in the FMCG world, where heavy discounting at point-of-sale can drive quick sales but usually only temporarily and often not larger than the sales discount, especially if pulling forward people who would have bought later at full price.

In all directions, and in all industries, price is a critical lever, and one that changes just about everything.

And it belongs in marketing thinking.

If you want to disrupt the market, it's pretty important to understand how markets work and what facilitates disruption.

The truth is market dynamics are not very intuitive, and real market share change is highly dependent on the right conditions while overcoming powerful forces.

And the harder truth is that a lot of what modern marketing is built and measured around doesn't account for any of these, nor do we train marketers in in how to.

Marketing hasn't just been reduced to a promotion function - it's also being poorly taught to new generations by confidently untrained marketers, which distorts the profession further into something less and less effective.

So we end up with prominent marketing voices describing marketing in ways that completely contradict theory and economic reality, or worse, where they actively disregard the theory itself in favor of their own.

Add to that the handover of audience understanding to tech vendors and ad platforms, who claim they'll serve up our ICP on a platter and all we need do is make our compelling case.

If their claims worked, then markets would be in a constant state of chaotic disruption, yet that's not at all what happens.

When you look at markets from a distance, the reality is that most of them are far more stable than they feel at ground level. 

All that activity, all those hard won deals and sales, the exhausting campaigns, the tediously crafted content and copy, those targets we fight tooth and nail to hit, can all bring in company revenue without ever changing the share that each competitor has. 

Market disruption rarely happens in the precision performance efforts, nor do they compound into market moving ones. Most brands grow inside of pockets of share that can be won, while big players continue to hold most of it safely so long as they keep their momentum.

But those pockets also become harder to win in weakening markets, as the market becomes more conservative - conditions we're seeing a lot of right now.

Marketing is not a naturally intuitive profession, and training in it is genuinely important. 

Many of those who are proudly boast that they're a better marketer because they came from a non-marketing background make the profession worse in their advice.

Many of the playbooks that came from their wins don't account for the conditions and levers that were in place for them to accomplish their well-earned wins.

There shouldn't be elitism around how people come into marketing, but there damn well should be sufficient training to make you a well-rounded on.

The accidental and natural marketing expert is fiction. 

This is trained profession, and all marketers deserve good training.

Growing market share is a disruptive effort, but what that disruption looks like in marketing practice is often now what we expect.

The word 'disruption' has been largely stripped of meaning by Silicon Valley, where every new VC-backed tool promises to change the way we {insert thing here}, and whose marketing is often about big viral moments.

True technological disruption, in reality, tends to only come along once a generation, and most of the time successful outcomes disrupt a very different way.

Where brands increase their share of voice in the market for a prolonged period through well-planned media and distinctive creative. An effort that's no less expensive than big flashy moments in time, often much more, but which upset the balance of a market that likes equilibrium. 

It can happen through injected capital investments in marketing or achieved the decline of an incumbent's. Major shifts usually enjoy a mix of both.

The trouble is, that tech disruption thinking has embedded itself in a lot of marketing thinking, and those big moments now win over the more true kind of disruption that changes categories.

I saw just this thinking today, given as explicit advice to produce "a single, concentrated burst of story, POV, and firepower that the entire category must pay attention to", if one desires to be a market leader.

While there's truth in there somewhere, this so-called "lightning strike" marketing only creates disruption in the moment, and moments pass quickly as far as the market is concerned. 

In fact, when you're dealing with solutions people might buy once a year, or even once every 3 years, that week of viral attention is usually lost to the sands of time.

Real disruption can be much less obvious, and can feel much less exciting since it often involves sticking to a consistent look and message for the long haul.

But, just as the consistent lapping of waves can erode a cliff, so too can consistently holding a bigger presence in the market and minds of buyers erode market share.

Big moments absolutely have their place, especially in activating on better brand awareness and recall, but they are not usually the movers of markets.

The brands people think of first tend to win, and changing that order doesn't happen in moments but steadily and consistently over time.

Michael Pedersen

DecideFast™

I built the world's first Behavior Pattern Interrupt™ App to eliminate procrastination, overthinking, and indecision in seconds.

