Understanding the role often eases the pressure on hiring team. You have said that main role of the person will be to formulate marketing strategies and implement them. So let us give a quick look on what strategic marketing is. Marketing is commonly misunderstood as an ostentatious term for advertising and promotion; in reality it is far more than that. This perception isn’t in many ways unreasonable, advertising and promotion are the major way in which most people are exposed to marketing. However, the term ‘marketing’ actually covers everything from company culture and positioning, through market research, new business/product development, advertising and promotion, PR (public/press relations), and arguably all of the sales and customer service functions as well;
i. It is systematic attempt to fulfil human desires by producing goods and services that people will buy.
ii. It is where the cutting edge of human nature meets the versatility of technology.
iii. Marketing-oriented companies help us discover desires we never knew we had, and ways of fulfilling them we never imagined could be invented.
Almost every marketing textbook has a different definition of the term “marketing.” The better definitions are focused upon customer orientation and satisfaction of customer needs.
a) The American Marketing Association (AMA) uses the following: “The process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives.”
b) Philip Kotler uses, “Marketing is the social process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating and exchanging products and value with others.”
c) The Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM), “Marketing is the management process that identifies, anticipates and satisfies customer requirements profitably.”
In a January 1991, Regis McKenna published an article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) entitled “Marketing Is Everything.” In the article the McKenna states, “Marketing today is not a function; it is a way of doing business.” Indeed, we now call this the top level of Marketing – Marketing as a business philosophy. So yes, marketing is everything. It’s the process by which a company decides what it will sell, to whom, when & how and then does it!
This brings us to the second level of Marketing; Marketing as Strategy. This entails understanding the environment the business is operating in; customers, competitors, laws, regulations, etc. and planning marketing strategy to make the business a success. This second layer is about segmenting (S) the market, deciding which customers to target (T) and deciding what messages you want the targets to associate with you; what is called Positioning (P). The overall process is usually referred to as; segmentation-targeting-positioning (STP). Brands are now about image – or more correctly its perception, branding is a link between the attribute’s customers associate with a brand and how the brand owner wants the consumer to perceive the brand: the brand identity. Over time, or through poorly executed marketing or through societal changes in markets, a brand’s identity evolves gaining new attributes from the consumer’s perspective. Businesses do not undertake marketing activities alone. They face threats from competitors, and changes in the political, economic, social and technological aspects of the macro-environment. All of which have to be taken into account as a business tries to match its capabilities with the needs and wants of its target customers. An organisation that adopts the marketing concept accepts the needs of potential customers as the basis for its operations, and thus its success is dependent on satisfying those customer needs.

So to understand customers better – which as students striving to be better marketers we need to do, we should actually define what we mean by wants and needs, rather than just use such terms loosely; A “need” is a basic requirement that an individual has to satisfy to continue to exist. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is depicted as a five-level pyramid. The lowest level is associated with physiological needs, with the peak level being associated with self-actualisation needs, especially identity and purpose. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, i.e. they are deficient; the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs but will not permanently regress to the lower level.
People have basic needs for food, shelter, affection, esteem, and self-development. Indeed, many of you should recognise a link here to the work of Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs in explaining human behaviour through needs motivation. In fact, many of these needs are created from human biology and the nature of social relationships, it is just that human society and marketers have evolved many different ways to satisfy these basic needs. All humans are different and have different needs based on age, sex, social position, work, social activities etc. As such each person’s span of needs is likely to be unique and this it follows that customer needs are, therefore, extremely broad.
A “want” is defined as having a strong desire for something but it not vital to continued existence. Consumer wants are shaped by social and cultural forces, the media and marketing activities of businesses as such a want is much more specific and goes beyond the basic to include aspirational values as well as the need satisfaction. Thus, whilst customer needs are broad, customer wants are usually quite narrow. Consider this example: Consumers need to eat when they are hungry. What they want to eat and in what kind of environment will vary enormously. For some, eating at McDonalds satisfies the need to meet hunger, others would not dream of eating at McDonalds or any other fast food restaurant. Some are perfectly happy with a microwaved ready-meal, others will only countenance a scratch cooked meal with organic ingredients. Equally there are those who are dissatisfied unless their food comes served alongside a bottle of fine Chablis or Claret or is served silver service by waiters in evening wear or must be ordered from menus written in French. Indeed it is this diversity of wants and needs that allows a variety of ‘solutions’ to be developed in any market and that directly leads to the need to think carefully about how and what can satisfy wants and needs. This leads onto another important concept – that of demand. Demand is a want for a specific product/service supported by the ability and willingness to pay for it, i.e. there is a market of customers who both want and can pay for the product/service. For example, many consumers around the globe want a Ferrari car, but relatively few are able and willing to actually buy one.

