In the startup world, marketing is not just lead generation. This Houston expert explains. Photo via Getty Images

Until recently, the concept of marketing within the startup sphere was often equated solely with lead-generation. It's not entirely inaccurate to say that "marketing is lead-generation," as revenue generation is undeniably the end goal of marketing efforts.

However, what tends to be overlooked by founders is the intricate path to achieving revenue generation and how marketing can pave the way. I firmly believe that a similar paradigm exists in the realm of B2C marketing.

Distinguishing "Marketing" from "marketing"

I'd like to start by establishing a distinction between Marketing and marketing. This distinction might not be perfect, but it encapsulates how I conceptualize these concepts. When I refer to Marketing with a capital "M," I'm alluding to the overarching strategies that companies employ to drive revenue through marketing and advertising activities. This is the domain of the chief marketing Officer. The role of a CMO entails overseeing marketing and advertising efforts to ensure their alignment and efficiency in achieving the company's broader strategic goals.

Given this concept, where should a startup begin when figuring out their marketing strategy?

The role of brand

There is a common tendency amongst startups to create a product, establish a name, and swiftly attempt to enter the market. While the initial step for a startup involves achieving product-market fit, I advocate that once this milestone is reached, startups should pause to invest time in crafting their brand identity. Branding serves as the facet of a company that sets it apart and defines itself. This encompasses articulating a vision, mission, and values. Founders have the opportunity to shape their company's voice, articulate how they add value to customers, and delineate the organizational culture they aspire to foster. This phase is pivotal because it establishes the foundational elements that necessitate internal alignment for efficient scalability.

Once the brand is established, it can be handed over to a skilled marketer to start driving revenue growth. However the path to revenue growth goes straight through brand awareness.

Distinguishing marketing from advertising

This distinction can be perplexing, as the activities described here largely fall under the Marketing umbrella. However, I find it beneficial to differentiate between marketing and advertising within the broader context of Marketing strategy. Marketing revolves around cultivating brand awareness. Marketing is about building brand awareness. In marketing campaigns the wording can be about the company and its team. While I don’t recommend the old visuals of people in a boardroom having meetings, it’s ok to talk about the people and goals of the company in marketing campaigns. What does your brand represent? What is your product? What do you do? Who are your people? What are your values? It’s ok to share all of these things, and depending on the channel a company is marketing on, their marketing person will be well equipped to display this.

Advertising has a different tone and purpose. When advertising a company is talking to their customer, and offering the customer a solution to their pain and problem. This is a company’s what. I assume that a company that has made it this far offers a solution that is a cure, and not a nice-to-have.

Most advertising campaigns follow a simple formula, “are you suffering from X?” with a clear answer of “our company can solve that with Y”. If the answer to the pain question is yes, there is a good probability that the person will click on the ad they are seeing. That probability improves when the advertising campaign is layered on top of a well executed brand awareness campaign.

The significance of brand awareness

Although I'm not a psychologist, I do recognize the potency of the subconscious mind. This isn't about psychological manipulation, but rather an acknowledgment that the subconscious retains more than the conscious mind is capable of. Unlocking this potential might be challenging for individuals, but for marketers, the process is comparatively more accessible. Present information to an individual, and as long as they see it, their subconscious mind will register and retain it. This underscores the importance of brand awareness in revenue generation. By exposing a target audience to the company’s messaging through brand awareness campaigns, enhances the likelihood of engagement.

This fundamentally reshapes how companies connect with their ICP.

The nuance of timing

When an individual encounters advertising, a part of their brain will recognize the brand and might even associate it positively. This underscores the criticality of brand awareness, as it allows companies to focus on their target audience and continuously engage them until they are ready to make a purchase. Determining the precise moment when a customer is ready to buy is nearly impossible. However, this moment invariably arises, usually propelled by a pain point. When that decisive moment arrives, the goal is for the company’s brand to be the first that comes to their mind or that they see. This necessitates an ongoing investment in brand awareness campaigns.

So what does this mean in the context of startups?

A capital-efficient marketing approach

A key component of any Marketing strategy is capital efficiency. Founders must familiarize themselves with crucial metrics, such as:

  1. Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC): What is the expense of acquiring each customer?
  2. Customer Lifetime Value (CLTV or LTV): What is the anticipated revenue generated from engaging this customer?

While it's acceptable to commence with assumptions, any shifts in these assumptions warrant corresponding adjustments in a Marketing budget.

In the initial stages of a company’s lifecycle, a significant portion of sales might stem from direct, personalized selling efforts. This entails founders engaging in activities like providing software demos for enterprise sales or conducting face-to-face interactions within the target market. However, as revenue grows, capital is raised, and founders transition from selling to leading, this selling strategy should be phased out. This also marks the moment for founders to begin contemplating their Marketing budgets.