Adaptive Design Strategist

-Business Breakthrough
-Digital Footprint Overhaul
-Your New Online Asset (Business Website)
-Proven Content Marketing Strategies
-LinkedIn Branding & Engagement
-Lead Generation
-Email Marketing

Unlock the full potential of your small business, entrepreneurship, or coaching venture with our Adaptive Design Strategist Company. We're about engineering your success, not just updating your digital look. Experience business transformation that leads to tangible benefits: increased brand authority, more qualified leads, and a boost in conversions. With us, every digital interaction is optimized for engagement, turning visitors into loyal customers. Our approach ensures that your online platform drives growth and opportunity. Embrace a future where your digital strategy aligns with your ambitions, propelling you towards success. Join us to build the extraordinary.

Adaptive Design Strategist (formerly AZ Net Marketing)

Peak Performance Partners

-Mindset Reset Transformation Call

Breakthrough Coaching empowers you to navigate career transitions and overcome professional stagnation. Our focused approach targets what holds you back, equipping you with strategies to make decisive moves. With us, you transform obstacles into launchpads for success, mastering the art of adaptability and resilience. Whether you're pivoting roles, scaling your business, or seeking renewed motivation, our coaching ensures you emerge more focused, capable, and ready to seize opportunities.

Peak Performance Coach

Revenue Growth | Emotion-Based Brand Messaging To 3x Your Revenues | Bridging the gap between sales and marketing

Too many B2B sales teams are generating a high volume of quotes/proposals—yet win rates remain lower than desired.

Opportunities stall or disappear quietly. Not because of pricing—but because critical conversion elements are missing from the system.

That’s where I come in.

I work with B2B companies between $5M and $20M to recover lost revenue by optimizing the entire sales infrastructure—from initial targeting to proposal acceptance.

It starts with the 21 Day Revenue Sprint™, a fast, high-impact engagement powered by my proprietary Revenue Performance System™.

In just a few weeks, most companies uncover $250K to $1M+ in recoverable opportunity already sitting in their pipeline.

We can go deeper.

As a strategic advisor, I can also work directly with your leadership and sales teams to implement the structural upgrades and behavioral shifts that drive sustained revenue growth—without adding headcount, increasing marketing spend, or flooding your pipeline with unqualified opportunities.

Clients regularly report 20x to 100x ROI from targeted, system-level improvements.

Key areas of focus include:
✔️ Precision prospect targeting and qualification
✔️ Streamlined sales process and deal progression
✔️ High-conversion proposals and buyer decision clarity
✔️ Follow-up strategies that re-engage stalled opportunities

If your team is consistently quoting high-value work but too many deals are fading without resolution—you don’t need more activity.

You need a system built to convert.

📧 mike@adaptivedesignstrategist.com
🗓 Book a 15-minute Revenue Clarity Call

CEO & Founder

Does your website convert? When was the last time you gave it a refresh? How does it compare to your competitors?

Your company website is your brand on the Internet. An under-performing and outdated website will cost you revenues. 

Let’s jump on a discovery call to see if we are good fit to work together 

Visit: www.AZNetmarketing.com or 
Email: mike@aznetmarketing.com

How many times today have you reached for your phone instead of tackling the hard thing?

Your brain is wired to avoid discomfort—and it's costing your company millions. Here's what's actually happening in your head, and the one solution that works in real-time.

Full breakdown 👇

Mike Pedersen

Eliminating Decision Drag And Productivity Losses | Working With CFO and COO To Protect Payroll | Founder DecideFast™ The Decision Acceleration System

View newsletter: The Human Performance Brief

Ever spend 20 minutes organizing your desk instead of starting the actual work? Your brain is doing that on purpose. Here's the uncomfortable truth: p

Open article: Why Your Brain Loves Procrastination (And What Actually Works) by Mike Pedersen • 4 min read

Why Your Brain Loves Procrastination (And What Actually Works)

Why leaders should focus on employee obsession and how it will impact so many critical aspects of the organization.

CFOs measure decision speed, but ignore decision drag and fatigue. This is costing companies millions of dollars and there's an easy fix.

If a CFO wants to see improvement in: 
1. Operational efficiency and workflow automation
2. Labor productivity and utilization
3. Margin protection and working-capital timing
4. Execution risk and organizational agility
5. Throughput and output acceleration
6. Cost of delay

The focus starts with giving employees relief in the moment of overwhelm, stuck and distracted. Solve that, and all six of these will be impacted greatly.

#cfo #operationalefficiency #decisiondrag #employeehesitation #DecideFast

The Missed Blind Spot Employees fight hesitation and distraction all day because work throws constant pressure at them. Micro stress points slow every

Open article: Employee Obsession. The Standard Every Leader Thinks They Follow but Rarely Do. by Mike Pedersen • 2 min read

Employee Obsession. The Standard Every Leader Thinks They Follow but Rarely Do.

