Thirty-one pieces chunked from the long-cycle white paper — text posts, carousels, short videos, polls — sequenced over six weeks to mirror the book's arc: the trap, the walls, the channel, the economics, the machine, the engine. Every stat is pre-checked against the paper's sources; copy the figures exactly as written here.
Cadence: ~5/week is aggressive. Comfortable pace: the week's video + carousel + one text post (3/week); hold the rest as backlog and the plan stretches to 10–12 weeks.
Audience note — this edition has a CFO/board lane. The green-dashboard and CAC-economics material (weeks 1 & 3) speaks to finance and boards, not just marketing. Those posts are the ones a CEO reshapes internally — write them for that forward.
Voice: personal profile first, Dimartec company page reshares. Founder-voice storytelling fits this book — it's one long warning narrative.
Format mechanics: carousels = native PDF document posts. Videos = native upload, captions burned in, hook in the first 2 seconds. First line of every text post is the hook.
CTA discipline: soft pointers to the playbook LP on most pieces; direct 90-Day GEO Sprint CTAs only on the five-minute-rule video (24) and the campaign closer (31).
Deep links: the LP has chapter anchors — link the exact chapter (e.g. /#ch4 for economics, /#ch11 for nurture).
Week 1 The Green Dashboard Problem
Source: Introduction + Chapter 1. Goal: land the scary idea — your safe-looking revenue is hiding a pipeline that may already be dying.
01Text + linkMON
Launch: the most dangerous number in your business
The most dangerous number in your business is the one that looks good.
Open with the reassuring dashboard: ARR up, NRR healthy, churn low — "all of those numbers describe the past."
The one thing they don't tell you: are you being found by the buyers who form your next book?
"The green dashboard is not evidence that you're safe. It's the anesthetic that lets a slow problem grow unnoticed."
Announce the playbook: who it's for (90–180 day cycles, 3–5 year contracts). Link the LP.
CTA: Read the full playbook (LP link)
02Video · 60–90sWED
"Locked revenue is a countdown, not a moat"
Your 3–5 year contracts feel like a moat. They're actually a countdown clock.
Beat 1: every contract that protects you today is a clock ticking toward the moment that account re-enters the market.
Beat 2: when the clock runs out, one of two things happens — you're the trusted, AI-surfaced name, or you're not even in the RFP.
Beat 3: which one is decided by work you do years before the clock runs out.
Beat 4: "The firms that treat locked revenue as permission to coast are the ones whose pipeline dies quietly."
03TextTHU
The three-year delay
Stop marketing today and your pipeline won't flinch. That's exactly the problem.
Walk the sequence: Year 0 invisible in AI → Years 1–2 the replacement pipeline never forms (dashboard still green) → Years 2–3 contracts end, backfill isn't there, now it's a crisis.
"You cannot fix a three-years-ago problem today. You can only prevent a three-years-from-now problem today."
04Quote graphicFRI
The rationed market
If your customers sign for four years, only ~25% of your market is even winnable this year.
Dark-branded graphic: "~25% of accounts in play per year on 4-year contracts — and the practically-in-play share is smaller still."
Caption: the rest are behind locked doors, and you don't know which door opens next. List the five re-market triggers (renewal review, bad incumbent experience, mandate, capability gap, RFP).
05PollSAT (optional)
Do you know your real in-play market?
What share of your addressable market can actually buy from you this year?
Options: Most of it · About half · A quarter or less · Honestly, no idea.
Follow up in comments with the contract-rationing maths and a link to Chapter 1.
Week 2 Why You Can't Advertise Your Way Out
Source: Chapter 2. Goal: remove the imagined escape hatch — regulators police the promotion, platforms gate the category.
06Carousel (PDF)MON
The two walls
When pipeline dips, most companies buy their way out with ads. For regulated fintech, that dial is broken twice.
Wall one slides: your regulator polices the promotion itself — fair/clear/not misleading, prescribed risk warnings, approval by an authorised person, real enforcement (UK example: FCA PS23/6 cryptoasset promotion rules — ban on incentives, cooling-off periods, appropriateness checks).
Wall two slides: the platforms gate you regardless — Meta's prohibited financial products policy + Financial Products and Services special ad category (targeting limits); Google's jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction financial-services advertiser verification.
Closer: "The escape hatch is welded shut — which is exactly why an owned, un-switchable channel isn't optional."
Sources: FCA PS23/6 · Meta ad standards · Google Ads policy — as cited in the playbook. Keep wordings as summarised there.
07TextTUE
Paid doesn't just get riskier — it gets slower
Every paid asset through compliance. Longer cycle times. Defanged creative. For a channel whose whole value is speed, that's close to fatal.