A starting point for figuring out your Marketing budget can be based on a CAC to LTV ratio of 1:3, where CAC is a third of your LTV. Once you have determined your CAC to LTV ratio, you need to determine what your revenue goal is, and then set your marketing budget based on that. Finally, you need to divide your Marketing budget between marketing and advertising activities. Depending on the stage the company is at, the division should be around 60% for marketing and 40% for advertising to start. This is to enable brand awareness to work its magic to build an audience for retargeting.

If you’re unsure about how to proceed, we can talk.

In the upcoming months, I intend to delve deeper into several topics:

  1. Founder-Led Storytelling
  2. The Imperative of Building Brand Awareness
  3. Delineating the Distinctions Between Marketing and Advertising and How They Synergize
  4. The Necessity of Outbound Email Marketing
  5. The Power of Marketing Email Automation in Nurturing Your Endeavors
  6. Embarking by Selling Your "What"

I hope these insights contribute value to the founder journey.

Should you have any questions I can help with, please don't hesitate to connect with me on LinkedIn.

------

Yosef Levenstein is the chief marketing officer and venture partner at Golden Section Ventures.

The music industry has adapted to the digital age — so should financial securities. Getty Images

The financial industry needs to digitize not tokenize, says this Houston expert

Guest column

One of my favorite movies growing up was Empire Records. It was the mid-1990s, and the closest we got to Instagram feeds was who had the best mixtapes. If you're not familiar with Empire Records (or what a mixtape is), I recommend watching the movie, but you don't have to worry too much about mixtapes any more.

Since Empire Records was released in 1995, the way we purchase and consume music has fundamentally changed. The physical music store was displaced by iTunes, and then the music industry evolved even further into a streaming economy. It took 24 years, but music evolved and it now operates in a fundamentally different way. Digitization of music was initially viewed as an existential threat to the industry, but in the end, music was digitized globally and the music industry very much survived.

The music industry has evolved and adapted to the digital age. The same happened across countless other industries, including financial services. Today we can invest in publicly traded stocks through a mobile app for free. However, a critical segment of capital markets has not evolved yet. The private securities space.

Transactions in private securities are still done on paper (no, DocuSign does not count as securities digitization.) Administrative costs are kept high due to the amount of paper that is processed and pushed through this system. As long as the foundation of private securities is paper, there is no amount of administrative technology out there to create an efficient market.

Public markets took the plunge into digital long before music did, and digitization of public markets enabled exponential growth globally. Trading volume, access to capital, and liquidity have all increased, and a large part of that can be attributed to the efficient and transparent nature of most public exchanges.

Efficient markets rely on price transparency and information equality. Currently, the private securities markets do not offer either of these characteristics. This is nothing new to people in the alternatives space, but how to reach these lofty goals, to create liquidity and reduce costs, is what I am excited about.

The reduction of cost does not relate only to commissions. There are administrative costs associated with private securities. Information distribution is slow and unilateral, forcing investors to depend on antiquated systems in order to track their investments. Nearly all of these costs are absorbed by the investor, and most efforts to date have not helped address the core issue, analog private security transactions.

Digitization of private securities is fundamentally different than tokenization. Tokenized securities are considered bearer securities. A digitized security, on the other hand, maintains its original status as a registered security, as long as its digitization is implemented in a manner that fits current regulatory requirements. Until recently, that had not been possible in a scalable way. Blockchain changed all of that.

Initial attempts at utilizing blockchain for private markets applied tokenization. Essentially, this configuration took securities that had clearly defined ownership records, anonymized them and put them on a public blockchain such as Ethereum. While there are some benefits to this approach, it also opened doors to significant fraud and securities regulation violations. Tokenization may provide liquidity, but the long-term risk far outweighs the value of liquidity for any prudent investor.

Blockchain does provide a framework that supports compliant digitization of private investments, it's simply not tokenization. The solution lies in using private permissioned blockchains that allow an appropriate degree of technical security while also ensuring transparency and accountability.

Blockchain enables us to maintain a statement of record that is both compliant, and scalable. Across the financial services industry, and across most other industries, blockchain is being deployed to help solve problems that were previously unmanageable. The blockchain is even helping farmers track their crops through IBM's blockchain. iownit has integrated blockchain at the core of our technology, proving that compliant digitization of private securities is possible and scalable.

The United States has a free market economy, so in the end, winners are determined by the market. It is our belief that the digitization of private securities is the responsible way to help this industry evolve. If you're still skeptical, just look at how the public securities markets have evolved since the '70s when electronic stock trading was enabled and the first digital public security trade was placed. Now try and imagine how private security markets will look in four years.

