Phase Changers

This is a long thread in 9 parts exploring the question: What if our ideas about marketing are all wrong?

You can jump to each part in the thread here:

Phase 2 - The search for ROGI
Phase 3 - Notes on Boston Boxes
Phase 4 - More Boston Boxes
Phase 5 - On creating new markets
Phase 6 - The Eye of the Storm
The Bonus Track and Footnotes
Phase 7 - The New Marketing Dashboard (Late 2023)
Phase 8 - Fulcrum Marketing (Late 2023)
Phase 9 - The 5 P's of Changing Phases (Early 2024)

It began as a single post...

What if the 4 P's, the product adoption cycle, the S Curve and the 60:40 Marketing Mix are fundamentally flawed ways of thinking about how it all works?


and yes, it's very hard to do...

If the 4p's...

...looked more like the 2IC's

.and how would that fundamentally change the way we measure success in the world of marketing?

So let's embark on a quick of thought experiment

We'll begin with an idea called Phase Changers

So what is a phase change? and, why is it important?

In the world of Physics when water shifts from Ice/Soild to Water/Liquid To Steam/Gas it undertakes a what is described as a phase change

Either side of those phase changes is a steady state

It is either Ice/Solid, Water/Liquid or Steam/Gas

But the key observation here is it takes a change in energy to ignite this change in state

Now what if the same principle applies to marketing?

After all it takes investment. It takes effort. It takes creativity. To initiate a change in state to shift the market along the 'S Curve'

This is because the function of Marketing - or, more accurately, changing the customer's mind - is better understood as addressing the challenge of reducing friction in the market place

So the 'S Curve', rather than looking like this...

Is better undertsood as looking something more like this

You might describe marketing's objective as decending the staircase of friction to achieve market pentration

Now this idea explains - or at the very least accomodates - what Geoffrey Moore described as 'Crossing the Chasm'

and suggests there are two overiding market strategies to deal with the challenge of market friction

Basically you are either in the business of removing friction (Distrupting the incumbents) or adding friction (Building a branded moat)

Which of course takes us back to the 'S Curve'

The key observation here being there are 3 steady state phases in the business of marketing

Each with its own unique challenges and opportunties

Each with its own career risk and rewards for the professional tasked with the challenge

Because each phase requires a different skill set and dare I say a different kind of professional?

and this is why the 'Chasm Jumpers' are so rare

There is easier money and career gains to be made in managing steady state growth than experimenting with the catalysts the ignite the phase change

Those that do it are hooked on the thrill of ignition - of burning down the house - rather than the day to day challenge of maintaining the status quo

and perhaps this is why the average tenure of the CMO in an organisation undertaking the transformative challenge is - more often than not - so short

and so onto the big question... can we turn this insight into a formula that allows us to change the way we think about how we invest in marketing?

Good question

So let's take a stab at the answer

This is what I think the model looks like

As you can see the basic premise is the markeing mix evolves as you move through the changes of state

The key though is this idea that to initiate a phase change you need to invest in removing friction if you are to move beyond the steady state baseline

Now let's map out the challenge using 2 axis - Change vs Steady State and B2B vs DTC

The assumption being that any marketing challenge sits somewhere in that 2x2 matrix

The key observation being large corporate accounts are better served by rainmakers than marketing campaigns

While retail is best served by mass media and target marketing

SME are to be found somewhere inbetween

The task is threefold.

Firstly: Identify where you sit on the horizonal axis

Second: Identify your steady state benchmark spend on the vertical axis

Three: Calculate what is required to ignite a phase change in customer/market behaviour

So the composite model looks something like this

and if we begin to populate the landscape we can get some idea of the steady state benchmarks for the incumbent market leaders and the variable cost associated with funding the phase change for the disrupters

At a more granular level we can note that the iPod phase change increased Apple's marketing investment by a factor of 2x circa 2001

Closing thoughts?

Look we have only just scratched the surface here... but it's enough to spark a discussion about the realities of estimating the marketing mix for both incumbents and disruptors

It also provides a 'rule of thummb' for investors seeking to identify which Unicorns will be unable to feed themselves once they have IPO'd

I suspect the steady state constant is a product/function of brand equity

Meanwhile the friction variable is basically a measure of the energy required to move to a new phase... but this in turn is linked to how distant the new market is from the brand's current position

This brings up questions of brand elasticity and the value of investing in expanding a brand's elasticity

e.g. How valuable is Google's brand in markets like confectionary, beverages or farm machinary compared to smart wearables, data analytics and CRM

The other observation I want to make is - assuming the equation is valid - does it work on a granular level, beyond the bundling of products and services under an annual marketing budget, into the realm of campaign planning?

I supect the answer lays in rethinking the 2IC matrix as a fitness landscape populated by point attractors that induce movement and/or bring the customer to rest

But more on that idea another day...

Part 2

In the first post we explored the idea of marketing being about removing or increasing friction

Now I want to explore an observation:

In my experience any idiot can count the beans but it takes real genius to build a brand... So why do so many marketing managers waste their days counting beans?

All the indicators are marketing today is fundamentally about portfolio management

You could say it's about managing a portfolio of volatile growth experiments

The good news is the world of investment banking, hedge funds, private equity and venture capital shows us there are a myriad of ways to manage a portfolio to obtain alpha returns

There is everything from the buy and hold strategies of the value investor through to the frenetic algorithmic trading of the day trader

With the 60/40 branding vs performance model of the marketing mix being the equivilent of the mainsteam equities vs bonds 'passive' benchmark

It's just a question of deciding what style suits your investment thesis, doing the research and executing on the model

But more on that idea another day...

