AboutMartech is only worth reading if a reader can act on what we publish and not regret it. This page documents how we work: how we choose topics, how we research and test, how we grade tools, how we correct mistakes, how we disclose money, and where AI sits in our process.
We revise this page as the process changes.
Who Is Accountable
Every article carries a named byline, and the named author is responsible for the claims in it. Our current writers are Benjamin Parker, covering RevOps and CRM tooling, CDP infrastructure, product analytics, and AI search visibility, and Amelia Foster, covering measurement, attribution, marketing mix modeling, and lifecycle messaging. Articles are reviewed and edited by a second person before publishing. Editorial decisions sit with our editorial team, not with Perki Solutions, our commercial partners, or any vendor we cover.
If an article does not meet the standards on this page, that is a failure we want to hear about. Email [email protected].
How We Choose What to Cover
Three inputs decide our topics:
What readers are stuck on. Questions that arrive by email, the specific comparisons people search for, and the gaps where existing coverage answers a question badly or not at all.
What just changed in the stack. Acquisitions, pricing model changes, deprecations, platform migrations, and regulatory shifts that force teams to re-evaluate tools they already bought.
Where we can add something. Categories where we have operated the tools, tested them, or can talk to people who run them daily. If we cannot add anything beyond a summary of vendor documentation, we do not publish.
We do not chase topics because they are trending. Volume is not a strategy here.
How We Research
Before drafting, every article goes through a research pass. Depending on the topic that includes:
- Vendor documentation, changelogs, API references, and public pricing pages, captured with the date we checked them
- Recent independent coverage, earnings commentary, and, where relevant, regulatory or compliance documentation
- Practitioner discussion in RevOps and marketing ops communities, on Reddit, in Slack groups, and on LinkedIn, to find where the marketing and the daily reality diverge
- Patterns in G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius reviews, weighted toward specific operational complaints rather than star ratings
- Direct conversations with operators using the tool, where we can get them
Any number, pricing tier, or feature claim that we cannot trace to a citable source either gets cut or gets flagged in the article as unverified. We do not launder vendor marketing copy into fact by rephrasing it.
How We Grade Tools: The Stack Debt Test
Feature comparisons are close to useless in mature martech categories, because the feature lists have converged. The thing that decides whether a purchase was a good decision is stack debt: overlap, ceilings, and exit cost.
Every tool we cover runs through four gates.
Gate 1: Overlap. Does something already in a typical reader’s stack do most of this? A tool that duplicates functionality already paid for inside HubSpot, Salesforce, Klaviyo, or a warehouse has to justify a second line item, and we say so when it does not.
Gate 2: Ceiling. At what volume, team size, or logic complexity does this stop being the right answer? We try to name the breaking point rather than leaving the reader to discover it in month nine.
Gate 3: Rip-out cost. What does leaving cost? Data export limitations, contract length and auto-renewal terms, re-instrumentation of tracking, reporting history lost, and retraining. A cheap tool with a high rip-out cost is an expensive tool.
Gate 4: Owner. Who has to operate this weekly, and does that person exist at the reader’s company? Powerful tools quietly fail at organizations without a technical operator, and that failure is a real part of the evaluation.
Where we cannot answer a gate, we say which one and why, rather than filling the gap with the vendor’s framing.
How We Test
For reviews and comparisons we test the product ourselves whenever it is practical:
- Sign up on a trial or paid plan
- Complete onboarding and connect at least one real data source
- Run the core workflow the product is known for, end to end
- Push at the edges relevant to our readers, including field mapping, permissions, export, and integration behavior
- Note where the product matched its marketing and where it did not
When hands-on testing is not possible, which is common with enterprise platforms behind a sales cycle, we state that clearly in the article and rely on documentation, operator interviews, and verified third-party reviews instead.
We do not claim to have used something we have not used. If an article says we tested a tool, we tested it.
How We Handle Corrections
Martech changes weekly and we get things wrong. Corrections take priority over new publishing.
- Cosmetic fixes such as typos, formatting, and broken links are made without a note.
- Factual corrections such as pricing, features, or capability claims are updated in place, with a dated correction note at the bottom of the article stating what changed.
- Material changes such as a revised recommendation, a retracted claim, or a removed tool carry a correction notice at the top of the article.
- Scheduled refreshes. Comparison and roundup articles are reviewed on a recurring basis so pricing and feature details do not go stale, with the last-updated date shown on the page.
Spotted something wrong? Email [email protected] with the URL and the detail, and we will verify it and fix it.
How We Disclose Money
Reader trust is the entire asset here, so disclosure is not something we minimize.
Affiliate links. Some outbound links earn us a commission if you sign up or purchase, at no extra cost to you. These are disclosed in the article and in our Privacy Policy. Whether a link is affiliated has no effect on placement, ranking, or assessment. Tools we recommend that have no affiliate program sit alongside ones that do.
Paid placements and partner content. Any article that was paid for carries a visible label at the top. Partners may suggest topics and check factual accuracy about their own product. Partners do not approve our analysis, choose their position in a comparison, or have competitors removed.
Free access, trials, and demos. Vendors sometimes give us extended trials or demo accounts so we can test properly. That access buys testing, not a favorable verdict. We disclose when it happened.
Anything else that could look like a conflict gets disclosed in the relevant article. If you see something on this site that looks like undisclosed paid content, flag it and we will investigate and correct it publicly.
Commercial terms are handled entirely separately from editorial. Details of what we do and do not sell are on Advertise With Us.
Where AI Sits in Our Workflow
We use AI tools in our process and would rather document that than pretend otherwise.
What we use AI for:
- Synthesizing research across documentation, reviews, and community discussion
- Structuring outlines and pressure-testing an argument for gaps
- Editing for clarity, consistency, and length
- Producing early drafts that are then fact-checked, rewritten, and reported out by a human
What we do not use AI for:
- Publishing without human review, editing, and fact-checking
- Generating pricing, statistics, quotes, case studies, or testing experience. Every number in our articles traces to a source we checked, not to a model output.
- Deciding what to recommend or how a tool performs
- Skipping verification because a model asserted something confidently
Every article on AboutMartech is reviewed and edited by a person before it publishes, and a person is named on it. AI shortens the research and editing loop. It does not replace the testing, the judgment, or the accountability.
Reader Feedback and Disagreement
If you think we got a call wrong, tell us and make the argument. We have changed recommendations because a reader who runs the tool daily knew something we did not. That is the best possible outcome for this site.
Email: [email protected] AboutMartech New York, NY 10022
