Who runs it
I built this because I was the bottleneck.
Ten years running B2B marketing — four companies, three countries, teams of up to eleven people. The same two jobs went undone at every single one of them. This is what I eventually did about it.
The pattern
The same shape, four times
Manufacturing in Europe. Professional services and network infrastructure in the US. A consumer platform before those. Different products, different countries, different sizes, different buyers.
Marketing had the same shape at all four.
There are four jobs. Work out who to talk to. Talk to them. Publish things that make people find you. Show up consistently where your buyers already are. Every company I worked at agreed all four mattered. Every company did two of them properly.
The two that got dropped were always the same two — the slow ones. Buyer research and outbound. Long-form content that takes a week to write and three months to pay off. They got dropped because they were never urgent on any particular Tuesday, and because the visible work always won: the trade show is in nine days, the deck is needed tomorrow, the website copy is wrong and the CEO has noticed.
Nobody decided to stop doing the slow work. It just lost, every week, to something with a date on it.
Eleven people, and still not enough
The largest team I ran was eleven people, and we still weren't doing outbound consistently.
Not because anyone was underperforming. Because four jobs, done properly at real volume, need more hands than a mid-size company can justify. Building a list by hand, verifying it, standing up sending infrastructure, and writing sequences for one specific buyer is close to a full-time role before anybody has written a word of copy. Add long-form content and it's two.
So the honest position inside most companies is that two of the four don't get done, and everyone agrees not to say that part out loud. Budget goes to the visible half. The slow half gets a line in the plan and no hours.
I was in that position four times. The fourth time, I stopped treating it as a staffing problem.
What I did about it
So I stopped trying to hire the answer
The four jobs are mostly not judgement. Deciding who to target is judgement. Writing the first email for a specific buyer is judgement. Reviewing what goes out with your name on it is judgement.
Everything between those is process. Building the list. Verifying the addresses. Setting up the domains and the authentication. Structuring the sequences. Getting the article drafted. Producing the post and the image to go with it. Sending, tracking, sorting the replies.
That's most of the hours and almost none of the thinking. So I built software to do that part.
It ran on my own business first — my outbound, my content, my domains, my reputation on the line if it sent something stupid — before it went anywhere near a client.
It is not a wrapper around a chatbot. It is a lead engine, an outreach system with a real approval gate, a content pipeline, a design surface, and a coordinator that runs across all of them — with sending guards, sequence delays, bounce handling, suppression enforcement, and an activity log, because the day you automate outbound is the day you need all of those or you burn a domain.
The interesting part was never getting AI to write an email. Anyone can do that. The interesting part was building the controls that make it safe to let it.
Why this costs what it costs
Why a company your size can afford someone at this level
I'm based in Kosovo. I've spent the last five years running marketing for companies in the US and the Netherlands from here, including a VP role and a two-market expansion. That isn't a caveat — it's the reason this offer exists.
A marketing leader with a decade of B2B behind them, in Amsterdam or Boston, costs a six-figure salary plus the team underneath them, which is why a company doing €20M in revenue with no marketing function usually stays that way. It isn't that they don't want one. It's that the first serious hire is too big a step, so they take no step at all.
The arithmetic is different from here. Combined with a system that does the process work, it means a company that could never justify the hire can have the function anyway.
The remote question is already answered, incidentally. I ran a VP role and a European expansion this way, at companies where nobody was doing me a favour. It works or it doesn't, and it worked.
What "we" means
What "we" means on this site
The rest of this site says "we." I want to be precise about what that covers, because vagueness here is how small firms get caught out.
"We" is agjentiX — the company, the system, and me. It is not a floor of specialists. There is no account management layer, no junior doing the work behind a senior's name, and no team page, because there is no team to put on it.
For a lot of work, that's a disadvantage and you should take it seriously. A brand rebuild, a global campaign, a launch with six workstreams — those need an agency, and I'd tell you so rather than take the work.
For running the marketing function at a company that doesn't have one, it's the opposite. The most common complaint about agencies is that the person who sold the work isn't the person doing it. Here they're the same person. You'll know within one call whether the person who'll actually be running your outbound understands your business, because that's who you'll be talking to.
Accountability
What accountability means here
If a sequence goes out with the wrong tone, or a domain gets flagged, or an article misses what your buyers actually care about — you tell me and I fix it. There is nobody between you and the person who can change it, and nothing gets escalated to a queue.
The other half of that: I take a small number of clients at a time, on purpose. If I'm at capacity when you get in touch, I'll say so and tell you when I'm not. That's a worse sales pitch than pretending otherwise. It's also the only version that survives contact with the actual work.
Book a call
Fifteen minutes. Tell me what isn't getting done, and I'll tell you honestly whether this is the right shape of help.