The core metric driving marketing spend today is ROI - Return on Investment

and it comes in many forms e.g. ROAS - Return on Advertising Spend being the nano version of this metric promoted by MarTEch vendors, RMI - Return on Marketing Investment

Championed by the managment consulting profession it is a metric imposed by the office of the CFO on the world of marketing

In truth it is an metric Investment Portfolio Managers employ to describe their performance - and again it comes in many forms e.g. MOIC (Multiple on Invested Capital)

Essentially it is the metric for measuring the cash on cash return on the money you invest

The golden rule for maximising your ROI is buy low sell high

But the problem with ROI in the context of Sales and Marketing is simply this

When you buy an ad or pay a salesperson to manage the account you don't actually buy it to sell it to the 'greater fool' sometime in the future

So it is fundamentally the wrong way of thinking about why you have bought the ad in the first place

It also introduces unnecessary volatility into the growth model (but more on that later)

Employing ROI as a KPI totally bypasses the most obvious question: Does spending more on sales and marketing = more growth? (and Vice Versa)

As you can see in the charts below the answer is generally yes

and the same applies to established consumer brands

Spend more = grow more... Spend less = grow less

Now let's take a look at the ROI spread on this dataset

These 3 charts dissect the spread into 3 distinct layers of ROI based on the change in Sales and Marketing Investment (Year on Year)

As you can see. As the spend decreases and trends towards negative the ROI becomes more volatile

The ROI numbers become increasing elastic - delivering bigger gains and bigger losses

Breakdown the sample further and you'll discover the sweet spot in the equation appears to be a 15%-30% increase in Sales and Marketing

Understand this and you are now aware of the limitations of ROI as a target metric for forecasting revenue growth

Any discussion about ROI should be framed within the context of implied volatility of adopting the target based on the change in Sales and Market investment

and this raises the question: Is there a better target management metric than ROI?

Well let's try this idea...

What happens when we revalue the ROI target to accomodate the primary function of the investment (in sales & marketing) ie. growth

The new formula being ROGI(x)=ROI(x)*Revenue Growth(%)

Well we discover this...

and, assuming our benchmark target to be 1x, we discover that an investment in Growth outperforms the average on an adjusted basis

and this in turn suggests the ROGI benchmark should reflect the relative position of the business or product within the business or product lifecycle

Which in turn provides us with some viibility of the investment required to overcome market friction/inertia

Can we validate this idea?

Well let's see what happens when we map four of the Dot Com winners against the model

We discover - bar the seismic shifts created by the DotCom Crash, the GFC and now the Everything Bubble - the model holds up pretty well

We also see pretty quickly how much more efficient Amazon has been over the years compared to eBay, and Salesforce

Moving on we can also see how the model stands up by comparing the relative performance of this current generation of SaaS players

...some of the eCommerce plays

and finally a sample of 'late stage' consumer brands

Is it useful? I'll leave that up to you to decide

But at the very least it points us towards what the 'steady state constant' may well be in the Phase Changers equation

The ROGI Model

Originally Published Spring 2022

This is the first draft of the ROGI Model

It is basically a tool for exploring the pro's and con's of the ROI and ROGI metrics as a measure for identifying the strategic fit of a sales and marketing plan

Product Cycle

Target Market


Campaign Objectives

Current Year


Sales and Market Costs

Next Year

Growth Forecast

Budget Forecast

Revenue Forecast

Revenue Increase

Sales and Marketing Budget

Sales Budget

Marketing Budget

Performance Marketing Budget

Brand Building Budget

KPIs Forecast

ROI (x)

ROGI (x)


The use of these calculators, charts, visualisations, data or any information shall be at the user’s sole risk. Such use shall constitute a release and agreement to hold harmless, defend and indemnify Digital Partners from and against any liability (including but not limited to liability for special, indirect or consequential damages) in connection with such use. Such release from and indemnification against liability shall apply in contract, tort (including negligence of such party, whether active, passive, joint or concurrent), strict liability, or other theory of legal liability; provided, however, such release, limitation and indemnity provisions shall be effective to, and only to, the maximum extent, scope or amount allowable by law.

Questions of accuracy

Tymbals is an experiment in machine learning and statistical modelling of small data pools. Tymbals is still under development. It is still learning. Tymbals is Beta - i.e. Pre-release.

The probabilities and outputs (e.g. calculators, charts, visualisations) will evolve and change as the system ingests more data.

Tymbals is a probability model. The results generated by Tymbals are market estimates based on the cummulative value of the data within the distributed data pools.


All data inputs are automatically added to the learning pool from which Tymbals models are generated.

If you do not want your data added the data pool do not use Tymbals

Phase 3

Should we be surprised to discover the Phase Changes correlates with the old 'Boston Box' (Growth Share Matrix) classification model?

Not really

But the insight that it brings is the 'Boston Box' is better understood as a clock than a classification system

and we can express this idea by mapping the timeline of the YoY change in iPhone unit sales as a series of phase changes through the Boston Box

Understand this and you can see the 'Boston Box' is better understood as portfolio management tool for managing the product lifecycle through the phase changes from Wild card > Star > Cash Cow > Dog (Decline)

What is interesting is when you expand on this idea to map Apple's portfolio of wearable technologies

and then map the portfolio across the decades

We discover that the iPhone was part of a continuum of a portfolio winding through the phase changes from Wild Card to Star to Cash Cow

We discover that Apple is in the business of building sub-categories within the wearable digital tech category it launched when it disrupted the Sony Walkman with the iPod

Moreover the introduction of these new products has not changed the overall trajectory of the portfolio - but they have reinforced the relative position of the Apple brand in the market category as it moved from Wild Card/Disruptor to Cash Cow/Incumbent

We can see how each new product entry built on the user base of the existing technology and how - with the exception of the watch (a line extension too far for wearable media delivery?) this accelerated adoption of the next wave of wearable technology

Note: The iPod sold roughly as many units as the Walkman during its lifespan however the adoption rate was 2x faster (iPhone 4x faster) than the Walkman launched in 1979

But more on that idea another day...

The key observation that needs to be made is the core of the model... and arguably the core of the marketing profession... resides in the evaluation of the 'Wild Card' quadrant

i.e. Evaluating the odds and knowing where to place the bets

Because, if we map the probability of success into this model, based on Venture Capital ROI in early stage startups, we discover 95% of those investments in the 'Wild Cards' fail to grow fast enough to become 'Stars'

The rest just slip away into oblivion

So how do you forecast success?

Good question!

A better question is how do we improve our chances of success?

and the answer to that is you begin by asking better questions

and then testing the answers to discover if they are indeed the right questions

Let's begin with a simple one: What game are you in? Volume or Margin or Both?

Define this and you'll quickly identify who the competition is...

