CMSWire TV
The Gist
- The Emoji trap. Riback argues emojis don’t boost brand strength or engagement — they mask weak messaging rather than solve it.
- The awareness illusion. Marketers overvalue impressions and visibility while ignoring the actions and conversions that actually drive business outcomes.
- AI without readiness. Most organizations experiment with AI but lack the data maturity, operational structure, and backend rigor needed to see real ROI.
Marketing leaders today face no shortage of noise — hype cycles, industry fads and vendors promising transformation at every turn. In this CMSWire conversation on our CMO Circle, CMSWire contributor Brian Riback cuts through the confusion with the same data-driven, contrarian perspective that has made his columns some of the most discussed on CMSWire.com.
Across topics like emojis in email marketing, the myth of awareness, the realities of CDPs and the shallow maturity of AI adoption, Riback challenges leaders to replace assumptions with evidence. His message is consistent: the fundamentals still matter, and most modern problems in marketing stem from misaligned expectations, unstructured data, or chasing tactics disconnected from strategy.
Table of Contents
- Inside the Conversation: Why Marketers Need a Reality Check on Emojis, Hype and 'Conventional Wisdom'
- Why Awareness Alone Misleads Marketing Leaders
- Why CDPs Expose Data Problems More Than They Solve Them
- AI’s Shallow Adoption Curve and What CMOs Should Really Expect
Inside the Conversation: Why Marketers Need a Reality Check on Emojis, Hype and 'Conventional Wisdom'
CMSWire contributor Brian Riback unpacks an ongoing theme in his work: cutting through noise with data. Riback, who joined the CMSWire contributor lineup in 2025, has quickly become known for challenging popular narratives in marketing — not with hot takes, but with evidence.
Riback said he takes pride in bringing a contrarian lens grounded in data, a mindset shaped in part by industry voices who pushed him to question prevailing assumptions. As he explained during the conversation, “We need more contrarians out there… and finally, you know, got invited by you guys and really have loved the feedback.” That orientation guides his writing on topics like activation vs. awareness, CDPs, AI and one of his favorite targets: emoji marketing.
The Emoji Myth in Modern Marketing
Riback’s stance on emojis is straightforward: marketers rely on them when they’re unsure how else to get attention. He walked through the origins of emojis as simple shortcuts developed for character-limited communication — hardly the foundation for serious brand strategy. As mobile adoption exploded, marketers began treating emojis as tools for personality, even relatability. But Riback argues that this instinct misses the mark.
In his view, the distinction between B2B and B2C behavior is overstated. Humans are humans, regardless of buying context — and adding decorative symbols doesn’t make a message stronger.
“There is no reason for emojis. In my view, you're using an emoji because you don't know what to say.”
- Brian Riback
Marketing Noise Cutter
Some marketers push back, arguing that emojis simply mirror how people communicate every day. Riback doesn’t buy it. He cites research on brand perception and long-term engagement, emphasizing that momentary improvements in open rates don’t outweigh negative downstream effects. And at its core, he said, it stems from a flawed belief about customer-brand relationships. In the interview he noted, “People don't have relationships with brands. It's a ridiculous concept.”
The bottom line for Riback: emojis can “juice” an open rate once or twice, but they don’t strengthen the message, the argument, or the brand. I echoed that sentiment, referencing CMSWire’s own experiments with emojis in subject lines. The result? No meaningful improvement — and no reason to add unnecessary decoration.
Related Article: Say It Ain't So! Why Emojis Undermine the Science of Good Email Marketing
Why Awareness Alone Misleads Marketing Leaders
When the conversation shifted to awareness versus activation, Riback didn’t hesitate to challenge one of marketing’s most durable assumptions. In one of his recent CMSWire articles, he referred to brand awareness as “marketing’s costliest delusion,” a position he elaborated on by explaining why awareness is rarely the lever leaders think it is.
Riback said awareness functions more like a passive byproduct than a strategic objective. To illustrate the point, he described awareness as an observation rather than an action. As he put it in the conversation, “Awareness happens anyway. It's a byproduct. It is not the focus of something, at least it shouldn't be.” His argument: simply knowing something exists doesn’t move anyone closer to a decision.