The practical effect on a growth team: approval overhead kills the aggressive, iterative testing that makes paid efficient.
"Betting your growth on these channels loosening is betting against the trend" — restrictions are structural and tightening.
08Video · 60sWED
"One policy update away"
Your paid channel can be switched off overnight — by someone who isn't your regulator and doesn't know you exist.
Beat 1: platform policy update, verification backlog, compliance flag — any one can cut the channel.
Beat 2: the three properties your primary channel actually needs: compliant by construction, present at the moment of research, owned and un-switchable.
Beat 3: "There is a channel with exactly those three properties." Tease Chapter 3.
09TextFRI
The double bind
You can't feel a pipeline dip for years — and you couldn't buy your way out even if you did.
Combine Ch1 + Ch2: no sense-and-respond loop, and the rare in-play buyers are exactly whom paid reaches worst.
They're reachable at the moment they ask — which is an AI answer, not an ad impression.
Week 3 The Channel & the Economics
Source: Chapters 3–4. Goal: the reframe (GEO = channel, not tactic) and the CFO argument (rented attention vs owned asset).
10Carousel (PDF)MON
GEO as a tactic vs GEO as a channel
The most expensive filing decision in fintech marketing: putting "GEO" next to "SEO experiments."
One slide per row of the Ch.3 table: ownership · budget · goal · measurement · time horizon · cross-functional reach · board visibility.
Closer: "Treating the front door your buyers walk through as a content-team experiment is like treating 'having a sales team' as a growth hack."
11TextTUE
Why GEO is *your* primary channel
Paid is walled off. SEO's clicks are evaporating. Outbound is falling over. And your buyers start with a machine.
The four structural weaknesses: paid (Ch2), legacy SEO decaying into zero-click answers (~60% no click), cold outbound harder and more regulated, AI research where buyers begin.
"When your other channels are closed, decaying, or secondary, the one where your buyers actually begin isn't 'a channel to also try.' It's the channel."
12Video · 90sWED
The CFO video: rented attention vs owned asset
Fintech pays the highest customer-acquisition cost in all of B2B — and every dollar of it rents attention that vanishes when you stop paying.
Beat 1: the benchmark — B2B average ~$1,200 per customer; fintech highest of all verticals at about $1,450, driven by compliance, due diligence, and expensive keywords.
Beat 2: and rising — B2B acquisition costs up ~14% through 2025; B2B Google Ads cost-per-lead around $70.
Beat 3: paid resets to zero the moment you stop; the price only goes up; it's throttleable by someone else. "Paid is a lease; GEO is equity."
Beat 4: a competitor who starts two years earlier doesn't have a two-year lead — they have a compounded lead that widens every quarter.
Stats: ~$1,200 B2B avg CAC · ~$1,450 fintech CAC (highest vertical) · +14% through 2025 · ~$70 Google Ads CPL — First Page Sage / B2B CAC benchmarks, as cited in the playbook
CTA: the full economics chapter, /#ch4
13Quote graphicTHU
$1,450 / +14% / $70
The highest CAC in B2B. Still climbing. And you're structurally restricted in the channel driving it.
Three-number statwall graphic in LP style. Caption: "You are structurally disadvantaged in the exact channel whose price is rising fastest."
14TextFRI
Book GEO as an asset, not an expense
Not investing in GEO isn't "saving money." It's letting the compounding asset accrue to a competitor.
The four CFO framings from Ch.4: compare trajectories not snapshots · book it as capital investment · report on pipeline and CAC trend · name the risk of inaction in economic terms.
High-LTV multi-year contracts + declining per-acquisition cost = "the strongest unit-economics story you can tell a board."
Week 4 The Buyer, the Committee & the Machine
Source: Chapters 5–7. Goal: show where the rationed buyers actually go when they surface — and how the machine decides who to name.
15Carousel (PDF)MON
The re-market journey, stage by stage
A buyer coming off a four-year contract hasn't shopped your category in years. Their first move is asking AI what's changed.
Five slides = five stages: trigger & problem framing (weeks 0–3) → landscape & shortlist (2–8) → deep evaluation (6–20) → consensus & business case (12–24) → selection & procurement (18–26+).
Each slide: the buyer's AI question + GEO's / the engine's job.
Closer: "Consideration is set at the top of the funnel, by a machine, before you have any signal a deal exists."
16TextTUE
The machine frames the deal first
Roughly half of B2B software buyers now start their research with an AI chatbot. Your sales team meets them second.
The two findings, precisely: ~half of B2B software buyers begin research with AI chatbots (G2); 69% of B2B buyers turn to sales reps to validate AI-generated insights (Gartner).
