Thoughts on the current cycle
The rules have changed—again
👋 Hey, I’m George Chasiotis. Welcome to GrowthWaves, your weekly dose of B2B growth insights—featuring powerful case studies, emerging trends, and unconventional strategies you won’t find anywhere else.
This note is brought to you by Attio.
I launched a new company a month ago.
The CRM we use is Attio.
And I wouldn’t recommend it here if we weren’t customers ourselves.
It’s a modern CRM that doesn’t feel like it was built in 2008.
Clean UX, fast, and powerful where it matters.
Some of the features we rely on:
Enrichment and AI fields that actually save time
Call intelligence to analyze conversations and spot signals
Powerful workflows to automate the boring stuff (e.g., company research)
Sequences you can combine with workflows for outreach, follow-ups, and pipeline building
They also have a solid freemium plan that is perfect for small teams that want to build momentum without the usual CRM friction.
I launched my first agency close to five and a half years ago.
Things have changed dramatically since then.
Same business model, completely different game.
I find it helpful to think in cycles, and this one feels entirely different.
And it’s not just me.
I talk to marketing and growth leaders weekly.
Every one of them echoes the same sentiment.
So, what does that cycle look like? What are some of its characteristics?
Importantly, how can we use what we know (or think we know) to navigate this period?
That’s what I want to unpack in today’s note.
My observations
Some of the characteristics I’m noticing in the cycle we’re in:
Headcount
High headcount isn’t a flex anymore.
Net profit margin and revenue per employee are way more helpful indicators of a company’s size or health.
That wasn’t the case in the previous cycle.
The higher the headcount, the better the impression you’d make in conversations.
(Yes, I fell for that flex, too.)
And that wasn’t just the case for SaaS companies; there was a spillover to marketing and growth agencies, too.
Well, that’s changed.
In this environment, lean, high-performing, fast-moving, and efficient teams are the norm.
How does that affect service providers and people working in-house?
Companies are inclined to outsource more;
Individual contributors (ICs) are expected to do more;
There’s more pressure on growth team leaders for efficiency.
The above isn’t a hard rule.
But I certainly see it happening.
Especially for SaaS companies that have fallen for the promise of “AI efficiency.”
Which, unless you’ve missed the memo, means fewer people doing more things.
This may be true in some instances, but it’s obviously a wet dream in many others.
One important data point here:
“As of 2025, the median revenue per employee for private SaaS companies is $129,724, up from $125,000 the previous year.”
Regardless of the ground truth (for you), we’re all affected by this characteristic in one way or another.
Tech stack
The tech stack is many levels up.
At the same time, today's tech allows companies to stay lean, since many of the products they use have generous free forever plans.
At my first agency, we used to pay over $3,000/month on tech alone (sometimes more during busy periods).
You don’t need that in this cycle.
And if you can’t build it yourself, most categories are so commoditized that you can find a price point that works.
Another thing I’ve noticed: companies are really interested in specific tools.
In certain cases—which is also my next observation—top-down pressure leads to choosing one tool over another.
For example, one of the SaaS companies we work with at Restartt, told us that their investors push them to use Clay because most other companies in their portfolio use it.
This happens for various reasons:
Some of the SaaS companies that started/are trying to ride the “AI go-to-market (GTM)” wave have done a great job marketing themselves and this new way of doing things, which you can obviously achieve by using their tools.
Many creators share workflows and flowcharts on LinkedIn, YouTube, Substack, etc. Most of these workflows include various tools that can supposedly fix a company’s GTM issues, in addition to bold claims and false promises.
Things are getting more and more difficult. SaaS companies are desperate for results. Unfortunately, many of them believe that leads grow in trees. That leads to poor choices about tools, vendors, and infrastructure.
According to a recent report:
“Companies that are succeeding in the Generation AI era are finding ways to achieve both growth and efficiency, and seeing resulting gains in employee productivity.”
There are certainly good things that stem from this characteristic.
That is, unless you let GTM bloat and tool sprawl derail your focus.
Top-down-pressure
That’s a big one.
