Marc Babej and Tim Pollak just wrote an interesting column on Forbes.com (hey Marc - have you given up the blog in favor of an MSM column, how very retro of you! :) )
The provocative title is, "Who needs a CMO anyway?" and in a nutshell questions the validity, relevance and more importantly, power/empowerment associated with a token position in today's times.
Before you dismiss this assertion, you should consider several factors, including the tenure of the average CMO, whether they directly control budget or not, Regis McKenna's contention that everything has been stripped away from marketing except for mass media and even the extent to which they have embraced change, innovation, transformation and yes, "new marketing"
For value/relevance to be shown the article lists the following responsibilities and attributes which the function should uphold (as opposed to the superficial ambassadorial hand wave and occasional industry keynote) including:
- Ensuring the company's products and services are in tune with consumer demand.
- Directing new product development and ensuring the continuing appeal of existing offerings.
- Marketing communications.
- Hold CMOs accountable for achieving top-line growth objectives.
- Hold CMOs accountable for meeting corporate margin goals.
I'm sure many current CMO's would push back and contend that they are already meeting (and expected to meet) the above criteria.
Personally, I am a big believer in the validity and need for a CMO title. I would even go so far as to say that it is imperative for this title to expand and evolve quickly to include a broader range of responsibilities - many of whom have been stripped away from them in past years. In addition, I would also make the case for new line items like overseeing "conversation" (although on current form, this critical responsibility should currently be bypassing marketing and reporting directly into the CEO), corporate experimentation, as well as elements of R&D/innovation.
Recent Comments