🎙️ This free edition of MKT1 newsletter covers Season 1, Episode 6 of “Dear Marketers with Emily Kramer & Friends” podcast, brought to you by Typeform, Framer & UserEvidence.
Listen or watch the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.
Plus read the full newsletter below for an even deeper dive on the topic. The newsletter is meant to augment the podcast, not just recap it.
Dear Marketers…Do you think all of these changes across the go-to-market function are making it harder or easier for sales and marketing to stay aligned?
-Kira Luscher, Head of Marketing and Growth at Valence
The sales and marketing relationship is no doubt evolving. But saying it’s easier now would be false. Roles are blurring. Tools are altering how we do GTM. Pipeline and revenue targets have (mostly) replaced MQL targets. This requires an update in how you work together too—and many teams aren’t investing enough time here.
In this episode of Dear Marketers, we looked at what’s helping and what’s hurting sales and marketing alignment today.
Because ultimately, if your team isn’t working with sales, it doesn’t matter how good your campaigns, tools, or processes are.
In this newsletter & podcast episode:
In our last episode and newsletter, we answered the first part of Kira’s question: “How can sales and marketing actually work better together?”
This episode and newsletter pick up the second part: whether all these GTM changes are making alignment harder or easier. And no matter if you disagree or agree with our answers, understanding how certain things can help or hurt alignment will help you overcome the challenges.
Devon, Head of Partner & Product Marketing at Mercury and Grace, VP of Revenue at Cocoon join me to discuss these topics:
🧩 SDR and MOPs reporting structures: What’s better for overall GTM alignment? Go to section »
📞 Account-driven GTM and AI tools: How modern foundations, processes, and tools are reshaping GTM relationships. Go to section »
🤑 Attribution and variable comp: How two of the most hotly debated topics are making (or breaking) alignment. Go to section »
Thanks to our Dear Marketers sponsors:
I vet each partner personally and these are genuine recommendations (even though yes, we do get paid for this).
Typeform: Thanks to our season-long presenting sponsor. Create delightful branded forms for collecting leads, feedback, and research. We even use a branded Typeform to get questions for each episode of Dear Marketers.
🎁 Offer: Use code MKT1 to get 20% off their annual growth plan.
—
Framer: Framer is a no-code website-building tool for teams to launch sites quickly. It looks and feels like a design tool and is becoming the go-to-choice for marketers (like me!)
🎁 Offer: Get 25% off for a Basic, Pro, Startup or Scaleup site with code MKT1
—
UserEvidence solves your customer marketing challenges by turning survey, transcript, and review feedback into testimonials, ROI stats, and advocate lists—so when sales and prospects need proof, you’re ready.
🎁 Offer: Mention MKT1 for your first 2 months of UserEvidence free.
Listen or watch the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube.
Newsletter: What practices help or hurt sales & marketing alignment?
SDRs: Does moving SDRs under marketing make the relationship better or worse?
Note: This part of the podcast discussion is part of episode 5.
“Where the [SDR] function is going is actually more like marketing than more than sales.” - Kramer
SDRs are becoming more like growth marketers; and growth marketers are becoming more like SDRs due to AI, automation, and personalization. They’re using the same tools, working off the same signals, and building programmatic outreach that look a lot alike.
The result? It makes more sense than ever to have these teams reporting into the same place, so they can be nimble, iterate faster, and act on what’s working. We think ultimately this not only helps drive more revenue, but also helps with overall GTM alignment.
But that doesn’t mean just copy-pasting the same SDR role we’ve always had. The role itself needs to evolve: it should look more like an outbound marketing manager than a traditional SDR. We’re also seeing some companies combine growth marketing, SDRs, and RevOps into one “GTM Engineering” team.
And honestly, both of these setups are better than the old model of SDRs reporting into sales and growth marketing running separately.
I thought our model of scaling SDR hiring linearly with revenue and each rep running their own playbooks felt outdated years ago (see my rant in a 2022 newsletter) before all the new tooling and AI. Now it just seems ridiculous to me to scale SDR orgs in the same way without getting leverage from new tools and marketing.
But of course, as with most things, there’s some nuance here…
✅ SDRs reporting to marketing helps alignment when…
“I think it makes it easier for marketing to holistically own pipeline because the missing piece to owning pipeline is often that outbound or SDR work.” - Kramer
Marketing truly owns all pipeline-generating activities*: When SDRs report to marketing, “marketing” now owns both inbound and outbound pipeline, which solves a lot of attribution debates before they even start—and accelerates the shift from MQLs to true pipeline focus. (Exception: When partnerships is a separate team and owns referrals, marketing still doesn’t own all of pipeline).