In the previous cycle, VC-backed SaaS companies—and generally companies with complicated cap tables—had almost complete control over their GTM.
A VC or PE firm bringing its own agency (advisor, consultant, etc.) to help one of its portfolio companies isn’t something new.
In this cycle, I see that investors are way more engaged. (Or, at least they’re trying to be.)
They’re trying to control GTM decisions, often leading to no one winning (except the referred vendor).
This happens for a couple of important reasons:
Very often, investors have no operator background, meaning they don’t have boots on the ground perspective to help them choose the right vendor based on the nuances of the business;
The referred agency is comfortable with the referred (free) business they receive and thus does not try to go the extra mile to learn and truly help the business.
Investors may enforce an agency/vendor decision, then move on and never follow through. The follow-throughs here aren’t happening and even if they do they’re not as constructive.
As I explained earlier, in the current cycle, I see investors trying to have a say even on the most minor things, such as a company's tools.
I understand the frustrations an investor can have—on a completely different scale—since I’m an investor myself.
But I don’t think the way to help a portfolio company is to dictate what tools they use or enforce vendor choices and growth strategies.
It is a reality, though, and we need to navigate it.
Money is tight
Obviously, the fact that investors want to have a say is a way of protecting their investments.
Because money is tight, especially compared to the previous cycle.
Valuations are lower, even if you’re an AI derivative product.
Author’s Note: Things are a bit better for foundation and infrastructure AI companies, but there aren’t as many, so their valuations do not represent the reality of the market.
This limits companies’ ability to invest in GTM.
At the same time, CACs for (relatively) steady channels are rising, and SaaS companies can’t find ways to balance that.
And with payback periods and LTVs not going in the right direction—so that they can balance their CAC: LTV ratios—acquiring customers becomes increasingly expensive.
“Growth Rates continue to decline with a median of 26% while the top growth quartile decreased from 60% in 2023 to 50% in 2024.”
Essentially, SaaS companies are in a unique position where they have to spend more to acquire less.
And unfortunately, VC and PE firms aren’t going to pay the difference.
Not in this cycle.
This affects everything.
The perception of what marketing and growth should do, how much it should cost, the allocation of free cashflow, the size of teams, how much companies are willing to outsource, etc.
It’s a reality, though.
And you can turn it to your benefit if you’re used to doing more with less. (As cliché as this may sound.)
Competition
Competition is intense, not just for service providers but also for our clients.
One reason is that many competent in-house employees burned out or were let go during the last cycle, and many of them went on to start consultancies or agencies.
Interestingly, many of our competitors are doing really well in marketing, which wasn’t the case in the previous cycle.
If anything, that’s a good thing.
It keeps us focused and on our toes.
Of course, there’s a lot of snake oil salesmanship out there right now—after all, grifters thrive in times of uncertainty and unrest—but that’s something we’re used to.
Unfortunately, SaaS companies often can’t tell whether someone (by ‘someone’ I mean service provider or employee) is for real.
Which is why you see many agencies, freelancers, and in-house employees faking their way into what looks like “success.”
Regardless, I’m a competitive person myself.
And I am for real.
So competition—when healthy and ethical—is a good thing.
It pushes us forward and creates better conditions for the marketplace.
Uncertainty
The future is uncertain.
Business models are getting crushed overnight (often after a new release from a foundation model).
The financial outlook is blurred, and even traditionally consistent, ROI-positive channels like paid search are becoming saturated and expensive.
All that adds to the pressure our clients (and SaaS companies in general) already face to be efficient and sustainably profitable.
Final thoughts
I want to see most of these things as opportunities.
That’s not to say I’m without concerns.
I just try to use that concern as fuel to move faster, work harder, and reinvent myself as I go.
And I’m sure I’m missing things, so I’d like to hear from you.
Even if it’s on a DM or a reply to my email, please share your thoughts with me.
I want GrowthWaves notes to be a dialogue, not a monologue.
Let me know what you think of the current cycle, your observations, and any useful insights we need.
Thank you for reading, and stay tuned for the next one.