Business. Strategy. Tactics. In that order.

If I could put one diagram on the wall in every marketing meeting, it would be this one.

Business. Strategy. Tactics.

In that order.

It is almost embarrassingly simple, which is probably why marketing has spent decades inventing ways to make it sound more complicated.

Business: what are we trying to change?

The first layer is the business outcome.

Not 'increase engagement'. Not 'improve SEO'. Not 'grow our social presence'.

What does the business actually need?

More profitable customers. Better retention. A healthier sales pipeline. Entry into a new market. Reduced reliance on referrals. A stronger position before fundraising. More repeat purchases. A better mix of revenue.

Marketing should have a job inside that outcome. If we cannot explain the job, we are not ready to choose the channel.

Strategy: what choices are we making?

Strategy is where the hard decisions live.

Who are we trying to win? What do we want to be known for? Where are we going to compete? What are we going to prioritise? What are we not going to do? What needs to be true for the business outcome to become more likely?

A strategy reduces options.

That is why a list of twelve channels is not a strategy. It has increased your options, not made any choices.

A useful strategy should make some tactics obviously more relevant and others easier to reject.

Tactics: what are we actually going to do?

Only now do we earn the right to talk about SEO, paid search, LinkedIn, email, events, video, partnerships, automation, PR or anything else.

The tactic is a tool chosen because it has a job in the strategy.

That sounds obvious, but a huge amount of marketing planning starts with the tool.

Someone has seen a competitor on TikTok. An agency has a service to sell. A platform is performing well for somebody in a completely different category. A new AI tool appears. A board member asks why the company is not doing a podcast.

The tactic enters the room first and the justification is written afterwards.

The four questions underneath the diagram

When I am trying to pull a marketing conversation back into order, these are the questions I use.

The backwards version feels productive

There is a reason businesses fall into tactics first. Tactics feel like action.

You can launch an ad. Publish a post. Redesign a page. Commission a video. Buy software. Book an event.

Business and strategy work can feel slower because it involves disagreement, trade-offs and uncertainty.

But activity before clarity is how marketing becomes busy without becoming useful.

You end up optimising things that never deserved to exist.

The diagram is also a good way to challenge suppliers

If somebody recommends a tactic, ask them to walk backwards through the model.

What business outcome is this supposed to affect? What is the strategic logic? Why this tactic rather than another one? What would we expect to see if it is working? What assumptions are we making?

A good marketer should enjoy those questions.

They might disagree with your diagnosis. They might tell you the evidence is weak. They might suggest an experiment rather than a promise.

What they should not need to do is hide the logic behind jargon.

Then repeat

The framework is not a one-off planning exercise.

Business conditions change. Strategy gets tested. Tactics produce evidence. That evidence feeds back into the next decision.

The point is not to create a perfect plan and protect it forever.

The point is to keep the order clear enough that a new tactic has to earn its place rather than hijack the strategy.

Business first. Strategy second. Tactics third.

Not because tactics are unimportant. Because they become much more powerful when we know what job they are doing.