---
title: "On the Move with WADE: An Operator's Playbook"
url: https://stacklist.com/card/1d224d0a-1c25-41f4-8ee5-5c3e5c741177
source_url: "https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/move-wade-operators-playbook-ronald-c-pruett-jr--xcvdc/?trackingId=dkXSdtz3RlWBqVCnQvztQA%3D%3D"
stack: https://stacklist.com/c/podcast/stack/5727cb90-1dd8-420a-84f5-a871ea8e96fe
summary: "The Operator's Playbook features an in-depth interview with Wendy Salisko and Deanna Andersen of WADE Advisory, discussing operational challenges in CPG, beauty, wellness, and retail sectors. They emphasize that success depends on execution speed and operating models rather than tools and capabilities, drawing from their decades of experience as operators in major corporations."
tags: "cpg-brands, operational-leadership, digital-transformation, founder-advisory, commerce-strategy, scaling-brands, execution"
key_entities: "Ronald C. Pruett Jr. (person), Wendy Salisko (person), Deanna Andersen (person), WADE Advisory (organization), Johnson & Johnson (organization), General Mills (organization), Accenture (organization), Deloitte (organization), Creator Economy (concept), e-commerce (concept), P&L ownership (concept), digital-shelf (concept)"
classification: "transcript"
content_hash: "sha256:ecde63e2202d2d7fcf6f98ee023c7f4457c4f50be73563b7d92fb361df103054"
acp_version: "0.2"
token_counts_approximate: 8069
visibility: public
agent_accessible: true
status: "final"
---

# On the Move with WADE: An Operator's Playbook

Wendy Salisko and Deanna Andersen of WADE Advisory Be warned, this is an in-depth interview full of experience, insight and wisdom. Wendy Salisko and Deanna Andersen brought decades of operational leadership from the likes of Johnson & Johnson, General Mills, Accenture, Deloitte and numerous new ventures when they cofounded WADE Advisory. Topics covered here include the current challenges facing large CPG brands, e-commerce platforms, navigating AI, the Creator Economy, emerging disruptor brands and the future of mergers and acquisitions. If any of these subjects impact your life, and they likely do, then please read on. You'll learn a lot. I did. Why WADE now, and what is the mission? Wendy (W) + Deanna (D): The why now is a gap we hit for years inside big corporate CPG, then watched widen from the inside. Over a year ago, still in our corporate roles, we saw the same shift on two sides at once. On the brand side, the market was moving away from faceless enterprise giants toward brands built on founder purpose, a story, and a community with a reason to care. On the advisory side, founders were done with strategy decks from people who had never owned the outcome. They wanted operators who had lived the decisions, not observed them. Those are the same shift. Commerce moved to where the consumer actually is: in creators, in social, on the digital shelf. Most organizations were still built for a world that no longer exists. That gap is what we were positioned to fill. Between us we bring more than twenty five years across both sides: owning the outcomes as operators and structuring the work as advisors. The combination is rare, and it's what this moment requires. Founders need operators who have owned the P&L and can walk with them through what comes next. So does the capital behind them, before the check and after. That's why we left corporate and built WADE. We sit across the consumer commerce ecosystem: CPG, beauty, wellness, retail. We pressure-test whether a brand has the consumer foundation, commercial model, and operating readiness to scale. We give founders clarity on which moves matter and when. We give capital the operating context they need before they commit and after they own it. The result is faster velocity, extended runway, and brands consumers come back to. Move with WADE How has being operators, not consultants, shaped your approach? D: Being operators means we have been inside the decisions, not observing them. We have owned the P&L, managed the retail reset, felt the pressure of a capital raise that did not close on time. That shapes everything about how we work with founders and capital partners. We know what the messy middle actually feels like. Which means we know what questions to ask, what answers to trust, and where the real risk is hiding before it becomes a crisis. We are as direct about what to stop as what to start, because we know what it costs to keep funding the wrong thing. The advisory layer we bring is built on that experience, not separate from it. Operator judgment is the foundation. Knowing how to apply it for someone else is what makes WADE useful. You are not paying us for a framework. You are paying for the judgment to know which problems to solve, in which order, before the wrong sequence costs you. Wendy Salisko What are the biggest digital challenges facing big CPG, beauty, wellness, and retail today? W: The honest answer: it's rarely a capability problem anymore. It's an execution problem. Most of these companies already have the tools, the data, the partners. What they don't have is an operating model that lets them act on any of it fast enough to matter. Where the gap shows up: Execution over capability. The tools are bought, the dashboards are built, the agencies are retained. None of it moves the business if the decision loop is slower than the consumer. The constraint isn't what these companies can see. It's what they're built to do about it. Distance from the consumer. Big organizations sit several layers back from the person actually buying. The signal gets filtered through a brand