The workforce doesn't slow because they don't care.

They're slow because clarity slipped somewhere between the third meeting and the tenth message.

Most leaders see the symptoms: 
→ Tasks stretching past estimates 
→ Approvals sitting too long 
→ Projects drifting into next week

What they miss is the exact moment work slowed down.

It's costing more than you think.

Decision Acceleration System | Real-Time Resets for Sales & Support Teams Under Pressure | Founder, DecideFast™

Most companies assume their biggest challenge is workload. Deadlines stack up. Priorities collide. People feel stretched thin. On the surface, it look

Open article: The Workday Slowdown No One Talks About by Mike Pedersen • 7 min read

Decision Acceleration is a term you will start hearing more often when it comes to protecting payroll, operational efficiency, decision speed and throughput. 

DecideFast™ created the Decision Acceleration category, the performance layer that converts the hidden slowdowns inside the workday into speed, output, and financial gain.

To better understand the impact on the organization and employees, read this article.

Every company measures output. Revenue. Productivity. Efficiency. But almost no company measures the force that quietly drags them all down. Decision 

Open article: Decision Acceleration: Why Fast Teams Outperform Everyone Else by Mike Pedersen • 4 min read

Decision Acceleration: Why Fast Teams Outperform Everyone Else

THE HIDDEN $6.5M DRAIN

Every company tracks labor cost.

But almost no company measures the one force that silently drains millions of dollars: daily decision drag.

The hesitation. The small delays. The quiet moments where an employee freezes for five or ten seconds because they're stuck, unsure, or overloaded.

Those moments feel small. They're not.

Here's the math for a 500-employee company:
➡️ 13 interruptions per worker per day (UC Irvine)
➡️ 23 minutes to return to focus after each one
➡️ 5 hours of recovery time per employee per week
➡️ 2,500 hours lost across the workforce weekly
➡️ At $50/hour = $125,000 per week
➡️ $6.5 million annual drag

And this leaves out the secondary effects: → Delayed approvals → Slowed workflows → Stretched timelines → Margin erosion, let alone employee morale and burnout.

This isn't a people problem. It's a measurement problem.

➡️ You may not see it in daily reports, but these micro-delays quietly erode efficiency and margins. Imagine the cumulative impact if those lost minutes were reclaimed across your entire workforce.

Companies fix what they can see. Decision latency has been invisible.
Until now.

DecideFast™ created the category of Decision Acceleration. It gives employees fast resets(clarity) that cut decision drag and raise throughput across the workforce. Productivity rises because people act faster with less friction at every moment of the day.

Even small gains across 500 to 1000+ workers produce meaningful financial returns.

“Decision acceleration is the instant clearing of mental friction so people act fast with sharp focus. It drives workforce speed, precision, and consistent execution.” - DecideFast™ 

“Most tools take months to roll out and still never get used. DecideFast™ impacts your workforce in the first hour.”

➡️ If you want to listen to a condensed podcast from our 7000 word article, you can have a listen on Spotify. It's only 4 minutes: https://lnkd.in/gACVRV8w

If you enjoy it, share it, like it, and follow our DecideFast™ podcast. We'd appreciate it. 

#coo #DecisionVelocity #OperationalExcellence #CFO #EnterprisePerformance

Innovative CFOs don’t sit on daily decision drag.

☑️ They eliminate hesitation.
☑️ They remove friction.
☑️ They clear bottlenecks.
☑️ They protect productivity.

➡️ They know slow decisions bleed hours.
➡️ They know overwhelmed employees stall output.
➡️ They know small moments of confusion turn into big operational losses.

✅ They never assume employees just need to try harder.
✅ They give teams support in the moments they are stuck.
✅ They make clarity a priority because clarity speeds up the entire company.
✅ They focus on real time solutions because real time is where work breaks down.

👎 They don’t wait for annual surveys to reveal the obvious.
👎 They don’t lean on programs that never get used.
👎 They don’t pretend burnout and hesitation fix themselves.
👎 They fix what slows people down before it turns into cost.

That is the mindset that wins.

➡️ If you want to see how DecideFast™ helps eliminate decision drag and productivity losses, reach out. It will be the best 5-minute call you've had this year.