Awareness Is Not the Outcome That Matters
Riback believes the real work begins when an audience takes steps toward solving a problem or meeting a need. He compared it to realizing you are cold: awareness doesn’t warm you; the act of getting a jacket does. Marketers, he argued, fall into the trap of celebrating impressions, visibility, or reach while overlooking whether their content or campaigns lead to meaningful engagement.
The pressure to show big numbers often fuels that mistake. Boards and executives gravitate toward metrics that look impressive on a slide, even when those numbers hide weak performance underneath. During the interview, I pointed out how this pattern shows up in publisher analytics as well: massive impression counts in tools like Google Search Console rarely correlate with clicks or on-site engagement. Riback agreed, emphasizing that impressions frequently flatter without delivering substance.
The Wrong Starting Point for Marketing Conversations
When asked whether marketers should begin discussions by focusing on getting “out there more,” Riback was clear. As he stated directly, “No, it's not. The conversation is we need more leads. We need more sales… You don't wake up in the morning and go, you know what I need? I need a hundred thousand more people to see my ad.” Leaders, he said, often mistake visibility for progress when what they truly want is response, advocacy and repeat engagement.
He noted that the strongest growth channel is still one-to-one sharing and word of mouth, not mass reach. Content that gets shared by people who trust it, understand it or are moved by it is far more powerful than a spike in impressions that drives a five-second site visit. This is especially true on platforms like LinkedIn, where users participate to follow conversations, not click through to external articles. The platform rewards voice and dialogue, not banners or product descriptions.
Where the Obsession With Impressions Comes From
Riback traced the culture of impressions back to an era when marketers had little else to measure. In the pre-digital world of print circulation and newsstand foot traffic, it was the closest approximation to visibility that brands could get. Advertisers had no way to know whether someone noticed their ad, let alone engaged with it, so impressions became a proxy for value.
He pointed out the structural flaw in bringing that mindset into the digital era. Although the numbers are more precise today, the underlying logic hasn’t changed. As he explained in the interview, “You're putting a mystery, mythological metrics behind it because in reality they don't mean anything.” Yet these metrics persist because executives grew up equating large reach with strong marketing, and old habits are hard to break.
The result is a modern marketing environment where leaders feel more pressure, not less. Unlike the analog world I recalled from early newspaper days—where circulation was the only metric that mattered—today’s marketers face dashboards full of data points they’re expected to interpret and defend. But as Riback emphasized, data alone doesn’t guarantee meaningful outcomes. What matters is whether it leads to conversion, higher-quality engagement and conversations with real customers.
Related Article: Marketers Still Love Awareness — and It's Costing Them
Why CDPs Expose Data Problems More Than They Solve Them
Riback’s critiques of customer data platforms (CDPs) have sparked some of the liveliest conversations among CMSWire readers this year. His multi-part series dissecting CDP capabilities and limitations drew strong reactions across LinkedIn, largely because he challenged the assumption that CDPs automatically fix data issues. In his view, they often do the opposite.
For many marketing leaders, selecting technology is a core responsibility. But Riback argued that executives are not always equipped to make those decisions effectively. In demos, he said, buyers fall in love with polished presentations and idealized sandbox environments that don’t reflect the messy reality inside most organizations. As he explained, “What the executive doesn't bother to ask enough times is, okay, what is my team going to see when they log in?” That everyday user experience, not the staged demo environment, determines whether the investment pays off.
The Gap Between Vendor Demos and Operational Reality
Riback said CDPs can genuinely add value in the right context, but too often vendors fail to account for the environments their customers actually operate in. Most organizations, he noted, struggle with fragmented data, old systems, inaccurate records, or email deliverability issues that go unmarked and unresolved. These challenges don’t disappear when a CDP arrives; instead, the CDP makes them more visible, more structural and sometimes more expensive to fix.