The concept of demand is absolutely fundamental to marketing, and is what much marketing research is actually aimed at; establishing the level of demand, and what Product Managers & Planners in many businesses spend their time trying to predict – patterns of demand and how they change as new products and services come to market and the needs/wants of the consumers and customers in the market evolve. Indeed the concept of demand is how we in marketing actually define a market – a group of potential customers with a shared need that can be satisfied through an exchange relationship to the mutual satisfaction of the potential customers and the supplier. Indeed, looking at this you should be able to see that this very neatly brings together the Marketing concept with more traditional views on exchange, utility, needs and wants. Businesses therefore have not only to make products that consumers want, but they also have to make them affordable to a sufficient number to create profitable demand. Businesses do not create customer needs or the social status in which customer needs are influenced. It is not Burger King or KFC that make people hungry, nor Budweiser or Coco-cola that make them thirsty.
However, businesses do try to influence demand by designing products and services that are;
i. Attractive
ii. Work well
iii. Are affordable
iv. Are available
From what we have looked at so far it should be evident that Marketing also fundamentally involves an exchange process, that is marketing involves two or more parties trading something of value with each other. If you go to a restaurant you exchange money for food and service. If we travel to another city and stay at a hotel, we exchange money or more commonly credit using a credit card, for the use of the room and services of the hotel. The meal and the services of the hotel & restaurant in these examples are products passed onto us in an exchange of money or credit.
So, to understand Marketing we need to understand the exchange process.
i. There must be two parties, each with unsatisfied needs or wants. This want, of course, could be money for the seller.
ii. Each must have something to offer. Marketing involves voluntary “exchange” relationships where both sides must be willing parties. Thus, a consumer who buys a soft drink in a vending machine for £1.00 must value the soft drink, available at that time and place, more than the money. Conversely, the vendor must value the money more. (It is interesting to note that money is, strictly speaking, not necessary for this exchange to take place. It is possible, although a bit weird, to exchange two ducks for a pair of shoes.)
iii. The parties must be able to communicate. This could be through a display in a store, an infomercial, or a posting on eBay.
iv. An exchange process exists when two or more parties benefit from trading something of value. Because of marketing, the buyer’s need for a certain product is satisfied, and the seller’s business is successful.
v. Marketing can contribute to the continuing improvement of a society’s overall standard of living.
So we can see that Marketing is said to have a positive effect on an economy and helps satisfy needs by bringing supplier and customer together, it facilitates the exchange transaction. This is as equally true of a charity as it is of a commercial business. A charity takes a donation and the exchange is the feeling of self-gratification the giver of the donation feels for giving. Effective marketing – at all three levels – can increase the value of this self-gratification in the eyes of the donator, e.g. making them feel they are making more of a difference, and thus marketing makes giving easier, i.e. marketing is a facilitator of the exchange by creating utility. Utility is a concept within economics that is related to marketing. Utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from, or desirability of, consumption of various goods and services. Given this measure, one may speak meaningfully of increasing or decreasing utility, and thereby explain economic behaviour in terms of attempts to increase one’s utility. The Product and/or service and marketing of the product and/or service form the foundation of the exchange process and together they create a utility.
In marketing we define utility as the want-satisfying power of a good or service. Richard Buskirk has presented an idea that marketing is an activity that creates from, place, time and ownership utility;
1. Form utility: The usefulness of a product that results form its form; converting raw materials into finished products. Product planning and development activities create form utility.
2. Time utility: making a product available when consumers want to purchase it. After production goods are stored by the manufacturer, wholesalers, retailers, etc until such time, the demand of the product is created and such goods are made available to the customer at the time when they are needed or demanded.
3. Place utility: making a product available in a location convenient for customers, the flow of goods through different distribution channels from producer to consumer from the place of abundant to the place or where they are needed creates place utility.