#cfo #coo #decisiondrag #operationalefficiency

Image credit: Business Infographics

The Quiet Part of Work No One Talks About

Look at this image.
This is what employees carry through a single workday.
Most of it never gets said out loud.

HR sees the reports.
CFOs/COOs see the numbers.
But those numbers are lagging indicators.
They only show the damage after it spreads.

The real story sits inside the moments you see in this image:
➡️ the hesitation
➡️ the doubt
the mental stall
➡️ the quiet pressure that slows people down.

This is where performance rises or drops.
This is where culture strengthens or cracks.
This is where people decide whether they speak up, shut down, or check out.

Traditional programs measure what happened last month.
They miss what employees fight today.

DecideFast™ gives instant relief in the moments employees feel overwhelmed or stuck.
Real-time clarity.
Real-time stability.
Real-time momentum.

No waiting for surveys.
No long modules.
No programs people avoid.

This is the new frontier of workforce performance.

Support employees in the moments that shape their day, and the culture shifts fast.

➡️ Attn CFOs and COOs. If burnout rises, turnover climbs, and output keeps slipping, the guesswork has gone on long enough—time for a real conversation.

"Human Innovation starts with people, not policy. DecideFast™ gives employees the instant resets they need to think clearer, act faster, and leave work with energy. That’s how we improve human potential at scale."

#hr #humanpotential #employeeexperience #workforceculture #decidefast #employeesareyourbusiness

The real cost inside the workday!

Every CFO has buckets they monitor with precision. 
➡️ Operational efficiency. 
➡️ Labor productivity. 
➡️ Throughput. 
➡️ Cost of delay. 
➡️ Workforce stability. 
➡️ Agility and execution risk. 

These buckets decide how fast a company grows or falls behind.

What most leaders miss is the root cause hiding inside all six. 
➡️ Employees get stuck. 
➡️ They get overwhelmed. 
➡️ They get distracted. 
It happens dozens of times per day across hundreds or thousands of people. 

The financial impact climbs into the millions before anyone sees it.

There has never been a real solution for those moments. Not surveys, wellness, or meditation apps. They are all lagging indicators (too late).

Nothing that meets employees in the exact second they hesitate (until now). 

Nothing that cuts through the overwhelm and gets them back into action fast.

That gap is massive and measurable. 

That gap is why companies are paying for slow decisions, lost output, and stalled execution without realizing where the leak begins.

DecideFast™  sits inside that gap. 
✅ It resets employees in seconds. 
✅ It restores clarity when they need it most. 
✅ It accelerates decisions at scale.

CFOs can ignore noise. They cannot ignore the cost leaking out every single day due to hesitation and distraction.

“DecideFast™ sits at the intersection of decision speed, execution efficiency, and operational capacity.”

Image credit: SelectSoftware Reviews

DecideFast™ The Decision Acceleration System

#cfo #workforceproductivity #decisionacceleration

Most leaders like to think they're running lean.
Often they are not, they're just spending less.

There's a difference.

Lean isn't about cutting budgets. It's about protecting payroll and controlling labor costs while eliminating waste.

👎 But here's what actually happens: CFOs see $8 million disappearing every year and call the fix an unnecessary expense.

Employees are productive 36% of the day. Every distraction burns 23 minutes of recovery time.

In a 500-person company, that's roughly $8 million in annual losses from decision drag and context switching.

Employees aren't to blame. 

When the brain experiences stress, it seeks immediate relief. 

That relief shows up as distraction—over two hours daily on phones, more than an hour on social media, the rest in texting, email, and YouTube. 

It's not a character flaw. It's how the human brain works under pressure.

➡️ Labor is the largest expense on the P&L. Protecting that investment means eliminating the factors that erode it.

Lean companies still invest in anything that protects payroll and execution. That is real leanness. Ignoring hard numbers is not leanness. It is cost denial dressed up as discipline.

➡️ Most finance teams never calculate the cost of decision drag.
Some see the numbers and the investment required don't fit the current budget narrative.

CFOs optimize labor cost per unit. Gross margin. Operating leverage.
But improving operational efficiency means protecting the throughput already on payroll.

➡️ Most companies spend millions to analyze slowdowns while the real losses happen in the seconds no dashboard can see. They measure everything except the drag that hits execution and inflates payroll cost. 

A consultant I spoke with on LinkedIn put it simply: "Easy for leaders to ignore what they choose not to believe."

The gap between what's being paid for and what's being delivered is sitting in these numbers.

