Editorial Guidelines

We publish to be useful to people making real marketing and strategy decisions. Ranking is a result of being useful, not the goal we write toward.

An article earns a place here when it teaches a practitioner something they can act on Monday morning. If a draft only restates what ten other pages already say, it does not run. We would rather publish less and have each piece carry a genuine point of view than fill a calendar with posts nobody needed.

Every article is written by a named person with direct, hands-on experience in its subject. Our strategy content comes from operators who have actually built brands, set pricing, run competitive analysis, and planned campaigns under real constraints, not from writers paraphrasing other people’s frameworks.

Each author has a bio page that lists their background and credentials and links to their professional profiles. You will find the byline on every article and the full bio one click away. We do not publish anonymous content, and we do not put a real person’s name on work they did not write.

• We start from primary sources: original research, the actual data, the people who did the work.
• We separate fact from opinion. When a claim is our judgment, we say so, and we explain the reasoning behind it.
• When we cite a statistic or a study, we link to the source and note its date so you can check it yourself.
• We draw on our own client work for examples. We use those stories only with the client's permission, and we leave out confidential details or anonymize them when needed.

We are transparent about this because our whole approach is a reaction against unchecked machine-written content.

AI tools help us with parts of the process: gathering research, organizing outlines, and surfacing questions a piece should answer. They do not write what we publish. Every article is drafted, edited, and fact-checked by the named author and our editorial team before it goes live. We do not ship machine-generated text as finished work, and we do not publish anything a qualified human has not stood behind.

We check claims before a piece is published, not after a reader flags them.

When we get something wrong, we fix it and note that the article was updated. The “last updated” date on each piece is real and reflects a substantive change, not a cosmetic re-save. If you spot an error, tell us using the contact details below and we will review it promptly and correct the record where you are right.

Our recommendations are not for sale. We do not run paid placements dressed up as editorial, and we do not publish sponsored posts in our Intel library.

When an article mentions a tool, vendor, or competitor, that is an editorial decision based on what we think is true, never a paid one. If we ever have a commercial relationship relevant to something we are writing about, we disclose it inside the piece so you can weigh it.

We write in plain language and make claims we can defend. We keep a clear point of view, and we aim it at ideas and at the state of our industry, never at the reader. Strong opinions are welcome here; cheap shots and filler are not.

We review these guidelines periodically and update them as our standards evolve. The “last reviewed” date at the top reflects the most recent revision. When we make a material change, we note it here.

Questions about our editorial standards, or a correction to report? Reach the editorial team through our contact page. We read every message.