------

Yosef Levenstein is the head of marketing at iownit, a Houston-based financial technology firm that is democratizing how investors and private companies transact.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Texas lands top 10 spot in new future of tech study

report

Texas is among the top 10 states making the biggest investments in digital innovation, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by web-hosting company Hostinger, puts Texas in eighth place among the states when it comes to these key metrics:

  • Financial impact of the digital economy
  • Amount of venture capital and grants received by digital startups
  • Number of government-run tech hubs
  • Presence of top-rated business incubators

“To many, the Texas story is one of oil magnates and real estate tycoons. But in recent decades, the state has emerged as an innovation and high-tech hub,” according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

On a scale of 1 to 100, Texas received a score of 79. California nabbed the top spot with a score of 100. Appearing behind California and ahead of Texas in the ranking are:

  • No. 2: New York
  • No. 3: Washington
  • No. 4: Illinois
  • No. 5: Massachusetts
  • No. 6: Missouri
  • No. 7: Wisconsin

In terms of ranking factors, Texas benefited the most from landing at No. 2 among the states for its impact on the digital economy. The study pegged Texas’ digital economic impact at $141.7 billion, well below California’s impact of $492.8 billion.

Hostinger relied primarily on government data on 31 states to come up with the ranking. “The research provides a detailed ranking based on a composite score that reflects each state's overall investment and capacity for digital innovation,” the company says.

More than 30,000 businesses in Texas participate in the digital economy, according to the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Those businesses employ more than 633,000 people and account for over six percent of the state’s GDP, a key measure of economic strength.

“As technology companies face increasing scrutiny through state and national legislation and litigation, it’s crucial to recognize the significant positive impacts of the digital economy that resonate across the United States,” says the CCIA.

TMC names 2025 cohort of cancer treatment innovators

ready to grow

Texas Medical Center Innovation has named more than 50 health care innovators to the fifth cohort of its Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics (ACT).

The group specializes in immunotherapy, precision drug discovery, monoclonal antibodies, and diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, according to a statement from TMC.

During the nine-month ACT program, participants will enjoy access to a network of mentors, grant-writing support, chemistry resources, and the entrepreneur-in-residence program. The program is designed to equip participants with the ability to secure investments, develop partnerships, and advance the commercialization of cancer therapeutics in Texas.

“With over 35 million new cancer cases predicted by 2050, the urgency to develop safer, more effective, and personalized treatments cannot be overstated,” Tom Luby, chief innovation officer at Texas Medical Center, said in a news release.

Members of the new cohort are:

  • Alexandre Reuben, Kunal Rai, Dr. Cassian Yee, Dr. Wantong Yao, Dr. Haoqiang Ying, Xiling Shen, and Zhao Chen, all of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  • Dr. Andre Catic and Dr. Martin M. Matzuk, both of the Baylor College of Medicine
  • Cynthia Hu and Zhiqiang An, both of UTHealth Houston
  • Christopher Powala, Aaron Sato, and Mark de Souza, all of ARespo Biopharma
  • Daniel Romo, Dr. Susan Bates, and Ken Hull, all of Baylor University
  • Eugene Sa & Minseok Kim, both of CTCELLS
  • Gomika Udugamasooriya and Nathaniel Dawkins, both of the University of Houston
  • Dr. Hector Alila of Remunity Therapeutics
  • Iosif Gershteyn and Victor Goldmacher, both of ImmuVia
  • João Seixas, Pedro Cal, and Gonçalo Bernardes, all of TargTex
  • Ken Hsu and Yelena Wetherill, both of the University of Texas at Austin
  • Luis Martin and Dr. Alberto Ocaña, both of C-Therapeutics
  • Dr. Lynda Chin, Dr. Keith Flaherty, Dr. Padmanee Sharma, James Allison, and Ronan O’Hagan, all of Project Crest/Apricity Health
  • Michael Coleman and Shaker Reddy, both of Metaclipse Therapeutics
  • Robert Skiff and Norman Packard, both of 3582.ai
  • Rolf Brekken, Uttam Tambar, Ping Mu, Su Deng, Melanie Rodriguez, and Alexander Busse, all of UT Southwestern Medical Center
  • Ryan Swoboda and Maria Teresa Sabrina Bertilaccio, both of NAVAN Technologies
  • Shu-Hsia Chen and Ping-Ying Pan, both of Houston Methodist
  • Thomas Kim, Philipp Mews, and Eyal Gottlieb, all of ReEngage Therapeutics
The ACT launched in 2021 and has had 77 researchers and companies participate. The group has collectively secured more than $202 million in funding from the NIH, CPRIT and venture capital, according to TMC.