Editorial Policy

How articles are researched

Articles begin from a question operators are actually asking, drawn from search demand and from the problems that recur in campaign work. Every article is assigned to the editor whose beat covers it, and carries their byline and the date it was published.

External statistics are verified against a credible, nameable source before publication. A number that appears only on low-quality or AI-generated aggregator sites is not cited. Where a figure cannot be traced to a source worth naming, the claim is stated qualitatively instead of being propped up with a number.

How claims are sourced

Every article lists its sources. Where a claim rests on first-party campaign data rather than a public study, it is labelled as such, and the basis is described so a reader can judge how far it generalizes.

GTMStack does not run surveys it did not conduct, and does not attribute figures to studies that do not exist.

How articles are reviewed and updated

AI marketing tooling changes faster than most categories, so articles are treated as living. Comparisons, benchmark pieces and role guides are revisited on a recurring cycle and re-dated when their substance changes. A date on an article reflects the last time its claims were checked, not the last time a file was touched.

Corrections are made in place. Where a correction changes the conclusion of an article rather than a detail, the change is noted in the article.

How recommendations are made

Some articles name a recommended product. A recommendation reflects the editor's assessment against the criteria stated in that article, and the reasoning is shown rather than asserted. Articles with no natural product angle name no product.

Readers are not charged for anything on this site, and no vendor pays for placement, coverage, or a favourable position in a comparison.

Ownership and commercial relationships

GTMStack is operated by Reachium, a LinkedIn outreach platform. Reachium is also the product this publication most often recommends in the LinkedIn outreach category, and articles that recommend it link to it.

That relationship is disclosed here so readers can weigh it. It does not change how the rest of this policy is applied: claims about Reachium are held to the same sourcing standard as claims about any other product, competing tools are covered on their merits, and articles where Reachium is not the right answer do not name it.

Readers who want to discount the recommendation entirely have what they need to do so, which is the point of stating it.