MSP Marketing Shifts Toward Long-Term Trust as Buyer Research Moves Upstream — Ilan Vagenshtein - May 13, 2026

A conversation with Fractional CMO, Ilan Vagenshtein

Technology buyers are completing the majority of their evaluation before engaging vendors, forcing managed service providers to rethink how they approach marketing, according to Ilan Vagenshtein, a fractional CMO specializing in the MSP sector. His observations, shared in a recent BizTechReports executive vidcast interview, reflect a broader shift toward self-directed research and early vendor preselection, where traditional campaign-based strategies are proving increasingly ineffective.

Marketing leaders across the managed services sector are confronting a growing disconnect between how they invest in marketing and how buyers now evaluate technology providers. What once functioned as a linear, vendor-led process has shifted toward a model in which buyers conduct extensive independent research, often forming strong preferences before engaging directly with vendors. This shift is not simply a change in channel preference or messaging strategy. It reflects a deeper realignment in how trust is built, how expertise is validated, and how decisions are made across extended buying cycles.

At the same time, many organizations continue to measure marketing performance using short-term indicators, overlooking the intermediate stages that shape long-term outcomes. This creates both operational and financial blind spots, particularly as competition moves earlier in the buying process. In this BizTechReports Q&A, Vagenshtein expands on the themes raised during that vidcast conversation, outlining how these structural changes are redefining marketing strategy, execution, and measurement—and what MSPs must do to adapt.

Here is what he had to say:

BTR: Many MSPs continue to evaluate marketing performance on a quarterly basis. To what extent is that time horizon fundamentally misaligned with how buyers now evaluate providers?

Ilan Vagenshtein: It is completely misaligned. The way buyers make decisions today does not operate on a quarterly timeline. In many cases, you are looking at a six-, twelve-, or even twenty-four-month journey before a company is ready to engage with a new provider.

If you are measuring success based on what happens within a single quarter, you are effectively ignoring most of the process that leads to that decision. Trust is not built in a campaign cycle. It is built over time through repeated exposure to relevant, credible content and interactions.

So when organizations expect immediate results from marketing, they are setting themselves up for disappointment. The reality is that marketing today is about positioning yourself early in the buyer’s journey, long before they are ready to buy.

BTR: You’ve described a shift where vendors are effectively being selected before entering the formal sales process. How should MSP leaders rethink where and how competition is actually taking place?

Vagenshtein: Competition has moved upstream. It is no longer happening primarily in the sales process. It is happening during the research phase, before you even know the buyer or opportunity exists.

By the time a prospect contacts you, they have already formed opinions. They have already compared you to other providers. In many cases, they already have a preferred vendor in mind.

That means if you are not visible and credible during that early phase, you are not even part of the real competition. You are simply not considered.

And if they didn’t contact you, then your chances of connecting with them exactly when they’re looking for a new MSP are already low, as only ~5% of buyers are in the market at any given time. Even if you did manage to connect with them at that time, research tells us your chances of winning against their preselected providers are very slim. 

What it also means is that if you mostly target immediate opportunities, then you’re giving up on 95% of the market who may be looking for a new MSP 12, 24, or 36 months from now. If you don’t keep constant connection with them, educate them and show your unique value, then you won’t be preselected when they’re out shopping for a new provider.

BTR: Is the core issue that MSPs lack visibility, or that they lack credibility within a defined audience?

Vagenshtein: It is much more about credibility than visibility. Many MSPs are visible. They are running campaigns, sending emails, and posting content. The problem is that they are not differentiated.

If your messaging is generic and you are trying to appeal to everyone, then you are effectively invisible. That is because you look exactly like everyone else, so why would a buyer choose you? Buyers are looking for providers who understand their specific domain and challenges. If you cannot demonstrate that clearly, you will not earn their attention or their trust.

BTR: You’ve emphasized that differentiated content must originate from internal expertise. What does that look like operationally for an MSP organization?

Vagenshtein: It means you need to build a process around extracting knowledge from your internal experts. Your best insights are already inside your organization, typically with your CTO, your senior engineers, or even your salespeople who are speaking with customers every day.

The mistake many organizations make is expecting those people to sit down and write content. That rarely works. Instead, you need someone who understands both the market and content creation to interview them, capture their insights, and turn that into structured content that is appealing to prospects and will give them real value.

This is not a one-time activity. It is an ongoing process. Over time, you build a library of content that reflects real-world expertise. That is what creates differentiation, and helps prospects understand why you’re unique and why they should reach out when they need help.

BTR: Many MSPs rely on syndicated content or external packages because they are scalable and efficient. Why does that approach fail in the current environment?

Vagenshtein: Because it creates sameness. If hundreds of MSPs are using the same content, then there is nothing that distinguishes one from another.