Plus the out-of-date-buyer point: after years locked in, "AI's framing is disproportionately influential."
Stats: ~50% start with AI (G2, via PR Newswire) · 69% validate with reps (Gartner, via Business Wire)
17Video · 90sWED
One deal, many machines — and one silent question
Five people will decide your deal. Each asks the AI a different question. And every one of them silently asks the same one.
Beat 1: the functional evaluator asks about capability; the technical owner about migration and security; the economic buyer about ROI; the exec sponsor about credibility; procurement about red flags.
Beat 2: the silent question all of them ask — "is moving off what we have worth it?"
Beat 3: you can top one persona's answer and be absent from another. Winning = winning enough separate AI verdicts to build consensus.
18Carousel (PDF)THU
The persona query matrix
What each member of a long-cycle buying committee actually asks the machine.
One slide per persona from the Ch.6 matrix: their core AI question, the association you need, the asset that earns it — evaluator → use-case proof · technical owner → migration guide · sponsor → third-party validation · economic buyer → cost-of-staying analysis · procurement → clean commercial info.
19Video · 90sFRI
The two ways a brand ends up in an AI answer
There are exactly two ways your brand gets named by an AI. Neither is "rank #1 on Google."
Beat 1: trained-in memory — the model keeps an impression of you, not a copy. The favourite-film analogy. Consistency survives compression.
Beat 2: live retrieval — the model searches mid-answer and quotes the clearest passage.
Beat 3: the long-cycle kicker — trained-in memory is the mechanism that works during the years your buyers are locked away. "You can't nurture a buyer you can't see — but you can make sure that when they finally ask the machine, it already knows you."
CTA: full mechanism, /#ch7
20TextSAT (optional)
You're tilting a probability, not a rank
Getting cited by an AI is, mechanically, about becoming the most probable next word in a sentence.
The next-token frame at "a strong alternative to [incumbent] is ___". Being named in relevant, well-written sentences beats a thousand keyword-stuffed pages.
Optional: the GEO-vs-SEO keep/drop/reframe rows as a comment thread or follow-up carousel.
Week 5 Visibility, the Full Funnel & the Five-Minute Rule
Source: Chapters 8–10. Goal: the operational middle of the book — switching queries, one-channel-full-funnel, and the campaign's most shareable stat.
21TextMON
Own the switching queries
The highest-value content in a long-contract market answers one question: "best alternative to [incumbent]?"
Comparison and switching queries — "is it worth switching from [incumbent]?" — are exactly what a returning buyer asks, and most vendors under-invest in them.
A long-contract business has no smoke alarm for pipeline. Share of voice in AI answers is the closest thing you'll get.
Falling AI share of voice = a pipeline problem your booked revenue will hide for years. Watch it fall and you can act before the dashboard turns red.
"Set a baseline now — the prompt audit run today is the 'before' picture." Tease the prompt-audit template in the playbook appendix.
23Carousel (PDF)WED
One channel, the whole funnel
Other companies run a relay: paid for awareness, retargeting for consideration, email for nurture. You don't have that luxury.
Five slides = five stages through one GEO engine: awareness → consideration → capture → nurture → close.
Then the four leaks where deals die: awareness→capture, capture→speed, capture→nurture, nurture→close — each with its fix.
Closer: "A GEO program that only wins the awareness moment isn't a funnel — it's a bucket with the bottom cut out."
24Video · 60–90sTHU
The five-minute rule (hero piece of the campaign)
You waited an entire contract cycle for this lead. Then you answered it in two days.
Beat 1: contacting a web lead within 5 minutes vs 30 → about 21× more likely to qualify it, roughly 100× more likely to make contact at all.
Beat 2: "Not 21% better. 21 times."
Beat 3: the rigour flex — 2007 MIT/InsideSales study (Dr. James Oldroyd), 15,000+ leads, 100,000+ contact attempts. Not a McKinsey study — that one doesn't exist.
Beat 4: the long-cycle twist — a GEO re-market lead may be your only shot at that account for years, they're comparing you to the incumbent in the same session, and response speed is a proxy for what working with you will be like.
Stat integrity: always "about 21×" and "roughly 100×", attributed to the MIT/InsideSales Lead Response Management study. HBR's separate research = "42 hours average first response" and "23% never respond".
CTA: direct — the 90-Day GEO Sprint, geo.dimartec.co.uk
25Quote graphicFRI
21× / ~100× statwall
Five minutes vs thirty. That's the whole difference.
Reuse the LP's statwall as a static image; caption links /#ch10.
26TextSAT (optional)
Attribution inside a black box
Your best channel shows up in analytics as "direct traffic" — and in your market the danger is doubled.
