Month: September 2025

• Marketing tech company Zeta Global is making its biggest-ever acquisition.
• It’s acquiring the enterprise software business of martech firm Marigold in a $325 million deal.
• Zeta says the move will expand its customer base and help it corner the loyalty market.

The publicly traded marketing tech firm Zeta Global is making its biggest-ever acquisition.

Zeta is best-known as a platform that helps big companies organize their customer data and find new customers using its own dataset and adtech tools. Now, it’s looking to double down on helping brands improve their customer loyalty.

On Tuesday, Zeta told Business Insider exclusively that it had entered an agreement to acquire martech company Marigold’s enterprise software business for $325 million. The assets include Marigold’s Loyalty brand, the email platforms Cheetah Digital and Sailthru, and the marketing automation platform Selligent.

Marigold will continue to operate its business focused on small and midsize companies, which includes its Campaign Monitor, Emma, and Vuture products.

Zeta said the move would expand its customer base of Fortune 500 brands. Marigold serves more than 100 large brands and will help meaningfully expand Zeta’s footprint in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, Zeta CEO David Steinberg told Business Insider in an interview. Zeta has 567 “global enterprise clients,” Steinberg said.

Following a recent period of relatively tepid M&A activity, Zeta’s acquisition of Marigold is an indication that large deals are resuming in the adtech and martech spaces. In the first half of this year, the number of deals valued at more than $100 million in the adtech, martech, and digital content sectors increased by 8% compared to the same period in 2024, according to investment bank Luma Partners. Last week, the publicly traded ad verification and measurement firm Integral Ad Science announced it would be taken private by the PE firm Novacap in a $1.9 billion deal. In June, DoorDash acquired the adtech firm Symbiosys for $175 million.

Zeta’s flywheel strategy

This year, Zeta has been doubling down on a strategy to get its clients to use more than one of its services. For example, a clothing company might use Zeta to organize its customer and sales data, identify similar audiences to target with advertising on Instagram or a streaming TV service, and then send those customers personalized emails after they make a purchase.

Zeta said in August that it expects to bring in around $1.2 billion in revenue this year, representing a 26% increase from 2024. Zeta’s stock is up about 7% so far this year.

Acquisitions have helped Zeta grow in a competitive market, where its marketing cloud rivals include those from big players like Salesforce, Oracle, and Adobe. Zeta has acquired 17 companies since its founding in 2007. Notably, last year, it acquired LiveIntent, a fellow martech platform known for operating an email-based ad network, for $250 million.

The Marigold transaction fits Zeta’s M&A playbook of acquiring smaller companies with attractive customer bases and strong teams that can be quickly integrated, Steinberg said. Zeta expects Marigold will bolster its bottom line in the first year after the deal closes.

By adding loyalty products to its tech stack, Zeta’s algorithm will be able to ingest “trillions of data points” to help train and improve its targeting and advertising algorithms, Steinberg said.

“The flywheel just really begins to take off,” Steinberg said.

Zeta has agreed to pay $100 million in cash and $100 million in shares up front for Marigold’s enterprise business. The remainder, for an amount equivalent to $125 million in cash and stock, will be paid via a seller note, delivered within three months of the transaction closing, the company said.

• A wave of companies are adopting the co-CEO model, which was once seen as unusual.
• In the past eight days, Spotify, Comcast, and Oracle announced dual chiefs.
• While a co-CEO model can work, having two cooks in the kitchen can be risky.

Corner offices are getting more crowded.

In little over a week, Oracle, Comcast, and Spotify have rolled out org charts with not one, but two CEOs.

The percentage of companies led by co-CEOs hasn’t changed much over the past five years, data firm Equilar found. It hovers around 1.2% of the Russell 3000 index, a broad measure of the US stock market.

Yet more companies could adopt this structure, even temporarily, as forces like AI create a dizzying pace of change for leaders and prompt companies to rethink operations.

“It is an arrow that more boards, I think, will keep in their quiver,” said Rick Wargo, managing partner of the global technology practice at the recruitment firm Boyden.

There is evidence that organizations with two leads perform better. Companies with two CEOs posted an average annual shareholder return of 9.5% from 1996 to 2020, a 2022 study by Harvard Business Review found. That was better than the 6.9% gain by single-leader companies in the S&P 1200 and the Russell 1000 in the same period.

Although the divide-and-conquer approach offers benefits, it also presents unique challenges. One of the most obvious is knowing who’s in charge of what. It can be risky for companies to say the buck stops here — or there. That’s one reason boards often avoid the setup, corporate observers told Business Insider.