Cross-channel campaigns become easier to execute: Personalized outbound can be more tightly integrated into campaign strategy and execution. There’s also fast feedback loop on what messaging is working, making iteration across channels smoother.
Comp structures can evolve to break down SDR silos: When SDRs report into sales, they’re often incentivized to maximize personal commission—sometimes at the expense of broader team goals. When SDRs report into marketing it opens the door for more pipeline-driven, team-oriented comp models. This reduces the credit fights that slow growth.
❌ SDRs reporting to marketing hurts alignment when…
“Kramer: The [counter] argument: most SDRs want to be sales people in the future.”
“Grace: Is that necessarily true or is that the path presented to them? Imagine if someone out of school comes in as an SDR and they're exposed to all the nuance and multifacetedness of marketing, as well as the path of an AE.”
Marketing may lack the sales skillset to coach SDRs: If marketing leaders aren’t equipped to train SDRs on outbound tactics or pipeline quality, this causes a drop in credibility with the sales team.
Sales resents losing direct control over SDRs: Especially when sales leaders grew up through SDR roles themselves, they may see SDRs as “their team.” Moving SDRs under marketing without careful communication and alignment can trigger political battles, misaligned expectations, and weakened trust between sales and marketing. Tread lightly and slowly!
MOPs reporting into marketing: Does it help or hurt sales & marketing alignment?
“I’ve had marketing ops report into marketing at most of the companies I’ve worked at, and it’s helped because marketing needed direct control over how campaigns were tracked, how leads and accounts flowed, and how we measured performance. But it only really worked when marketing ops wasn’t just thinking about marketing’s goals; it had to stay connected to the bigger GTM strategy. But that was 5 years ago and I recommend now that it sits in RevOps. It’s changing” -Kramer
On to another classic GTM reporting structure question: should Marketing Ops (MOPs) report into marketing or into a centralized RevOps function? And what does this do to sales and marketing alignment in 2025?
MOPs reporting into a centralized RevOps team that includes sales ops (and customer success ops) is becoming the standard structure. When strategy, systems, and signals are unified, marketing can move faster and sales can trust the data.
Our answer does change though if you are at an early stage startup…more on that below.
✅ Marketing Ops reporting to marketing helps alignment when…
“Marketing ops sometimes picks up other things—lifecycle marketing, email stuff, maybe even in some cases some ad stuff. And they help in more of a generalist growth way. So there’s a career pathing discussion here, much like there is with SDRs. Some marketing ops people want to be more growth marketing generalists and some want to be RevOps people.” - Kramer
Early-stage when MOPs and growth marketing are owned by the same person: When GTM teams are small, growth marketing (or demand gen) often owns marketing ops—it’s all part of one role. This person wears multiple hats, running campaigns and channels while also owning the underlying infrastructure. At this stage, it usually makes more sense for MOPs to sit within marketing than to have it be part of a single RevOps person’s job, since deep knowledge of marketing strategy and experiments is critical to setting things up the right way.
MOPs work can be properly prioritized: When marketing ops reports into rev ops, especially if RevOps reports directly into sales, sales ops work naturally starts to take precedence. When MOPs reports into marketing, especially if there’s a marketing leader who truly understands ops, there’s less battling for resources.
Devon: “My take is that earlier stage, I think you can be more flexible. It's not as hard for a marketing ops person (who sits under a head of marketing) to work very closely with a rev ops person (who sits under a head of sales). Whereas once you get bigger at scale, I think you just gotta make a decision one way or the other. And you probably have enough true marketing ops needs that should sit within rev ops. And then you also have true growth marketing and lifecycle needs [to not need a shared person].”
Grace: “If it’s a full headcount devoted only to marketing ops, they sit with RevOps. If it is a slash—if it is part of their job but they’re also doing lifecycle or ads or whatever—then they’re sitting with marketing.”
❌ Marketing Ops reporting to marketing hurts alignment, and a centralized RevOps team is better when…
“RevOps is working across teams, across systems to make the whole thing operate the best way it possibly can. And so in any instance where there is a question like, “Who does this lead go to?” The sales manager doesn't decide. Our rev ops person makes the decision because she's the neutral third party. Rev ops is the decider…They are a neutral third-party” - Grace
You need connected systems and processes: MOPs can become too isolated from the rest of your GTM systems when reporting into marketing. Sales, partnerships, and marketing may all start speaking slightly different data languages or using redundant tools. These small differences can add up to major confusion.