The buyer asks ChatGPT, types your name a week later; finance under-credits and under-funds the channel actually driving pipeline.
The long-cycle twist: pipeline is already lagged by years — "misattribution on top of lag can hide the channel entirely." Fixes: leading indicators, self-reported attribution with an AI option, watch the lag correlation, report on pipeline.
Week 6 Nurture, the Switch & the 90 Days
Source: Chapters 11–13 + Conclusion. Goal: the emotional core (Vendor A vs Vendor B) and the close.
27Video · 90sMON
Vendor A vs Vendor B (the re-market moment)
Two vendors met the same buyer two years ago. Only one of them exists today.
Beat 1: the door opens — a renewal review, an incumbent stumble, a mandate.
Beat 2: Vendor A went silent — a faint memory the buyer must reconstruct, weakly represented in the AI answer.
Beat 3: Vendor B stayed usefully present, kept showing up accurately in the machine, and had already armed the eventual champion.
Beat 4: "Vendor B isn't competing to be considered — they're the presumptive choice the others must dislodge. That asymmetry is the entire prize. It is won in the silent years."
28TextTUE
Two memories, one strategy
Nurture and GEO are the same strategy aimed at two different memories.
GEO shapes what the machine remembers; nurture shapes what the human remembers — and you can't predict which one the buyer consults first at the re-market moment.
Run both from one consistent category story and they compound: "the buyer hears the same thing from the AI and from you, and consistency reads as truth."
Bonus thread: the three jobs of long-cycle nurture + "every touch must be worth the buyer's attention on its own."
29TextWED
Your real competitor is "just renew"
The deal you lose most often isn't lost to a rival. It's lost to no decision.
Sell against inertia: quantify the cost of staying, make renewing an underperformer for another multi-year term look like the reckless bet, give the champion the "why now."
De-risk the switch: concrete migration paths, smallest-possible commitments, contractual risk reversal — "how you sell is part of what you sell."
30Carousel (PDF)THU
The 90-day roadmap + the dashboard that leads
Ninety days to build the engine — and the early-warning instruments your business is missing.
Then the leading-vs-lagging KPI table: manage to share of voice, citations, description accuracy — "if the leading indicators fall while pipeline holds, you have a problem the lagging numbers will reveal in one-to-three years."
CTA: the Sprint runs this sequence — /#ch13
31Text + linkFRI
Campaign closer: green is when you start
The single most dangerous sentence in long-cycle fintech: "The dashboard looks fine, so we'll start later."
Recap the arc in five lines: the trap, the walls, the channel, the engine, the silent years.
"Your pipeline can be dying right now, and because your contracts are long, you won't feel it for three years. The only move that works is to act before you feel it."
Direct CTA: Start Now — the 90-Day GEO Sprint → geo.dimartec.co.uk.
Reference Stat integrity card
Copy figures exactly as below — these are the playbook's verified framings. Check every paraphrase against this card before publishing.
21× / ~100×
Contacting a web lead within 5 min vs 30 min: about 21× more likely to qualify; roughly 100× more likely to make contact at all.
MIT/InsideSales Lead Response Management study (Oldroyd, 2007) — NOT McKinsey
~$1,450
Fintech customer-acquisition cost — highest of all B2B verticals (B2B average ~$1,200).
First Page Sage / B2B CAC benchmarks, via Quora — as cited in the playbook
+14% · ~$70
B2B acquisition costs rose ~14% through 2025; B2B Google Ads cost-per-lead climbed to roughly $70.
Same benchmark data
~60%
Google searches ending without a click to any website (2025), up from ~25% five years earlier.
Superprompt zero-click analysis
6.49% → 18–20%
Share of queries showing Google AI Overviews, Jan 2025 → mid-year.
SeoProfy · Search Engine Land
~50% · 69%
Roughly half of B2B software buyers start research with AI chatbots; 69% turn to reps to validate AI-generated insights.
G2 via PR Newswire · Gartner via Business Wire
~25%
Share of accounts even theoretically in play per year if contracts average four years — "and the practically-in-play share is smaller still."
Playbook, Chapter 1 (illustrative arithmetic, not a survey stat)
90–180 days · 3–5 yrs
The market's shape: sales-cycle length and contract length. 3% actively buying / 7% open / 90% locked framing per the playbook.
Playbook, Introduction + Chapters 1, 5
House rules: keep "about/roughly/~" qualifiers on 21×, 100×, CAC and zero-click figures. The ~25% in-play number is illustrative arithmetic — never present it as research. Regulatory summaries (FCA PS23/6, Meta, Google policies) stay worded as accurate summaries, not legal advice. AI-search figures are 2025 data and move fast — flag as such when a post leans on them.