Where Does Marketing Fit in Your Company?
The second of three marketing arguments your company must have
The first installment of this three-part series explored why investment bankers don’t eat at the Cheesecake Factory in discussing “What Do You Want Your Marketing Team to Do?” If you haven’t read it and wrestled that question to the ground yet (the marketing question… not why investment bankers don’t eat at the Cheesecake Factory), you really should go back and start there. Trust me. It will make this part a LOT easier.)
“ACMO walks in to the CFO’s office and suggests a new strategy for holding capital reserves…” is the setup for about three different jokes. “A CFO walks into the CMO’s office with some suggestions about marketing strategy…” is an everyday occurrence. EVERYONE has opinions on marketing, and NO ONE hesitates to share them.
And it seems perfectly harmless until you find yourself on the 13th round of revisions for a digital ad because sales swears that people “use” your product but the data team says that 35–44 year-olds would prefer to “utilize” it and the risk team says that either way, the word “may” has to go in front of the verb no one can agree on. So everyone compromises and your game-changing marketing campaign suddenly centers on the words “world-class” and a picture of a puppy and the CMO moves one step closer to rehab. How the hell did you end up here?
Even after you’ve taken the time to define what marketing should do, there’s still plenty of opportunity for frustration and inefficiency.
In most areas of your organization, there are built-in circuit breakers for circular conversations like these. Even an undergraduate finance major can put together a cost-benefit projection for a capital expense, and you’ve probably got a pretty good set of benchmarks and forecasting tools for financial performance. At the very least, backstops like laws and regulations create boundaries for HR and compliance issues, finance is covered by laws and accounting practices and technology limitations (and costs) can bring an IT argument to a natural, if exasperating, close.
Marketing’s a different animal. It’s highly measurable after the fact, but because it’s based on influencing human behavior the number of variables and unknowns make accurate performance projections beyond the capacity of all but the most sophisticated (and well-funded) organizations. Secondly, while laws and regulations cover things like customer data sharing and audience development and targeting, badly executed creative isn’t yet illegal. And finally, marketing feels personal. The head of sales isn’t likely to get stopped on the back nine by a buddy wanting to discuss the company’s latest risk assessment, but I guarantee his whole foursome is going to have an opinion of its latest ad campaign.
In the scenario above, it’s going to fall to the CMO to make some decisions and stop the madness. No one getting paid that much gets to pass off accountability. But smart organizations create the best possible environment for making those decisions by being intentional about marketing’s place in the organization.
If marketing is accountable to everyone (even if it nominally reports to the CEO), don’t be surprised when compromise and defense shape decision making. On the other hand, clear and close reporting to a single area — even if it’s the COO or CAO rather than the CEO — foster bolder thinking, faster decisions and tighter focus on the activities that drive business. Every executive can (and should) still have an opinion, but only one gets a vote.
So, while the conversations will be more difficult than you might expect, debates over:
- “Who does the CMO report to?”
- “Who has the authority to initiate marketing work?”
- “Who has final say on marketing work?”
- “How do we account for the marketing budget?”
deliver far greater value than:
- “Why shouldn’t we have a cartoon lobster dressed as a cowboy as our mascot?”
