Instead, identify the bundle of tasks that person did and find people who can take them on separately, and perhaps accomplish other tasks you didn't even realize your team could do.
If you were to identify every task your business needs, then you have the flexibility to direct those tasks to the right people. Further, if you're in a high-growth environment, you can continue to scale by motivating your people to fire themselves from their worst tasks and focus on their best expertise.
If your team continues to evolve in this way while your company keeps sound unit economics, then congratulations! You've solved the scaling problem.
One person can easily manage all of this and more very affordably with freelancers, tools, and a decent process.
Where you go wrong is when the person managing is "figuring it out on the fly."
Use canva or stencil for design, use textbroker or copypress for content at scale, all that is left is building an editorial calendar, planning content promotion, blogger outreach, all of which can be done with tools, etc...
...if you have clarity about what exactly needs to be done from ideation to promotion, its really not that hard for one person with tools and freelancers to execute on.
I don't think it's unusual for an email list to be managed by one dude at an early stage tech startup.
(Which seems to be a definite truism in my observation of which businesses and teams succeed and fail).
The last two hires have been somewhere between oxygen thief and chair warmer.
TL;DR: If you are getting crappy candidates, you are likely offering too little and could tempt better candidates with a better offer.
You should checkout what competitors are paying in your location
If you're not in that neighborhood, good luck. Startups don't seem to value marketing as much as the big companies, and then they wonder why they need 4 people for one job. Offering under $100K for a Director of Marketing (sadly common in startups) is a joke.
Instead of guessing what's a fair pay wouldn't be better to pay or get paid on results - revenue you bring in. The marketing director or others in the team are close enough (in terms of agency they have on revenue) to revenue generation that this should be possible, no?
Marketing also generally has multiple touch points before a sale actually occurs. Maybe you see a Google paid result that you ignore, then a YouTube pre-roll that you tune out, and then you see their logo on a train ad during your commute. None of those result in a sale, but you finally see the company at a conference, grab some swag, talk to one of their salespeople, and become a customer. In this example, their revenue looks like it was generated by the efforts of the sales department, but in reality marketing had a lot to do with it, too.
If your company has all the right tracking in place, you can determine the path your customers took when they ultimately bought your product, provided that they bought it online. That still ignores their prior exposure to the product that helped convince them during the current session. More importantly, if you were to measure marketing performance based solely on those metrics, your marketers would have little incentive to do all of their other important functions.
I agree about the time-wasting meetings, but not about the above, since I'm directly in that situation. You could hope to find one person to fill any two of those jobs, but all you'll get out of a 'scrappy content marketer' is a vacant position and a series of burnouts. That's hard work, where you have to invest resources to reap rewards.