Better still you can translate Volume into Logic (Price) and Margin into Emotion (Sins of the heart) and from there you profile your ideal buyer (Target Market)

and once you have an ideal buyer you can begin the task of weaving a social proof (Narrative) from their collective aspirations and dreams

The objective being to pivot the 'Principle of Least Interest' (ie ‘The idea in sociology that the person or group that has the least amount of interest in continuing a relationship has the most power over it’) in your favour

The reason being the 'Principle of Least Interest' is at the heart of the Friction - this market resistance - you are attempting to remove from the growth equation

and you do this by ultumately changing the question inside the buyer's head from 'Why should I buy?' to 'Why shouldn't I be buying?'

and now I'm going to finish this brief post off with a quantum leap

Google search and digital in general are about outsourced memory

This is the key difference between Ads of the MadMen era and the digital era

In the earlier era branding was owning a space in people’s heads (Ries/Trout)

They called this 'Positioning'

Today it’s about leasing space in their virtual memory

These are very different challenges with very different rewards on your investment

More so given the challenge can be easily gamified by bad actors active across key pinch points in the value chain

This idea of outsourced virtual memory is also the key driver I suspect behind Zuckerberg’s vision for the metaverse

In this context it is a logical extension of the world Meta and Google already operate in

Meta is chasing the the next generation hardware/vOS platform to disrupt the Google/Apple smart device duopoly

Google is revisiting it’s formative years by scraping the web to feed and train its ground breaking AI

Apple is… ? Advertising is…?

The key observation I want to make is this

If the key to the golden era of mass media was creating unique positions (ie categories) inside the buyer's head

Then the key to unlocking the digital era is creating unique questions inside the buyer's head

Why? Because in a world of infinite virtual memory positioning is just noise

It is the question that becomes the signal

Why? because it renders 99.99999% of the space occupied in the virtual memory redundant

The question is the signal in all the noise

Phase 4

We have explored the idea of mapping the phase changes to the Boston Box

Now let's take this idea a step further to discover what it reveals about managing a product or startup through the 3 phase changes

At the beginning of this journey we discovered that each of the phase changes required a different kind of professional or at least mindset/skillset

The rationale being each phase required a different type of expertise and arguably a different way of mapping, measuring, monitoring and managing progress

The 80:20 Rule suggests the overwhelming majority of products and services in the market todays are Dogs

This means the overwhelming majority of marketing professionals today are employed to monitor, measure and manage the performance of Dogs

You could describe them as Dog Trainers

They coach brands to perform the 4 P's of marketing with great precision

Nothing wrong with that

But what I'm interested is the 20% who make a difference

The 20% who know intuitively that 'Great Marketing sells a transformation, not a product or service' (Kudos Samantha Leal)

The 20% who realise Marketing and Sales are actually the same game: One conducted Face to face. The other remotely.

The 20% who realise Marketing is less about the 4 P's and more about listening and leveraging consumer psychology to understand the needs, struggles, beliefs, objections, biases, aspirations, triggers, emotions and desires of the sales prospect and then packaging up a response to meet that challenge (Again Kudos Samantha Leal)

The 20% who know great marketing is about category creation. Not just competing with the rabid pack of hounds on Price, Features, Performance, Traffic, Clicks and Conversions

So - getting back to the original question that triggered this extended thread of posts - if great marketing isn't about the 4 P's (Price, Promotion, Product, Placement) what is it about?

The answer - of course - is creating new markets

That's why it's called marketing and not pricing or producting or promoting or placing or 4 P'ing

Your objective is to create new markets for your products... not waste money competing with everybody else, and certainly not the market leders, in their own markets

So how do you do that?

Well let's see what merging the Boston Box with some old ideas about social contagion, emergence, convergence and divergence reveals about what's different within each phase of the market transformation cycle

I would argue today the overriding metric that governs our ideas about how marketing works are based on the idea of contagion

Be it word of mouth through to brand awareness, brand recall and share of mind

all of these metrics are based on the idea of spreading the contagion

What the mapping of the phase changes reveals is these ideas may be - if not wrong - at least fundamentally flawed - if only because these contagion metrics are better understood as lag rather than lead indicators of success

So let's put these contagion metrics aside and begin with the proposition: Marketing is the business of manufacturing Emergence, Divergence & Convergence... on demand


Managing a Wild Card is all about planning for emergence

Markets evolve

They are constantly in flux

Change is the one true constant

The key to success here is identifying emerging trends and leveraging them to your advantage

The challenge is identifying what to inject into the market to trigger changes in behaviour

The key to success is pinpointing the social triggers that motivate the market to (re)act

The objective here is to remove friction from the marketplace


Managing the growth phase is all about creating the conditions for convergence

Convergence is about gaming market behaviour

Igniting the customer's curiosity

Enticing them to act on impulse

The challenge is creating the hook

A point attractor

That attracts a crowd

and brings them to rest

We call this the Brand

The paradox here is for your market share to grow you need to bring the market to rest (ie introduce friction)

Hint: Click/touch on one of the dots and we'll show you how easy it is


In the world of marketing we call this the brand or line extension

The idea that new products and services can become extensions of the Cash Cow

It's all about leveraging the Brand Equity that has been created by the cash cow to enter into new market categories

Arguably the emphasis here is on portfolio management

Hint: Draw on the canvas to watch divergence at play


Market contagion is how we measure the relative success of these collective efforts

Today the world of advertising and marketing is awash with specialists in the mapping, monitoring, measuring, manipulating and managing social/market contagion

i.e. Dog Trainers

However the winners have evolved to become niche players in the specialisations of Emergence, Convergence and Diffusion

I just suspect they don't know it yet... simply because nobody has put a label on it before now

In that last post I closed with the observation: If the key to the golden era of mass media was creating unique positions (ie categories) inside the buyer's head

Then the key to unlocking the digital era is creating unique questions inside the buyer's head

I'll close this one with the observation the role of the marketeer within each one of the 3 quadrants is ultimately what you do with the question

The objective is to change the question on everybody's lips

e.g Have you heard?, Have you seen?, Did you know?

Then become the question on everybody's lips

E.g. How's it working out for you?

... and then expand the questions on everybody's lips to keep new players from entering into the market

More importantly you need to be the question in everybody's head... Am I that type of Man, Women, Girl or Boy?

Am I Coke or Pepsi?

Am I Energy Drink or Cola?

Am I...?

Am I a performance marketeer addicted to MarTech and Data Analytics or am I a Brand Manager addicted to Share of Mind and Brand Recall?

That ultimately is the root of the marketing challenge

Manufacturing new markets... new identities... new questions about our beliefs and aspirations... and then filling the emotional void we have created

It really is that simple

and ultimately this idea: Change the Question. Change the Phase

It harks backs to the origins of the original ExCapite Blog

and the role of new marketeer being the puzzlemiester as auteur

...and we are left once again to reflect on James Burke's opening remarks in the documentary series 'The Day the Universe Changed'...