4. Ownership utility: refers to the orderly transfer of legal title to the product and/or service/s from the seller to the buyer via a sales transaction. Goods may be lying in a reliable state with producer or the manufacturer or their agents until some other person needs them.
The production process creates form utility of a goods or service, whereas time, place, and ownership utility are created by the marketing function; it is the act of offering a goods or service, when (time utility), where (place utility) and via processes that make possession easy, e.g. price/distribution/purchasing terms (ownership utility). Think back to the point made above about how businesses try and increase demand; the four factors stated on how a business does this are ways of increasing the utility of the product/service. So, the greater the utility, the greater the demand and potentially the more successful the business.
Understanding the process of marketing now we will see what your marketing expert will need to formulate the strategies on.
Strategy is fundamentally about two things:
1. deciding where you want your business to go,
2. and deciding how to get there.
Indeed a strategic plan is often compared to planning a journey; you know where you want to go to and from where you are starting, how you chose to travel depends on the resources and timescales you have in which to complete the journey. This is what a business’s strategic plan does; it lays out where the business is heading for (targets/goals), where in currently is and what resources it intends to use, at what time, with what expected result, to get there.
A more complete definition is based on an understanding of competitive advantage, the mechanisms by which such advantage is created and communicated to the target audience. These are the objects of most corporate strategy:
Competitive advantage grows out of value a firm can create for its buyers that exceeds the firm’s cost of creating it. Value is what buyers are willing to pay, and superior value stems from offering lower prices than competitors for equivalent benefits or providing unique benefits that more than offset a higher price. There are two basic types of competitive advantage: cost leadership and differentiation.
– Michael Porter, Competitive Advantage.
A firm’s relative position within an industry is given by its choice of competitive advantage (cost leadership vs. differentiation) and its choice of competitive scope. Competitive scope distinguishes between firms targeting broad industry segments and firms focusing on a narrow segment. Generic strategies are useful because they characterize strategic positions at the simplest and broadest level. Porter maintains that achieving competitive advantage requires a firm to make a choice about the type and scope of its competitive advantage. There are different risks inherent in each generic strategy but being “all things to all people” is a sure recipe for mediocrity –getting “stuck in the middle”.
An alternative framework developed by Treacy and Wiersema (1995) predicates that a firm typically will choose to emphasize one of three “value disciplines”: product leadership, operational excellence, and customer intimacy. This framework is more in-tune with more advanced marketing concepts developed around the service dominant approach to marketing.
It is useful to think of strategy frameworks as having two components: internal and external analysis. The external analysis builds on an economics perspective of industry structure, and how a firm can make the most of competing in that structure. It emphasizes where a company should compete, and what is important when it does compete there. Porter’s Five Forces and Value Chain concepts comprise the main externally based framework. The external view helps inform strategic investments and decisions. Internal analysis, like core competence for example, is less based on industry structure and more in specific business operations and decisions. It emphasizes how a company should compete. The internal view is more appropriate for strategic organization and goal setting for the firm.
Porter’s focus on industry structure is a powerful means of analysing competitive advantage in itself, but it has been criticized for being too static in a world now driven by technological and social change. The internal analysis emphasizes building competencies, resources, and decision-making into a firm such that it continues to thrive in a changing environment, this has a close resonance with Porter’s value chain concept and with the Resource based view (RBV) of the firm .
Industry structure and positioning within the industry are the basis for models of competitive strategy promoted by Michael Porter. The “Five Forces” diagram captures the main idea of Porter’s theory of competitive advantage. The Five Forces define the rules of competition in any industry. Competitive strategy must grow out of a sophisticated understanding of the rules of competition that determine an industry’s attractiveness. Porter claims, “The ultimate aim of competitive strategy is to cope with and, ideally, to change those rules in the firm’s behaviour” (1985:4). The five forces determine industry profitability, and some industries may be more attractive than others. The crucial question in determining profitability is how much value firms can create for their buyers, and how much of this value will be captured or competed away. Industry structure determines who will capture the value. But a firm is not a complete prisoner of industry structure – firms can influence the five forces through their own strategies. The five forces framework highlights what is important and directs manager’s towards those aspects most important to long-term advantage.