A centralized RevOps function can act as an “intermediary”: This helps teams be less territorial about “their” data or systems, which keeps marketing, sales, and customer success aligned. And a centralized team can help serve as a neutral party if sales and marketing do have different opinions.
Easier to build an account-driven structure with ops teams consolidated: When marketing ops reports to marketing without broader GTM oversight, there’s a risk of falling back into old marketing habits: over-optimizing for MQL volume, form fills, and vanity metrics, rather than focusing on account engagement and pipeline.
Either way you organize it, remember what you are aiming for across all of go-to-market ops:
Healthy RevOps = Neutral ownership of systems and definitions; shared goals across marketing, sales, and success; clear & agreed upon KPIs, reporting and attribution
Here’s our recommended GTM org structure:
Combining our recommendations for SDR and MOPs reporting from above…We recommend SDRs, or an outbound focused role, reports into marketing. Marketing ops should report into a central RevOps team.
Account-driven GTM or ABX: Does it help or hurt sales & marketing alignment?
“Account-driven GTM is about identifying and prioritizing the accounts that are most likely to buy, before they engage, and building your marketing, sales, and SDR motions around them.” — Kramer
Before we debate whether this helps or hurts, let’s define some terms and trends:
It’s now much easier to access rich account data, track intent signals, and use AI to personalize outreach at scale. Because of this, account-based strategies aren’t just for the top few accounts anymore, they can apply to all of your ICPs.
ABM is the original strategy: Identify your highest-priority accounts and run high-touch, personalized tactics to reach them.
ABX expands this strategy to more accounts, using modern tools to track signals and reach more buyers.
Account-driven GTM (which I defined in a three-part newsletter) takes it even further: Accounts become the foundation for all marketing and sales activities. You map your TAM, organizing into tiers, add account & contacts to your CRM, track engagement, and tailor tactics accordingly.
Account-driven GTM is the future foundation of B2B marketing, especially for companies targeting a mix of SMB, MM, and ENT accounts. But it needs to be rolled out carefully. Because if done poorly, it can break internal relationships, reporting, and your entire outreach motion.
“Is ABX or account-driven GTM a good thing? Yes. But is it making alignment harder? I think it’s helpful to realize that this does make it harder…at least for now.” — Kramer
✅ Account-driven GTM helps alignment when...
You have agreement and buy-in across marketing, sales, and RevOps on: ICP and TAM definitions, data sources, account tiering and segmentation, and clear rules of engagement for how you reach each tier.
And you get the definitions right…if you’re reaching out to the wrong people, this will quickly lead to finger pointing.
Helps with “lead” quality issues: Leads and accounts are prioritized if in an engaged account—not just if one person qualifies from a random account.
You actually use the account-driven structure you set up: You don’t just spend tons of time enriching accounts and contacts and signals, only to still run the same tactics and talk about qualified leads instead of engaged accounts. (Trust me, I’ve seen this happen.)
You have the bandwidth across GTM: To implement the change thoughtfully and step-by-step, so the rollout is well-received by the team.
“You’re not gonna change the behavior of a 20-person sales team overnight. You’re also not gonna change the behavior of a 20-person marketing team overnight, to be fair.” — Grace
❌ Account-driven GTM hurts alignment when..
“I think we're in the messy period right now, where it's a little harder because there's so much change at once and it's hard to handle that much change at once. But I think in six months from now, I'm gonna be able to clearly say, it's easier now for the well operating companies, which is always the caveat.” - Kramer
You try do it all at once: If you try to add all account tiers to your CRM, layer in signals, and automate personalization at once, rather than starting with Tier 1 and expanding gradually, you’ll overwhelm the team and confuse the process. More in this newsletter.
You flood the system with bad data: If you add accounts, contacts, and signals with reckless abandon, you’ll end up with duplicates, messy attribution, bad prospect experiences, and mistrust in the system. This is a killer for sales and marketing alignment. (I wrote about this on LinkedIn last week, with suggestions for how to avoid these challenges).
Marketing doesn’t adapt to the new account-driven world: If you run the same campaigns across all accounts without personalization, still track success with lead stages and lead scoring, and fail to show impact at the account level, you’ve wasted a lot of time on a new set up for no good reason. You’ll make sales doubt whether you really get it and if you’re really aligned on accounts.
Sales doesn’t trust or use the account lists: Similarly, if your top reps are still building their own lists in spreadsheets, it’s a sign they don’t believe in the accounts you’ve prioritized and alignment is broken.