team, an agency, a retail partner, a data vendor, and by the time it reaches someone who can act, it's stale and someone's interpretation. The companies closest to the consumer win because the read and the response live in the same place. Most legacy orgs have structurally separated the two. Discovery and organic influence. Demand now starts upstream, on social, in creators, before any paid layer. Big CPG is built to buy reach, not to earn it, so it keeps filing organic influence under marketing and underfunding the thing that actually creates demand. The discovery engine moved and the org chart didn't follow. The closed loop is broken by ownership, not data. Attribution is the clearest example. Everyone treats it as a measurement question. It's really a question of who owns the decision when the signal comes in. The loop between consumer signal and action is open at the point of accountability. The data arrives and then waits for three approvals. Closing it is an org problem dressed up as an analytics problem. Speed exposes the operating model. TikTok exposes operations faster than any channel I've worked in. The moment demand spikes, the cracks show up in inventory, in fulfillment, in margin. The challenge isn't seeing the shift. It's being built to respond to it. The channel doesn't create the weakness, it reveals one that was already there. Relevance has a shorter half-life. Trends, formats, and consumer expectations move faster than legacy planning and supply cycles can answer. A brand operating on a quarterly cadence is structurally late to its own consumer. Relevance now has to be maintained at the speed of the feed, not the planning calendar. The thread through all of it: every one of these is the same problem wearing a different label. The company can see the consumer. It just isn't built to act at the consumer's speed. That's the gap, and it's an operating-model fix, not a tooling one. Which companies are best navigating today's challenges? W: The companies navigating this best are the ones whose culture lets a decision happen close to the consumer without traveling up and back down the org chart. Two opposite ends of the size spectrum prove it. P&G , at Cannes this year, showed a 188-year-old giant can rewire how work moves through the building: from a batch process that took the better part of a year to a continuous flow measured in days. The enabler wasn't AI or budget. It was pushing decision rights down, every brand builder operating like a direct-to-consumer founder with their hands on the keyboard, instead of briefing work up a chain. e.l.f. makes the same point from the insurgent side. It was built digital-first and still behaves that way: low ego, high speed, audience obsession, treating social platforms as the core brand engine rather than a bolt-on. Its advantage is cultural, not technical. It doesn't just do digital, it's organized around it. Different starting points, same enabler. P&G had to rewire decision rights closer to the consumer than its size predicts. e.l.f. was built that way from day one. In both, the consumer signal and the authority to act on it sit in the same place. Most companies their scale separate the two. P&G proved the slowness was never a fact of being big, it was a choice. e.l.f. proves what it looks like to never make the slow choice at all. For a founder or smaller brand, that isn't intimidating. It's permission. How should the big platforms such as Amazon, Costco, and Walmart, factor into CPG decision-making? W: They're not sales channels anymore. They're the digital shelf, and increasingly media businesses sitting on top of your demand. That reframes the decision. Share of physical shelf is a lagging indicator now. Share of search and share of page one predict velocity. Retail media is rewriting the P&L in real time, and in a lot of orgs the people buying that media sit nowhere near the people who own the margin. That's the failure point. These platforms can't be a line item in a silo. They have to be wired into how the whole business decides. The three aren't one decision. They're three operating commitments: Amazon is a search-and-signal engine, not a shelf. You win on content, reviews, search rank, and the speed of your closed loop, increasingly on how AI surfaces the purchase. The question isn't whether to be there, it's whether you're built to operate it or just listed. Walmart is the national-retail prize and a fast-growing retail-media business at once. The hard part isn't access, it's sequencing: most brands aren't ready for the shelf when they get it, and a win you can't support on fill, velocity, and margin becomes a delisting. Costco is a curated, high-volume, low-SKU membership buy where getting in is an event and staying in depends on velocity per item. The pack and margin economics can reshape your P&L and your price architecture in market. It rewards a tight assortment that moves, not breadth. The pattern: match the platform to where the brand actually is. Amazon builds and proves demand. Walmart and Costco monetize demand that already exists. Leading with the scale channels before you have upstream demand is the error that burns founders. And judge them as one system, not separate ROI lines, because discovery on one shows up as conversion on another. The lens underneath: none of these is a distribution question first. Each is a readiness question. The brand that asks "are we built to operate this" before "can we get in" is the one that doesn't get delisted six months later. Deanna Andersen Are large CPG enterprises still slow to see and react to these changes? W: Mostly yes, but "slow" is the wrong diagnosis. They're not slow to see. The seeing is largely solved: big CPG has the data, the listening, the trend-spotting, and often spots the shift as early as anyone. The lag is between seeing and acting. The signal arrives, then waits, because the person who spotted it can't act and the person who can sits several approvals away. That's structural, not a failure of awareness. Which is exactly why P&G at Cannes was notable. If giants reacting fast were normal, it wouldn't have been the most disruptive thing in the room. The standing assumption was "we're too big to move like that," and the news was watching one of them kill it. To be fair to the category, it is shifting: retail media and real-sales feedback are forcing the loop closed whether the org likes it or not, and losing share to founder-led challengers has made the cost of slowness visible. So the honest answer isn't a flat yes. It's that the cost of being slow has gone up, a few giants are responding, and most are still built to react at a cadence the consumer left behind. The useful line for a founder or capital partner: it isn't that big CPG can't move. It's that most haven't rebuilt the operating model that would let them. The ones that have are still the exception. That makes the gap a choice, not a fact of being big. And choices get unmade. Amazon: Friend or Foe? What lessons from Amazon can be applied elsewhere? Are they teachable at big companies? W: The biggest lesson is Amazon forces you to operate at the speed of the consumer, not the speed of your org chart. You can't win there with a quarterly planning cycle. You win by reading the signal and acting on it inside days, sometimes hours. Content, price, inventory, reviews, search, they all move together or they don't move at all. That closed loop is the lesson, and it applies anywhere the consumer moves faster than the company: TikTok Shop, retail media, any channel where the feedback is live. The newer piece is that the signal itself is changing shape. Mastering Amazon now means mastering how AI surfaces and closes the purchase, not just the classic levers. This year's Prime Day showed it: per Adobe, shoppers arriving through AI-powered search and browsers converted at 40% higher rates than non-AI channels like paid search or email, a swing from last year's negative performance. AI traffic volume is still modest, but it's shortening the path to purchase. Prime Day did $26.4 billion online, up 9.3% year over year, near holiday-season levels, with the biggest lifts in electronics, appliances, tools and home improvement, home and garden, and furniture and bedding. The point for an operator: the closed loop now includes an AI layer that's quietly rerouting how consumers find and buy, and the brands reading that signal early get the same edge early Amazon operators got. Is it teachable at big companies? The mechanics are. You can train a team on the levers, including the AI ones, in about a week. The hard part is the operating model around them. Getting the org to let that team pull the levers without three approvals is the real work, and that's where most of it stalls. The closed loop only works if the decision loop is just as tight. At most big companies it isn't, which is why the capability usually has to be protected from the org chart rather than absorbed into it. How has the Creator Economy impacted CPG? W: It moved the starting point of demand. That's the headline, and it's why the creator economy hits CPG harder than the budget line suggests. For decades, demand was something a brand bought: distribution, trade spend, media weight. Now it can start with one person and one post, and pull product through retail backward. The Creator Economy didn't add a marketing channel to CPG. It moved the part of the system where demand gets created. A few structural shifts follow from that, in rough order of how much they matter: Discovery left the shelf. Distribution used to be discovery: getting on the shelf was how consumers found you. Now discovery starts on social and the shelf is where recognition and conversion happen later. That inverts the old launch logic. You used to win distribution first and build awareness second. Now you build demand first and use it to earn the shelf. The legacy moat eroded. Big CPG's advantages were trade spend, shelf access, and mass-media reach that challengers couldn't afford. Creators let a small brand reach a real audience without any of it. The result is brand fragmentation: a long tail of founder-led challengers taking share in categories that used to be defended by scale alone. Trend velocity compressed. Flavors, formats, and ingredient stories originate and move on social faster than legacy development and supply cycles can respond to. A brand built to ship in 18-24 months is structurally late. That rewards small brands with short cycles and punishes incumbents whose advantage was operational scale. Retail now reads social as a demand signal. Buyers treat social traction as evidence of velocity before they allocate shelf. Social proof de-risks the buy. That's a real change in the brand-to-retailer relationship, and it's the discovery cycle stated from the retailer's side. Marketing economics got messier, not just cheaper. Spend shifted from large upfront media to distributed creator and performance budgets. But attribution fragmented at the same time, because the consumer is omnichannel and the payoff often shows up later in another channel. CPG marketers now work with more signal and less certainty about what's actually driving the sale. The