/ The distribution thesis
Distribution is the whole thesis.
Where does this go? It is the question most teams ask last – after the idea, after the creative, after the money is spent. I ask it first. Everything I build follows from that one change.
- what distribution is worth next to the product
- 10×what distribution is worth next to the product
- hours, touchpoints and platforms it takes to be trusted
- 7-11-4hours, touchpoints and platforms it takes to be trusted
- encounters before a serious buyer chooses you
- ~30encounters before a serious buyer chooses you
Written by
I help businesses build distribution – from Google to ChatGPT.
August 2026 · 18 min read
/ Contents
Thirteen short chapters, about eighteen minutes. It is one argument from top to bottom – each chapter hands off to the next. In a hurry? Chapter four is the one with the numbers.
- 01The question that comes lastWhere does this go? I ask it before anything else.
- 02Distribution beats productTwo doctors, same degree. One of them is known.
- 03Content is not distributionOne is the material. The other is what it earns.
- 04What trust actually costs7 hours, 11 touchpoints, 4 platforms – and the numbers for your category.
- 05How trust is really builtNobody remembers the ad that convinced them.
- 06Views are not distributionA million views and three comments.
- 07You can engineer luckBuild a lightning catcher, then stand under it.
- 08Own, rent, earnWhat happens in month thirteen, when the spend stops.
- 09The system that never sleepsMidnight to your first coffee, running on its own.
- 10Why almost nobody does thisIt is not disagreement. It is a clock.
- 11What it looks like when it worksYour name is in the room before you are.
- 12How I workSix rules I do not bend.
- 13Who I do this withAnd who I am the wrong person for.
The question that comes last
Where does this go?
At some point, somebody in the room has to ask it: where does this go?
Not vaguely. Precisely. Who is this for? Where do they spend their attention? What do they read before they are ready to talk to anyone? What do they need to see, and where, before they decide you are worth trusting?
For most of my career I watched that question arrive last. After the idea. After the creative. After the production, the launch, and the small celebration that follows a launch. By the time anyone asked it, the only honest answer left was: we will boost it.
I have shipped work I was proud of into silence. Not because the work was wrong – because the road that was supposed to carry it had never been built.
That is when I moved the question to the front. Before the idea. Before the budget. Before a single asset exists, I want to know the route it will travel, and the system that keeps it travelling long after the campaign is over.
It sounds like a small reordering. It is not. Everything below is what follows from it.
Distribution is the last question – asked once the money is already spent.
- 01The ideaA room, a whiteboard, a good feeling.
- 02The creativeIt looks the way everyone hoped.
- 03The productionWeeks. Budget. Revisions.
- 04The launchEverybody gathers to watch it go live.
- 05“So… who’s going to see this?”Asked last, answered with a boost.
Distribution is the first question – and it decides everything after it.
- 01The buyerWho exactly is this for, and what would move them.
- 02Their worldsWhere they actually spend attention, and who they believe there.
- 03The channelsThe four or five that carry weight. Not all of them.
- 04The messageBuilt to travel through those worlds, not the other way round.
- 05The systemThe thing that keeps carrying it after the campaign ends.
Move that question to the front, and the next thing you notice is uncomfortable: distribution is not the delivery van for the product. It is the more valuable half of the business.
Distribution beats product
Worth about ten times the thing you sell
If you forced me to rank the two, I would say distribution is worth roughly ten times the product. I know how that sounds.
Take two doctors in the same city with the same degree. One is known – people have read him, seen him, been sent his name by somebody they trust. The other is quietly excellent. The known one sees three hundred patients a day and has to hire other doctors to keep up. The excellent one has a good practice and a quiet Tuesday afternoon. Nothing separates them except who gets found.
That used to be a celebrity phenomenon. It is not any more. It is happening in professions that never had it, and it works in every direction you point it:
A doctor
Same degree, same city. The one people have heard of books out a month ahead; the other waits for walk-ins.
A plumber
Two vans instead of one, and a phone that rings before anyone opens a search tab.
A brand selling jeans
The one people already recognise sells at a price the identical product next to it cannot ask for.
A company selling cars
Decided in living rooms, months earlier, long before a showroom is involved.
A frontier AI lab
The best model does not win the market. The one everybody has already tried does.
A person looking for a job
You are not applying against candidates. You are applying against the ones the manager already keeps seeing.
