Leadership review
Arun Tezqevri
Chief Marketing Officer · India
Highlights
28 years
Industrial marketing career
May 1998–October 2026; fictional continuous employment
26 colleagues
Internal marketing team
Four leads; five agency personnel counted separately
₹5.8 crore
Annual marketing authority
Separate from company revenue and sales acceptance
346 people
Enterprise workforce
At March 2026; biomass-fuel manufacture and distribution
A letter from Arun Tezqevri
I want the buyer to understand how a marketing account was made. A permitted customer quote can still be a selected story, a useful download need not be a sales enquiry, and a familiar brand does not make every product grade interchangeable. My responsibility is to make those distinctions usable before the buyer relies on a simpler conclusion.
I grew up in Ajmer, where many business conversations depended on somebody knowing who could actually answer the next question. Studying commerce and then marketing gave me a more formal vocabulary, but it did not remove that practical lesson. I completed my commerce degree in May 1996 and the marketing MBA in April 1998, both at the fictional Raqvemti School of Commerce. I began work the following month. My twenty-eight-year career has followed the distance between a persuasive introduction and the evidence a buyer needs to make a responsible decision.
Arun Tezqevri
Chief Marketing Officer
Strategic priorities
01
02
03
04
Performance
Priority outcome 01
In 2019, while directing customer programmes, I approved a campaign built from twelve favourable customer interviews. Thirty-six customers had been invited and eighteen participated; the other eighteen did not. Of the participants, twelve described a positive experience and six gave a mixed account. The quotations we selected were accurate and used with permission. I treated those two facts as sufficient editorial reassurance, without asking what the absence of the mixed accounts would lead a prospective buyer to infer. Vikram Reqzathi challenged the selection. He did not dispute the favourable customers' words, but asked why the reader would see none of the conditions or difficulties that had appeared in the same research. The agency defended a concise campaign built around clear advocates. Including qualifications would make the story harder to produce and less immediately persuasive. I recognised that the problem was partly my instruction: I had asked customer evidence to support a conclusion already favoured by the campaign. We revised the publication to use six permitted accounts, three favourable and three mixed, with their illustrative purpose explained. That new selection was not a representative survey merely because its balance looked more even. The team retained the invitation and participation history, and product statements still required their own qualified support. The programme's ₹41 lakh total cost included ₹9 lakh of corrective editorial work; the correction was not an additional amount to be added again. No sales result or universal customer-satisfaction finding was attributed to the revised material. The consequence was a less uniform brand account and a visible cost for work that an earlier editorial question could have avoided. I kept my approval in the story instead of suggesting the agency had independently chosen the wrong examples. Next time I would define the purpose and limits of customer evidence before commissioning the campaign. A permitted quotation can be entirely authentic while the collection around it gives a misleading impression. Marketing leadership has to examine that collection as carefully as it checks the accuracy of each individual sentence.
Priority outcome 02
Our 2022 buyer-resource programme began with twenty-eight documents: sixteen explaining the questions involved in technical screening and twelve supporting commercial planning. The proposed website required a telephone number before a visitor could obtain them. That made resource use easy to report as campaign contacts. It also asked a buyer who was still researching a proposition to enter a sales process before deciding whether a conversation was useful. I wanted access and a request for contact to remain distinct choices. The acquisition team objected that removing the compulsory field would reduce the measurable result of the programme. Sales colleagues reasonably wanted a route to help buyers interpret the material. I proposed open access to the resources with an explicit option to request a discussion, rather than treating the download itself as that request. Qualified technical owners reviewed the screening material, including its limits: a document could help frame a question but could not approve fuel use in a customer's equipment or replace the relevant assessment. The programme had ₹84 lakh authorisation and spent ₹61 lakh, leaving ₹23 lakh unspent. The completed result was a revised research path and twenty-eight reviewed resources, with contact available when the buyer chose it. We did not convert page access into qualified opportunities or claim that open downloads caused a sales increase. Commercial colleagues retained their own definitions and assessments for actual opportunities. The material also avoided requiring private operating records merely to begin learning about the proposition. I accepted a smaller directly attributable contact account in exchange for a resource the buyer could use at an earlier stage. That did not mean every information request was valuable or that all forms should disappear from every process. It meant the purpose of this particular library was to support research before an engagement decision. I would establish that purpose and its evaluation with sales before the first page is designed. Otherwise a marketing measure can quietly determine the buyer experience, and a useful question about access becomes a late argument about who is giving up a lead.