“Get your sales team bought in on the end state vision, and then find the wins that you can roll out slowly that they can adopt and see that it's working.” - Grace
AI for GTM: Does it help or hurt sales & marketing alignment?
Before we discuss how new tools are impacting team alignment and before it looks like we’re hating on new technology, it’s important to understand how AI is reshaping marketing and sales overall:
For a full view of the history of GTM over the last 15 years, go back to the Episode 5 newsletter. I made a timeline!
→ Easier content creation: It’s faster than ever to create content, especially personalized content.
→ Search behavior is shifting: As AI-generated answers rise, traditional inbound traffic is declining—and capturing attention earlier in the buyer journey is harder.
→ Outbound is getting easier and therefore noisier: AI makes it easy to send outbound emails at volume, leading to even more saturation and spam.
→ Sea of sameness: When everyone uses similar tools and templates, GTM efforts start to look and sound the same.
→ Standing out requires creativity: Using new tools and processes is becoming table stakes, and the best teams are using AI (and human intelligence!) to find more original, strategic ways to differentiate.
“You’re gonna get left behind if you don’t start using these things. So you do have to figure out a way to start to experiment.” — Devon
✅ AI tools helps alignment when…
“It’s creating more opportunities like customization at scale that you just didn’t do before.” — Emily
Reduces grunt work and frees up focus: By eliminating repetitive manual work, both marketing and sales can spend more time on higher-value, strategic activities, like figuring out how to work well together!
Enables scalable personalization: Marketers and SDRs can now create “1:1-feeling” experiences at volume, personalizing outreach across hundreds of accounts without massive headcount. When done well, this helps sales feel like it’s aligned with marketing on building relationships and focusing on the right accounts.
Unlocks new workflows and opportunities: AI makes entirely new GTM tactics possible, like full-TAM account mapping or highly customized campaigns at scale. Teams that figure out how to use these tools creatively can outmaneuver slower competitors, and strengthen marketing and sales collaboration in the process.
❌ AI hurts alignment when…
“It's creating chaos. Who's using which of these tools? In what ways? Some people are terrified of the tools thinking they're gonna take their job, and so they're hard resistors. Others are embracing full force." - Devon
Encourages lazy, undifferentiated GTM: Over-reliance on AI leads to looking like every other company in your market. The low-quality, inauthentic content and generic messaging combined with over-reliance on inbound and outbound causes growth to stall. And when marketing results drop, sales frustration builds fast, straining the relationship between teams even more.
Creates chaos, complexity, and overwhelm: When there’s no process and AI tools create new workflows instead of simplifying old ones, it overwhelms teams, confuses processes, and fuels fear and resistance.
Leads to siloed adoption and fragmented workflows: Sales and marketing often adopt different tools without shared workflows or oversight, creating parallel universes. Without strong RevOps leadership (and enough resources), it’s impossible to unify the process across the GTM org when using all different tools.
Overworked RevOps teams: Much of this work is being put on RevOps, and they’re also trying to handle the shift to account-driven GTM. New tools may create efficiencies, but your RevOps team probably needs to be growing not shrinking these days.
Grace: “Everybody wants a tool that is specialized to what they need, but then the tools overlap in weird ways that you’re not accounting for unless you have a fabulous RevOps leader who’s overseeing all of your AI implementation across all of go-to-market.”
Emily: “RevOps is being tasked with a lot of that stuff, but the teams aren’t getting bigger. Those teams need to get bigger.”
Attribution: Does it help or hurt sales & marketing alignment?
“The point of attribution is to inform your go-to-market model of what’s working, what you should do more of, what you need to address, et cetera, et cetera. That is the reason for attribution...not credit.” - Grace
Often “attribution” discussions lead to fighting over which team (marketing or sales) deserves “credit.” That’s just not the point.
Your GTM team should be aligned around shared outcomes: pipeline and revenue. They should be focused on the best, most effective way to to do this repeatedly no matter which teams do what.
Attribution often gets in the way of the above. Fights happen so frequently over attribution that Grace, Devon, and I all think trying to attribute everything precisely hurts alignment.
You need to get reporting and attribution to a place where it informs where you put energy, without causing territorialism.
“People lose the plot.” — Kramer
✅ Attribution helps alignment when:
“We have a shared pipeline goal across all of go-to-market. It is the responsibility of everyone. And so if it's pipeline isn’t coming from marketing, okay, how do we make it come from partnerships? If it's not coming from partnerships, how do we make it come from sales?” - Grace
Attribution is used as a directional insight, not a scoreboard: Attribution should help teams understand what’s working—not who to credit. When it’s treated as a tool to inform GTM strategy, not pick a “winner” at your company, everyone can work better together.