And it only runs one way. Distribution gets you a better product. A better product does not get you distribution. When enough people know what you do, you attract better people, better money and better customers – which is exactly what a better product needs. The other way round is just hope, and I have watched a lot of excellent companies hope.
So the obvious move is: make more content. That is where most people go wrong – because content and distribution are not the same thing, and confusing them costs years.
Content is not distribution
One is the material. The other is what it earns.
Content is the material. Distribution is the audience that material earns you.
Every piece you publish carries one of two kinds of value: it teaches somebody something, or it entertains them. There is no third kind. Something with neither is not content – it is inventory.
Here is what actually happens when you publish it. Most people reject it instantly. Some take the value and leave, no memory, no trace. A few take it, then take it again next week, and again the week after. And at some point one of them makes a small, deliberate decision: I would like to hear from this person again.
- 01
You publish
utility or entertainment – there is no third kind
- 02
Most reject it
instantly, without a thought
- 03
Some take the value
and leave no trace
- 04
A few come back
again, and then again
- 05
One decides to follow
the smallest unit of distribution
That decision – I would like to hear from this person again – is the smallest unit of distribution there is. Everything I build is an attempt to manufacture it at scale.
Which is also why “audience” is a lazy word. Someone who watched one video and someone who has read me every week for two years both show up in the same follower count. Only one of them will take my call.
Which raises the only question that matters if you are actually going to build this: how many times? Not metaphorically. The number is known, and it is bigger than anyone guesses.
What trust actually costs
Seven hours. Eleven touchpoints. Four platforms.
Ask a room how many encounters a stranger needs before they trust a brand, and you get guesses – five, eight, maybe a hundred. Nobody knows, because nobody counts.
The number has been studied. Google’s version of it is the 7-11-4 rule: roughly seven hours of content, eleven touchpoints, across four different platforms, before somebody trusts a brand enough to buy from it.
Read that again. Hours – not impressions, not minutes. And you already know it is true, because you have done it yourself: nobody sees one ad and buys a ₹60,000 phone. You compared, you read, you asked a friend, you slept on it, and then you bought.
7
hours
of your content consumed in total – assembled minutes at a time, from every direction.
11
touchpoints
separate encounters with you, spread over weeks or months, most of which you’ll never see.
4
platforms
different worlds. The same message four times in one feed does not count as four.
Source: the 7-11-4 rule, from
/ Four platforms, not four feeds
Every one of these is a different world, with its own rules and its own idea of what looks credible. Your buyer moves through several of them on the same Tuesday – and they never tell you which one changed their mind.
Google
ChatGPT
YouTube- LinkedIn
Gemini
Instagram
Perplexity- X
Substack
Claude
Reddit
Spotify- WhatsApp
Bing
Apple Podcasts
Copilot
Quora
Google Maps
TikTok
Trustpilot
G2
Threads
DuckDuckGo
Medium- Facebook
Grok
/ Figure 1
Where seven hours of attention actually comes from
Nobody gives you seven hours in one sitting. You assemble it – minutes at a time, across worlds that don’t know about each other.
- Long-form video & talks35%147 min
- Search results & articles25%105 min
- The newsletter15%63 min
- Short-form social12%50 min
- Other people’s audiences8%34 min
- Peers talking about you5%21 min
An allocation I plan against, not a measurement. The shape is the point: no single channel gets you there.
And that is the mid-ticket case. The number is not fixed – it moves with the size of the decision, and at the top end it stops being something a sales team can carry on its own:
/ Figure 2
Touchpoints needed before someone trusts you enough to buy
Same buyer, same brain – the number moves with the size of the decision, not the size of your budget.
- Impulse buy · under ₹4001–2
- Everyday B2C · an app, a subscription5–8
- Mid-ticket B2C · a phone, good shoes11
- B2B shortlist · per vendor, per committee~17
- High-consideration B2C · a course, insurance, a home12–27
- Complex B2B · ₹7L+ a month60–100+
Scale: 0–100 touchpoints. One viral post is touchpoint number one.
Find yourself on that chart. Then look at how many touchpoints you are actually building – honestly, counting only the ones a real person would remember.
/ What are you selling?
Under ₹400. A toothbrush, a tee, a phone case.