"Your world is a reflection of what you know today. Changed the way you think, by introducing new ideas, and you will change your world".

...and ultimately my opening observations from over a dozen years ago...

Today we live in a world where we can navigate our way through unimaginable treasuries of online knowledge and change the way we think by simply clicking on yet another hyperlink.

Today your Universe can change in the time it takes to load a new web page or receive an SMS on your phone.

We are no longer thinking in terms of the The Day the Universe Changed. Our world view is in flux. If we are not already, then we soon will be awash with “Moments When Our Universe Changed”.

This I think is both the wonder and the challenge of our age

Phase 5

Those of you who are familiar with these threads will know they are basically exercises in taking an idea and stretching it just to see what happens

Some fly off into the future. Others simply float nowhere.

This thread is one of those that measures how much we have forgotten rather than shedding light on the future

Marketing is about creating new markets
There is little to no friction in a new market
First come first serve

It's all about speed and agility. Gobbling up as much new territory as you can and quickly as you can

Once you have occupied the new territory you get busy building the moat and the ramparts to defend it

You introduce friction into the equation

All this means marketing is a simple game

Because the opportunity to create new markets is endless

It just takes imagination and investment

But you look at the world of marketing today and you discover it is complex

Today every company is a media company. Every company is a big data company. Every company is a tech company.

and you only have to look at the consistency in the quality of Microsoft's software, Google's search results and Disney's movies to know each of these objectives is crazy

If the market leaders struggle to consistently deliver on this promise what chance do you?

In truth every company is just fumbling around chasing the next trend

Following rather than leading

... and this is because the metrics of success, just like the sands, shift with each new wave of MarTech

At the beginning of this thread I suggested there is truth in the old adage you can only manage what you can measure but ultimately you become what you choose to measure

Today the world of marketing is awash with metrics

Some self imposed. The majority from external stakeholders.

I would argue to change the game you need to introduce new metrics

New ways of measuring success in the world of marketing

and I think these new metrics should focus on the challenge at hand

How do you measure your ability to create new markets?

How do you measure your ability to defend these new markets?

These are the questions worth exploring

and I think it comes down to the obvious questions

Firstly: What market offers the greatest expansion opportunity coupled with the least amount of friction?

Secondly: If we can secure this market what will it take to defend our position?

These are the strategic questions

They are questions of territory

and they point to the Art of Marketing being more akin to the Art of War than the Science of the Tea Leaves (Statistics and Big Data)

Where success comes down to your ability to read the landscape and how you deploy your assets

So if we begin to map the territory what does this map look like?

I suspect something like this

We scan the horizon to measure the variance between where we are today and the where we could be heading (ie How near or far away are we talking? & What is the level of friction we will encounter between here and there)

Then we cross reference that with the vibrancy of the landscape (ie How what's the growth potential of those opportunities?)

and then, on top of that 2x2 matrix we estimate the size of those new markets

So in one cube we have mapped the landscape of opportunity and the relative difficulty of capturing and servicing those opportunities

Entering a nearby rapidly growing market with a large Total Addressable Market (TAM) is optimal

Investing in a distant market that is already deaccelerating with a small TAM is sub-optimal

So the Territory Equation = TAM x Growth / Distance (from the brand)

To put this into context let's take another look at the iPod as case study

In 2000 Napster grew its user based 10x (ie 14,000 Users) - Proof of strong growth for digital music

Sony had already sold 250+ Million Walkmans - Proof of global market

The distance between Desktop Computing and a Wearable MP3 Player was well within the Apple market horizon (Think: Newton PDA 1993-1998) - Proof of operational capability and brand elasticity

So the Territory Equation for the original iPod looked like this

iPod = $28Billion * 10x / 1

5 Years later the market for MP3 players was $4.5 Billion and Apple had secured a 30% market Share

In contrast when Apple released the Watch in 2015 Fitbit's growth (the market leader in health tracking wearables) in the previous year was 2.4x and they had already sold just under 17 Million units in the first 5 years

Five years on and the market for health trackers had grown from $1.5 Billion to $36.34 Billion with Apple again securing 30% of the market

So - once you factor in the growth prospects and TAM projections for the wearable market (eg similar to MP3) - the Territory Equation for the Apple Watch looked something like this

Apple Watch = $30 Billion * 2.5x / 5

and this perhaps explains why, although it generated more revenue in the first 5 years, the growth trajectory of the Watch did not match the iPod

... there was already friction in the market

and we can expand on this idea to evaluate Google's GlassHole adventure

In 2014 when the prduct was launched there was no market for the product, no evidence of growth and Google had no history of developing computer hardware

Glass = $1 Billion (?) * 1x / 10

Then there is Amazon's 2006 AWS strategy

Cloud computing was emerging from the tech wreck of the Dot Com crash

Early entrant's like Loudcloud had come and gone in the aftermath of the crash

Amazon had spare capacity. Bundling it up as a cloud compute offering in retrospect seems self evident

Data Centers were scaling at 15% per annum between 2000-2005 and the world was already spend >$100 Billion in 2004 on hardware to meet demand

Map all this to the Territory Equation and we discover AWS = $100 Billion x 1.15x / 1

This then is how you navigate the fitness landscape when planning your marketing strategy

and, yes you can use it for M&A evaluation

In the case of both the Instagram and YouTube acquisitions by Facebook and Google the equation read 20x Growth * $5 Billion TAM * 1x Distance

Meanwhile the ill fated Nokia acquisition by Microsoft would have equated to $54 Billion TAM * 0.78x Growth / 5x Distance

... and we can map those decisions across the Fitness Landscape and it becomes self evident which ones were going to be the winners and losers

Basically it's a away of thinking

A way of seeing the market

A way of evaluating the gaps in market

A way of identifying where the quick wins can be found based on your capability to execute and the elasticity of your Brand

and if you struggle with thinking in 3-D you can always reduce the Growth/Scale metric into a single variable and map it to the variance to generate the more traditional Risk vs Return or Value vs Ease forecast matrix

Or, you could make a subtle change the way you think and reimagine the 'Boston Box' as Growth Opportunity vs Friction

So I'll leave it there

I don't think it's a ground breaking insight

I wouldn't call it a new way of thinking

More like an old way of seeing

It's just stating the obvious

Marketing - particularly when you are managing a cash cow or transforming the old into something new - is about creating new markets