GTM teams share a unified pipeline and revenue goal:
When sales, marketing, partnerships, and SDR teams rally around shared numbers, it’s easier to move budget and resources between channels as needed, instead of optimizing each team in isolation. It forces collaboration instead of competition. The focus shifts from “who sourced it” to “how do we hit the number together?”
You look at campaign-level influence, not just channel attribution: Channel-only attribution (like first-touch or last-touch by channel) misses the bigger picture. Campaign-level tracking shows which programs and initiatives influenced revenue. It recognizes that multiple campaigns influence a deal, and gives teams a more holistic view of what’s truly driving pipeline, not just which channel touched a lead first (or last).
“Hot take here as well. I think that campaign-level performance is more important than channel-level performance when it comes to attribution. Like I always say, you have to unite fuel and engine. And when you’re just looking at channel performance, you’re really not taking into account the fuel at all. You’re just taking into account the engine. And so if you look at campaign performance, it’s telling you more of the whole story.” - Kramer
❌ Attribution hurts alignment when:
“It hurts when teams are pointing fingers to Grace’s point, trying to take credit, trying to over-claim influence and game the system. It especially hurts when compensation, specifically for SDRs, has a lot to do with outbound meetings booked. And I think that’s where good attribution systems fail because people think attribution and how people’s commission are being figured out is the same thing. And it’s not.” - Kramer
Attribution becomes a fight for credit and comp: When attribution models are used to assign “credit” or directly impact comp plans, it encourages teams to game the system, over-claim influence, and point fingers. The obsession over who drove a deal, rather than what set of activities, creates resentment and fractures alignment fast.
Teams argue due to inconsistent attribution definitions and reports: Arguments often happen because teams aren’t even looking at attribution the same way: first-touch vs last-touch, cohort reporting vs in-month attribution, and so on. Sometimes teams don’t even realize they’re looking at different things until it’s too late, and trust has already broken down.
You already have a misalignment problem: Attribution debates are usually a signal of confusion and resentment between teams. So if there’s already a problem and you try to get more advanced or specific on attribution, you’ll likely make it worse.
“I think usually there’s a root cause to an [attribution] issue, and usually it’s a marketing and sales alignment issue on what’s important and what’s not important and differences in opinion of what the strategy should be. So usually it’s a strategy and alignment problem, not an actual attribution problem.” - Kramer
Suggestion: Eliminate names from sources and stages
Don’t label things as “marketing-sourced” or “sales-sourced,” or use terms like “marketing qualified lead” (MQL) or “sales qualified contact.” It just creates territorialism and chaos.
Call it what it actually is: an inbound source, an outbound source, a demo request, whatever, without assigning it to a team. If you label stages by team, you make attribution fights worse, not better.
Variable comp for marketing: Does this help or hurt alignment?
“I think the reality is, the lack of variable comp on the marketing side can can create some amount of like resentment.” - Grace
There’s a growing trend toward giving marketing teams variable compensation tied to business outcomes, just like sales.
At its best, variable comp creates more fairness across GTM (especially as roles and responsibilities blur) and ties marketing more directly to pipeline and revenue metrics.
But when it’s done poorly, it pushes marketing to focus too much on short-term wins. Marketing loses sight of the longer-term brand building and demand creation that fuel sustainable growth.
Marketing has to work across teams, drive collaborative campaigns, and invest in longer-term growth, not just close deals this quarter. Because of that difference, variable comp for marketing shouldn’t be a copy-paste of a sales comp plan.
But first, what does LinkedIn think about variable comp for marketing?
I ran a quick Linkedin poll on this topic, here are the results.
“If you're gonna do variable comp for marketing, I think you should do it for the whole team. I think delineating the team gets messy, so I think people are right in the poll.” - Kramer
✅ Variable comp helps alignment when…
“I used to think [as a marketer], why do you need extra money to be convinced to do what’s expected of you in your job? But my opinion has changed. When it feels like you don’t have access to variable comp—when you’re killing it, exceeding your goals, and you’re not getting any extra—it starts to feel unfair. That creates resentment and fuels attribution arguments.” - Grace
Creates shared focus on revenue and fairness across GTM: When marketing, sales, and partnerships are all measured against the same pipeline and revenue targets, it forces true collaboration. Marketing has a seat at the table, tied directly to the outcomes that matter most for the business.