Priority outcome 03
A 2023 review considered twelve product descriptions used under a common biomass-fuel brand. The visual system made the supplier easy to recognise, but seven descriptions did not preserve the grade distinction clearly enough for the intended buyer conversation. Five already did. The issue was not that the brand identity was false; it was that its consistency could make different product propositions appear more interchangeable than the qualified product account supported. Marketing had simplified a distinction the buyer still needed to examine. The brand team wanted a single short description with detailed specifications available later. Vikram and the product owners argued that the first page needed to identify the relevant grade before a buyer applied a familiar label to their own use. I supported a ₹54 lakh revision of descriptions and supporting material, with qualified technical and quality colleagues responsible for the actual specifications. We did not invent a new technical classification or alter a product's properties through a communications programme. Eighteen selected buyers examined the revised explanations. Fifteen could distinguish the intended grades in the exercise and three still needed further explanation. We retained those three rather than claim the wording now worked for everyone. The exercise was a bounded check of interpretation, not evidence of fuel suitability for each participant's equipment or a measured improvement in operating performance. Actual assessment remained with the responsible owners, and the public material kept a route to that assessment. The consequence was more specific product language and a less effortless one-line brand story. The team also had to explain why a familiar supplier identity did not settle every technical question about a particular order. I would involve intended readers and product owners before the visual system fixes the hierarchy of information. Brand consistency should make it easier to locate the right proposition, not make different propositions look identical. A marketing leader has to recognise when the simplicity that helps recognition is beginning to remove a distinction the buyer needs for the next decision.
Priority outcome 04
A 2024 campaign involved six distributors and a shared account of industrial interest. The first summary contained eighty-four records and described them in a way that suggested eighty-four buying organisations. A closer examination found fifty-two distinct organisations. Thirty-two entries were excess records created when the same organisation appeared through more than one route. They were not thirty-two additional buyers, and removing the duplication did not mean thirty-two organisations had lost interest. The unit being counted had been unclear. Some distributor managers wanted their own contact credit retained in the aggregate because their teams had carried out genuine work. I agreed that their activity should remain visible, but it could not determine the number of distinct organisations in the shared account. Commercial owners assessed the fifty-two organisations using their agreed definitions: eighteen were qualified for the next stage, sixteen remained under assessment and eighteen were not progressing at that point. Those stages were not booked sales or a forecast that every qualified organisation would purchase. The campaign had ₹73 lakh authorisation and spent ₹66 lakh, leaving ₹7 lakh unspent. The ₹23 lakh review and correction cost was included in the ₹66 lakh expenditure, not added to it. We retained separate views of distributor activity, distinct organisations and commercial stage. That allowed colleagues to see the work each partner had done without turning repeated contact into a larger market opportunity. The correction did not change contract prices, product release or the commercial team's acceptance authority. The immediate consequence was a smaller headline count and a difficult conversation about programme reporting. I accepted that because an inflated starting point would make the next budget decision less useful. I would agree the counting unit and cross-channel handling before a shared campaign launches, including how activity credit differs from a unique buyer account. Marketing can recognise several contributors to one relationship without pretending that each contribution created another customer. The board needs to see that distinction when judging the programme's reach and the work still required to turn interest into an actual commercial decision.
Priority outcome 05
A 2025 programme prepared eighteen pieces of regional buyer material: ten in Hindi and eight in Gujarati. The source design and product descriptions had been reviewed, and the production team expected translation to be the final stage before release. A reader check found that an important qualification about the grade under discussion was not being understood consistently. The pages looked coherent, but their shared appearance did not establish that they carried the same proposition. Qualified language and technical owners needed to examine the meaning together. The launch sponsor wanted to add a general note while preserving the campaign date. I proposed a six-week delay to revise the affected explanations and repeat the reader exercise. Twenty selected readers had taken part initially: thirteen understood the intended distinction and seven did not. These counts were evidence about that exercise, not a measure of language competence or a conclusion about every buyer in either region. The team needed to examine the material it had produced instead of treating the misunderstood qualification as the reader's failure. After revision, eighteen of the twenty understood the intended distinction and two still required clarification. We kept a route to further explanation and did not present the result as universal comprehension or technical approval for anyone's fuel use. The programme cost ₹22 lakh, including ₹2.8 lakh of unrecoverable booking expense. That amount remained inside the total. The delayed release lost a convenient campaign window, and the production team had to revisit work that had appeared complete. I would bring qualified language review and intended-reader interpretation into the initial brief, particularly for the qualifications that change a product proposition. Translation is not merely replacing words after the design has been settled. It can reveal that the source explanation relied on an assumption the next audience does not share. The useful marketing outcome was clearer material with its remaining limits visible, not a claim of higher sales or better equipment performance. Accepting the delay made our own responsibility for meaning more explicit than a late note would have done.
Stakeholder voices
In this fictional account, Arun kept the difference between partner activity and distinct buying organisations visible. His recommendation gave us a more precise investment discussion without pretending that commercial qualification had already become sales.
This invented observation reflects my operations relationship with Arun. He accepted responsibility for publishing favourable interviews while omitting mixed experiences, and retained technical ownership when revising the product proposition rather than allowing marketing language to settle equipment suitability.
Outlook
Accuracy and consent matter, but they do not explain why this customer appeared in the campaign and another did not. Marketing needs to preserve the claim its chosen examples can actually support.
Read the essayA compulsory contact form can make campaign reporting simpler while interrupting the buyer's research. The purpose of a resource library should determine its access route and the claims made about its use.
Read the essayRecognition helps the buyer find the supplier. It should also help them locate the particular product and assessment they need, without allowing visual consistency to erase a material distinction.
Read the essayAn invitation
Focused industrial-marketing discussions and a possible first outside role after preparation, employer requirements and relationship review.
office@aruntezqevri.example