Lessons from the jury table: what Baltic B2B marketing gets right (and where it still needs a nudge)
- catlinpuhkan
- Jul 9
- 3 min read
Partner, Strategist @We Are Marketing
Recently I had the honour of serving as a jury member for the Golden Parrot 2025 - the Baltic region’s B2B marketing awards organized by Marketing Parrot. As the only jury representative from Lithuania, alongside colleagues from Latvia, Estonia, and Finland, I had a front-row seat to the current state of B2B creativity, ambition, and, yes, a few blind spots.
After reviewing dozens of submissions across categories like B2B branding, lead generation, content marketing, B2B website, etc. I walked away with a few observations that I believe are worth sharing with the wider B2B community.
There's no lack of boldness in B2B
Let’s start with the good news: there is no shortage of exciting work. I saw bravery, originality and experimentation. For the latter two, I truly applaud the branding and websites of Rewaste and Hortimed.
I also saw consistency - entries from companies who stay the course year after year, doing what works and doing it well, just like OIXIO Inspiration Days series. This diversity of approaches in pursuit of results? That’s something I truly applaud in the B2B marketing world.
Web and brand still rule the B2B priority list
Most of the entries fell under website redesigns and rebranding - which wasn’t all that surprising. Back in 2022, when we at We Are Marketing conducted a B2B marketing study in Lithuania, websites topped the list as the No.1 priority. Clearly, that hasn’t changed - we’re still driving forward with the same priorities.
B2B marketers are already strong gatekeepers of pragmatism, but…
One thing stood out: the majority of submissions came from creative agencies. That seems to suggest that B2B companies still perceive marketing as something creative-first. Slightly odd, to be honest - but it just means there’s still room for market education.
On the other hand, there were several small-budget projects - very pragmatic, yet delivering absolutely outstanding results, such as the Zone.ee website, which was designed to generate and convert B2B leads. I fully understand why the companies behind them didn’t invest more. But seeing what was achieved, and imagining what could have been possible with just a bit more investment, once again made me reflect on a recurring issue: in the B2B world, we still tend to underinvest in areas that clearly generate value, while more readily spending on things that simply look good.
That brings me back to a quote from the stage at a recent “Marketing Parrot Annual B2B Conference”, shared - perhaps half-jokingly - by a partner at White Label, this year’s B2B Agency of the Year:“We don’t like working with marketers, so we try to bypass them and speak directly with the business owner.” Maybe that’s exactly where the problem lies. A less marketing-savvy owner might buy into what’s shiny and impressive, while a seasoned B2B marketer won’t be dazzled by glitter - they’re looking for substance. That said, and speaking sincerely now: the work submitted by this agency was truly impressive.
What to consider
Now, the tougher part about these applications...
As a naturally pragmatic B2B marketer, I found myself facing a recurring tension: looks good doesn’t always mean effective.
Too much energy was spent on polished web design, with little regard for the actual B2B customer journey. This was especially noticeable in cases where the same web was used to promote / introduce the same product to entirely different audience segments - without addressing their distinct needs or pain points. The result? A disconnect between message and relevance, caused by a failure to address the distinct pain points of different target audiences.
Innovation was often pursued for its own sake, not for impact.
Creativity flourished, but often lacked clear strategic grounding - the “what’s the point”, “how is this meant to deliver results” and “who is this really for” were sometimes missing.
Even during jury discussions, we sometimes leaned into phrases like “I liked that one” rather than grounding our praise in B2B principles: Does it reflect the buyer’s process? Does it solve a real pain point? Does it sell the solution to a committee, not just a single persona?
These moments highlighted a persistent gap: a tendency to confuse marketing craft with marketing effect.
Despite these critiques, the judging process was refreshingly diverse in perspective. Each jury member brought different expectations, benchmarks, and biases - and this friction helped us converge on winners that I truly believe the B2B community would rally behind.
Last one takeaway: from B2B to B2D
If there’s one takeaway I’d offer to B2B marketers in the region, it’s this: creativity is vital, but it needs to map to real customer journeys, to clearly told stories, and to business growth. Because at the end of the day, B2B isn’t Boring-To-Boring (even though we truly love well-performing boring ads) - but it does have to be Built-To-Deliver.
