# Most of marketing was never opened

*Hire narrow. Train narrow. Promote narrow. Lead narrow. Repeat for 15 years.*

**Written by JD Prater — 3x VP of Marketing.** This piece is part of *Open Folders*, which sits at the intersection of marketing science, consulting research, and practitioner experience, opening the parts of the discipline most marketers never got taught, so they can lead the whole of it, not just the slice they came up in.
Newsletter: https://jdprater.substack.com
Website: https://jdprater.com
Original post: https://jdprater.substack.com/p/most-of-marketing-was-never-opened

The exam took about 90 minutes. Multiple choice. You could retake it if you failed.

The questions covered attribution windows, conversion tracking, campaign structure, bidding strategies, and how to read a performance report. Pass it and you got a certificate with your name on it. Your employer got to list the credential on their agency profile. In some cases, it was required. A condition of keeping a partnership badge that mattered for client acquisition.

However, nobody asked what wasn't on the exam. The answer would have been: almost everything.

- How brands build preference over time.
- What drives someone to be in market at all.
- Why some categories grow and others don't.
- How consumers make decisions.
- How you separate a brand people choose from one they settle for when the better option isn't available.

None of it appeared.

And because it didn't appear on the exam, it didn't appear in the training that preceded it, or in the job descriptions that referenced it, or in the performance reviews of the people who passed it.

That's the Sliver Cycle. The exam is just where a lot of people entered it. To understand how it got built, let's talk a brief walk through the last 20 years.

## How the digital marketing tools defined the sliver

Google Analytics launched in 2005. By 2009 it had reached mainstream adoption across marketing teams. By 2012 it was running on more than half of the ten thousand most-visited websites on the internet. It was free, increasingly accessible, and it measured things in real time. Clicks. Sessions. Conversions.

You could watch the dashboard and know, within hours, whether a campaign was producing.

The tools had a limitation nobody named at the time. They could only measure what happened inside them. Last-touch attribution told you which ad a customer clicked before buying. It couldn't tell you why they were in market at all, or what made them choose your brand over the alternative, or how much of today's conversion was built by something you did two years ago.

The sliver was defined by what the digital tools could see.

## How the curriculum institutionalized it

The tools measured a sliver. The curriculum turned that sliver into the syllabus.

By 2013 HubSpot had launched its first formal certification, the Inbound Marketing Certification, built around its own platform and methodology. Google followed with the Analytics Individual Qualification and a growing suite of Ads certifications. Each assessment was rigorous within its scope: attribution windows, campaign structure, bidding strategies, platform reporting.

Pass the exam with an 80% or better in 75 minutes, and you earned a Google AdWords credential as proof you were an online advertising professional.

HubSpot Academy's marketing curriculum covers automation, contact management, content marketing, email marketing, inbound marketing, lead generation, reporting and performance, SEO, social media, and website design.

That's the list.

No brand strategy. No market research. No category dynamics. No mental availability, no media planning principles, no understanding of how buying decisions actually get made.

Nothing about the 4Ps, except the 2-ish Ps the tools could measure.

To be clear: the certifications are good at what they were designed to do. Digital marketing was new, evolving fast, and genuinely hard to keep up with. For a generation of practitioners coming in without formal marketing degrees, platform training filled a real gap. HubSpot in particular built something genuinely useful. A free, accessible curriculum that helped people learn a craft that barely existed a decade earlier.

The certifications covered the channel and tactics exceptionally well.

Digital marketing is a channel. Marketing is a discipline and a field. A channel has tools. A field has science. The platforms taught one and had no reason to teach the other.

As Bennie F. Johnson, CEO of the American Marketing Association (AMA), noted in the 2026 Ipsos Marketing Anchors study:

"Marketing has always been an open profession. People can come in from all different backgrounds and disciplines which creates diversity of thought and brings fresh perspectives. But it's also a challenge, because without licensure or formal gates like other professions, some marketers can sometimes lack the foundational training and skills they need to truly deliver impact."

No licensure. No formal gates. No minimum standard of entry. A lawyer can't practice without passing the bar. A marketer needs a LinkedIn profile.

### The platforms didn't create that vacuum. They just moved in.

They taught what the platforms did, as if that were all of marketing. And because they were free, scalable, and came with a credential, they filled the training gap that most organizations hadn't and couldn't fill any other way.

A generation of marketers learned to be very good at the sliver. That wasn't their fault. It was the only thing anyone offered them.

## What got rewarded shaped what got hired

The people who got promoted mastered the tools.