Reflects how GTM roles are blurring: The lines between marketing, sales, and partnerships are blurrier than ever, everyone is contributing to revenue. Variable comp for marketing acknowledges that modern GTM is a shared effort.
Elevates marketing’s role internally: When marketing’s compensation is tied to revenue outcomes, marketing is seen more as a core driver of growth, not just a service team generating leads. It raises marketing’s credibility with sales, execs, and the board.
❌ Variable comp hurts alignment when…
“I’ve had an envious moment when [sales] is walking out of the office with ‘their suitcase of money.’ But, I'm not envious when I think about how they don't even know how much money they could make next quarter because they haven't been given their plan yet and it's like constantly being tweaked by executives and the finance team.” - Devon
Marketing starts thinking too short-term: Tying marketing comp too tightly to immediate pipeline results can cause teams to over-optimize for quick wins. Instead of building brand, creating demand, and nurturing long-term growth, marketing teams chase the nearest deal. Then pipeline dries up in the future!
Variable comp doesn’t match what many marketers want: Some marketers prefer the relative stability and long-term mindset that comes with non-variable comp structures. If variable comp targets feel unrealistic, or if marketers simply don’t want the constant stress of chasing numbers, it can drive frustration, resentment, and turnover.
The verdict:
Is sales and marketing alignment getting harder or easier?
The GTM model has changed, but sales and marketing alignment hasn’t caught up yet. Teams are still figuring out how to reset roles, reporting structures, and processes to match today’s reality.
This transition is causing alignment to feel harder right now—but long term, many of these changes are pushing GTM teams to unify more.
And ultimately, the old team lines will be a distant thing, more changes are ahead:
The traditional marketing and sales breakdown doesn’t make sense anymore. It’s outdated. If I were building a company and go-to-market team from scratch today, I would structure it radically differently from how it’s usually done.” — Kramer
“Maybe it’s harder right now, but the newness of it all is forcing marketing and sales leaders to actually sit down and figure it out. And maybe that’s ultimately what’s going to make everything work better.” — Devon
But for right now, here’s a reminder of what helps and what hurts alignment:
✅ Helps alignment:
Moving SDRs under marketing unifies outbound and pipeline goals.
Centralized RevOps keeps systems and metrics clean across GTM.
Thoughtfully rolling out account-driven GTM builds stronger collaboration.
Treating attribution as a directional insight (not a competition) reduces friction.
Simple variable comp structures for marketing create fairness across teams.
“Working with sales isn’t just nice, it’s critical to hitting [marketing] goals and making the company work better.” — Grace
❌ Hurts alignment:
Treating SDRs as isolated meeting-driven machines widens the sales-marketing gap.
Flooding CRMs with bad data during account-driven rollouts breaks trust (and results) fast.
Overloading teams with disconnected AI tools creates chaos
Attribution fights over “credit” distract from real pipeline growth.
“If you’re stuck on alignment, go back and revisit who owns what across teams—not just at the handoff point, but at the full leadership and ops level. You need both a zoomed-in and a zoomed-out view to actually fix it.” - Kramer
Listen to the full episode here if you haven’t yet:
MKT1 & Typeform: MarTech stack survey - Get 1 free month of an MKT1 Newsletter Paid Subscription
I’m running a survey with Typeform to find out what tools you are obsessed with right now, what you can’t wait to try, what the most important tools in your tech stack are, and more.
This will inform a newsletter this summer.
Bonus: If you fill the whole thing out (takes 3-4 minutes), you’ll get a free month of MKT1’s paid newsletter subscription for yourself or a marketing friend.
More from MKT1 & Dear Marketers
🙏 Thanks again to our sponsors: Typeform, Framer & UserEvidence
🎁 Please fill out our MKT1 & Typeform State of Martech 2025 survey to get 1 FREE month of a paid MKT1 subscription.
⁉️ Want to ask a question in a future episode? We have a Typeform for that.
⭐ Please rate us or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube.
✂️ Templates, discounts & tool recommendations for paid subscribers: Rules of engagement template + 50 more available in our resources library for paid subscribers only | Active discount list here »
📚 Additional reading and reports:
🧑🚀 Job board: Jobs from the MKT1 community
🎙️ Next podcast: Dear Marketers Episode 7. It will be related to web and brand this time and feature another OG member of Asana marketing to co-host with us for the full episode!
📰 Next “Deep Dive” newsletter: I’ll be writing about my own content strategy and lessons learned—brief delay due to illness over here!
Share this post