Growth Marketing: Skill, Strategy, or Culture?
Diagnosing the Disconnect Between Tactics and True Growth
In today’s job market, “growth marketing skills” are everywhere. But is it a skill you hire for, a strategy you execute, or a culture you build? This post explores how organizational context, incentive structures, and strategic intent shape what “growth” actually means, and why tactics alone won’t get you there. You should understand how “Flesh Bot Mode” thinking and borrowing KPIs can limit your growth opportunities. Without P&L alignment, marketing culture shifts, and a true growth marketing strategy you will be leaving profit (and contribution) on the table.
When Humans Act Like Algorithms
White-collar job boards are full of polarized debates: job seekers frustrated by rigid hiring criteria, hiring managers demanding deep industry experience. Both sides claim to have the answer, and I’ve seen both accuse the other of sounding like (and being) a chatbot.
But the real issue isn’t who’s right. It’s how rigid thinking limits strategic possibility. Growth Spectrum calls this “Flesh Bot Mode” when humans default to binary logic and lose sight of nuance.
Skillset, Strategy, or Organizational Culture?
We’ve seen “growth marketing skills” listed on everything from analyst roles to marketing ops job descriptions. But what does it actually mean?
To diagnose this, we compare two hypothetical companies (A1 and B1) each with similar products, budgets, and tools. One hits a growth wall. The other unlocks massive contribution. The difference? Strategic intent and cultural flexibility.
Same Tools, Different Outcomes
Company A1: Focused on hitting a 4x ROAS target. It refused free incremental spend from the parent company (A) that would have lowered their performance KPI (bonus target) even though it would increase company profit by $4MM.
Company B1: Focused on market contribution. It accepted a lower ROAS spend (2X) on a similar multi-million-dollar gift from their parent company (B) that unlocked $3.2MM in incremental profit.
The presidents of both B and A knew their ROAS on Consumer Goods advertising at best gives a 0.8X ROAS. They were both more than willing to shift ad spend to their direct-to-consumer subsidiaries for extra profit.
Both direct businesses use growth marketing tactics (aka performance monitoring and optimization.) Only one had a growth strategy and culture that took advantage of these opportunities to grow profit.
Are You Hiring and Rewarding for Tactics or Transformation?
If you are hiring “growth marketers” and only giving them the ability to optimize your budgeted spend in a culture that doesn’t reward actual growth, are they actually growth marketers?
Ask yourself this:
What kind of growth are we pursuing?
Are our incentives aligned with experimentation?
Do we need strategic marketers or metric managers?
To Move from Diagnosis to Activation We Recommend
Growth marketing isn’t a checkbox; it’s a strategic orientation. To activate it, you need:
P&L-driven marketing strategy
KPI frameworks aligned to contribution
A culture that rewards learning, not just performance
Talent that understands both tactics and transformation
Quadrant-based diagnostics and outcome-focused targets
The “Flesh Bots” Are Everywhere
As a side note, this type of binary and myopic argument isn’t just relegated to ad spend, P&L, and ROAS. We have seen it in other debates going on across the internet:
CMOs with deep industry knowledge of best practices vs. broad experience guiding transformation and growth
Which is better? Impressions, CPM, Click-Through Rate (CTR), or Conversion (CVR)
Which ROI measure is better? CAC, ROAS, or standard ROI
Which attribution model is better? MMM, LTA, MTA, Vertical Market Tests, FTA
Is messaging more important than visual design?
Is creative more powerful than audience and placement?
If you don’t think the answer is “it depends” then you would benefit from a P&L review, competitive traffic evaluation, envelope-breaking testing, and challenge-the-norms testing and evaluation. Reach out or read more.
Your truth is somebody else’s “that doesn’t work.”