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

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.

Tristan Pelligrino

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

Tristan Pelligrino's Linkedin Analytics

Tristan Pelligrino

Performance ScoreTristan Pelligrino's LinkedIn Performance

What is Tristan talking about?

Tristan Pelligrino's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Tristan Pelligrino's Linkedin Analytics

Tristan Pelligrino

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);}Tristan Pelligrino's LinkedIn Performance

What is Tristan talking about?

Tristan Pelligrino's Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Tristan Pelligrino's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreTristan Pelligrino's LinkedIn Performance

Tristan Pelligrino's Best Posts (last 30 days)