It's about discovering opportunities for frictionless entry and then closing the gate before competitors arrive

The best way to plan and measure your progress in creating new markets is to map and monitor the fitness landscape centered around your brand or product and figure out how you are going to expand into new markets

It's not rocket science... but then again I'm not too sure anything about marketing ever was

In closing the observation I want to make is the pivot Silicon Valley has imposed on the marketing profession

You see the trick they pulled was to convince the world that today every company is a media company. That every company is a tech company. That every company is a big data company.

and they did that by seeding the idea the opportunities available to everybody in this brave new world were unlimited and the transition was frictionless

Digital Media + Digital Tech + Digital Data = 21st Century Digital Success

Grow your business for free on Google, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snap, Pinterest, YouTube, Shopify, Mailchimp, Hubspot... etc - all you need to do is become a media company generating digital content and keeping an eye on the engagement stats

They took the frictionless pivot and turned it into a game everybody with a camera phone can play

and as each new player became hooked on playing the game the level of friction of not playing the game, of not being on the platfrom, of staying and investing more energy in the game, increased

The question moved from why would you be playing the game? To can you afford not to be playing the game?

They turned marketing into a game everybody with a smartphone and an app can play

and that my friends is pure marketing genius


The original question that prompted this thread was: What if our ideas about marketing are all wrong?

What if the 4 P's, the product adoption cycle, the S Curve and the 60:40 Marketing Mix are fundamentally flawed ways of thinking about how it all works?

In retrospect it was perhaps the wrong question

A more poignant question may have been what if marketing profession has confused tactics (Doing) with strategy (Thinking)

What if rather than learning the 4P's young marketing professionals would be better equipped with learning the fundamentals of investing - ie picking the growth opportunities within a market and assembling/managing portfolios of profitable investments

Because the ideas I have sifted through here have more to do with thinking like a modern investor than a modern marketing professional

Having said that I believe the relationship between successful marketing and successful investing is symbiotic and arguably the 'thinking/planning/strategy' skills are interchangeable

ROI from an investment in new high growth, frictionless markets will always prove more rewarding than an investment in low growth, high friction markets

It's just a case of where you choose to put your money to work

So hopeful at the end of this thread - if nothing else - you have been encouraged to rethink how you forecast and measure success in the world of marketing

and, just as importantly, how you see the 'battlefield' - the competitive landscape - you are monitoring today

Further Reading

The decay of corporations and an analysis of their business fitness landscapes

Surfing the Edge of Chaos

Brands sponsor rituals

The endless list of likes

You will know me by my lists

Debunking brands as moats

Tribal narratives in the age of fractals

The Journey from Metcalfe's Law to The Fractal Narrative

Phase 6 - The Eye of the Storm

For those of you who have made it to the end this is the Easter Egg buried deep in this series on Phase Changes

Would you use the 4 P’s to teach marketing today?

No. You would teach Investing

Why? Because to understand the marketing you need to understand the Markets

Or, more accurately how the market prices opportunities with a market

This is how the novice investor thinks…

They look at the stock price and then try to rationalise why it represents a great investment opportunity

Now let’s use this idea to map out how Marketing people think about Marketing

Guess what: We discover they invest the bulk of their budgets, technology, time and effort in mapping, monitoring, measuring and optimising the opportunity

Basically their methods and processes are the perfect expression of not knowing what business they are in…

i.e. Making markets

And the question needs to be asked why?

and the simple answer is…

They have one piece of a jig-saw puzzle

and it is their job to try and figure out where it fits

Think of an elephant and blind folded experts in a room using computers to optimise their insights

This is marketing today

Now let's take a quick look at how the experienced investor thinks…

They begin by asking the question: What motivates the market (Why are people buying/acting?)

Then they map the landscape to discover who is is winning the game as it is being played today

They then dig deeper to discover what differentiates the market leaders

Only then do they look at the price they have to pay

So let's ask the obvious question

How would marketing professionals behave if they acted like professional investors?

Let's begin by saying, if we look back at the Boston box, we discover the market is best understood as dog track

We have lots of dog trainers and we have lots of dogs barking

It’s a noisy place where dogs get to run round in circles barking loudly while their trainers clock their lap times

It’s a great spectacle and fevers run high

You could say the level of friction created here is a function of the investment in generating noise (and you’d be right)

The dog track business is a buzz

Market Leaders on the other hand create their own ‘universe’ of friction

Their market share is removed from the dog track

Their relationship with their market is pure signal

Things change when they attempt to introduce new products or enter new markets

and, yes, if they are not careful they find themselves running around the dog track with all the other dogs

Startups on the other hand earn their stripes at the dog track

The only true measure of their success is how quickly they learn running around in circles is for the dogs

You have to think differently if you are to break the breathless cycle of running with the barking hounds

and this challenge speaks to the function of marketing and ultimately the campaign strategy

To plan the campaign we must map the territory

and to do that we need to introduce another axis

but before we do that we need to understand the difference between competing at the dog track and with the market leaders

The dog track is big on market friction and small on brand friction

It is wide and thin

The market the leaders play in on the other hand is big on both market friction and brand friction

It is wide and thin

Now the common interpretation of Market Leadership is building a moat

To accomodate that idea we need to turn the matrix on its head

Now market leadership is best understood as a sink hole that the market gravitates towards and fall into rather than a mountain that needs to be climbed

The challenge then becomes one of making the edge of the funnel wide and frictionless so the market slips and falls in

Less a matter of brand building and more a matter of inviting the market to slide into your hands

Flip this matrix and view it from the top and you discover the quantum leap

The dog track is a whirlpool

and the market leader sits in the middle of it

So you have all this chaotic, frenetic activity - the zeitgeist - swirling around the brand

And in the calm at the eye of the storm sits the brand

The closer you get to the eye of the storm the greater the market friction and the greater the speed of the zeitgeist

Then it just drops away

The market leader becomes the beacon blazing brightly in the storm

It becomes the point attractor and everybody falls in...

Disruption of course happens on the edges of the zeitgeist

and this is why the zeitgeist is always on the move

The only question you need to ask is where is it heading and how do I position my brand so it remains or becomes the eye of the storm?

and this takes us back to how professional investors think

If marketing is the profession of creating markets then its primary task is mapping the zeitgeist and repositioning the brand to keep the promise, products and services in tune with the zeitgeist

What Wayne Gretsky famously described as skating towards where the puck is heading

The classic case study in this being Apple's disruption of Nokia as Mobile Phones transitioned from Wearable Communications (Connecting People) to Wearable Computing (This changes everything)

The catalyst for change being Facebook's 'Free' 24/7 social media

and this, ultimately, as first suggested when we began this series, is why the 4p's of marketing...