From the buyer’s perspective, everything looks the same. There is no reason to choose you over someone else. So while it may feel efficient internally, it actually reduces your effectiveness in the market.

In today’s environment, differentiation is critical. And differentiation cannot come from generic content.

BTR: If internal experts are already fully utilized delivering services, how should organizations realistically carve out the time and resources needed to support this model?

Vagenshtein: You do not need a huge time investment from them. Even thirty to sixty minutes of structured conversation can generate multiple pieces of high-quality content if it is done correctly. I sometimes interview these experts when they’re in their car, on the way to a customer, to make efficient use of their time.

The key is having the right person asking the right questions and managing the process efficiently. This is about leveraging expertise, not overburdening it. Organizations that understand this treat content creation as a strategic function, not an ad hoc activity.

BTR: How should MSP leaders think about the economic trade-offs between short-term campaign spending and long-term trust-building investments?

Vagenshtein: The problem with short-term campaigns is that they are targeting a very small portion of the market. Only a small percentage of companies, about 5%, are actively looking for a new provider at any given time. The rest of the 95% are not, but they may be looking in 6, 12, or 24 months.

So when you invest heavily in campaigns designed to capture immediate demand, you are competing in a very crowded space for a very limited audience. That drives up costs and reduces effectiveness.

At the same time, you are ignoring the majority of the market, the other 95%, that will become buyers in the future. So I’m not against some short-term investment, but don’t focus solely on that and don’t expect miracles. It is long-term investment that allows you to build relationships with that broader audience, so that when they are ready to buy, you are already on their shortlist.

BTR: What is the hidden cost of continuing to invest in marketing programs that are misaligned with buyer behavior?

Vagenshtein: The hidden cost is both at wasted spend and a lost opportunity.

If you are not building trust with the broader market over time, you are not part of future buying decisions. You are effectively removing yourself from consideration before the process even begins.

That has a much bigger impact on growth than any single campaign result.

BTR: You’ve pointed out that many organizations measure only inputs and final outcomes. How should leaders think about pipeline visibility as a leading indicator of performance?

Vagenshtein: You need to measure the entire process, which has multiple steps, and not just the beginning and the end. That includes how contacts become leads, how leads become qualified, and how they progress through the pipeline.

When you have visibility into those stages, you can identify where the issues are and make adjustments. Without that, you are essentially guessing. Marketing and sales need to work together around a shared understanding of the pipeline. That is what allows you to improve performance over time.

BTR: As generative AI accelerates content production, does it increase the importance of differentiation or make differentiation more difficult?

Vagenshtein: It does both. AI makes it easier to produce content, which significantly increases the overall volume of content in the market. That makes it harder to stand out.

At the same time, it increases the value of originality. If everyone is using AI to produce generic content, then the organizations that bring real insights and unique perspectives will stand out even more.

BTR: Where should organizations draw the line between using AI for efficiency and preserving human-driven insight?

Vagenshtein: The thinking must always come from humans. AI can help you structure and write content, but it cannot replace real expertise or original ideas. If you automate the thinking process, you will end up with generic output. If you use AI as a tool to amplify your own thinking, then it becomes very powerful.

BTR: How important is CRM and pipeline instrumentation in enabling this shift, and where do you see most MSPs falling short?

Ilan Vagenshtein: It is critical. Without proper systems and processes, you cannot measure what is happening across the pipeline.

Many MSPs do not have the infrastructure or the expertise to manage this effectively. That limits their ability to understand performance and improve over time. Others who do have that infrastructure do not have the expertise to correctly configure it, so it’s almost useless. 

For example, if you incorrectly configure what a marketing-qualified lead is, as I’ve seen in multiple cases, then you inflate your pipeline with worthless leads that sales is chasing, and it will result in wasted time and money, in frustration, and in accusations that “marketing is sending us junk leads”. This is just one small example of what I mean by “configure”, and there’s much more.

This is an area where investment is necessary if you want to operate at a higher level.

BizTechReports Conclusion

The transition underway in MSP marketing reflects a broader realignment between how buyers evaluate providers and how organizations invest in growth. As decision-making shifts earlier in the buying process, the emphasis is moving away from short-term campaign activity and toward sustained trust-building and audience development.

Vagenshtein makes a compelling case for how this shift has implications across strategy, operations, and measurement. Organizations must rethink how they capture and deploy internal expertise, how they structure marketing investments over longer time horizons, and how they measure performance across increasingly complex buying journeys.

Those that adapt to these dynamics are likely to strengthen their position in a market where visibility alone is no longer sufficient. Those that continue to rely on legacy approaches risk competing for a shrinking pool of active buyers while remaining absent from the decisions that will shape future demand.

###

EDITOR’S NOTE: Click here to learn more about Ilan Vagenshtein