Digiday - The cases for and against the CMO role

Navigating Economic Instability

The cases for and against the CMO role

The answer depends on your vantage point. Gap is bringing back the CMO role after a two-year break, while Hyundai is choosing to phase it out. With the CMO under the spotlight once more, let’s dive into the pros and cons to see why a top marketer can be an invaluable asset for some companies and an outdated figurehead for others. The case for CMOs For many CEOs, a CMO is the not-so secret weapon in their arsenal, driving the profit that fuels growth. This isn’t just lip service from a trade publication — recent earnings reports have shown just how crucial these marketing execs are. CEOs from PepsiCo, Gap, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, General Mills, and Nestlé have all given a nod to marketing—and by extension, their CMOs—as the driving force behind their financial triumphs this quarter. Nike’s CEO extolled “impactful storytelling” and “brand distinction”—a.k.a. cranking up brand ads. General Mills’ chief raved about brand reinforcement, while Levi’s CEO name-dropped Beyoncé and lauded cultural relevance, translating to turbocharged brand development. Despite the jargon, these CEOs view their brands as crucial capital investments, not just line items on a budget. While this narrative is familiar, it’s also challenging given how bean counters often see marketing spend as a cost ready for cuts. Unlike other expenses, marketing dollars are accounted for in the year they’re spent, making them particularly vulnerable. However, CMOs at Nike, Levi’s, and similar firms have elevated advertising to a core business function, safeguarding their budgets even during tough times. Over the years, they’ve mastered the art of demonstrating their value in ways that earn them the respect of their top brass. This is certainly true for some of the CMOs xx collaborates with. These marketing leaders are increasingly laser-focused on cracking the code of how to unlock the value of data within their businesses. Traditionally, they might have started with creative and media, but their shifting priorities signal a new approach to demonstrating marketing’s impact to their higher-ups, noted xx. Of course, they don’t always nail it. Even in boardrooms that value marketing, CMOs have struggled to consistently prove their worth. But for every CMO position that’s been cut, there are times when the role makes a comeback. General Mills, the company behind brands like Old El Paso and Häagen-Dazs, revived its global CMO role earlier this year. Coca-Cola did the same just this month. In the world of CMOs, it seems absence really does make the heart grow fonder. The case against CMOs Unlike a CEO or CFO, the role of a CMO isn’t always essential — especially in the eyes of some Fortune 500 companies. In fact, only about two-thirds (63%) of them have a CMO, according to Forrester. In other words, for many big businesses, CMOs are a luxury they can often do without. And even when marketing does have a seat at the boardroom table, it’s not always the CMO who’s at it. The reality is that companies now demand more from their marketers than the traditional CMO role offers. Marketers nowadays are expected to manage retail media ventures, lead internal privacy efforts, and even contribute to M&A strategies. In a world where roles require more versatility than ever, the classic CMO might just be falling short. Hyundai’s recent move highlights this trend. Execs there ditched the CMO role in favor of a chief creative officer and a vp of marketing performance. The logic is straightforward: as marketing gets more complex, sometimes you need a toolkit, not just a Swiss Army knife. For these companies, the CMO as a catch-all specialist is officially passé. Still, this isn’t about dismissing the role entirely; it reflects the reality of modern marketing—a collaborative, cross-functional approach where success relies more on specialized expertise and strategic coordination than on a single, prominent leader. Because of this, the era of the star CMO—leaders like Marc Pritchard at P&G, Keith Weed at Unilever, and Linda Boff at GE, who gained recognition for their media savvy and thought leadership during the rise of online marketing—is increasingly becoming a thing of the past. Today, as marketing requires more specialized skills and a wider strategic outlook, companies are supplementing or even replacing the CMO role with positions like chief customer officer, chief growth officer, chief strategy officer, and chief digital officer. Some are even bringing in regional and fractional CMOs, tailored to address specific growth and marketing needs that a one-size-fits-all CMO can no longer fulfill. And as with any major shift, there will inevitably be some upheaval and adjustment along the way. “CMOs aren’t a must-have anymore,” said Ian Bruce, vp Principal Analyst at Forrester. “In this world, the scale and scope of a senior marketer’s role can be very different, which is what CEOs are figuring out. They’re not saying ‘marketing is dead and so we don’t need a CMO’. Rather, they’re trying to understand what’s the rational role, function and responsibility of marketing overall and how can we manage that effectively.” Ultimately, the case against CMOs is really a case for unbundling the role. When companies phase out or transform the CMO position, they’re not discarding it but redefining it for a world that demands more agile and nuanced marketing expertise.