incumbent response has mostly been M&A. Rather than rebuild the capability, large CPG tends to acquire the challengers who figured it out. That's a tell. It's an admission the org wasn't built to do this natively. So here's what it means depending on where you sit. If you're a founder or a Creator, this is the whole point: you sit upstream of demand now, in a spot that used to be reserved for companies with nine-figure budgets. The leverage shifted to you. The risk is that legacy CPG still files this under marketing. Partner with them or sell to them and you'll feel that mismatch fast, because what you've built isn't a campaign. It's the demand itself, and it's worth protecting accordingly. MrBeast and Feastables How are Creator-led brands changing how CPG brands grow? D: Yes, fundamentally. A Creator-led brand grows differently from the start. Demand is pulled, not pushed. The community forms before the distribution, sometimes before the product is fully built. That inverts the traditional growth model, where you build the product, buy the distribution, and hope the consumer follows. Acquisitions are where that difference becomes a stress test, and if you are a creator building a brand, this is the part worth understanding before anyone makes you an offer. What gets acquired at a premium is not revenue. It is demand that does not depend on spend: a community that pulls product through on its own. But most large organizations are built to run spend-led growth models. When they acquire a community-led brand and run it through that playbook, they break the thing they paid for. Community-led and spend-led are two different operating systems, and the acquiring organization rarely changes to meet the asset. WADE Advisory Analysis So, the question for a founder is not just the multiple. It is whether the buyer understands what they are actually acquiring, and whether they have the operating model to protect it post-close. Will they manage the soul out of it within a year, or do they understand what not to touch. That judgment does not come from the deck. It comes from knowing how these operating models actually work from the inside. So, the question for a founder is not just the multiple. It is whether the buyer understands what they are actually acquiring, and whether they have the operating model to protect it post-close. What are the biggest challenges facing startup founders today? D: The core issue has not changed: founders are closer to the consumer than anyone, and they still run out of room before they run out of demand. What has changed is where it breaks. It used to be distribution. Getting on the shelf was the wall. Now getting on the shelf is the starting line, and the wall is whether you can fund and operate what comes after it: the reorders, the velocity, the cash cycle. A brand can have a hit and still get delisted because it could not keep up. The newer challenge is that demand can arrive faster than the operation can absorb it. That is a good problem that sinks brands that are not built for it. The gap is not the idea or the market. It is operating readiness: knowing which problem to solve in which order, and what it costs to get that sequence wrong. That is the work that needs to happen before the hit, not after it. Most founders do not have access to that kind of operator judgment until the pressure is already on. By then the options are narrower and the cost of every decision is higher. What red flags should investors be aware of today? D: The red flags I look for: revenue that only moves when spend moves, because that tells you there is no organic pull underneath the growth. Velocity propped up by promotion. A demand base concentrated in one channel or one creator with no durability. And the operating gap: a brand with the right tools and no one who can actually run them at scale. That last one is the flag most diligence processes miss. You can model the market opportunity. What is harder to model is whether the team has the operating capacity to capture it, whether the infrastructure behind the brand can absorb what the growth plan requires, and whether the go-to-market sequencing makes sense given their current stage and cash position. That is not in the deck. It shows up when someone who has run the operation asks the right questions and knows what a credible answer actually sounds like. Another flag that comes up consistently: brands that have not yet demonstrated they know how to show up in market and sustain it. A strong product and a growth plan are not enough. Investors need to see the consumer-facing brand coming to life with consistency, across channels, with a message that holds. When that layer is still in progress it is harder to build conviction regardless of what the numbers say. That is not a product problem. It is a market readiness problem, and it is one of the clearest signals of whether a brand is ready to deploy capital effectively. The timing dimension matters too. Most early-stage institutional investors want to see a minimum of one year in market before they commit. They need cohort data: repeat purchase behavior, customer acquisition efficiency, and evidence of how the team adapts when something does not work. Where we see early bets placed ahead of that mark, it is because those founders built their consumer brand presence and marketing strategy from day one, in parallel with everything else. They did not wait until the product was perfect to show up. That consistency of presence is what gives investors something to evaluate before the cohort data is fully there. The deck will show you