Paul Gray

Shopify or Not? The Alternative Path My post last week on Shopify’s fall in the AI age sparked a good debate. Some raised similar concerns, while others avidly defended Shopify. In the debate, I missed the nuance. As someone who’s used Shopify, worked with devs, and spoken with hundreds of merchants, I’ll say this: Shopify can be a hit or a miss. It all depends on the situation. For B2C brands with simple catalogs and no devs, Shopify is a good choice. Convenient to set up. Nice templates. WYSIWYG editor. I get it. But it usually falls short with more complex business models and workflows, such as B2B setups, advanced B2C product logic, marketplaces, etc. In those cases, Shopify is stretched beyond its design. Devs patch workarounds instead of building new features; slowing time-to-market and driving up costs. All of this happens while GMV fees, app fees, and platform fees compound. For businesses facing these challenges, the real strategic question becomes: Do we keep building inside someone else’s box—or define our own? With AI tooling and better open-source options, the barrier to platform ownership is lower than ever, opening up an alternative path for merchants. It’s no surprise that more teams are now questioning the high GMV fees and vendor lock-in associated with SaaS platforms like Shopify. I probably would not care much if I were selling five T-shirts in five colors. But as complexity grows, so does the need for control. For those complex cases, platform ownership is a more viable path than ever.

80

37 Comments

🚀 Big shifts in the Shopify enterprise ecosystem. We're seeing more enterprise-grade tech partners make the move from Salesforce Commerce Cloud to Shopify for Enterprise, and it's exciting to see. Platforms like Talon.One (promo + loyalty engine) and Constructor (AI-powered product discovery) are bringing serious firepower to enterprise brands that demand flexibility and performance on Shopify. As Shopify continues to evolve upmarket, these integrations are making it more powerful than ever for enterprise ecommerce brands to grow on the Shopify platform. We here at Verbal+Visual are excited to help enterprise teams tap into this new wave of innovation. 👉 If you’re stuck on SFCC or Magento and wondering what’s next — let’s talk. #ShopifyPlus #EcommerceInnovation #EnterpriseCommerce #Constructor #TalonOne #EcommerceTech #VerbalPlusVisual #CommerceThatConverts

85

11 Comments

Note: the following thoughts are mine and do not represent any specific position of Bloomreach. Calling all marketing leaders - if you are not pushing your teams to understand and leverage AI, you are not saving their jobs, you are making them unemployable. I was talking to a friend of mine this week who said she’s being cautious about bringing AI tools into her team because she doesn’t want to have to choose between tools and headcount. I was genuinely surprised and for those of you who know me, I was pretty direct in my admonishment. But as she began to explain, I was moved to compassion. She rightly believes technology isn’t ready yet and fears that she will have to choose between her team, that she knows can deliver, and technology that she knows can’t - yet! We’re at a profound crossroad. I have the benefit of working for a company that believes in AI because we’re building it - for marketers! Therefore, internally, we have an experimentation mindset. It’s not about “AI works” as much as it is “AI has potential.” I have cut back on my technology budget in order to invest in AI powered tools that probably won’t work, at first. I requested zero additional headcount this year, believing we will create efficiency, at some point. I have reorganized our department to create an innovation team responsible for driving the adoption and efficacy of AI. Guess what - pipeline is down year over year. We aren’t yet effectively coordinating the use of AI across all of marketing. The data we have isn’t perfect. But the speed at which that will change will be in weeks, not months. And I relish the competitive advantage we will have! That said - my friend is right! Job number one is taking care of your people - and I really believe in this moment, that means stepping off the ledge! I also realize not everyone is as fortunate as I am - and I genuinely believe we need to support each other with the lessons we’re learning and the shared visions we have. For that reason - I’m going to post every week about our AI transformation journey, the good and the bad. Not because I think marketing should be replaced by AI but because our future will be WITH AI. And as far as my team goes - they’re the absolute best and it is my job to provide them the opportunity to stay that way. Using AI will not replace them, it will allow them to build the skills that make them the most employable candidates in the market.

