I think there’s a Marketer #3 who does all of this but with AI. Builds the strategy, builds ads in Claude/Canva and builds the agent that runs them on Meta.
That person is becoming even more valuable today than Marketer #2.
I kinda like that Wes did not mention the use of AI for Marketer #2. The idea is that a high autonomy professional will decide the best tech for the job to be done.
I have started at nine or ten companies now depending on how you count, and end-to-end is the whole job in a fractional seat. The narrow version, hand over a strategy deck and leave, never survives the first thing that breaks in week two.
This article is awesome because it explains the way an entrepreneur thinks. I would love to see more of the entrepreneurial spirit inside of organizations because waiting around to make things happen is expensive. Feels like the annoying teenager who refuses to help you and in return offers, "I dunno I just work here." The person you're describing this article is exactly the kind of person I would want to hire.
Plus today you can use AI to create designs, mock ups, edit videos, interactive tools, dashboards, digital products... all sorts of things.
And they all would take less time to create that it would take to have a meeting about creating it. lol
The end-to-end idea is a useful antidote to handoff drift. I keep a one-line “definition of done” at the top of a project so every stage can make a decision without reopening the whole context.
Interesting POV....devils always in the details on this in terms of lack of roles/responsiblities, cross-training, executive level politcs, distributed leadership, spider web dependencies, etc. So, in theory and for the sake of velocity, I like it. In reality (based on my 13K hours of coaching), not sure it survives higher value work.
The end-to-end capacity is what gets lost in heavy handoff cultures: someone who can hold a project from principle to delivery without translating at every junction. The rare thing is the tolerance for the parts that go slowly before they resolve. Most people optimize out of exactly those phases.
I know intrapreneur and entrepreneur aren't quite the same animal, but if someone has all the skills and resourcefulness to be an entrepreneur, I'm curious what keeps them choosing to stay an intrapreneur. Does that choice tend to shift over time?
With the mobile wave we saw the rise of growth teams because marketing teams at the time lacked the skills and personality types for what the new role required. However, overtime as these tactics became more mainstream growth teams were disbanded and reintegrated into traditional functions. Given that the end-to-end operator requires such different skills and mindset to traditional marketing roles do you foresee it following a similar trajectory where in the short run an entirely new set of roles may need to be created?
I think there’s a Marketer #3 who does all of this but with AI. Builds the strategy, builds ads in Claude/Canva and builds the agent that runs them on Meta.
That person is becoming even more valuable today than Marketer #2.
I kinda like that Wes did not mention the use of AI for Marketer #2. The idea is that a high autonomy professional will decide the best tech for the job to be done.
So good! You were ahead of the curve (as usual), Wes! Thanks for resharing this!
I have started at nine or ten companies now depending on how you count, and end-to-end is the whole job in a fractional seat. The narrow version, hand over a strategy deck and leave, never survives the first thing that breaks in week two.
This article is awesome because it explains the way an entrepreneur thinks. I would love to see more of the entrepreneurial spirit inside of organizations because waiting around to make things happen is expensive. Feels like the annoying teenager who refuses to help you and in return offers, "I dunno I just work here." The person you're describing this article is exactly the kind of person I would want to hire.
Plus today you can use AI to create designs, mock ups, edit videos, interactive tools, dashboards, digital products... all sorts of things.
And they all would take less time to create that it would take to have a meeting about creating it. lol
Strategy finally met execution - they had been copied on the same emails for years.
The end-to-end idea is a useful antidote to handoff drift. I keep a one-line “definition of done” at the top of a project so every stage can make a decision without reopening the whole context.
Interesting POV....devils always in the details on this in terms of lack of roles/responsiblities, cross-training, executive level politcs, distributed leadership, spider web dependencies, etc. So, in theory and for the sake of velocity, I like it. In reality (based on my 13K hours of coaching), not sure it survives higher value work.
The end-to-end capacity is what gets lost in heavy handoff cultures: someone who can hold a project from principle to delivery without translating at every junction. The rare thing is the tolerance for the parts that go slowly before they resolve. Most people optimize out of exactly those phases.
I know intrapreneur and entrepreneur aren't quite the same animal, but if someone has all the skills and resourcefulness to be an entrepreneur, I'm curious what keeps them choosing to stay an intrapreneur. Does that choice tend to shift over time?
Capital Risk ?
With the mobile wave we saw the rise of growth teams because marketing teams at the time lacked the skills and personality types for what the new role required. However, overtime as these tactics became more mainstream growth teams were disbanded and reintegrated into traditional functions. Given that the end-to-end operator requires such different skills and mindset to traditional marketing roles do you foresee it following a similar trajectory where in the short run an entirely new set of roles may need to be created?