...looked more like the 2IC's

Because, as we now can see, the real art of marketing is creating 'sink holes' that the customer feels comfortable slipping into

The question then becomes how?

and not so much how do we create these sink holes?

But how do we get the market to move towards the sink holes we have created

The simple answer is you either front run the zietgeist or you influence the zeitgeist - ie redirect it towards your sinkhole

You either jump in early or you create the trend

and that insight leads us back to a post I wrote 9 years ago... On how profiting from network effects is a function of your investment in PR

and the deeper insight: Growth is fundamentally tied to your investment in Brand Awareness ... ie Building Brand Equity

e.g. Tinder's 'organic' growth story powered by American Press Coverage

and this leads us back into the realms of Change the Story and you Change the Game and creating the addiction or hook that is the point attractor that encourages the customer to slip freely into the sinkhole

But for now I'll leave you with this insight

This isn't about creating customer journeys. This isn't about KYC. This isn't about an abundance of metrics and methodologies

It is simply a game of creating something new that customers want to jump into... it's all about feeding our insatiable curosity to experience and share something new

Bonus Track

A 20 Minute video on the science of phase changes

Footnote: On the question of what is the ROI on a Brand Campaign?

Fast forward 18 months and John James referenced a tweet of mine in an extended 5 part series on Brand Advertising

The quote was...

"A Brand Campaign is basically an ad that is so ridiculously expensive to make that all it says is look we are doing so well we can afford to waste shareholder funds on this for no other reason than ‘because we can’.

Brand advertising is basically market signaling. It’s calling out the competition. Can you compete with us? Can you compete with that! This is what market leadership looks like! Etc

Anyone who thinks otherwise is missing the point"

John used the quote in the context of describing a Brand Campaign as an exercise "Costly Signalling"

This idea is fundamentally wrong

Let me explain why

We'll begin with the question: How do you calculate the ROI on a brand campaign?

The answer is you don't

Your response is if you can tell me what the ROI is on a hedge on your investment portfolio or ForEx account then I will know how to frame an answer to your question

You see, with in the framework of the Phase Changers, a brand campaign is best understood as a hedge: ie a strategy that tries to limit risks across a portfolio of financial assets

When you invest in a Brand Campaign you are buying a hedge to de-risk your prior investment in building the brand through performance marketing

You are buying a hedge that increases the cost of entry for the rest of the market

You are investing in maintaining the status quo (ie your current market position)

You are buying into inertia

In financial speak you are buying into an advertising and and market strategy to offset the risk of any adverse movements by your competitors to acquire your customers and undermine your market share

It really is that simple

It isn't a question of what is the ROI? But what are the losses if you don't derisk your position by hedging?

Note: This observation led to 2 more posts in this series

Part 7 - The new marketing dashboard in which we use the reporting models of the CFO to redesign the marketing score card, and

Part 8 - Fulcrum Marketing in which we clean up & dumb down the ideas outlined in Part 6 of this series

Phase 7 - The New Marketing Dashboard

The 2022 series on Phase Changes was about mapping the requirements for a new marketing dashboard

How could we merge the language of the CMO into the language of the CFO?

This post is a pivot on that idea

How could we merge the language of the CFO into the language of the CMO?

It begins by observing there are 3 key financial reports generated by the CFO for the financial markets

We have the Balance Sheet, the Operating Statement and the Cashflow Statement

This is what the marketing equivalent might look like...

The New Marketing Balance Sheet

The Marketing Balance Sheet is easy. It is basically the Boston Box (also known as the BSG Growth-Share Matrix)

It shows us where we are in the market

and we can take that idea a step further to map how efficient we are compared to the market

The New Marketing Operating Statement

Now we have mapped our market position let's move on to mapping the efficiency of our sales and marketing spend over the past 12 months

We can do this by comparing the change in sales and marketing expenditure with the change in revenue growth

This requires two sets of growth calculations. The first is the YoY Change in Revenue vs the change sales and marketing spend - This is the change in revenues you will find in a company's Quarterly Report

We use this as the performance benchmark across the portfolio

The next metric maps the change in the change in growth over the past 12 months vs the previous 12 months prior vs the change in spend

The New Marketing Cash Flow Statement

The next step is to reimagine this relative efficiency as marketing cashflow

and by that I mean. We may or may not be efficient but how effective are we in converting prospects into customers?

We begin with the phase changes. We map where we are in the market cycle

And then we move onto the hard bit. Now we must map both the phase and the efficiency to determine our relative effectiveness

Now this idea can be expressed more simply by centering the conversion and then spliting the timeline into the funnel and payback/profitability windows

and we can take this one step further by mapping the 'Free Cashflows' - ie the profitability of the model

The advantage being once we have done this we can clearly see what phase of the acquisition funnel needs to be optimised to maximise the time value of the money being spent on acquiring and retaining customers

Only then do they look at the sales and marketing budget to see if it is aligned to the strategic objectives we have mapped out in the new Sales and Marketing Balance Sheet, Operating Statement and the Cashflow statement

The New Sales & Marketing Report & Budget Summary

The New Sales & Marketing Report & Budget is broken down across 4 columns

LTM - Last Twelve Months

NTM - Next Twelve Months (Forecast)

LQTR = Last 3 Months

NQTR = Next 3 Months (Forecast)

You will notice the absence of the popular marketing metrics

There is no cost per lead, no share of voice, no click through rate, on return on ads spend, no customer lifetime value, no multi-touch attribution, no bounce rate, no net present score, no brand awareness, no customer engagement, no conversion rate, no average order value, no churn rate, dwell rate, time spent on site or ARPU

All we are dealing with is optimising the time value of the money being spent on sales and marketing to the brand's growth strategy

We have redefine sales and marketing as the business of leveraging market friction to our advantage

and when we say friction we are of course talking about how we leverage trust, build trust and/or accelerate trust... to change market friction in favour of the brand

Why? Because all the CFO needs to know is why and when you need the money to achieve the growth outcome mapped to the change in phases

We have replaced the ever popular, mostly intangible, touchy feely marketing metrics with the fundamentals of portfolio management

The New Marketing Dashboard Example

Now let's take a look at this model in action

The Balance Sheet

We'll compare Oracle (the enterprise database incumbent) with Snowflake (the cloud distruptor)

First the Balance Sheet/Boston Box

We see that Oracle has 20% market share and 18% YoY Growth while Snowflake has 2% market share at 69% YoY Growth

Next the Balance Sheet adjusted to reflect brand efficiency

We see very little variance between the two Balance Sheets but it appears Snowflake's Rev/S&M Multiple of 1.9x is slightly higher than anticipated

Oracle has a REV/S&M Multiple of 5.7x.