He suggested that many providers approach sales and onboarding with the assumption that customers will already be prepared to use the technology. That assumption often backfires. The result is a user who logs in after implementation with little to show for the investment, only to face questions from leadership about limited progress. Riback believes vendors need to invest far more in realistic onboarding and client services to prevent that disconnect.
When a CDP Becomes a Waste of Money
Riback did not mince words when discussing the risk of misaligned CDP investments. As he put it in the interview, “In some instances, it's a complete waste of money and time.” The determining factor, he said, is operational readiness. If a company lacks the data hygiene, processes, staffing or strategic maturity to support a CDP, the platform is unlikely to deliver meaningful return, no matter how strong the technology itself might be. CDPs amplify what already exists: well-structured organizations get more value, and disorganized ones struggle more visibly.
Related Article: Which Is Broken: Your CDP or Your Customer Data Management?
Webinar
Dec
10
Beyond Composability: How Modern Marketers Build Connected Experiences
Ready to launch campaigns faster, personalize smarter and prove your marketing ROI? Discover the power of a modern DXP.
Register
Webinar
Dec
10
Unlock Connected Service: How to Forecast, Staff & Support Every Channel
Stop juggling tools. 73% of CX leaders say silos damage CX. Build a seamless service operation instead.
Register
Webinar
Dec
11
Empowering Non-Profits: Smarter Crisis Communication and Community Engagement
The cost of miscommunication is measured in more than words. Learn to deliver outreach that's fast, clear and trusted.
Register
Webinar
Dec
16
Roundtable: Turning Real-Time CX Signals into Business Results
Four big brands. One live, unscripted discussion on how modern CX teams move from dashboards to real impact.
Register
Webinar
On demand
Rebrand. Migrate. Optimize. How to Do It All (Without Slowing Down)
Cresta leveled up site speed, design flexibility and marketer sanity (in record time). Find out how.
Watch Now
Webinar
On demand
From Manual to Magical: How AI Transforms CX Teams
Learn how to replace manual support processes with automation that actually delivers.
Watch Now
Marketing and CX Myths vs. What Really Works
A summary of the recurring misconceptions Riback calls out — and the corrective actions he believes marketing leaders should take.
| Myth / Bad Decision | Riback’s Recommended Approach |
|---|---|
| Emojis make messages more relatable and boost engagement. | Emojis hide weak copy. Strengthen the message itself; rely on clarity, not decoration. |
| Awareness is the primary goal of marketing campaigns. | Awareness is a byproduct. Focus on activation, decision-making and meaningful engagement. |
| High impressions = strong performance. | Measure what happens after the view: response, sharing, conversion, repeat behavior. |
| A CDP will fix messy or incomplete data. | CDPs magnify existing data problems. Clean and structure data before investing in platforms. |
| AI alone will improve efficiency or engagement. | AI is only as strong as your data and infrastructure. Build backend maturity before deploying tools. |
| FOMO justifies adopting chatbots, agents or new martech. | If you cannot implement and maintain it well, don’t launch it. Poor execution creates friction and erodes trust. |
| Executives should lead martech and AI implementations. | Let technologists, developers, and architects drive execution; leaders should define outcomes, not tools. |
AI’s Shallow Adoption Curve and What CMOs Should Really Expect
The discussion turned toward AI, where both Riback and I noted a growing discrepancy between industry hype and practical results. I pointed out that despite the arrival of tools like ChatGPT, editorial performance at CMSWire has not skyrocketed. Traffic and engagement patterns still look similar to industry averages, particularly when it comes to one critical measure: referrals.
In the broader market, AI-driven referrals remain negligible. I noted that only about 1% of traffic today comes from AI assistants directing readers to external sites. Riback wasn’t surprised. He argued that expectations for AI referrals rely on a misunderstanding of how people behave inside generative platforms. As he explained during the conversation, “When a person clicks through to a site from ChatGPT, they are a lot less likely to actually read anything.”
Both agreed that users tend to stay inside AI environments because they receive immediate answers. The incentive to click through and spend time on a full article is low. My advice to marketing leaders was simple: monitor the trend, but do not overcommit resources based on a channel that has yet to demonstrate meaningful impact.