The RBV framework is a relatively recent development that combines the internal (core competence) and external (industry structure) perspectives on strategy. Like the frameworks of core competence and capabilities, firms have quite different collections of physical and intangible assets and capabilities, which RBV calls resources. Competitive advantage is ultimately attributed to the ownership of a valuable resource. Resources are more broadly defined to be physical (e.g. property rights, capital), intangible (e.g. brand names, technological know-how), or organizational (e.g. routines or processes like lean manufacturing).
No two companies have the same resources because no two companies share the same set of experience, have acquired the same assets and skills, or built the same organisational culture. And unlike the core competence and capabilities frameworks, the value of the broadly defined resources is determined in the interplay with market forces; this has strong links with Porter’s Five Forces.
For a resource to be the basis of an effective strategy, it must pass several external market tests of its value. Collins and Montgomery (1995) offer a series of five tests for a valuable resource:
Inimitability – how hard is it for competitors to copy the resource? A company can stall imitation if the resource is (1) physically unique, (2) a consequence of path dependent development activities, (3) causally ambiguous (competitors don’t know what to imitate), or (4) a costly asset investment for a limited market, resulting in economic deterrence.
Durability – how quickly does the resource depreciate?
Appropriability – who captures the value that the resource creates: company, customers, distributors, suppliers, or employees?
Substitutability – can a unique resource be trumped by a different resource?
Competitive Superiority – is the resource really better relative to competitors?
Similarly, but from a more external, economics perspective, Peteraf (1993) proposes four theoretical conditions for competitive advantage to exist in an industry:
1. Heterogeneity of resources => rents exist
A basic assumption is that resource bundles and capabilities are heterogeneous across firms. This difference is manifested in two ways. First, firms with superior resources can earn Ricardian rents (profits) in competitive markets because they produce more efficiently than others. What is key is that the superior resource remains in limited supply, i.e. it is constrained in some manner. Second, firms with market power can earn monopoly profits from their resources by deliberately restricting output. Heterogeneity in monopoly models may result from differentiated products, intra-industry mobility barriers, or first-mover advantages, for example.
2. Ex-post limits to competition => rents sustained
Subsequent to a firm gaining a superior position and earning rents, there must be forces that limit competition for those rents (imitability and substitutability).
3. Imperfect mobility => rents sustained within the firm
Resources are imperfectly mobile if they cannot be traded, so they cannot be bid away from their employer; competitive advantage is sustained.
4. Ex-ante limits to competition => rents not offset by costs
Prior to the firm establishing its superior position, there must be limited competition for that position. Otherwise, the cost of getting there would offset the benefit of the resource or asset.
Taking the RBV Managers should build their strategies on resources that pass the above tests. In determining what valuable resources are, firms should look both at external industry conditions and at their internal capabilities – in essence an audit of both macro and micro-environments is still required but is processed via a different model that recognises that resources can come from anywhere in the value chain and can be physical assets, intangibles, or routines.

Because of the changing nature of the business environment and rapidly shifting needs of customers’ continuous improvement and upgrading of the resources is essential to prosper, indeed this casts the need to be able to manage ambiguity into centre stage, reflecting some of the lessons laid in Peters & Waterman, and Waterman. As such businesses must consider industry structure and dynamics when deciding which resources to invest in.
In Competing on the Edge, Eisenhardt & Brown (1998) advocate a strategy based on what they call “competing on the edge,” through combining elements of complexity theory with evolutionary theory. Theories that draw analogies between biological evolution and economics or business can be very satisfying: they explain the way things work in the real world, where analysis and planning is often a rarity. Moreover, they suggest that strategies based on flexibility, experimentation and continuous change and learning can be even more important than rigorous analysis and planning.
In Eisenhardt & Brown’s framework, firms develop a “semi-coherent strategic direction”. This requires them to create and maintain the right balance between order and chaos – firms can then successfully evolve and adapt to their unpredictable environment. In many regards this has overlaps with what many older strategic texts term ‘emergent strategy’. By competing at the “edge of chaos,” a firm creates an organization that can change and produce a continuous flow of competitive advantages that forms the “semi-coherent” direction. Firms are not hindered by too much planning or centralised control, but they have enough structure so that change can be organized to happen. By organising in this way, they promote an entrepreneurial and market-oriented business philosophy.
