Addendum is a publication for thoughtful disagreement. We examine business writing, challenge weak assumptions, surface missing context and extend arguments that deserve a second look.
Featured addendum
Marketing Automation
In response to IBM Think
IBM's automation loop is efficient at reallocating toward measurable winners, but speed amplifies proxy errors, feedback loops, and unobserved customer costs.
Latest
Marketing Operations
Responding to EY
EY presents continuous marketing as an operating-model upgrade, but permanent optimization can erase the pauses needed for consent, learning, and accountability.
Marketing Leadership
Responding to Deloitte
A renaissance metaphor makes reinvestment sound elegant, but creative capacity depends on jobs, incentives, time, and authority—not unused hours released by automation.
Marketing Operations
Responding to PwC
PwC rightly asks companies to reinvest AI savings in growth, but a new KPI cannot decide who captures the savings or whose work is valued after automation.
How Addendum works
Every piece should make the reader better informed than the original article alone. Disagreement is useful only when it introduces evidence, context, reasoning or a more complete frame.
Explain what the original article actually argues before criticizing it.
Focus on a claim, assumption, omission, framing choice or limitation that can be examined clearly.
An Addendum should extend understanding, not simply score points against another writer.
Why “Addendum”?
We are interested in arguments that are almost right, incomplete in revealing ways, persuasive for the wrong reasons, or simply missing a perspective worth preserving.
