Fractional was a discount. Growth isn't.

We ran fractional CMO work for years and ranked for it in four cities. This year we walked away from the category. Here's the argument, so you can pressure-test it.

Fractional grew because it solved a real problem badly. Businesses too big for a freelancer and too small for a consultancy needed senior marketing thinking, and the market offered them a discount: a CMO, some days a week, at a fraction of the salary. For a while that traded fine.

Then supply doubled. Every redundancy round minted new fractionals, the pitch converged on cheapness, and the category raced to the bottom it was always pointed at. Sold on salary arithmetic, fractional has no answer to the question that matters: who builds the system? A part-time person is still a person. When they leave, the growth leaves with them.

The deeper problem is structural. A business at a valuable moment (scaling past the founder, readying for exit, post-acquisition, entering a market) doesn't need a fraction of an executive. It needs a position it can win with and a system that proves it. That's a different product, and no day rate fits it.

In Australia the corridor between a part-time fractional and an enterprise program is empty. That corridor is where value gets made: senior enough to choose a position, built enough to deliver it, priced on the outcome rather than the hours. That's the product we now sell, and the only one in our nav.

Position-led growth is the name we use for it. Find the winning position, pressure-test it against real buyers, then build it into revenue with specialists under one accountable strategist. Fractional was a discount on a salary. Growth is a return on a decision.

If you're weighing a fractional hire right now, ask one question in the interview: what happens to growth when you leave? The answer tells you whether you're buying a person or a system.

Next in the queue is the pressure-test doctrine. Subscribe and it lands when it ships.