Why Marketing Should Stop Trying to Align With Sales

Why Marketing Should Stop Trying to Align With Sales

Sales and marketing alignment might be the biggest fantasy in B2B. After decades of dashboards, handoff frameworks, attribution models, and “smarketing” workshops, most companies are still running the same internal knife fight. This week on Lab Grown Marketing, Jon and Peter argue that the problem isn’t failed alignment — it’s the assumption that alignment should exist in the first place. Drawing on new synthetic research and LinkedIn behavioral data across 7,000+ B2B companies, they reveal why sales and marketing almost never target the same customers, why MQLs distort behavior on both sides, and why the pursuit of shared metrics may actually make performance worse. The guys revisit the infamous “Tokyo Test” — the moment LinkedIn’s brand awareness disappeared overnight — to unpack why sales teams dramatically underestimate the power of marketing until it’s gone. Then they introduce a different solution entirely: strategic misalignment. Instead of forcing sales and marketing to do the same job, companies should divide labor correctly, align around customer needs, and let each team execute independently against different parts of demand. Turns out the biggest opportunity in B2B growth might not be tighter alignment. It might be finally admitting alignment was never the goal. 00:00 - Introduction – Sales & Marketing misalignment 03:40 - The Tokyo Test – what a near-empty event taught us about brand 09:10 - The case for strategic misalignment 13:00 - Million dollar data – survey of 500 marketers vs. 500 salespeople 20:25 - The Circles of Doom – LinkedIn's 7,000-company alignment study 28:30 - Division of labor – the Adam Smith prescription for sales & marketing 35:55 - The MQL problem – the metric distorting both teams 40:00 - Category entry points – the one thing sales and marketing can agree on

Brand Breakdown: RAO's - How a 10-Seat Restaurant Became a $2.7B Brand

A 10-table restaurant in Harlem became a $2.7 billion CPG brand by mastering one thing: being easy to want and easy to buy. Rao’s didn’t scale the restaurant—it scaled the desire. Jon and Peter break down how Rao’s built extreme mental availability through myth, scarcity, and cultural relevance—then paired it with physical availability through disciplined distribution. From mafia mystique to premium pricing, every move reinforced the same positioning: this is not everyday sauce. Also, Peter has a special guest joining him today: Eric Skae — the CEO who took Rao's from 5% annual growth to 40% in four months, and is now running the exact same playbook at Carbone Fine Food — for a rare inside look at how the brand actually scaled. They unpack the full playbook—segmentation, positioning, pricing, distribution, and brand assets—and show why Rao’s is one of the cleanest real-world examples of Ehrenberg-Bass in action. If you want to understand how brands actually grow (and why most B2B companies get it backwards), this is the case study. 00:00 - The $2.7B question 03:13 - RAO's History and Strategy 17:44 - Segmentation and Targeting 24:08 - Positioning 28:14 - Line Extensions 30:48 - Distinctive Brand Assets 38:46 - Non-Synthetic Salon: Interview with Eric Skae, CEO of Carbone Fine Food 1:06:12 - Future Predictions of Carbone 1:09:23 - Ideas Wrap 1:15:36 - Commercial Outcomes 1:17:41 - Million Dollar Data 1:20:59 - B2B Lesson

From Ad Skeptics to Ad Empires: Why Every Tech Giant Becomes an Ad Company

From Sam Altman to Jeff Bezos to Mark Zuckerberg, the pattern keeps repeating—leaders dismiss advertising right up until they need it to scale. Advertising isn’t a necessary evil. It’s the system that makes modern markets work. This week, Jon and Peter take on one of marketing’s most persistent myths: that advertising is annoying, manipulative, or optional. The reality looks very different. They unpack why advertising isn’t persuasion—it’s infrastructure. It connects buyers and sellers, subsidizes access, fuels competition, and quietly funds the innovations shaping the future. Including AI. Backed by new synthetic research, they reveal how people actually feel about advertising (hint: it’s not what you think), why even ad professionals misunderstand it, and how better framing completely changes perception. If advertising is the engine behind growth, innovation, and access—why does everyone keep pretending otherwise? 00:00 — The Most Misunderstood Engine in Marketing 02:10 — From the Feed: “I Hate Ads”… Until You Need Them 09:54 — Marketing Mental Models: Ads as Infrastructure 13:53 — Advertising Is a Weak Force (That Scales) 17:30 — Access, Innovation, Competition, and Survival 20:56 — Million Dollar Data: Do People Actually Hate Ads? 23:51 — Why Ad People Hate Ads the Most 26:48 — Good Ads vs Bad Ads 27:30 — Final Take: Advertising Is the System

Designing for the Skip: Why Your Ads Lose in Half a Second

Most ads aren’t ignored because they’re bad. They’re ignored because they assume attention that doesn’t exist. The real problem isn’t a “worst-case scenario” — it’s the default one. In this episode, Jon and Peter break down why modern advertising must be designed for half a second, sound off, mid-scroll. They unpack the picture superiority effect, why visuals are processed up to 20x faster than text, and why branding is mandatory while messaging is optional — no matter how smart your copy sounds in a deck. From Renaissance garb to Geico geckos, the guys explore why distinctive visual assets outperform clever words, why most marketers massively underinvest in imagery, and how AI-generated visuals are already beating human-made ads on clicks and purchase intent. If your ads only work when people pay attention, they’re not really working.

AI Slop Is a Lie: Why Voice-First Marketing Is Actually Better

AI slop? Not so fast. This week on Lab Grown Marketing, Jon and Peter make the case that AI isn’t cheapening marketing — it’s upgrading it. From voice-first workflows to a sudden boom in “storytelling” jobs, the guys explore why the real productivity unlock of AI isn’t faster typing… it’s better thinking, spoken out loud. They kick things off From the Feed with a surprising Wall Street Journal signal: job postings for storytellers are exploding. Why now? Because when content becomes infinite, narrative coherence becomes scarce — and valuable. In Million Dollar Data, Jon shares fresh synthetic research showing just how bad most companies are at telling a clear story (spoiler: only 6% think they do it well), and why committees, fear, and diluted positioning keep killing narrative power. Finally, in the Synthetic Salon, a very-not-Morgan-Housel guest drops a simple but dangerous idea: the best story wins. In a world where products are copyable and content is free, storytelling isn’t fluff — it’s the moat. If you’re still typing your way through the AI revolution… this episode might convince you to start talking instead.