I find it really interesting that SWEs think this is a good essay. As an experienced marketer, I really disagree. It’s stupid.

The barriers to entry / “respect” angle is a weird one to go in. Obviously people will think they can do marketing if the main, qualified activity you use as an example is… /choosing colours on a landing page/. Marketers have way more important, difficult and “high-barrier-to-entry” tasks to do in order to succeed - and this suggests Tereza is totally unaware of them.

So is she trying to say that software engineers are being treated by the market like marketers?

“Writers, designers, and marketers all have wider pay distributions because the barrier to entry is low and the work is visible: anyone can try, everyone has an opinion, and only the proven best command a premium.” My sweet summer child, have you ever MET a software engineer? What the fuck do you think they do!?

Her paradox of choice implies that she’s ACTUALLY talking about software /companies/… but none of this is new information. Marketers are trained in positioning, segmentation and “finding the fit” - she doesn’t even make a point here!

The middle class of software won’t disappear. Again, she’s equating SaaS to be “all software” (as a marketer she should know better).

And finally, the most critical and undeniable evidence that Tereza is by NO means the “very decent marketer” she calls herself… “Sell services, not software”.

What? Functionally and positionally they are identical. One sells OUTCOMES. It doesn’t matter, as a marketer, whether your product is a service or a software. The product is just ONE of the 4Ps we’re trained to think about when making tactical decisions. Let alone strategic ones.

I’d really strong encourage anybody reading this interested in marketing to read a bit of Mark Ritson. This is the most irritating essay I’ve read in months.