They successfully ‘evolve’, because they pursue a variety of moves – reacting to the evolutionary pressure of customers’ needs and in doing so make some mistakes but also relentlessly reinvent the business by discovering new growth opportunities. This strategy is characterized by being unpredictable, uncontrolled, and inefficient, but there is no denying it works. It’s important to note that firms should not just react well to change but must also do a good job of anticipating and leading change. In successful businesses, change is time-paced, or triggered by the passage of time rather than events.
In Built to Last, Collins and Porras (1994) outline habits of eighteen long-successful, visionary companies. Underlying the habits is an orientation towards evolutionary change: try a lot of stuff and keep what works. Evolutionary processes can be a powerful way to stimulate progress. Importantly, Collins and Porras also find that successful companies each have a core ideology that must be preserved throughout the progress. There is no one formula for the “right” set of core values, but it is important to have them. In strategy-speak, it is this core ideology that most fundamentally differentiates the firm from competitors, regardless of which market segments they get into.
Note there are close associations with the ‘core’ concept of branding and with the modern interpretation of what a business’s mission statement should stand for here, indeed they go on to state that they should be deeply held values that go beyond “vision statements” – they are mechanisms and systems that are built into the system over time. In marketing-speak these values should be a major part of a firm’s corporate positioning whose values need to be congruent with those of its products and services.
Attention to the core beliefs may sometimes defy short-term profit incentives or conventional business wisdom, but it is important to maintain them. Note: “maximize shareholder wealth” is not an adequate core ideology – it does not inspire people at all levels and provides little guidance.
The concept of hyper competition suggests that strategy should also involve the creative destruction of an opponent’s advantage; in some respects, this places a strong emphasis on SWOT analysis.
The primary goal of this new approach to strategy is disruption of the status quo, to seize the initiative through creating a series of temporary advantages. It is the speed and intensity of movement that characterizes hyper competition. From economic theory we know that there is no equilibrium as in perfect competition, and only temporary profits are possible in hyper competition markets.
This approach has seen the rise of several new trends in marketing such a ‘guerrilla’, ‘ambush’, ‘astro-turfing’, ‘viral’ and ‘stealth’ all of which are designed to create temporary advantages in markets. These approaches are described in Chapter Eight. It has also seen the rise of ‘game theory’ as a tool for analysing customers’ and competitors’ responses to a firm’s competitive moves; game theory attempts to mathematically capture behaviours in strategic situations and thus to predict scenarios of market macro-environment, thus enabling the key pivotal points for disruption to be identified.
Successful strategy in hypercompetitive markets is based on three elements:
1. Vision for how to disrupt a market
2. Key capabilities enabling speed and surprise in a wide range of actions
3. Disruptive tactics illuminated by game theory
There are three main alternatives to adopting a marketing orientation. These are the Sales orientation, the Production orientation, and the Product orientation.
1. Sales orientation: Some businesses see their main problem as selling more of the product or services which they already have available. They may therefore be expected to make full use of selling, pricing, promotion, and distribution skills (just like a marketing-orientated business). The difference is that a sale-orientated business pays little attention to customer needs and wants and does not try particularly hard to create suitable products or services.
2. Production orientation: A production-orientated business is said to be mainly concerned with making as many units as possible. By concentrating on producing maximum volumes, such a business aims to maximise profitability by exploiting economies of scale. In a production orientated business, the needs of customers are secondary compared with the need to increase output. Such an approach is probably most effective when a business operates in extremely high growth markets or where the potential for economies of scale is significant.
3. Product orientation: This is subtly different from a production orientation. Consider a business that is “obsessed” with its own products – perhaps even arrogant about how good they are. Their products may start out as fully up-to-date and technical leaders.
Once you have a plan based on what I have said so far you can hire a marketing expert to fulfil these needs. You have earlier said that you are very hard pressed on resources, so according to the needs of the market you are functioning in you have to balance your resources and distribute it equally so as to gain maximum profits and minimum losses.
If you are still not able to decide what to do, refer to the works of these marketing experts for a valuable insight that can change your business:
1. Hope Horner: Raised in Tennessee, now living in Southern California, Hope Horner has been featured as one of Inc.’s 25 Inspiring Entrepreneurs to Watch in 2017. Currently the CEO of Lemon light Media, an emerging video marketing company that’s winning kudos across the nation, Horner has shared her personal insights and stories -- many gleaned from her Pepperdine University beginnings and her three start-up ventures --through the biggest publishing platforms on the internet, including Entrepreneur and the Huffington Post.