- Touchpoints
- 1–2
- before they trust you
- Hours of attention
- Minutes
- in total, from all sources
- Platforms
- 1
- not one, repeated
This is the only place on earth where instant ROI genuinely exists. Someone sees the ad, the price is below the thinking threshold, they buy. No trust required – the risk is smaller than the effort of evaluating it.
If your entire marketing philosophy is built on this case, you are selling toothbrushes. Most people aren’t.
An app, a subscription, a bottle you’d rebuy.
- Touchpoints
- 5–8
- before they trust you
- Hours of attention
- 1–2 hours
- in total, from all sources
- Platforms
- 2–3
- not one, repeated
Enough repetition for the name to survive a week in someone’s head. The first purchase is small; the value is that they remember you the second time they need the category.
Five to eight touches just to be remembered. Not to be trusted – remembered.
A phone. A pair of shoes worth thinking about.
- Touchpoints
- 11
- before they trust you
- Hours of attention
- 7 hours
- in total, from all sources
- Platforms
- 4
- not one, repeated
This is Google’s 7-11-4 rule in its native habitat: about seven hours of content, eleven touchpoints, across four different platforms before someone will trust a brand enough to buy. Hours – not minutes.
You have done exactly this yourself. You just never counted the encounters while you were doing it.
A course, insurance, a property, a degree.
- Touchpoints
- 12–27
- before they trust you
- Hours of attention
- 20+ hours
- in total, from all sources
- Platforms
- 4–6
- not one, repeated
Twenty-plus hours, and a chunk of it isn’t even yours – it’s a friend saying “my cousin did that programme” for eight seconds at a wedding. It all counts, and it all has to add up before anyone fills a form.
Twenty hours of attention. Ask yourself honestly how many hours you currently give a stranger.
You’re one of four vendors being evaluated.
- Touchpoints
- ~17
- before they trust you
- Hours of attention
- 10+ hours
- in total, from all sources
- Platforms
- 4–6
- not one, repeated
Roughly seventeen interactions per vendor inside a buying committee – and that’s after they’ve decided to buy something. Every person on that committee runs their own version of this count, privately, in parallel.
“We just can’t crack enterprise” usually means: we met them twice and expected a signature.
₹7L+ a month. Five stakeholders. Long cycle.
- Touchpoints
- 60–100+
- before they trust you
- Hours of attention
- 30+ hours
- in total, from all sources
- Platforms
- 6+
- not one, repeated
Sixty to a hundred touchpoints before a signature. Most of them are not meetings – they’re a talk someone watched, an article a colleague forwarded, a post that showed up for the third time in six months, a peer saying “yeah, them, they’re good”.
You will never hold sixty meetings. Which is exactly why the content has to do the meeting for you.
Averaged across industries, the number lands near thirty. That is the one I plan against: about thirty encounters before a serious buyer decides they want to work with you. Nobody has thirty meetings. Which is precisely why the content has to do the meeting for you.
And that produces the single number this whole thesis exists to close:
What a serious buyer needs
~30
touchpoints, across four or more platforms, before they choose you
What most brands actually build
~3
a campaign, a boost, and a follow-up email
Twenty-seven missing encounters. That is not a creative problem, a product problem or a pricing problem. It is a distribution problem – and it is the one nobody is budgeting for.
Thirty sounds absurd – until you look at how trust actually got built inside your own head. So let us do that, with a brand you already trust.
How trust is really built
Nobody remembers the ad that convinced them
Ask anyone how much they trust Nike out of ten. You will get sevens, eights, nines. Ask why not a three, and they will struggle.
Now ask them to name the ad, the post, the moment that made them a believer. Nobody can. They just kept seeing them, for years, until an opinion had formed that they never consciously decided to hold.
That is the mechanism. It cannot be measured, and it decides everything.
So ask yourself why a buying committee, a hiring manager or an investor would work any differently. They do not. They have simply never had to say it out loud.
Two things follow. First, you cannot manufacture this in a hurry – everybody can smell the person who suddenly started posting the week they needed something. Second, you can build it quietly, in advance, for a few minutes a day, on behalf of the version of you who will need it in three years.
/ Touchpoint
“Who’s this?”
They watched nine seconds of something. There is no trust here – there isn’t even memory. Tomorrow your name is gone. Almost every founder I meet is measuring this moment and calling it marketing.
“I’ve seen this name before.”
The name starts feeling familiar, and familiarity is doing quiet work – people mistake it for judgement. They still couldn’t tell you what you do. Most brands quit somewhere around here, right before it starts paying.
