Hey. It's Wil.

home →

taking shots in
new york city.

   kit →    partner →

pov walking in nyc, taking photos, talking to myself.(walk with me and behind the photo videos now available, too!)find the latest videos here.

the home page photo...

i was up at 4am on a saturday, ready to take the train down to whitehall terminal, where i hopped on the 6am ferry to staten island. from there, i grabbed the first ferry back to manhattan, where i grabbed this shot.

home →

let's partner.

email me for commercial inquiries →

last updated: friday, august 28, 2026.\\what i makephotography
original (film and digital) photography documenting new york city, from neighborhood streets and storefronts to architecture, public spaces and the small details that are easy to miss.video
short-form pov photography and walking stories, along with longer-form visual stories when a subject deserves more room.audio
walking conversations, observations and narrated stories.writing
deeper stories published through my website and newsletter.\\today's audiencethe audience is growing around photography, walking, new york, observation, creativity and the stories hiding in ordinary places.\\potential partnershipsthe best partnerships are editorially natural. i would rather make something interesting with a partner than interrupt something interesting with an advertisement. i'm most interested in partnerships involving:photography and camera equipment
audio and recording technology
walking and outdoor equipment
creative software and tools
books, publishing and research
nyc businesses and cultural institutions
travel and experiences
technology, services and products that genuinely improve how i work
coffee, food and neighborhood businesses\\commercial inquiriespartnerships, sponsorships and commercial engagements are handled by my agency, The New Communicate, LLC.\\contactWilliam Anderson
The New Communicate, LLC
[email protected]\\👀sponsored and affiliate relationships will always be disclosed clearly.
editorial independence matters.
a commercial relationship does not give a partner editorial control over what i think, photograph, report or publish.
i don't accept every partnership.
the product, service or organization needs to make sense for the audience and for the work.
if i don't use it, recommend it or find it interesting without a sponsorship attached, i probably shouldn't be talking about it with one.
that matters to me.
all partnerships are executed under a master services agreement (msa), with each project added as an addendum in the msa.
full payment is required prior to executing a project.
i cannot, in good faith, guarantee any outcome out of my control. let's do our best to make this mutually successful for the audience.neighborhood businesses receive a 25% discount on any partner project.
i ❤️ ny.

home →

why partner.

email me for commercial inquiries →

That document can contain:* YouTube subscribers
* average Shorts views
* 30-day views
* top-performing Shorts
* Substack subscribers
* newsletter open rate
* podcast downloads
* website traffic
* audience geography
* audience demographics when available
* examples of previous work
* partnership options

home →

my kit.

accessories →   |   audio →   |   camera →

what I use to walk, photograph and record.


most of what i make starts the same way:i walk out the door. i take a camera. i record what i see. i make photographs. i collect observations.then i come home and turn
some of those moments into stories.


these are the tools i use along the way.


👀 a note about links.ftc disclosure: some of the links on wiljr.org may be affiliate links. if you purchase something through one of these links, i may receive a commission at no additional cost to you.i only recommend products, services, tools and experiences that I genuinely use or have used, and that i believe may be useful to the work i’m sharing. an affiliate relationship does not influence what i photograph, write about, review or recommend.as an amazon associate i earn from qualifying purchases.sponsored and affiliate relationships will always be disclosed clearly. a commercial relationship does not mean a partner controls what i think, photograph, report or publish.i only recommend stuff that i use, or have used.all costs below are current at time of my purchase.
all costs below are represented in u.s. dollars.

updated: wednesday, september 2, 2026.

accessories.

audio.

camera.

home →

What is all of this doing to us?

there is plenty of discussion about:what AI can do
what product launched
how I use this tool
what job will disappear
how much money will this create
is ai going to save us
is ai going to destroy us

however, there's less of a discussion about:what is all of this technological acceleration doing to the way we actually live? andhow we preserve judgment, attention, creativity, autonomy and humanity while using increasingly powerful technology?

hi. i'm wil.i have more than 20 years experience at the intersection of technology, business, communication and alignment within organizations.i've done a lot. i've seen a lot. and now i'm combining my technical know-how with my storytelling instincts to get to the bottom of why we do (and think) the things we do (and think).

sponsorships.sponsorships are exclusive to stories.
stories include multiple articles, delivered through multiple channels.
your sponsorship covers the entire story.