The question is whether they get acted on or ignored.

➡️ DecideFast™ is offering 60-second demos. No slides or pitch. Just experience it. If you're a CFO or COO wanting to improve operational efficiency, throughput and protect your payroll, this is your solution.

➡️ ➡️ “Every solution promises performance after rollout. DecideFast™ delivers it on day one.”

#cfo #workforcecapacity #workforceefficiency #protectpayroll

Why Decision Speed Is Now a Must

Market data makes one thing crystal clear: decision speed and organizational agility are top strategic priorities for enterprises in 2025 and beyond.

➡️ Nearly 50% of senior leaders say accelerating decision-making is essential to thrive—up 10 points since 2021. 
➡️ 47% report that lagging agility costs significant profit, a rising concern compared to just 37% in 2021. 
➡️ Faster decision speed correlates directly with higher operational performance and competitive advantage. 
➡️ Yet only 28% of leaders feel truly ready to adapt as markets shift, signaling a major gap to close. 

 The message is clear: Focusing on reducing decision drag, hesitation, and speed is what executives need to survive in this fast-paced world we live in. Decision speed is simple, measurable, and directly tied to survival and success in volatile markets.

➡️ ➡️ "Every slowdown has a price. Most leaders pretend the leak is small because they have no solution to stop it."

Most current programs focus on lagging indicators, such as surveys, engagement, and wellness. If you want your company to survive, you must reevaluate the programs you are investing in and ask yourself this…
…“Is this helping our workforce in real time, or is it late?”

DecideFast™ is the decision acceleration system that turns hesitation into speed across your entire organization.

➡️ We are opening up 2 pilots before the end of this year. 100 users, 30 days. Data and proof are the intention. 

➡️ Are you a growth-minded leader who won’t accept the status quo? If so, reach out, and I’ll show you DecideFast™ live. It will be the fastest demo call you’ve ever had. No slides or pitch. Just experience it. 

“Most solutions take months to roll out and still never get used. DecideFast™ impacts your workforce in the first hour.”

CFOs are under more pressure than ever: 65% say their boards want to see fast, measurable ROI from technology and productivity investments—the clock is ticking on every dollar spent.

Yet the reality inside most organizations?

$500 billion a year is lost across US enterprises to micro-hesitation, slowed decisions, and operational drag. 

A Fortune 500 company can lose up to 530,000 manager-days annually—often $250 million in payroll—because decision drag stalls projects and drains throughput. 

PwC reports that over half of executives admit they’re missing major business opportunities because teams can’t decide fast enough. 

But here’s the paradox:
➡️ Most “productivity” tools add complexity, require extra steps, and push employees to absorb yet another framework. People don’t want another workstream—they want relief, in the moment, when they’re truly stuck.

High-performing CFOs, those who outperform their peers, spend almost half their time on forward-looking strategy, not backward-looking reporting. They know that the true lever is helping teams move at business speed, not just adding more dashboards.

➡️ The next era of productivity will belong to those who can eliminate unnecessary complexity and enable teams to reset and move forward when it counts most.

➡️ It's time the corporate world woke up, fixed these million-dollar costs, and stopped ignoring these numbers. Who's bold enough to step forward?

“DecideFast™ sits at the intersection of decision speed, execution efficiency, and operational capacity.”

➡️ New Cost Calculator 

If you want to see what your number looks like, we can walk through the calculator together. Let’s get you on the schedule!

#CFO #DecisionAcceleration #Productivity #OperationalExcellence #BusinessStrategy

Meetings Are Quietly Bleeding Companies!

Most leaders know meetings slow things down.
Few understand the financial damage.

Here is what the data shows:

🚫 36 to 56 million meetings happen in the US every day
Source: UNC Charlotte
🚫 71 percent of meetings are unproductive
Source: Korn Ferry
🚫 Employees spend 31 hours a month in unnecessary meetings
Source: Atlassian
🚫 Inefficient meetings cost US companies $399 billion per year
Source: Doodle “State of Meetings” Report
🚫 Executives lose an average of 23 hours a week to meetings
Source: Harvard Business Review

That is not a scheduling problem.
That is an friction problem.

Employees do not need more meetings. They need clarity in the moment.
The meeting happens because the work slowed down long before the calendar invite.

This is where DecideFast™ steps in.

✅ A fast reset on their phone.
✅ Used in seconds. 
✅ Restores focus before the slowdown turns into another meeting no one wants.