“Okay – this person actually knows the thing.”
Enough repetition that they attribute competence to you. This is where a follow happens: a deliberate decision to hear from you again. That decision is the smallest unit of distribution there is.
“I’d buy from them.”
Google’s number: about eleven touchpoints, seven hours, four platforms. They now hold an opinion about you they did not consciously form – and could not explain if you asked them to.
“Put them on the list.”
Inside a buying committee, this is roughly what each vendor costs in interactions before the room agrees to consider you seriously. Note that you were shortlisted by people you have never spoken to.
“I want to work with them.”
Averaged across industries, this is where a serious buyer moves first – they arrive already convinced, and the conversation is about scope, not credibility. Thirty touchpoints is not a campaign. It’s a system running for a year or two.
So we count touchpoints, not views. Which is exactly where most reporting quietly falls apart.
Views are not distribution
A million views and three comments
A million views and three comments is not distribution. It is a crowd walking past a window.
I have watched agencies boost every post to a million impressions and report it as growth, while the comment count stays in single digits. If nobody is talking, nobody is there. The reach was rented and the audience never existed.
So I judge the work on efficiency instead of volume. Not how many people it reached – how many of them stayed:
| Metric | Healthy | Strong | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engagement ratelikes + comments ÷ views | 10% | 20%+ | past 20% the algorithm starts distributing for you |
| Reels / Shorts watch timeaverage seconds watched | 25–30 sec | 50 sec+ | 9–10 sec barely reaches the people who already follow you |
| Thumbnail click-throughYouTube | 4–6% | 8–10% | the middle of the platform vs the top decile |
| Average view durationlong-form | 55% | 70%+ | the number that decides whether the next video gets pushed |
| Reach ÷ followersper post | 10–15% | 20–30% | whether your own audience is even being served your work |
| Branded organic searchyear on year | +10% | +15%+ | the only proof your name is spreading beyond your own feed |
None of these are vanity numbers. Every one of them answers the same question in a different language: did a real person stay? That is the only thing that turns a view into a touchpoint, and a touchpoint into distribution.
Efficiency tells you whether the machine works. It does not tell you why it is worth building. That reason is stranger than it sounds – you are building a machine for catching luck.
You can engineer luck
Build yourself a lightning catcher
Almost everything good that has happened to me is luck, if I am honest about it. So is almost everything bad. But luck is not spread evenly, and it is not as random as people think. It is a numbers game: how many chances do you give it?
Ride a bike through traffic at night without a helmet, every day, for ten years, and the accident finds you. Not because of fate – because you kept increasing the number of chances. Nobody argues with that maths.
Publishing is the same maths, inverted. Every piece of work that goes out is one more chance for something good to reach you: a customer, a co-founder, an introduction, a job, an email from an institution you would never have got a meeting with.
The Empire State Building has a spire on top. It is not decoration – it is there to catch lightning, because lightning is going to strike somewhere and the building’s job is to be the thing it strikes.
Content is a lightning catcher. You never get to choose what hits it. You only get to decide how big it is, and how long it stands there.
/ Your surface area
How big is the thing you’re holding up to the sky?
Posts, videos, emails, talks – anything a buyer can encounter.
Google’s rule asks for four. Present, not merely registered.
- Chances a year
- 312
- separate moments lightning could strike
- One buyer to 30 touches
- 20 weeks
- from stranger to “I want to work with them”
That compounds. Slowly at first, then all at once.
Assumes a buyer catches roughly 4 in 10 of your posts on the channel they follow you on, and a little more when you show up in several worlds. It’s a model, not a promise – the point is the shape of the maths, not the second decimal.
Now – how you build that surface area decides whether the thing you end up with is actually yours, or something you are renting back every quarter.
Own, rent, earn
Only one of the three survives a budget cut
Paid rents attention. Owned builds it. Earned multiplies it. I build across all three, and I always protect the one that lasts.
Rent
Paid
It works, and it buys speed – which matters. But it is a tool, not a foundation. The month the spend stops, everything it was holding up stops with it.
Own
Owned
The most underbuilt asset in business today: the newsletter people open, the content that ranks and stays ranked, the audience you do not have to buy back.
Earn
Earned
The multiplier, and the hardest to fake: the peer recommendation, the reference, the article somebody read six months before they were ready to talk.