interested in becoming a story sponsor?contact me!

home →

wil's thinking frameworks

frameworks i use to think about organizations, ai, gtm and strategy.

write things down¹.i want to capture how i think about specific topics now, so i can look back at them then and decide how i feel about them now.¹ben thompson, stratechery

wil's case studies

updated: september 8, 2026.

home →

added: may 2026

the caveman.
the robot.
the optimist.

a model for understanding how organizations adapt, break and evolve.most organizations do not stall because they lack intelligence, resources or strategy. they stall because they are operating multiple conflicting systems of thinking at the same time.when systems change (whether driven by technology, market pressure or internal ambition) organizations (and individuals) tend to cycle through three modes of interpretation:the caveman.
the robot.
the optimist.no one mode is bad.rather, when all three modes are operating in tandem, focused on the same outcome, with no clear decision maker, progress stalls.don’t think of these as personality types.they are operating modes of decision-making under transition.

the caveman.

the logic of continuity.the caveman represents legacy thinking. it is the instinct to preserve what has worked before.core beliefs.“this is how we’ve always done it.”
“prove this new approach is better than the old one.”
“we should minimize risk, not maximize change.”strengths.protects stability.
prevents unnecessary disruption.
preserves institutional memory.failure mode.the caveman becomes dangerous when the environment has already changed. when new systems emerge, the caveman thinking:overvalues precedent.
underestimates structural change.
treats new constraints as temporary anomalies.in transition moments, the caveman thinking is not wrong.it is simply incomplete.

the robot.

the logic of optimization.the robot represents systems-thinking applied without context.it is the instinct to rebuild everything in a more efficient, scalable or automated way.core beliefs.“this can be optimized.”
“we should rebuild this properly.”
“technology should replace manual process.”strengths.creates scale.
introduces repeatability, efficiency and structure.
removes chaos.failure mode.the robot becomes dangerous when optimization replaces understanding. in transition moments, the robot thinking:over-engineers systems before they are understood.
assumes process will replace judgment.
confuses instrumentation with clarity.the robot builds systems that are internally elegant yet externally misaligned.

the optimist.

The logic of motion.The Optimist represents forward-looking judgment.
It is the instinct that movement, decisions and iterations equates to progress (despite uncertainty).Core beliefs.“We can make this work."
“Progress matters more than perfection."
“We will learn by doing.”Strengths.Creates momentum.
Turns uncertainty into action.
Focuses on outcomes.Failure mode.The Optimist becomes dangerous when movement replaces structure.In transition moments, the optimist thinking:Ignores systemic constraints.
Over-relies on human judgment without scaffolding.
Assumes execution will resolve ambiguity.The Optimist creates activity without alignment.

why organizations stall.

Most organizational breakdowns aren't caused by just one mode.They are caused by misalignment between all three modes at once.
For example:The Caveman insists on legacy sales motion.
The Robot builds CRM complexity and automation layers.
The Optimist pushes for growth without structural clarity.The result is predictable:Progress stalls.
Execution slows.
Thinking becomes fragmented.Not because the organization lacks capability.Because it lacks a unified operating model for change.

the core insight.

Transition, not tools, determines outcomes.The key misunderstanding in most organizations is the belief that failure is caused by:Bad process.
Weak talent.
Insufficient tools.In reality, failure usually occurs during transitions between modes:From Caveman → Robot: Legacy systems are digitalized too early.
From Robot → Optimist: Systems are deployed without user clarity.
From Optimist → Caveman: Execution fatigue leads to regression.Each transition introduces friction, yet most organizations never explicitly manage that friction.

practical application.

diagnosing system breakdowns.this model can be used to diagnose any organizational breakdown, particularly in revenue systems.if you see the caveman dominance:sales cycles rely on outdated assumptions.
legacy objections override new market signals.
“we’ve always sold this way” determines outcomes.if you see the robot dominance:sales process is over-instrumented.
crm complexity replaces decision clarity.
automation replaces human judgment too early.if you see the optimist dominance:deals move without structure.
follow-up is inconsistent.
momentum exists without closure discipline.

why this matters.