➡️ Cut meeting load.
➡️ Increase throughput.
➡️ Protect payroll.

We built a Decision Drag Cost Calculator for CFOs to plug in their numbers to see the hit their company is taking that no tech stack is fixing!

5-minute call and we'll show it to you and discuss how we both can fix this together. 

➡️ If you want to see how this plays out inside your organization, send a message and we'll set up this 5-minute call. No pitch. No slides. 

#cfos #DecideFast #finance #companyculture

Three factors. Most companies measure none of them.

Decision Speed. Decision Drag. Decision Fatigue.

CFOs do not have a way to track these, nor have they tracked any of them.

They track outcomes. Revenue per employee. Project delivery. Deals closed.

But they're not measuring the decision layer—the invisible friction that sits between effort and execution.

Decision Speed 
How fast people move once they know the next step.

Decision Drag 
The slowdown that happens in the moment, inside the second, before anything starts. This is the invisible delay. The hesitation before the first action. The mental friction of figuring out what matters when everything feels urgent.

Decision Fatigue 
The psychological load that builds over the day and makes every choice heavier than the last.

By midday, the brain has burned through hundreds of micro-decisions. Email. Slack. Meetings. Priorities are shifting every hour. Each one pulls capacity until even simple choices feel impossible.

It's 2pm. Someone on your team has six things on their list. They stare at the screen for three minutes deciding which one to start.

That's not laziness. That's Decision Drag and Decision Fatigue compounding in real time.

Employees aren't to blame. The brain under cognitive load doesn't speed up. It delays and distracts to seek relief.

Measuring outcomes while ignoring the decision layer is like tracking how fast a car goes while ignoring that the engine keeps stalling and the driver is exhausted.

CFOs are being asked to cut costs and improve margins without clear visibility into where the money is actually going.

➡️ Headcount is the largest line item. Protecting it means knowing what's eroding it.

Most finance teams are reacting—defending budgets, justifying spend, trying to do more with less.

But they don't have the numbers that show where throughput is actually being lost.

➡️ Efficient companies invest in anything that protects payroll and execution. 

The gap between what's being paid for and what's being delivered lives in these three numbers.

Most leadership teams don't know what those numbers are.

The ones who do can't ignore them.

➡️ For those CFOs who want to protect payroll, improve operational efficiency, and throughput, DecideFast™ is the decision acceleration system that can solve this in real time, with no onboarding or friction. You see the impact in the first hour!

#cfo #operationalefficiency #throughput #payrollprotection

Labor costs are not the real problem.

The real problem is how much paid time never turns into real work.

➡️ Leaders feel it every day.
➡️ Teams look busy.
➡️ Projects slip.
➡️ Payroll grows.
➡️ Capacity feels capped.

Yet the cuts always attack the same levers.

🚫 They automate.
🚫 They merge roles.
🚫 They outsource.
🚫 They push managers harder.
🚫 They swap fixed and variable costs.

All of that moves numbers.
None of it fixes what happens inside the day.

Here is where the money leaks.
Your people lose minutes when:
✔️ They hesitate on a priority
✔️ They replay the same issue in their head
✔️ They bounce between tasks with no clear next step
✔️ They sit in mental overload and reach for their phone

Those minutes never show on a report.
They hit EBITDA anyway.

There is a sixth lever leaders rarely name.

✅ Recover lost time.
✅ Strengthen managers without adding people.
✅ Reduce daily friction inside the shift.
✅ Increase capacity from the team you already have.
✅ Boost role output through clarity, not pressure.

That is what DecideFast™ is built for.

Employees hit a wall.
They type what is going on.
They get a sharp reset in seconds.

You are not cutting labor.
You are finally getting what you already pay for.

➡️ Finally a solution your workforce will use and actually enjoy it. Adoption and usage is built in like no other tool.

Are you a CFO/COO or manager that wants the best for your workforce and at the same time recover millions lost? 

➡️ It's time to acknowledge the gap the existing tech stack will never close.

DecideFast™ Decision Acceleration System 
Reducing wasted hours, slow decisions, and daily friction that erodes productivity.

#cfo #leadership #laborcosts #DecideFast

The most expensive problems in your company are not the big ones.
They’re the tiny ones happening all day.

➡️ Micro-behaviors.
➡️ Overload.
➡️ Decision fatigue.
➡️ Short attention shifts.
➡️ In-the-moment hesitation.
➡️ The quiet pauses nobody tracks.