/ Figure 3
What happens in month thirteen
Rented reach and owned reach look identical for a while. They stop looking identical the moment the invoice does.
- Owned & earned distribution
- Paid reach
See the numbers
| Month | Paid reach | Owned & earned |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 42 | 6 |
| 6 | 58 | 13 |
| 9 | 60 | 24 |
| 12 | 61 | 38 |
| 15 | 20 | 54 |
| 18 | 10 | 70 |
| 21 | 6 | 86 |
| 24 | 4 | 100 |
Indexed, illustrative – the shape, not a forecast. Your curve depends on the category, the cadence and how good the work is.
The measure of a distribution strategy is not what it produces in the first month. It is what it is still producing in the eighteenth.
Building something that is still running in month eighteen is an operating problem before it is a marketing one. Which is why I rebuilt how the work itself gets done.
The system that never sleeps
What happens between midnight and your first coffee
Distribution was the first change I made. The second is how the work gets done.
I am not interested in using AI on the side, or bolting a chatbot onto an old process and calling it innovation. Most teams use it the way they used interns – hand it a task, check the output, fix what it got wrong, repeat. That is assistance. It is useful. It is also a fraction of what is available.
I build agentic systems. In plain words: software that does the work on its own – it researches, writes the first draft, watches the numbers, notices what changed and improves, without waiting for anybody to open a laptop. A night at a company that runs this way looks like this.
- 11:58 PMThey find you
Someone lands on an article you published fourteen months ago. You are asleep. It is working anyway.
- 2:04 AMThe form comes in
The system reads their site, scores the fit against everything we know, drafts a personalised reply and queues it for a human to approve.
- 3:17 AMSomething moves
A monitoring workflow notices a ranking drop on a page that matters, checks the likely causes, and flags it with the evidence attached.
- 6:00 AMThe report builds itself
What used to take a team three days is finished before anyone is awake – anomalies already surfaced, not buried on page four.
- 8:30 AMYou start the day
With decisions to make instead of a backlog to clear. That is the whole point of the layer.
This does not replace the team. It removes the ceiling on what a small one can do. People keep judgment, relationships, strategy and the decisions that need context no model has. Everything repetitive and predictable runs on infrastructure that does not sleep, does not forget, and does not slow down on a Friday afternoon.
The gap between a company that operates on AI and one that merely uses it is not linear. It compounds every day – and it is widening right now.
Which brings me to the honest part: almost nobody is going to do any of this. That is not a complaint. It is the opportunity.
Why almost nobody does this
It is not disagreement. It is a clock.
Almost nobody builds this, and it is not because they think it is wrong. It is because of a clock.
The average marketing leader is in the seat for two to three years. A distribution system takes around eighteen months to visibly pay, and it refuses to be attributed cleanly. Somebody tells the CEO “I have been reading your stuff for a year” – that never lands in a dashboard as a marketing win.
So the rational career move is the measurable one: run the ads, report the ROAS, keep the job. I am not being cynical about it. In that seat, on that clock, I would probably do the same.
/ Figure 4
The clock nobody puts in the strategy deck
The payback lands inside the tenure. Barely. And “barely” is not a bet most people will make with their own career.
- How long a distribution system takes to pay back18 months
compounding from about month 9
- How long the average marketing leader stays in the seat30 months
two to three years
That gap – between what is rational for a career and what is right for a company – is the whole moat. The discomfort is the barrier to entry.
It also explains why the brands winning this are founder-led. The founder is usually the only person in the building whose horizon is longer than the payback period, and the only one who can decide to look patient in front of a board.
If you own the company, that is your unfair advantage. You can commit to something your competitors’ marketing teams cannot commit to, however much they agree with you. Not because you are smarter than them – because you will still be here in month eighteen.
So here is what the other side of those eighteen months actually looks like.
What it looks like when it works
Your name is in the room before you are
Your name is in the room before your team walks in.
Members of the buying committee have already met your thinking – independently, through channels you put in place long before any process began.
The sales cycle gets shorter, and the sales team did not change a thing. The questions that used to slow everything down were answered months ago.
Something you published is still being referenced a year later.
A company you would have spent years trying to reach comes to you – because somebody they trust forwarded them something you wrote.
A CFO reads your newsletter. Consistently. Not out of obligation – because ten minutes of it is worth the calendar space.
A lead that arrived at midnight has been researched, scored and queued for outreach before the first coffee.