modern business environments, especially b2b companies navigating growth, do not fail from lack of effort.they fail from mode-confusion under transition pressure. the caveman, the robot, the optimist framework provides a way to:identify which mode is dominant.
understand where breakdown occurs.
rebalance toward execution clarity.the underlying principle.all organizations cycle through three forces:preservation (the caveman)
optimization (the robot)
movement (the optimist)success is not choosing one.  rather, success is sequencing them correctly based on the stage of the system.

updated: september 10, 2026.

wtf →

home →

wtf: ai.

wil’s thinking framework: artificial intelligence.

human-made. tech-enabled.i like technology.i’ve spent much of my career somewhere around the intersection of people, communication and technology. i’ve worked as a computer and network administrator in silicon valley. i’ve worked in telecom equities research. i studied business computer telecommunications. i’ve built businesses that are powered by ai.so i’m neither particularly afraid of ai nor particularly interested in pretending that it will solve everything.i think about ai as another technology that humans have to learn how to use well. my starting principle is simple:human-made. tech-enabled.today, i use ai tools including chatgpt, gemini and others.i use them to research, explore questions, organize information, challenge assumptions and help me think more broadly (or more narrowly) about a problem. and there is an important boundary:ai can influence my thinking.
it does not get to decide what i think.ai output is not an authoritative source for me. if something matters, i verify it against the underlying source or other reliable evidence.i remain responsible for the conclusions i reach, the decisions i make and the work i publish.i also do not use ai to generate the final creative assets i publish.the photographs i make are mine. the words i publish are mine. the decisions about what i believe, what i say and what i make are mine.that doesn’t mean i think ai has no place in creative or professional work. i believe there is enormous value in using technology to extend what humans can do.there is a difference between using a tool and outsourcing the thinking, however. that’s the line i’m interested in exploring.i’m going to use this space to document what i’m learning about ai: what works, what doesn’t, where i find genuine value, where i think the technology creates new problems, and where i believe humans should remain firmly in the loop.i don’t have all the answers.
(i don’t think anyone does.)i reserve the right to change my mind as the technology changes and as i learn more. for now, this is my framework:→ use ai to help me think better.
→ don’t use it as a substitute for thinking.
→ keep humans responsible for the work.

updated: september 8, 2026.

wtf →

home →

wtf: gtm.

wil’s thinking framework: go-to-market.

it's relationships, stupid.i think about go-to-market planning and activities in b2b terms, which heavily influences how i think successful gtm plans should be built.and in the b2b world, relationships are key to bringing products, services, solutions, companies, etc. to market.where we get stuck, though, is that we don't prioritize the business first. instead, we think the best focus to a success gtm program is to spend money to gain customers.however, it's the other way around. we should be focused on how we gain customers to spend money.winning money cures all ills.i was watching a baseball game a few years ago. i'm 90% sure it was a san francisco giants or new york mets game. i'm 90% sure because i watch or listen to either team's broadcasts because either team's broadcasters are incredibly gifted storytellers.in this game, the giants or the mets were winning. and the story being told was that 24 hours ago, the team - the individual players on the same team - were at each other's throats.they were losing. they couldn't catch a break. they turned on each other.24 hours later: the same team of individual players playing the same opponent were winning the game. they were high-fiving each other. doing silly skits in the dugout after a home run.in baseball/sports - winning solves everything. those same issues are still there. it just doesn't matter as much because the team is winning.we are in business to make money.if i work with a for-profit business, that business is in business to make money. to pay its bills, its employees, its partners, its 'dues'.it's in business to do whatever it wants to do with the money it's made.we are in business to make money.and going to market means we need to think about making money.if the assumption is we're bringing something new to market, we better be focused on making that money as quickly as possible.otherwise, we're spending money. and we're not in business to spend money. (just like baseball, we're always spending money. it's only problematic when we're not winning / making money.)when introducing a new offering, prioritize your relationships (inside and outside the company). get feedback. tap shoulders for referrals. get people to use your new offering.relationships aren’t just a path to client.
they’re a source of trusted information.i'd rather spend my time talking about how to spend the money we have vs. spending the money we don't have.

updated: september 8, 2026.

wtf →

home →

wtf: messaging architecture.

wil’s thinking framework: audience, message, outcome.