Related Article: Dinosaurs, Asteroids and AI: Which Kind of CMO Are You?
The Danger of Treating AI Referrals as Progress
Riback drew a direct parallel between AI referrals and the earlier conversation about awareness. A visit from an AI model may look like a referral, but it rarely reflects intent or engagement. As he put it, “What is a referral a synonym for? Awareness.” The issue, he said, is that referral counts can obscure the more important question: what did the visitor do?
From his perspective, AI-era behavior mirrors what happens when people download white papers or enter sweepstakes. The user wants something specific, not the brand behind it. Riback emphasized the importance of asking different questions: how many of those referred users convert, sign up, or return? He noted that most visitors who get their answer from an AI tool have no compelling reason to deepen the relationship afterward.
Why AI Adoption Is Widespread but Shallow
I raised another trend Riback has written about: AI adoption in marketing is significant, but maturity remains very low. Many teams experiment with AI tools, but few implement them in ways that transform operations. Riback traced this gap back to a simple truth that echoes throughout his work. As he stated, “It’s the same answer as before. Data, data, data.”
AI, he stressed, is only as strong as the data that feeds it. Without structured, clean, reliable data, companies are attempting to build advanced intelligence systems on unstable foundations. Riback noted that many leaders misinterpret AI as primarily synonymous with large language models, when its applications extend far beyond that. Still, any AI system needs proper training and organization to reflect a company’s own data accurately.
For CMOs wondering where to begin, Riback pointed to foundational readiness rather than experimentation. Before deploying AI tools, teams must ensure their data is organized, consistent and mapped correctly to business processes. Otherwise, he said, they risk investing heavily in tools that cannot deliver meaningful value.
Beware the FOMO: AI Investments Without Readiness
Fear of missing out continues to drive many companies toward AI adoption before they are ready. I mentioned vendors boasting hundreds of AI agents, but I questioned how many customers actually use them. Riback shared the same skepticism. Companies frequently buy tools based on promise, only to discover they lack the time, expertise, or systems to use them effectively.
Riback cautioned that adopting new technology without the right infrastructure can do more harm than good. He explained that poorly implemented chatbots, for example, create friction rather than efficiency. In his words, “If you don’t do it well and you don’t do it right, you're not going to be more competitive. You're going to cause frustration.”
At the same time, marketing teams still struggle with foundational CMS issues, documentation and content governance. These day-to-day responsibilities have not been eliminated by AI, and most organizations continue to operate at the blocking-and-tackling level. Riback’s view is that AI will not meaningfully transform operations until leaders understand the backend requirements necessary to support it.
Related Article: The Maze of AI in Marketing: What Should We Do First?
Ideation vs. Innovation: Why AI Projects Often Stall
Riback also highlighted how organizations gravitate toward ideation but underestimate the execution required to innovate. He noted that many executives approach AI from the front end — thinking about what they want to accomplish — without addressing the deeper architectural work needed to make it possible.
Most people excel at their core responsibilities, he said, but struggle when asked to adopt new technologies that threaten established workflows. Innovation requires planning, structure, and continuous iteration, not just a spark of inspiration. From his perspective, CMOs should not be leading most AI initiatives. Instead, those projects should be guided by developers, architects, and systems professionals who understand how to build and maintain the underlying infrastructure.
The Evolving Role of the Marketing Technologist
I asked whether the once-hyped marketing technologist role still exists. Riback replied that the concept was misunderstood from the start. He saw himself as a marketing technologist long before the title emerged: someone equally fluent in marketing strategy and technical execution, able to plan development work, write documentation, and tie system architecture to marketing goals.
He does not believe the role is dead; rather, it was never properly adopted at scale. Organizations focus too heavily on ideation and the conceptual side of innovation, leaving too little emphasis on the operational blend of skills required to make technology succeed. In Riback’s view, the most effective approach is bringing together a technologist, a developer, and an architect, then asking not what the organization wants to do — but what it wants to achieve and how to get there.
