“Publish more” is the worst piece of advice I have heard in B2B marketing. It comes, almost always, from marketing and communication agencies. And it comes because it is what they have on the shelf.
Agencies work like candy shops. Sugar in pretty packaging. A client walks in stressed, and they sell him something that tastes good immediately. Twelve to fifteen publications a month, graphic design included, a publishing manager to keep the calendar moving, a couple of thousand euros. That is a dopamine hit, not nutrition for the business. (Those numbers are the pricing pattern I keep running into, not a market survey.)
I understand why owners buy it. Most of them arrive at the agency out of desperation, after trying and failing to build their own marketing function. That failure is not stupidity. Building the function in-house means you first need the knowledge to build a strategy, then you need to hire the right people, and to hire them you need to know which competencies to demand. Owners whose whole value is deep technical expertise usually have none of those three things. So they want a fast answer, an immediate effect, and to feel better. Chocolate under stress.
What you actually get for the couple of thousand
The pattern is predictable. A short workshop with your team. Some fairly random questions. Market research run through ChatGPT. Then a beautiful, detailed communication strategy document. After that, billing by number of publications.
None of that touches the reason the content does not work. Content that is not grounded in insights collected regularly from the people inside your company is generic. A hundred publications a month change nothing, because not one of them describes your ICP’s problem in words the ICP cannot find himself. That is the only test that matters. If your buyer reads it and thinks “how do they know that”, you have something. If he reads it and recognises nothing sharper than what he already thinks, volume just spreads the same emptiness wider.
Expertise-heavy firms suffer most from this
Take an engineering firm designing national roads. Road architects on staff. Electrical experts on staff. Now ask a marketer, however good, to write a genuinely detailed technical article about the trade-offs in that work. It cannot happen. The knowledge sits in the heads of the people who do the job, and the marketer can only paraphrase around the outside of it.
So the fix is obvious and everybody knows it: engage the internal experts in producing the insights. The reason nobody does it is not ignorance. It is that experts do not want to participate, and their time is the most expensive time in the company.
The traditional workflow is economically impossible
Interview the expert. Draft the content. Send it back for review. Correct it. Publish. Now add up the real cost: the agency hours, the writer, the review loop, and the expert’s own billable hours consumed twice. You are into thousands of euros per piece. That is why the workflow everyone agrees is correct is the workflow almost nobody runs. It collapses under its own economics long before it becomes a habit.
Which is the actual problem. Not how much you publish. How knowledge gets out of your company, and whether the extraction repeats without anyone chasing anyone.
What changing the extraction looks like
That is what we built WhiteBoar around. One interview a week, about fifteen minutes, over WhatsApp. A few tailored questions. Voice or text. No login, no new tool, no writing by the expert. The reply becomes an article, roughly three social posts and a graphic in that person’s voice, published under the expert’s name and the company’s after a human approves it. Edits train the system. Thin answers get a follow-up question rather than padding. Every insight is saved into a private library the client owns, so the same story can be found again a year later.
One reviewer is enough. Usually the founder or a marketing coordinator.
I have one customer proof point so far, from Louder & Higher’s first 90 days: a €70,000 contract from an inbound client after a founder’s article, incoming leads converting to sales conversations at 80% instead of 15%, 149,574 organic views, and LinkedIn traffic to the website up 545%. The full case study is still coming, so treat those as their numbers and mine, not independently verified.
What I will defend without a case study is the mechanism. If your content is generic, more of it is worse, because you are paying to publish the same non-answer twelve to fifteen times a month. Fix the extraction first. The habit is the product.