do you know how much time is wasted building campaigns that aren't sent?i don't either. however i'd venture to guess it's around 50%.in other words, out of ten planned campaigns, five of them aren't delivered. they are planned and discussed and presented and built.and are never sent.there are a number of valid reasons for a campaign to be killed. however, he majority of killed campaigns i’ve seen happen because marketing, product and sales never agreed on a framework for the work.without a specific messaging architecture, teams start making their own assumptions. marketing says one thing. product says another. sales changes the language again. everyone spends time building toward a slightly different outcome.and eventually, someone kills the campaign.fun.who. what. why.the framework i've used for more than two decades is dangerously simple. i call it 'amo' for short: audience. message. outcome.the goal is for each stakeholder to agree on two of the three components: audience. message. outcome.if we, collectively, can't agree on who we are trying to influence, what we're actually sending or why we're sending it–and if we can't agree on two of the three–let's focus on something that's campaign ready.why do we need just two of the three components to build a campaign?take any two known criteria: say the who + what.for example, we've identified current clients (who) who are not subscribed to a specific service or product (what).i'm pretty sure we can guess why we're sending this campaign and, ultimately, what the organizational outcome is that we're looking for.this architecture works for any two of the three components.success definedthis is the other great thing about using this architecture:
success is predefined.in other words, we're all invested in the success of this campaign because it aligns with the financial, brand or other company-wide goals, creating alignment between teams by default.does increased complexity create holes in the amo framework?i’m sure it can.but if the choice is between a dangerously simple framework that creates alignment vs. a complicated framework that creates more opportunities for misalignment, i’ll take simple every time.we can make the campaign more complicated later. we shouldn’t make getting everyone aligned more complicated than it needs to be.

updated: september 8, 2026.

wtf →

home →

case study:
the execution blind spot.

how commercial misalignment delayed revenue, and how a sales-first focus helped secure 3 enterprise contracts before solution ga.

engagement snapshot.

a saas team preparing for launch discovered their biggest risk wasn’t product readiness. it was cross-functional commercial confusion.→ company: enterprise saas / infrastructure
→ engagement: fractional commercial alignment + gtm strategy
→ challenge: strong product momentum; fragmented commercial execution

business problem.

the organization was preparing aggressively for launch.→ engineering momentum was strong
→ internal excitement was high
→ leadership wanted accelerationbut beneath the surface:→ sales qualification lacked consistency
→ product messaging emphasized features over business outcomes
→ leadership teams held conflicting assumptions about the ideal buyer
→ launch velocity was increasing while commercial clarity declinedthe risk wasn’t technical failure.
the risk was building momentum around an unclear commercial narrative.

scope of work.

i worked across technical, marketing, sales, legal, partnership and leadership teams to:→ identify conflicting commercial assumptions
→ simplify technical positioning into buyer outcomes
→ align sales qualification language
→ clarify the economic narrative behind the product
→ reduce launch friction between teams
→ support leadership alignment around gtm priorities

outcome.

during a five-month sprint to revenue during the end-of-year period and organization restructuring, a global event created the perfect backdrop for messaging and positioning validation, and a launchpad into the new year, resulting in:→ 120+ leads surfaced
→ 44 qualified opportunities
→ 16 demos
→ 3 enterprise contracts

updated: september 9, 2026.

wtf + case studies →

home →

case study:
the product-to-revenue gap.

how real-time roi visibility quickly qualified commercial opportunities.

commercial alignment:
before → after matrix.

executive summary.

a fast-growing regional telecommunications provider needed to introduce a modern, roi-based marketing and communications practice to discover, capture and prioritize commercial opportunities across its business, consumer and government divisions.with their legacy product-to-market process lacking a unified, data-driven strategy, i acted as the translation layer across divisions and business unites, deploying a new roi marketing model, transforming the marketing and communications function into an audience-obsessed, data-driven revenue center.

ambitious launches. rudderless execution.

the company was preparing to launch a series of new expansion projects, including enterprise solutions, consumer packages and government-enabled fiber coverage and even the company's first e-commerce back-end and transactional front-end web experience.however, they suffered from structural fragmentation:→ the constraint: no centralized decision or audience governance meant the b2b, b2c and b2g business units were operating in silos→ the revenue leak: without a unified data-driven methodology, it was difficult to provide the leadership team with immediate feedback on initiative progress and success.

closing the translation gap.