183

37 Comments

Most C-Level executives don’t know the difference between AI and automation. Hot take: Marketing ops can totally take advantage of this ignorance. Execs are impressed with systems that send emails at the right time, score a lead, route it to sales, and personalize a message—they call it AI. HELLO THAT’S CALLED MARKETING AUTOMATION and we’ve been doing it for almost 20 years. One pretty reliable clue that something is truly AI is the ability to learn and adapt; automation can’t do that. But anyway, here’s where we can take advantage. For years, we’ve pushed for clean, accurate, real-time data, and hit a wall. Now we say: “Our AI needs the right data to function.” Doors open. More examples: Can’t get headcount for another ops hire? I bet they’ll say yes to an “AI specialist” who’ll do the same thing. Can’t get budget for data hygiene tools? How about an AI-powered data health system? Very investable. Can’t justify QA and monitoring? Call it real-time AI risk mitigation. The work hasn’t changed. Just the packaging. And suddenly, we’re strategic. Essential. Future-facing. Long live marketing ops. Or should I say—AI strategy. 😉 #marketing #martech #marketingoperations #ai PS: I’m writing more about this in my weekly newsletter, search “The Marketing Operations Leader” on Google and subscribe for free to keep leveling up your knowledge.

195

31 Comments

For the last few months, I’ve watched advocacy teams get downsized in the name of cost-cutting. The problem is, customer trust takes years to build and can disappear overnight. I get the math. Cut headcount, improve margins, call it operational efficiency. On a spreadsheet, it makes sense. But customer advocacy doesn’t live in spreadsheets. It lives in the day-to-day trust between your team and your customers. The little moments that make them willing to pick up the phone, join a panel, or share their story. When you gut the team, you gut that trust. This is why so many of these rollups are imploding. Communities go quiet. Customer stories stop coming in. Advocacy slows to a crawl. And suddenly the “synergies” look a lot less impressive. There’s a better way. We can still be disciplined about costs. But let’s start by looking at what’s actually driving value. And it’s not just software licenses. It’s the relationships the team builds and maintains. The trust they’ve earned and nurtured over years. That’s why we’re building differently at UserEvidence. Customer advocacy isn’t just a feature of what we do. It’s the heart of it. And it’s why the smartest teams in the space aren’t looking for the cheapest solution. They’re looking for the one that protects what makes advocacy work in the first place. Frankly, customers don’t care about EBITDA. But they’ll notice when no one calls anymore.

110

10 Comments

Got into a heated debate last night about product marketing hires—specifically, whether or not subject matter expertise (SME) should be a requirement for a PMM role. The setting was a swanky dinner roundtable in SF with a dozen or so growth and marketing leaders—no actual product marketers were present (or harmed) at this meetup. The general crux of the debate was whether SME could/should be learned on the job and, if so, on what time horizon. The group fell into two camps: 1) Camp SME required 2) Camp SME not required Here’s a case for and against each camp… 🏕️ Camp SME required Case for 👍 - Faster onboarding cycle - Built in empathy with core ICP - More autonomy (fewer asks of others to review work) Case against 👎 - Longer time to hire - Smaller candidate pool - More challenging to scale - Too close to the problem (grasping at straws a bit here) Disclaimer: It should be noted that I fell into this camp. Reflecting on my marketing failures, I realize it’s often been where I lacked firsthand experience of the target audience’s pain points and lost trust with both them and the CEO. –––––– 🏕️ Camp SME not required Case for 👍 - Faster time to hire - Larger candidate pool - More repeatable/scalable motion - Not jaded by the curse of knowledge - Flexibility to move to alternative product lines Case against 👎 - Longer time to ramp - Risk of losing credibility with core audience - Slower to ship (e.g., asking SME for feedback) –––––– Anyway, I don’t think we got to a consensus but it was definitely a fun and lively debate. Would love to hear from some ACTUAL product marketers and others with strong opinions on the matter—you know the drill :) ======= P.S. Big thanks to Theory Ventures and Tomasz Tunguz for hosting!

73

87 Comments

Most people think strategy is the difference-maker. But in practice? Energy is the multiplier. I’ve seen it play out again and again. Two teams can have the same plan on paper: same market, same funding, same product vision. But the one with more energy—sharper communication, tighter trust, faster cycles—wins almost every time. It shows up in the small stuff: - How fast they follow up after a decision - Whether they bring ideas or just feedback - If they take pride in the details or just try to check the box Strategy matters. But energy is what turns it into motion. And momentum beats a better plan every time.

36

5 Comments