This is where the real slowdown happens.
This is where execution slips.
This is where companies lose millions in lower productivity and throughput without seeing it.

Employees aren’t failing.
Their brains hit a wall for a few seconds at a time.
Those seconds turn into minutes and compound across the workforce.

👉 That’s the real cost every CFO feels, even if they can’t trace it.

The companies that win are the ones that...
➡️ Support employees in these exact moments 10-20 times a day across the workforce.

When an employee gets clear fast, the whole organization moves more efficiently and quicker.

It's time to make a change! Employee survey and wellness programs are not solving this. They are lagging indicators. They are too late! 

➡️ Human Innovation starts with people, not policy. DecideFast™ gives employees instant mental resets they need to think clearer, act faster, and leave work with energy. That’s how we improve human potential at scale, and directly affect the bottom line!

We are offering enterprise leaders who are open to change and want their employees to have a solution that truly helps them, a 60-second DecideFast™ demo to feel it for yourself. 

Contact me and we'll set up a 5-minute call. No slides or pitch. Just experience it. 

“Most tools take months to roll out and still never get used. DecideFast™ impacts your workforce in the first hour.”

Most companies keep staring at workflow, while the real loss lives in the decision layer.

We obsess over revenue per employee, project delivery, ticket throughput, deals closed. All outcome metrics. None of them explain why a paid workday moves slow even when people are “working.”

Here is the part finance teams rarely name.

➡️ Decision Speed
How fast paid hours turn into output.

➡️ Decision Drag
Where payroll leaks before work even starts.

➡️ Decision Fatigue
Mental overload that quietly shrinks daily capacity.

➡️ Execution Flow
How consistently your labor investment produces.

Dashboards flag bottlenecks. Surveys confirm stress. BI tools paint the picture in fifteen different views. Then you look up a month later, and the same teams are still moving slowly. That is not a reporting issue. That is a decision-layer issue.

Think about a typical afternoon.
It is 2pm. A high performer has six priorities on their screen. Everything feels urgent. Nothing feels clear. Three minutes go by. Then ten. No one logs that moment anywhere. Yet payroll is still running.

Multiply that across hundreds or thousands of people and you see the problem. 

You are paying full price for capacity that gets chipped away by hesitation, overload, and unclear calls. Not because people are lazy. Because the system gives them data without giving them a fast reset when they hit that wall.

CFOs are being asked to cut costs and protect margins while the biggest leak sits between “I see the issue” and “We made the decision.” That space is invisible in most models. Which means the true cost never shows up where it should.

If you lead finance, this is the next frontier.
You do not need another dashboard. You need visibility into how fast decisions move, where they slow down inside the day, and how much paid capacity you lose there.

The companies that choose to measure and improve these four forces will run circles around the ones that keep polishing reports.

That’s what we solve at DecideFast™—real-time mental resets for your entire workforce. Decision acceleration compounds across the organization, protecting payroll, increasing operational efficiency, and decreasing labor cost leakage.

➡️ It's time the corporate world woke up, fixed these million-dollar costs, and stopped ignoring them. Who's bold enough to step forward?

Low Risk:
100 users. 30 days. Gather data (proof). Workforce rollout.

“DecideFast™ sits at the intersection of decision speed, execution efficiency, and operational capacity.”

#CFO #DecideFast #decisiondrag #workforceperformance

THE CATEGORY THAT DIDN'T EXIST

Every major enterprise category emerged when companies finally recognized a critical missing layer:
→ Infrastructure created cloud adoption 
→ CRM created sales visibility
→ HCM created workforce structure 
→ Cybersecurity created digital trust
→ Decision Acceleration (created by DecideFast™) creates control over the seconds that drive execution speed.

This category didn't exist because the problem was invisible.

🚫 Systems couldn't see when an employee paused. 
🚫 Managers couldn't detect micro-delays. 
🚫 Dashboards couldn't capture seconds of internal uncertainty.
🚫 But the cost was real:

➡️ McKinsey shows companies with faster decision cycles achieve 5% higher EBITDA margins.

➡️ Bain shows companies with high decision velocity grow revenue 2.5x faster than slow organizations.

The slowdown inside the moment has always existed. 

Companies just accepted it as normal because they lacked a way to observe it, quantify it, or improve it.

Now that layer is visible. Now it can be influenced. Now it can be improved.

Decision Acceleration is the category we built to eliminate the drag that slows every workforce. 