2. Erin Berman: A self-described storyteller and brand strategist, Erin Berman founded Blackbeard Studios after consulting for dozens of start-ups and traveling to the farthest corners of the globe. Her fresh insights into company scalability -- fostered by effective, contemporary storytelling -- have made her a sought-after workshop presenter across the Bay Area. No stranger to Silicon Valley, Berman earned her master’s degree in creative writing from the University of San Francisco.
3. Roy Raanani: As CEO and co-founder of Chorus.ai, which provides conversation intelligence for sales teams, Roy Raanani combines his engineering background with his passions for sales, customer success and marketing to leverage the power of artificial intelligence. Raanani has mastered the intersection of technology and marketing science to deliver a new take on targeting audiences and improving the sales process for companies of all sizes. His career has involved creating his own start-ups as well as advising on strategy and operations.
4. Mihael Mikek: Mihael Mikek is the founder and CEO of Celtra, a creative-management platform that helps companies create effective native and video ads as well as other formats that are targeted and relevant. His vision led to the development of a pioneering cloud-based SaaS platform that helps the largest global advertisers improve their creative. The company now powers advertising for two-thirds of the Fortune 500 companies and delivers ad experiences in more than 30 global markets per year.
5. Stacy Durand: Stacy Durand is the CEO of Media Design Group, a media-buying agency that prides itself on meeting audiences wherever they may be. Durand has said she sees herself as an energetic cheerleader for her company, helping her team stay creative, attentive, energetic and knowledgeable in order to zero in on a company's target audience with TV advertising in an ever-expanding world of streaming and smart devices.
6. Jørn Lyseggen: Jørn Lyseggen is the founder and CEO of Meltwater, a global leader in media intelligence. In 2008, Lyseggen founded MEST (Meltwater Entrepreneurial School of Technology) in Accra, Ghana, on the belief that talent is everywhere, though opportunity is not. This belief has been the foundation for MEST, which is working to create work and wealth in Africa through a new generation of successful global software entrepreneurs on the continent.
7. Marcus Sheridan: When Marcus Sheridan saved his floundering swimming pool business after the dramatic economic crash of 2008, the New York Times dubbed him a web marketing guru. Sheridan’s powerful story of resilience inspired the book Mashable called the No. 1 marketing read in 2017, They Ask You Answer. Lovingly referred to as "The Sales Lion," Sheridan has displayed a digital marketing acumen that's becomes internationally well-known and has made him a trusted corporate brand advisor.
8. Jay Baer: One Jay Baer keynote is all it takes to understand why this New York Times best-selling author is a hit with audiences and readers. The founder of strategy consulting firm Convince & Convert, Baer consistently delivers trend-worthy and notable content across multiple channels as resources for business executives. In addition, he is an active venture capitalist looking for new places to invest.
9. Mari Smith: Mari Smith has become known as a digital marketing expert, training small business owners in the ways of building traffic, subscribers, clients, alliances, and targeted media attention. Smith has built these skills over the course of 10 years, with specialties in Facebook and Twitter. The Canada native travels to the United States regularly to present keynotes and training seminars and has shared a stage with notable figures like the Dalai Lama, former South African President F.W. de Klerk, and celebrity Paula Abdul.
10. Heidi Cohen: Heidi Cohen is arguably one of the most well-rounded marketers working today. Her expertise is not limited to one domain. From textiles to financial services to entertainment, Cohen has honed her skills into her Actionable Marketing Guide, a blog providing insights on social media, mobile, branding, public relations, and small business.
11. Andy Crestodina: Co-founder and strategic director of Orbit Media Studios, an award-winning Chicago-based web design company, Andy Crestodina specializes in content marketing, social media and analytics. Crestodina seeks to make each topic accessible. With more than 20 years of keynote speaking experience, Crestodina is consistently named a top presenter at prestigious events, including Content Marketing World's 2015 conference. He is also the author of Content Chemistry: An Illustrated Handbook for Content Marketing, which addresses web marketing and theory in practice.

Besides if you do have any questions give me a call: https://clarity.fm/joy-brotonath