the growth story. Diligence is about finding the version underneath it, and digital is where that version lives now. But digital alone does not tell you whether the operation behind the brand can execute what the numbers are promising. That is the layer capital is most often missing, and the most expensive one to discover late. That is the gap WADE was built to close: operator judgment applied at the diligence stage, before capital is committed and before the wrong sequence becomes expensive to unwind. It is TikTok's time. Who will win social commerce? D: Everyone is chasing the same thing: closing the gap between discovery and purchase so the impulse and the transaction happen in one place. TikTok pushed hardest on collapsing that gap. The others are all building toward their own version of it. Where it goes: the discovery layer and the buy layer keep merging until they are the same surface. Who wins is less about which platform and more about which one owns durable demand instead of renting it. My honest read: there will not be one winner. There will be a few surfaces that matter, and the brands that win across all of them are the ones treating social commerce as infrastructure, not a campaign you switch on. The platform that makes that easiest to operate, not just easiest to buy, has the edge. For brands, that reframes the strategic question. It is not which platform to bet on. It is whether your operating model is built to move across surfaces without rebuilding from scratch each time. That requires a different kind of internal investment than most brands are making right now: the capability to read demand signals wherever they appear and respond to them fast enough to matter. The brands that get this right are not optimizing for one channel. They are building the infrastructure to operate across all of them. That is an operator problem as much as a marketing one, and it is where the gap between knowing the landscape and being able to execute inside it tends to show up. Are Creators partners or a new channel? W: Both, and treating them as only one is the mistake. In bulk they're a channel you run with funnel discipline. One at a time they're partners whose credibility you're borrowing. Filed only as a channel, you optimize them like media, you buy reach, you measure clicks, and you miss what makes them work. Treated only as partners, you can't scale or hold them accountable to anything. The brands getting it right hold both at once: a creator is a channel to the consumer and a partner whose own credibility is the asset. You don't buy that credibility. You earn the right to borrow it, and you can lose it fast if you treat the relationship like a media buy. What are some key considerations when partnering with Creators? W: There are a few including: Intent and selection over volume. The number you recruit is a filter, not the program. Define what a keeper looks like upfront and run the wide funnel with that bar in mind, or you finish with a big roster and no partners. Why they stay. If the answer is commission, you've built something rentable that gets outbid next week. Durable retention comes from the product making their content work and from being treated like a partner with a stake. A weak brand can't retain creators at any commission. Creative control. You're paying for an audience and voice you don't have. Centrally scripting creators throws away the only thing of value. Give the message, let them carry it their way. Economics and the P&L. Early channel traction has a cost of entry. Refusing any variable loss while you're net-negative overall is optimizing the wrong line. But know your margin structure and real CAC before deciding how much early loss you can absorb. Not "ignore the P&L." Attribution honesty. In-channel ROI undercounts real value because the consumer is omnichannel and impact shows up later on the shelf, in delivery, in search. Judging the program purely on in-channel numbers will make you kill things that are working. The flip side: that same untrackability makes it easy to justify spend on vibes. Hold both. Operational readiness. Can the brand support a partner-grade relationship? That means account management, fast product supply, real briefs, and a feedback loop. Most brands aren't staffed for ten deep relationships and default to five hundred shallow ones because it's easier, not better. The prior question underneath all of it: does the brand have anything worth partnering around? If the consumer foundation is thin, creators are just expensive distribution and the partner upside never shows up. What companies and brands succeed in the Creator Economy, and why? D: The pattern underneath the ones that work is consistent. Demand pulls product through, it does not get pushed. The community is built on credibility first, then product, with the commerce layer earned rather than forced on day one. The creator relationship is treated as durable, not transactional. And operationally, the brand can actually absorb the demand it creates. Two examples that illustrate this clearly, one at scale and one emerging. Rare Beauty is the clearest example of what it looks like when a creator-native brand gets this right at scale. It did not start with a product and then find creators to promote it. It started with a founder whose credibility with her audience was the asset and built the brand inside that trust. What has allowed it to scale is that it moved beyond dependence on that single founder relationship. The community of creators carrying the brand forward became larger than any one person, including Selena Gomez