The report your competitor spends a week assembling lands in your inbox every Monday at 6 AM, anomalies already flagged.
None of that is interruption. All of it is upstream – in the places where trust gets formed quietly, before anybody officially declares they are buying. That is the level I am interested in working at.
Which is really a description of a way of working. Here is mine, in six lines.
How I work
Six rules I do not bend
Channel first
We start with where your buyer actually is, what they trust there, and how they move. The message is then built to travel through those worlds – not built first and pushed into them afterwards.
Systems over campaigns
Campaigns end. Systems compound. I build for what is still working in two years, not for what performs in the launch window.
The whole journey is the brief
Awareness is a distribution problem. Consideration is a distribution problem. The quality of the conversation your sales team walks into is a distribution problem. I take the whole thing.
Own, rent, earn – in that priority
All three get built. Paid buys speed. Owned builds the asset. Earned multiplies it. The one that lasts is the one I protect when budgets get tight.
AI as infrastructure, not novelty
Every workflow gets one question: can this run without a human in the loop? If yes, it should. If not yet, we build towards it. AI is not a feature I offer – it is what the operation runs on.
Accountability from the start
Before strategy, before budget, before the first asset exists, we agree what success means in your terms. Not impressions. Pipeline, velocity, authority, attribution – defined at the beginning, measured throughout.
Rules like that make me the wrong choice for a lot of people. Worth being clear about who they do fit.
Who I do this with
I am not right for everyone
/ This is for you if
- You have built something real, and you expect the marketing to match the standard of the thing itself.
- Your sale is complex – long cycles, serious money, several people forming private opinions before anyone declares a process.
- You can commit to eighteen months, and you are the person with the authority to make that commitment stick.
- You would rather own the audience than rent it back every quarter for the rest of the company’s life.
/ This is not for you if
- You need pipeline this month and nothing else will do. Run ads – I will tell you that for free.
- You want volume: a number of posts, delivered, invoiced, never asked about again.
- Distribution is a line item under marketing rather than the thing marketing is organised around.
- You want the credit for the idea more than you want the compounding.
Distribution is not a department inside marketing. It is the idea marketing should be organised around.
/ What I believe
Seven things I would still say if nobody was buying
- 01
Most companies already have what they need to grow.
The thinking is real, the product delivers, the expertise is genuine. What is missing is not more content. It is the architecture to move what already exists into the right hands at the right time.
- 02
Owned distribution is the most underbuilt asset in business today.
The newsletter people actually open. The content that ranks and stays ranked. The reputation you hold in the places your buyers trust. It compounds, and it does not disappear when the media spend does.
- 03
Paid is a tool. A powerful one – but a tool.
Not a foundation, not a strategy. The moment the spend stops, so does everything it was holding up. I use it to accelerate. I build everything else to outlast it.
- 04
Earned trust is the most valuable thing in a complex sale.
The peer recommendation. The reference. The article somebody read six months before they were ready to speak to anyone. These are not soft outcomes – they are the closest thing to a shortcut a long sales cycle allows.
- 05
The measure of a distribution strategy is not month one.
It is what it is still producing in month eighteen.
- 06
Companies that learn to operate on AI – not merely use it – build an advantage that compounds daily.
The gap between an AI-native operation and a traditional one is not linear. It is exponential, and it is widening right now.
- 07
The future belongs to small teams that build systems.
Not large teams that execute tasks.
/ One last thing
Distribution is not glamorous. It does not win the room at a pitch and it does not make the shortlist at a festival. Agentic systems are not glamorous either – they are a workflow running quietly at 3 AM, doing work that compounds.
Neither is glamorous. Both make the business grow. That is the only brief I have ever really been interested in.
Neeraj Jivnani
I help businesses build distribution – from Google to ChatGPT.
Founder of Hiigher · Ujjain, India
I wrote this because I got tired of watching good companies lose to worse ones that were simply easier to find. None of it is a secret. It is just the thing almost nobody has the patience to do.
If some of it landed, I would like to hear what you are building – even if you are not hiring anyone. Write to me like a person, not a lead. I read every message myself, and there is no sequence waiting for you on the other side.
So – where does this go?
If you have read this far, we probably agree already. Tell me what you have built, and I will tell you honestly what it would take to move it.
Not ready to talk? Take the newsletter instead – it is touchpoint number two.