The value exchange imbalance at the heart of the marketing effectiveness crisis

Ed Zitron is angry. He’s spent the last year writing newsletters and recording podcasts about the growth-at-all-costs mindset making big tech worse for everyone (except shareholders).

And I think something similar is happening in B2B marketing.

His core thesis (“The Rot Economy”) posits that the devices and platforms that make up the fabric of everyday life are animated by commercial interests at the expense of user needs. 

He argues that being online is an increasingly alienating experience, because almost every facet of digital life is surveilled, measured and algorithmically optimized to monetize users. “Keep someone on the platform for as long as possible” has overtaken “satisfy user needs” as the guiding principle of design.

Ed isn’t alone. 

There are multiple grand unifying theories of change (like Cory Docotorow’s “Enshittification” or Tim Hwang’s “The Subprime Attention Crisis”) that try to explain why users haven’t been the primary beneficiaries of their own digital lives for some time. 

You don’t have to squint that hard to see parallels with B2B marketing’s current predicament — of marketers pressured to chase short-term growth at the expense of audience trust and patience.

Quid pro no

The premise of inbound marketing was that you generate revenue by delivering value prior to the transaction.

The problem is that this requires patience — people don’t buy from you the first time you help them. It takes time and repetition to turn helpful experiences into opportunities. 

Companies (understandably) wanted a way to quantify expected returns. And right on cue, early marketing automation platforms systematized buying intent using engagement as a leading indicator of buying readiness. 

This small equivalence—of engagement as a proxy for value-delivered—set marketing on a course to focus more on chasing metrics than actually helping buyers.

Fast-forward 20 years and it’s normalized an environment of maximizing returns while giving as little away as possible. And it all points to the big, uncomfortable question at the heart of the marketing effectiveness crisis: effective for whom? 

Most marketing is designed to serve company goals over customer goals. And if Ed Zitron is right, and people are feeling disempowered by everyday digital life, then we need to radically rebalance the value exchange of engagement in favor of buyers to earn their trust.

Rebalancing the equation

If there is a way back (and I think there is) it begins with a reality check for marketers. We have to acknowledge that we have far less influence over the buying process than our sophisticated tools and processes might suggest. 

And we have to advocate for value-delivery as an investment, not a cost, that takes time to pay-off and requires different activities, priorities and expectations:

1. Goals that prioritize customer problems over vanity engagement metrics: Think about your customer’s biggest goal. Now your biggest goal is helping them do that. 
2. Metrics that measure resonance and relevance: What signals can you track that show real value creation? Are people putting their hands up? Do they return unsolicited? Are they bringing peers with them? 
3. Commercial models that accommodate a longer time horizon: Optimize campaigns to deliver long-term value for customers, rather than short-term returns for marketers.

To hard-nosed finance folks, this might sound a lot like I’m saying marketing should give more away for free and trust that revenue will follow. 

To be clear: I’m not. Revenue accountability is still non-negotiable. But look around. Is the incumbent MQL-obsession any more prudent? The heart of the effectiveness crisis is an asymmetrical value-exchange. We need a better answer than “more leads”.

Standing on our own feet

This is not the first time you’re hearing “put the customer first” (at least I hope not. And if it is: you’re welcome! I invented that. Do not Google it.)

What I’m saying is that the scale of the problem requires a corresponding shift in approach. B2B marketing needs to become a source of buyer success.

If we’re serious about building mutual trust and delivering genuine value, then growth becomes the natural outcome, not the sole directive.

It’s a subtle difference, but a big one.

It means shifting away from adversarial tactics. Not barraging buyers with gated content or trapping them in cycles of unhelpful nurture emails that offer nothing in exchange for a sales conversation.

This isn’t a Luddite plea to abandon marketing tech, tools, or tactics. Quite the opposite. Modern analytics and AI can give better insights into what customers actually find helpful than ever before.

But tools won’t save us. The first step is reevaluating your approach to align with what buyers need rather than what sales demand.

What’s good for the customer is great for revenue

I’m under no illusion: this stuff is easy to say and incredibly hard to do. But the thinking that got us here won’t take us where we need to go.

I still believe the premise of inbound marketing is true: revenue follows value. And I think B2B marketing needs to recalibrate back to that original promise. 

The silver lining is that when expectations are this low (and the growth-at-all-costs mindset of the Rot Economy erodes user trust), it’s easier to stand out. There’s never been a better time to go big on rebalancing the value exchange in your marketing.