herself. That is the transition most creator-native brands never make. The ones that do are the ones worth backing. Benjie is an earlier stage example of the same instinct applied differently. In a wound care category that had not evolved in decades, the founders did not buy their way in. At Coachella they hand-painted Amazon boxes into wound care kits, left playing cards with bandages paperclipped on in festival bathrooms, and placed QR-coded flyers where feet were already hurting. No media budget. Over a million organic impressions. When Maggie Sellers Reum walked the World Cup with duct tape on her wounds, the community instinctively tagged Benjie. When Bethany Frankel navigated F1 Miami with the same problem, a painted box was sent unprompted. The demand was there before Benjie ever captured it. They built the proximity to meet it where the incumbent had stopped standing. What both share: they did not chase reach. They found the right fit, built credibility inside a specific community, and let the commerce layer follow. That is also what the data is showing more broadly. The Creator middle class, accounts with engaged niche audiences rather than massive passive followings, are consistently outperforming mega influencers on conversion. Brands are starting to understand that an active community of 50,000 devoted followers in the right category beats a passive audience of five million every time. The other shift worth noting is co-creation. The brands getting this right are not briefing creators on what to say. They are bringing Creators into the product itself, letting them shape what comes next, and treating that relationship as a long-term asset rather than a media buy. That changes the output and it changes the durability of the relationship. From an advisory standpoint the question we ask is not just whether the demand is real. It is whether the brand is built to sustain it. Those are two different evaluations and conflating them is one of the most common and costly mistakes we see on both the founder and capital side. The brands that flame out usually have one of those four things missing. The one that sinks them fastest is almost always the operational gap, because by the time it shows up it is already expensive to fix. Community before Commerce. What will CPG look like in three years, and what opportunities will there be for Creators? D: CPG in three years looks less like a category and more like a collection of demand communities that happened to build distribution around them. The brands that win will not be the ones with the biggest trade spend or the deepest retail relationships. They will be the ones that own demand directly instead of renting it, that can move at the speed of the consumer rather than the speed of their org chart, and that treat social commerce as infrastructure rather than a campaign layer on top of a traditional model. The incumbents that survive will be the ones that figured out how to operate closer to the floor, where the consumer actually is, rather than managing categories from quarterly share reports. The ones that do not will keep leaving windows open. And founders will keep building doors in them. For Creators, the opportunity moves up the stack. Not getting paid to point at someone else's product, but owning the product: equity, shaping the line, sitting at the center of the brand instead of beside it. The model that wins looks the same regardless of category: community before commerce, credibility before product, infrastructure before scale. The brands emerging from that sequence are more durable than anything built on paid reach, and they are harder for incumbents to replicate because the asset is trust, not budget. The model that wins looks the same regardless of category: community before commerce, credibility before product, infrastructure before scale. The Creator studio trend accelerates this further. The Creators who win in three years will not be the ones with the most reach. They will be the ones who built something that outlasts their own face in the content: a brand, a community, an operating model that does not depend on a single person's output. The ones getting there fastest are not just removing themselves from the camera. They are hiring operators, building holding companies, and treating their creative platform as a business infrastructure rather than a content engine. That is a different kind of ambition, and it is the one that builds lasting value. From an advisory standpoint this is the conversation we are already having with founders and the capital behind them. The question is not whether to make the transition from creator to brand owner. It is whether the operating foundation is in place to support it when the moment arrives. Most are not built for it yet. That gap is where the work is. A paid post is income. A brand you built off your own demand is wealth. That is the real shift, and it is already underway. Thank you Wendy and Deanna of WADE Advisory for this insightful, practical, and real-world analysis of what is happening in today's CPG environment. There's never been more of a need for operators to help CPG and consumer brands navigate the rapidly changing tides facing them today. To learn more about WADE Advisory, please see: https://www.movewithwade.com To learn more about Wendy Salisko, see here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wendy-salisko/ To learn more about Deanna Andersen, see here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deannaandersen/ #creatoreconomy #creators, #operators #marketing #retail #brands #acquisitions