The Operating Statement

Now let's take a look at the "Operating Statement'

The darker dot represents the change in growth over the past 12 months vs the previous 12 months prior vs the change in spend

The lighter dot reprsents the YoY revenue growth vs change in spending (ie benchmark)

We can see Oracle's investment in maintaining its moat

While Snowflake is investing more in sales and marketing to build its brand even as its growth rapidly fades

The CashFlow Statement

Finally let's tale a look at the 'Cashflow Statement'

We can see how the incumbent is leveraging its trusted brand to add market friction while reducing its sales cycle and roadmap to customer profitability

Meanwhile the disruptor is challenged with removing friction from the equation

The market challenge is reducing the time and cost it takes to gain the customer's trust

Plus the added burden of subsiding the customer's usage post sale through the cloud subscription model

We can take this 'cashflow' map one step further by switching the variable in the Rev vs S&M Spend calculation from Revenue to Operating Income or 'Profit'

Once we do this we can get some insight into each company's relative ability to generate 'free cashflow' from their sales and marketing efforts


The 5 charts reveal the strategic challenge facing the two CMO's - The incumbent and the challenger

One is seeking funds to add friction to the market. The other is seeking funds to remove friction

In each case the optimal strategy will be an investment in 'Costly Signalling'

Costily Signalling Theory proposes that expensive and/or wasteful behavioural signals like those seen in nature (e.g. the male peacock’s tail serves as an indicator of sexual fitness, increasing its chances of reproductive success) serve to instil trust between the signaller and observer

The reason being an investment in 'Costly Signalling' derisks the choice for the prospective buyer

The key question for the disruptor being will increasing the Sales and Marketing spend and investing 'costly signalling' decrease the amount of time it takes to close the sale?

Will spending more on the brand image and signalling a higher level of investment in building trust improve the time value of the money invested?

These are the deeper questions of strategy facing both players... as they map the terrain and pick their battles...

Understand this and you'll understand why the wider debate over performance marketing vs. branding is not so much redundant as totally naive

i.e. What's the point in counting the number of shots fired when you don't even know where you are standing on the battlefield?

Phase 8 - Fulcrum Marketing

This series describing the Phase Changers began with a simple question: What if our ideas about marketing are all wrong?

What if the 4 P's, the product adoption cycle, the S Curve and the 60:40 Marketing Mix are fundamentally flawed ways of thinking about how it all works?


and yes, it's very hard to do...

If the 4p's...

...looked more like the 2IC's

and how would that fundamentally change the way we measure success in the world of marketing?

This post is an attempt to close out that question (and clear up some of the confusion around Part 6 of the Phase Changes series) by introducing a new marketing funnel based on leveraging - or more accurately pivoting - the Phase Changes

At the core of Part 6 of the Phase Changes was this idea:

The common interpretation of the role of marketing when you have Market Leadership is building and maintaining a moat

But in that post I demonstrated how you could turn the Phase Changes matrix on its head... and once you do that you discover market leadership is best understood as a sink hole that the market gravitates towards and falls into rather than a mountain that needs to be climbed

The challenge then becomes one of making the edge of the funnel wide and frictionless so the market slips and falls in

Less a matter of brand building and more a matter of inviting the market to slide into your hands

In this post I will attempt to clean up that idea and make it more accessible to the average reader

Let's begin the thought experiment by saying anybody in the marketing game will know Sales and Marketing Models are a dime a dozen

For the most part they are designed to stimulate discussion rather than offer a practical guide

Within this broader context the model I am introducing here is no different

It's about prompting the question: What happens if we change our way of thinking?

In the 21st Century there has been a Cambria explosion in new ways of thinking, about how the customer thinks, they think, about thinking, when it comes to thinking, about thinking, about brands

BTW: See Ged Carroll's Notes on this topic

So how will adding another one into the mix change the way marketers think, about how the customer thinks, they think, about thinking, when it comes to thinking, about thinking, about brands?

Well let's try changing the game by changing the story and see what happens

The Phase Changes

The Phase Changes look like this

The underlying assumption is sales and marketing is about reducing or adding friction in the buyers mind (and across the market) to create the catalyst for a phase change

Again see here if you need a more detailed understanding of how the Phase Changes work

Now let's reimagine the challenge as a process loop

The undecided prospect occupies a place of inertia at one end of the loop

The loyal customer occuplies a place of inertia at the other end of the loop

Obviously there are more prospects than paying customers... so we need to adjust the weightings to illustrate this

The sales and marketing challenge is to motivate the prospect to move from one side to the other

From negative to positive

and then get them to stick around

But hang on, because it isn't that simple

We need to demonstrate the impact of friction across the 'Egg Timer' loop

As we can see different customers have different journeys. The climb for some is much harder than others

The same can be said for the Brands. When you are up against the market leader your challenge is obviously much harder than if you are the market leader

Now let's add the key components required to motivate the prospect to make the uphill journey towards buying the product or service

We need to motivate the prospect. We need to give them a reason to move, we need to give them a reason to cross the chasm and we need to give them a reason to stay once they get there

- and the only tools we have at our disposal is a tigger, a story and a reward

Now arguably we can see the marketing challenge more clearly

Not only do you need to get the prospect moving, they also have to encourage them to climb a mountain to get to the top where you are sitting waiting for them to join your band of loyal customers

The key to understanding the model is to recognise the role of the STORY as the FULCRUM : ie the point against which the 'Egg Timer' is placed to get a purchase, or on which it turns or is supported

The trick is knowing where to place (think: position) the story to achieve maximum leverage to tip the balance of the 'Egg Timer' in your favour

OK. Now we understand the scope of the challenge let's see how the different marketing strategies shape up trying to solve it

Performance Marketing

Today an increasing number of clever marketeers have cottoned onto the revelation: why do we need to talk to everybody when it is cheaper and more efficient to focus all our attention on those how have already made the journey up the hill and are ready to cross the chasm?