rather than just pushing for more marketing activity and additional tools, the intervention focused on building a bridge between executive direction, technical execution and commercial strategy.→ i acted as the "translation layer" to align product, sales, marketing and leadership teams→ i led a cross-functional team of marketers, sellers, developers, copywriters and designers to build cohesive market rollouts→ deployed a new roi marketing model and decision governance framework across all business units within the company-wide crm system

from optimism to market pull.

once the translation gap was closed, the internal team revolutionized how it brought business, consumer and government-enabled solutions to market.→ solution velocity: successfully introduced 16 new solutions to the market in a single year→ pipeline generation: delivered 2,967 total leads, resulting in 754 qualified leads in one year→ revenue growth: enabled new opportunities in the final year, supporting record revenue growth and driving high nps scores

updated: september 9, 2026.

wtf + case studies →

home →

Let's work together.

Your Head of Marketing search doesn't have to mean your marketing waits. I step in while your team recruits, transitions or determines their permanent leadership structure.

AI | B2B technology | Data centers | Infrastructure | SaaS | Telecom

One pager →     Let's talk →     WTF + Case studies →     LinkedIn ↗    

Wil Anderson, Jr.

Fractional  |  Interim  |  Projects  |  Retainer

Where I help:

→ Marketing team and agency leadership
→ Executive/Board presentations and reporting
→ GTM, Product Marketing and Launches
→ Communications, Positioning, Messaging
→ Market Research, Competitor Due Diligence
→ ICP and Commercial Analysis

all stories →

on being in the moment.

2026-09-24

Hey. It’s Wil.I’ve been thinking a lot lately about being present in today’s world.While I’ve started (and stopped) many different tools and concepts to help me be present, the two I always return to are walking and documenting.Maybe that’s why walking around New York City in the early morning hours and taking photographs has been so soothing. I even talk to myself while I’m walking, capturing the things that are on my mind.Getting those things out of my head helps keep me in the moment.Like photographing lower Manhattan from a ferry on a Saturday morning.Stay in the moment,


- Wil

• Arrow Down

next article

all stories →

on being always on.

2026-09-29

hey. it’s wil.it’s a tricky balance.the devices we carry with us every day allow us to do some pretty amazing things. and they also make it incredibly easy to always be available.i’ve been working on ways to put some distance between me and my devices at different points in the day.not because i want to do less.because i want to be more present for the things i actually want to do.like photographing a golfer heading out of grand central.Stay in the moment,


- Wil

get stories by email →

all stories →

on who owns what.

2026-10-01

Hey. It’s Wil.I’ve been thinking about what happens when we give more and more of our work to machines. Not because I think it’s inherently bad (some of it is genuinely amazing).Rather, as technology compresses the distance between an idea, a decision and its execution, a core question emerges:Who actually owns what?If an agent researches a topic for me, who owns the conclusion?
If it recommends a path and I click accept, did I make the decision?
If agents collaborate on an outcome, who is the owner when it breaks?And what happens when the person on the hook is suddenly managing ten, twenty, or fifty agents at once?According to a recent EY report, 91% of surveyed senior executives say their organizations are actively using agentic AI. Yet nearly half admit their governance frameworks haven't been updated for agentic use, and 36% have already suffered a materially negative AI failure.That is a staggering amount of liability falling onto one specific role: the player-coach.Player-coaches are expected to oversee networks of autonomous agents and workflows around the clock without clear playbooks. They're holding all the liability, all the decisions and all the context.How much cognitive bandwidth does it take just to keep all those plates spinning?When every ounce of brain power goes into monitoring and double-checking outputs, how much do we have left for actual thinking?For creating?
For noticing what matters?
Or simply for being present with another human without quietly wondering what an agent is doing right now?We’re remarkably good at asking technology to make us more productive. We’re far less disciplined about asking what happens to the human managing that productivity.I say this as someone who has spent years obsessively building personal productivity frameworks: bullet journals, Getting Things Done, Forever Notes, apps, you name it.It feels like I've tried every system available to get things out of my head then organize what remains.And if I've learned anything, it's that I don't want to manage one more app.I want fewer things occupying my mind.There is a profound difference between a system that helps you produce more and a system that leaves you enough space to actually be present.Who owns that gap?


Stay in the moment,


- Wil

get stories by email →