Brilliant articulation of the velocity gap in modern B2B. Your Signal Spine framework crystallizes something I've observed repeatedly: the most sophisticated intent data loses value exponentially with each hour of delay. What stood out is how you connected workflow debt to architectural constraint rather than just operational inefficiency. The real nuance here is that buying groups moving across dark social and anonymous sessions create a fundamentla mismatch with legacy martech built for linear attribution. One consideration: as teams compress time-to-activation, there's a risk of optimizing for speed at the expense of signal quality verification, especially when identity resolution confidence is below certain thresholds.
Thanks for your detailed thoughts. Regarding your point on speed and signals and the risk of being recklessly fast; imo the signal fidelity in the age of privacy will always be a concern so I think, considering the importance of speed, it’s better to react slightly too quickly on perhaps slightly weaker signal then to react too slowly having allowed more signal confidence precisely because so much invisible signal will have happened outside the scope of measurement between these two points - and the deal may be lost in that time.
I see the concern but generally, personally, think it’s better to be bolder and faster precisely because we will never see all the signals
Brilliant articulation of the velocity gap in modern B2B. Your Signal Spine framework crystallizes something I've observed repeatedly: the most sophisticated intent data loses value exponentially with each hour of delay. What stood out is how you connected workflow debt to architectural constraint rather than just operational inefficiency. The real nuance here is that buying groups moving across dark social and anonymous sessions create a fundamentla mismatch with legacy martech built for linear attribution. One consideration: as teams compress time-to-activation, there's a risk of optimizing for speed at the expense of signal quality verification, especially when identity resolution confidence is below certain thresholds.
Thanks for your detailed thoughts. Regarding your point on speed and signals and the risk of being recklessly fast; imo the signal fidelity in the age of privacy will always be a concern so I think, considering the importance of speed, it’s better to react slightly too quickly on perhaps slightly weaker signal then to react too slowly having allowed more signal confidence precisely because so much invisible signal will have happened outside the scope of measurement between these two points - and the deal may be lost in that time.
I see the concern but generally, personally, think it’s better to be bolder and faster precisely because we will never see all the signals
Thanks for sharing mike Hart 😊
For sure Jasper 😊