We call this performance marketing

It is the latest iteration of target marketing... and it is best understood as the sport of shooting fish in barrel

Success is easily quantified and can be measured endlessly... and it works just fine so long as somebody is wasting their time and money putting more fish in the barrel for you to aim at

This is what performance marketing looks like in our new model

You can see how the story is positioned at the choke point - chasm - just before the customer makes the decision to buy

The 'Egg Timer' is still balanced in favour of market inertia

Costly Signalling

The other popular strategy is called Brand Marketing - but within the context of this new model it is the wrong term

We are going to call it 'Costly Signalling' because that is exactly what it is

BTW: For those on the outer Costly Signalling Theory proposes that expensive and/or wasteful behavioural signals like those seen in nature (e.g. the male peacock’s tail serves as an indicator of sexual fitness, increasing its chances of reproductive success) serve to instil trust between the signaller and observer. The signal is the attraction

It is the Sales and Marketing equivalent of that Hollywood Classic 'Field of Dreams' (ie. 'Build it and they will come')

Take a look at the model and you'll see the story is now positioned on the wrong side of the chasm - This is of course illogical

Because the 'Egg Timer' is still balanced in favour of market inertia

Fulcrum Marketing

OK. Now let's introduce a new idea

And... Let's call it Fulcrum Marketing

and as the name suggests it's all about pivoting the "Egg Timer" on its head

Here's how it works

When you look at the model where is the most logical place to position the story to tip the "Egg Timer" loop in your favour?

Scroll down to discover the answer

The optimal position in the model is at the base

Why? because it only takes a little bit of movement by the prospect to unbalance the 'Egg Timer' and tip the funnel in your favour

What was a hard climb to discover enlightment becomes a slippery slide into the arms of nirvana

We have leveraged the laws of gravity to our advantage to tumble the prospect through the pinch point and across the chasm

The trick of course is how you juxtapose the trigger, the story and the reward to ignite the shift in behaviour

- and yes, I have covered those ideas in more detail in Stories, Players and Games & Hooks, Responses and Rewards

Brand Marketing

And that leads us to our final strategy within the confines of the model - Brand Management

With in the context of this model Brand Marketing is the gentle balancing act of holding the 'Egg Timer' in place so the market continues to fall into your 'trap'

But it is only useful once you have achieved the pivot...


We can now see how - at least within the confines of this new marketing funnel - the debate between Performance Marketing and Brand Marketing is largely redundant

Simply because Performance Marketing is to Fulcrum Marketing what Shooting Fish in Barrel is to Deep Sea Trawling

It is the debate you have when you don't really understand the fundamentals of marketing

The trick is knowing where to position your story, your trigger and your reward so you can tip the market in your favour

... and almost inevitably this means shifting the story away from where the brand and the transaction takes place to where the customer begins their journey

The emphasis being on stories that nudge the prospect to take short steps towards tipping the 'Egg Timer' over

Understand this and you'll see that endless thread on the phase changes was never about trying to out think, the way marketers think, about how the customer thinks, they think, about thinking, when it comes to thinking, about thinking, about brands

It was simply about discovering a new way to tip the balance of power in your favour

The Case Study

After posting this it became obvious that it lacked a case study

The obvious case study is ChatGPT... because it is front of mind at this time

So let's take a stab at mapping ChatGPT to the model

But before I do I want to introduce some key ideas to the model

These are the Anchor, FOMO and the Zeitgeist

The anchor becomes a substitute for the story

As to the question why? I'll refer you to something I wrote a year ago on What Bitcoin can teach us about marketing?

But basically it comes down to the idea you can move the anchor to change the story

This adjusted model is a merging of the Phase Changes with some core ideas about marketing (e.g. Anchors, Extrinsic Value, Scarcity and Social Proofs)

FOMO is of course the ultimate reward

The social proof is the trigger - I do it because they do it...

As you can see the model now describes how earlier versions of AI (ThinK: Watson & AlphaGo) positioned themselves using costly signalling

Meanwhile ChatGPT moved the anchor to pivot the Zeitgeist - Just like Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok etc had done a generation before with Social Media

What makes the ChatGPT case study more compelling is it took up until version 3.5 of the product to make the switch in strategy. Up until then it had followed the 'Better/Faster" pitch and gone nowhere in attracting market share

Closing Thoughts?

I guess I subscribe to the mantra all models are useful until they are not

In the context of sales and marketing, new models are useful because they encourage a new way of thinking

and only by encountering a new way of thinking can we begin to experiment with a new way of doing

The fulcrum model is about demonstrating the balance of power resides with the prospect. Your task is to motivate them to take those small steps that can disrupt the equilibrium of the model at rest... the good news is there are many, many creative ways to do that

Phase 9: The 5 P's of Changing Phases

Product, Promotion, Price, Place and Phase

Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding in marketing is the idea marketing = advertising

In truth you can have a bad marketing strategy supported a great advertising campaign and the results will be open to question

The optimal plan is to have a great marketing strategy supported by a great advertising campaign

and this takes us back to the 4 P's of marketing

The recognition that promotion is only one part of the marketing puzzle

You need to get the other 3 right if the strategy is to work

What the phase changers have taught us is there is another dimension to the 4 P's

A 5th P... the market phase

You can have the best price, promotion, place and product in the world... but if the market is out of phase you will struggle to make sales

Aand this is why arguably the market phase is the most important of the 5 P's

Moving markets into phase is complex and (most of the time) expensive work

Just how do you generate demand in the absence of demand?

How do you move buyers into a vacuum?

and here is the great insight

The overwhelming majority of marketing strategies fail because 1 or more of the other 4 P's are out of Phase with the market.

More so perhaps than when they are misaligned with the other P's of the marketing strategy

For example the market may be in phase but your product, price, place or prmotion is wrong

and it is self evident from this insight that the number of absolute winners capable of bringing all these pieces of the jigsaw together at the right time is a very small percentage of the market

They are the outliers

And the marketeers who comprehend and manage this level of complexity are themselves the outliers in a market flooded with talent

For the most part the winners just get lucky... there is very little art or science behind their plans and schemes to generate demand

A rare few however are capable of shaping the future

Hopefully having read this far you'll have gleaned enough about the power of the phase changers to become one of them

Originally Published Spring 2022. What are we talking about today? Follow us on Twitter
Copyright Digital Partners Pty Limited 2012-2022