DecideFast™ The Decision Acceleration System

See the full category breakdown → https://lnkd.in/gGRPkwHj

#NewCategory #DecisionVelocity #EnterpriseSoftware #DigitalTransformation

Most companies lose speed in moments they never see.

Not big failures. Not major breakdowns.
Small emotional hits that knock people off their rhythm and slow the entire day down.

➡️ Overwhelmed.
➡️ Stuck.
➡️ Frustrated.
➡️ Uncertain.
➡️ Drained.

These moments look harmless on the surface.

They turn into lost minutes, delayed handoffs, rework, and weak output.

Multiply that across hundreds of employees and you get a quiet drain that pulls down your entire operation.

🚫 No workflow system catches it.
🚫 No dashboard flags it.
🚫 No manager sees it fast enough to stop it.
🚫 Nothing in your tech stack touches this.

This is the gap that burns payroll every single day. 

Companies don’t lose money in dramatic ways.
They lose it in seconds, inside the workday, when people hit the wall and slow down.

If leaders want more speed, more throughput, and more stability, they have to solve the moment where work actually breaks.

That’s where decision acceleration comes in!

➡️ We built a Decision Drag Cost Calculator for CFOs to plug in their numbers to see the hit their company is taking that no tech stack is fixing!

➡️ 5-minute call and we'll show it to you and discuss how we both can fix this together. 

➡️ If you want to see how this plays out inside your organization, send a message and we'll set up this 5-minute call. No pitch. No slides.

Most “workflow bottlenecks” aren’t workflow problems.

They’re decision problems hiding inside dashboards.

Every ops leader says the same thing:
“We can see the bottlenecks. The dashboards light up. The surveys confirm it.
But weeks later… the work is still stuck.”

Dashboards, surveys, and BI tools are great at surfacing friction. 
They are not effective at clearing it.​

Here’s what no one wants to admit:
Work isn’t waiting on data. It’s waiting on a decision.

Tasks don’t stall in Jira or Asana. They stall in people’s heads.
“We’re blocked” really means “No one feels safe or clear enough to move.”​

Workflow tools were built to track stuck work.

They were never built to give people a mental reset and accelerate decisions in real time.​

That’s the gap DecideFast™ was built to close.
It gives your people an on‑demand mental reset and improves decision acceleration in real time, the moment they get stuck:
✅ Break the cognitive jam.
✅ Create fast, aligned decisions.
✅ Protect payroll from another afternoon of “spinning.”​

Bottlenecks shouldn’t just be visible.
They should be short-lived.

If your dashboards keep telling you the same story every month, you don’t have a reporting problem.
➡️ You have a decision latency problem.

That’s what we solve at DecideFast™—real-time mental resets for your entire workforce. Decision acceleration compounds across the organization, protecting payroll, increasing operational efficiency, and decreasing labor cost leakage.

➡️ It's time the corporate world woke up, fixed these million-dollar costs, and stopped ignoring them. Who's bold enough to step forward?

“DecideFast™ sits at the intersection of decision speed, execution efficiency, and operational capacity.”

CFOs carry pressure most people never see.

 ✅ Every number.
 ✅ Every timeline.
 ✅ Every slowdown in the business hits their desk.

Yet one thing separates the decisive CFO from the comfortable one.

The decisive CFO acts when the math is clear.

The comfortable CFO waits for January.
Both reveal who they are.

Here’s the truth.
➡️ Employees get stuck ten to twenty times a day.
➡️ Those moments cost paid hours that never turn into output (millions).
 
And nothing in the tech stack touches it.

The pressure on CFOs is real.

The waste inside the workday is real.

And there is a solution built for the exact gap every company carries.

Decisive CFOs don’t wait for clean calendars.
➡️ They act when the loss is staring them in the face.

For the bold CFOs who don’t wait for perfect timing.

➡️ 100 users.
➡️ 30 days.
➡️ Pure data.
Roll it out in January with confidence, not guesswork. ROI hits the first week.
No onboarding. No training. No friction. Scales to 10,000 employees or more.

➡️ DecideFast™ is the decision acceleration system built for the gap that nothing in your tech stack touches.

#cfo #workforceperformance #DecideFast #decisiondrag

taplio

The Battle

Liam Moroney

Michael Pedersen

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreLiam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMichael Pedersen's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Liam Moroney

Michael Pedersen

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);}Liam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreMichael Pedersen's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreLiam Moroney's LinkedIn Performance