Some high-profile companies have dual CEOs

Spotify — where founder and CEO Daniel Ek will be succeeded by Gustav Söderström and Alex Norström — is just the latest company to try out the dual model.

Until early 2025, Sony Interactive Entertainment effectively operated under a two-CEO model, although the structure, part of a leadership transition process, lasted less than a year. Salesforce has twice experimented with having a co-CEO alongside cofounder Marc Benioff.

At some companies, including Netflix, dual CEOs are more than a short-term play. In early 2023, cofounder Reed Hastings said two of his frequent collaborators (Greg Peters and Ted Sarandos) would share CEO duties and that he would serve as executive chairman.

The relationship doesn’t always last, however. Chipotle had co-CEOs from 2009 through late 2016. The burrito chain moved back to a single chief — founder Steve Ells — amid a series of food-safety incidents.

He told the Associated Press at the time that there was a need to have “one CEO, one voice, and a very focused approach.”

Creating transparency

Clarity is key when establishing co-CEOs, leadership experts said.

“The co-CEO structure can add value when roles, responsibilities, and governance are well-designed,” said Ganesh Rajappan, the CEO of workplace analytics firm MyLogIQ. “Like any human relationship, friction is possible when the lines are not clear.”

Ash Athawale, senior vice president of executive search practice at management consulting firm Robert Half, seconded that point. If they aren’t aligned, he said this structure “can create power struggles and ambiguity” that leaves employees confused.

Having a situation where co-CEOs communicate well and complement each other can stabilize a company’s future, because there’s a leader in waiting if one steps down, Athawale said.

“When done right, having two leaders can mean double the objectives being achieved,” Athawale said.

Building a successor pathway

Comcast may have had succession top of mind when it promoted Mike Cavanagh, who’s now the company president, to a co-CEO post alongside widely respected longtime CEO Brian Roberts. Rajappan said bringing in a potential successor as a co‑leader “can mitigate risk by letting the successor build relationships.”

A person familiar with Comcast’s co‑CEO setup said Cavanagh and Roberts won’t divide their responsibilities and will instead work in partnership, as they’ve done unofficially for years. For example, both Cavanagh and Roberts field questions from analysts on quarterly earnings calls, once Cavanagh shares prepared remarks.

That could present a challenge, Rajappan said. He thinks companies with dual CEOs should clearly outline which CEO runs operations, strategy, and who has the final say.

Rajappan said Comcast’s board should empower Cavanagh so that he’s not second fiddle to Roberts. He’d advise Comcast to delegate day-to-day operations to one of its CEOs and leave the other to focus on big-picture, strategic growth.

Who’s really in charge?

Situations where a CEO comes in to work alongside someone who’s already held the job can be tough because there can be an imbalance of power, said Ryan Krause, a professor of management and entrepreneurship at the University of Iowa, who has researched co-CEOs.

“Everyone still understands who’s really in charge in those situations,” he told Business Insider.

At Oracle, like Netflix, the founder looms large. Oracle said on September 22 that two chiefs would replace Safra Catz, whom the company named to executive chair. Cofounder Larry Ellison, who ran the company from the late 1970s until 2014, remains chairman.

“I can’t imagine too many people in the world feeling that anybody but Larry Ellison is pulling the strings in terms of strategy here,” Wargo said.

Oracle didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Limits of the model

While there are plenty of notable instances of dual-CEO setups, including homebuilder Lennar, eyewear company Warby Parker, and online fashion retailer Revolve, the model should be used sparingly, said David Pogemiller, CEO of analytics firm Boardroom Alpha.

“Generally speaking, we don’t see it as an effective governance or operational approach,” he said via email. In part, that’s because having two CEOs means paying two compensation packages.

Whether a co-CEO setup succeeds or fails is “completely dependent on the two people that are involved” and their ability to collaborate, said Jane Edison Stevenson, global vice chair of board and CEO services at organizational consulting firm Korn Ferry.

Co-leading a company is like being married, Edison Stevenson said. Unless the two sides are aligned from the start and committed to each other, problems will arise.

“If you have two people leading the same business with a different view on the strategic objectives, that is the kiss of death,” Edison Stevenson said.

Getting hard-charging CEOs to share power isn’t always easy, said Krause, from the University of Iowa.

“No one dreams about being co-CEO,” he said. “They want that hyphen off their titles.”

Execs who manage to work it out likely do so by avoiding dumping blame on their counterpart when something goes wrong, Edison Stevenson said.

“There needs to be a division of labor, but they both have to own everything — that’s the conundrum,” Edison Stevenson said.