CorporateWebsiteMarketing.com has published on corporate website marketing since 2003. It originally described itself as the first website addressing corporate website marketing specifically for business-to-business corporate marketing websites. Behind that claim was an observation: marketing advice written for consumer brands was being applied, largely unmodified, to companies whose buyers were committees spending other people's money on decisions that took a year or more. The founding argument was that a corporate website is a sales tool rather than a brochure, and that business audiences behave differently from consumer audiences in ways that change what a website should be built to do. That argument is now widely accepted and still unevenly practised, which is why the site continues.
What it covers is the discipline as a corporate marketing team encounters it: the channels that bring business buyers to a website, the structure and content of the site that receives them, the pages and forms that turn a visit into a conversation, and the measurement that determines whether any of it worked. The discipline profiles go deep on one subject each; the guides cut across several. Between them they are meant to answer the questions a marketing director actually has, in enough detail to act on, without a sales conversation attached.
The standard the site holds itself to is evidence over folklore, which in practice means a few specific habits. Sources are named and dated, so a reader can check them and can see when a fact has aged. Figures appear only where they trace to a primary source, and where a number comes from a vendor analysing its own customers it is labelled as vendor data rather than an industry benchmark. Where something is genuinely uncertain, it is hedged in plain language instead of stated confidently and hoped over. No statistic here is invented, and none is borrowed from a roundup that cites another roundup.
Some of the most repeated claims in B2B marketing therefore do not appear on this site at all. The assertion that buyers are a fixed percentage of the way through their process before they contact a supplier is one: the versions conflict, the original methodology is not publicly retrievable, and it contradicts the non-linear buying model published by the research firm it is usually attributed to. The site also says when a tactic is a bad idea, at what company size a discipline stops paying for itself, and which metrics exist mainly to make a report look better. A reference that only flatters its subject is not a reference.
There are things it deliberately does not do. It does not publish vendor scorecards, ranked lists of best tools, or comparison grids, because those documents are almost always shaped by who agreed to participate. It does not publish benchmark reports of dubious provenance, or restate other people's. It names tools, platforms and standards wherever naming them helps a reader do the work, and takes no payment for inclusion, exclusion or placement. It is editorially independent, and nothing on it is written to order.
The site is published by Bill Hartzer of Hartzer Consulting. He has more than twenty-five years of experience in technical SEO, website and domain migrations, search engine marketing and domain names, and serves as an expert witness in matters involving search engines, online advertising, web analytics and domain names. That last part explains a habit visible throughout: a claim you cannot source is a claim you would not want to defend under cross-examination.
Some pages here have existed for two decades, and they have been rewritten rather than removed. A page about redirects from the mid-2000s described a web that no longer exists, so the substance was replaced while the address stayed the same — because other people's links, citations and bookmarks point at these URLs, and quietly deleting or consolidating them breaks a record with some value as history. A handful of the oldest notes are kept explicitly as archive material, dated and framed as a snapshot of a problem at the time rather than as advice for now. Retiring a URL has costs, and on a site published continuously since 2003 those costs usually outweigh the tidiness.
Corrections are welcome and are read. If something here is wrong, out of date, missing a qualification, or describes a platform behaviour that has since changed, the contact page is the fastest way to say so. Specifics help more than general disagreement: the page, the sentence, and where the better information comes from.