Being able to build a dashboard, optimize a campaign, defend spend with data became the genuine skills in a world where most marketing had been unmeasurable. The first wave of digital marketers had a real advantage.

But what got rewarded shaped what got hired. McKinley Marketing Partners surveys marketing hiring managers across the US every year. By 2016, digital marketing was the single most hired expertise at 54%. By 2017, 56%. Within digital marketing, hiring managers wanted digital advertising, content creation, SEO/SEM, and lead generation. Brand strategy didn't appear. Consumer psychology didn't appear. The economics of market share didn't appear.

At the same time, the budgets for channels that had required the other kind of thinking (traditional advertising, direct mail, print, broadcast) were being cut. The sliver wasn't just growing. It was displacing.

By 2017, the result was visible at the top of the org. McKinley found zero demand for traditional marketing expertise at the executive and senior level. They noted the need for traditional marketing leaders was "virtually nonexistent." The people being promoted into leadership roles had come up entirely through the sliver. When they hired, they hired for what they knew.

Hire narrow. Train narrow. Promote narrow. Lead narrow.

Repeat for fifteen years.

The people best positioned to see outside the sliver were selected out at every stage. The people best adapted to it were selected in. By the time the cycle had run a full generation, the sliver wasn't a constraint anymore. It was the job description.

## How the expectation escaped marketing entirely

The executives who hired these marketing leaders, CEOs, CFOs, boards, saw what the tools produced. Pipeline dashboards. CAC by channel. Return on ad spend. The reports landed in quarterly reviews and board decks. They were clear and specific and showed a direct line between spend and output.

The evidence gradually became the expectation. Marketing was accountable for what the dashboard showed. The C-suite now expected the sliver, because the sliver was all they had ever been given.

The cycle didn't just narrow the profession from inside. It exported that narrowness upward.

A CMO who has read Binet and Field still has to walk into a room where the CFO is asking about ROAS. A VP who understands brand compounding still gets measured on this quarter's pipeline. The result is a profession asked to do more with less, year after year, for a reason nobody inside the system can see.

## Why the marketing research and evidence never landed

In 1983, David Ogilvy said that no other profession gets by with such little guiding knowledge.

WARC was founded two years later, in 1985, explicitly to change that. It has been publishing rigorous effectiveness research across hundreds of markets and categories ever since.

Les Binet and Peter Field published "Marketing in the Era of Accountability" through the IPA in 2007 with their stated aim to narrow the gap between common practice and best practice, to help practitioners maximize payback.

Byron Sharp's "How Brands Grow" came out in 2010. The Ehrenberg-Bass Institute had been producing evidence-based marketing research for decades.

Yet, most marketers have never heard of any of it. Most couldn't even pronounce Ehrenberg-Bass (correctly).

**All of it was unknown.**

Binet and Field aimed the work directly at practitioners. WARC built a publishing operation to distribute it. Sharp wrote for a trade audience, not an academic one. None of it arrived.

The practitioners building B2B SaaS marketing teams in 2012 were reading HubSpot blog posts and attending INBOUND, not IPA effectiveness conferences. By the time the certifications had become the curriculum, the road into the room was already closed.

In 2026, Ipsos surveyed 1,226 marketing practitioners across the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. The capability assessment was developed in collaboration with Professor Mark Ritson.

"65% percent failed a basic benchmark of foundational marketing knowledge."

Formally trained marketers were **4x more likely to pass**; 40% reaching the benchmark versus 9% of those without formal training. Training was the only factor that predicted who passed. Not seniority. Not years of experience. Whether someone had been formally trained in marketing fundamentals.

Ogilvy said it in 1983. 43 years later, the data confirms it.

The marketing research reached agencies and academics. It hasn't reached the internal marketing teams, especially B2B.

## Where that leaves us

The tools defined a sliver. The curriculum taught the sliver as the whole. The promotion system rewarded those who mastered it. The expectation spread upward until the C-suite inherited a sliver-shaped definition of what marketing is for. The evidence that could have interrupted the cycle at any stage never found a path into the room.

### The cycle is still running

Scroll LinkedIn for ten minutes and you'll find someone selling a course on how they automated their entire marketing team with AI. The workflows are real. The time savings are real. But look at what's actually being automated: ad copy, campaign management, reporting, lead scoring.

The sliver, running faster.

The people buying the course are learning to automate tasks that were already a narrow version of the job. The discipline underneath, like how markets grow, how buyers decide, how brands build value over time, isn't in the workflow because it was never in the workflow to begin with.

New tools. New gurus. Same map with half the territory missing.

Knowing you're in a cycle is different from knowing how to break it. It's also the only place to start.

Opening folders, JD