What do you think the number 1 challenge for a B2B tech CMO is?

Every B2B CMO has multiple plates they need to keep spinning; defining strategy, managing budgets, filling talent gaps, keeping the board happy, finding 5 minutes in their week to actually grab some lunch, etc.

But the biggest struggle I see for B2B CMOs is bigger than any of these one things.

That’s because it actually touches on each of those spinning plates already mentioned (except the lunch one) and more.

The hardest part of being a B2B tech CMO?

Marketing the marketing.

It’s the need to continually have to explain, justify, and rationalise the existence of marketing to the wider business.

No other department or function in a business has to.

Do you think a CFO gets asked “so what have finance been up to lately?”. How many sales directors do you think get asked “so what does sales actually DO then?”. When was the last time a head of procurement had to explain what their function did on an all hands call?

Marketing has a marketing problem.

The Problem with B2B Marketing

The sad truth is marketing’s marketing problem is one we’ve created for ourselves.

If non-marketers don’t “get” marketing that’s not their fault. Their perceptions of our beloved discipline will have been shaped entirely by their past experiences, which you’ve got no control over.

But what causes this ongoing misconception and misunderstanding of what marketing ACTUALLY is?

There’s an unholy trinity of reasons:

• Terminal Short-Termism.
• Too much measurement.
• A VERY low barrier to entry.

So let's dig into each of these in turn (and then see how we solve a problem called marketing)

> Terminal Short-Termism in B2B Marketing

Many (if not most) B2B tech companies run their finances on a quarterly, sales-driven basis. Targets get set, budgets (hopefully) get released, activity happens, and if you’re not delivering what you need to 90 days later serious questions get asked.

As such the entire business is focused on driving leads, leads, leads!

And they want them yesterday.

And by and large when people say “leads” what they actually mean is “deals I can sign off right now with minimal effort, thanks”.

What that means for marketing is that it get’s parachuted in primarily as a sales-support function needing to operate (and deliver results) on these same short timelines.

So well-intended marketers lean into quick fix “growth hacks” and double down on performance marketing that promises the quick wins that need to be delivered. But these rarely deliver the goods - especially in a B2B world where sales cycles are long, decision making groups are large, and 80% of the research on a buying decision is done before a vendor is even brought into the loop.

Instead, this short-termism leads to marketers playing a pure numbers game chasing the same undecided buyers as all of their competitors.

Now, don’t get me wrong.

If you send enough spammy emails, dial enough random numbers, and plough enough budget into paid campaigns you will generate some ROI at some point. But you’re searching for needles in haystacks (and you definitely don’t have a magnet you can use!).

And because this is the short-termist approach marketers need to take to keep the higher-ups happy, this is what non-marketers then believe marketing as an entire discipline to be.

So, when this approach falls flat (which is largely the case) non-marketers will then (quite rightly) say “well, marketing just doesn’t work, does it?”.

> Too much tech & measurement

This one might be a bit controversial but just because you can track pretty much anything and everything nowadays doesn’t mean you should.

The promise of this largely digital world we now operate in as marketers was the ability to drill down into detailed data sets and use the analysis to make well informed, strategically valid decisions.

However, the reality is very different. VERY!

We’ve now got so many channels, platforms, tools, campaigns, touch points, and activities generating inexplicable amounts of constantly updating data it’s near impossible to know (let along prove) what’s happening in terms of real-world impact.

So many marketers try and report on it all.

[SIDE BAR: And let’s not even start on the unbridled chaos of attribution modelling in B2B. It’s shaky at best in B2C where there are fairly linear buying journeys. If you’re trying to fully attribute a B2B purchase across an entire journey you’ll need hope, luck, and multiple genies granting you multiple wishes]

And this has led to the rise of the vanity metric.

Impressions, reach, and engagement are fairly easy to track and are valid measures when it comes to understanding how a marketing message is hitting or how a campaign is performing. I’m not arguing that.

However, what I am pointing out is – and here’s the uncomfortable truth – a CEO, CFO or any other board member could not giving the tiniest of fucks about these stats.

They care about the one metric that rules them all: Revenue.

So, when a marketer armed with dashboards, trackers, and charts starts reporting these high level, marketing-centric metrics as “success” they instantly damage their credibility and leave people thinking that marketing is disconnected from the reality of the business.

And that ain’t a fun place to be.

> A VERY low barrier to entry

Unfortunately, anyone with the time to watch some YouTube tutorial videos and enough misplaced self-confidence can now offer their services as a professional marketer.

I’m not saying this to discourage anyone from pursuing a career in marketing, far from it. We always need fresh blood coming through.

However, if people are entering the discipline without a fundamental understanding of the basics of marketing – research, strategy, positioning, the 4 Ps – and instead are relying on “growth hacks” they’ve copied off someone on TikTok (who’s also copied them off someone else on TikTok) it doesn’t really cause all ships to rise.

You then quickly end up with people in roles who are out of the depth, with a limited understanding of what marketing is/does, unable to effectively communicate what they’re doing (let along what they should be doing).

Which has the converse effect of either completely eroding a non-marketers belief in marketing or encouraging them to think they know marketing better than the marketers.

Which in this instance they probably do.

And neither of these points of view are good for the perception of marketing as a discipline.

So how do B2B CMOs change things?

Frankly, with a lot of tough graft and hard yards.

We as senior B2B marketers need to help change perceptions for the good of, and the future of, our profession as a whole from the inside.

Here’s what I think we should be doing in direct response to the unholy trinity outlined above:

• Going full “Binet & Field” on their asses.
• Reporting on what matters (to the business).
• Properly professionalising.

> Going full "Binet & Field" on their asses

Any marketer worth their salt understands the power of brand and the need to balance the long and short of things. Swathes of evidence, case studies, and data back this up.

So, make use of it to prove, prove, and prove again that short-termism and lead-gen focused approaches actually do more harm than good to the long-term growth of an organisation.

If stakeholders start to go ‘evidence blind’ though there’s a really simple thought experiment you can run that will help them see the need for a longer term approach.

Here’s the thought experiment set up:

• Your addressable market consists of 100 companies each with £1m to spend on exactly what you do. (We like nice round numbers)
• Only 5% of the market are buying right now, of those buying 80% already have a short list of 2-3 vendors, and 80% of the time a shortlisted vendor wins the business.

So, if you focus on a short term “ lead gen” approach the potential revenue up for grabs is only £5m (those 5 organisations in market). However, you have low brand recognition (because you’ve not invested in brand marketing) meaning you are on 0 shortlists, which means there’s only really £1m up for grabs.

Also you have 9 direct competitors all fighting for this same £1m so your realistic revenue projection is actually £0.1m.

If you do happen to win that deal, great. You look like a legend. But you then have to do everything all over again next quarter. And the quarter after that. And and and…

However, if you flip thinking to be longer term and more brand focused here’s how things play out:

You focus on those buyers who aren’t in market right now but will be at some point in the future. That means potential revenue is £95m. You also have high brand recognition which means you’ll be on the shortlist of 76 of these organisations, with a potential revenue projection of £76m.

Now obviously you’re not going to win EVERY deal that comes along, but if you’re 1 of 3 on those shortlists it’s realistic to envisage c. £25m revenue coming in. And because you’ve invested in brand those deals will come to you, close quicker, and renew more easily with your brand compounding over time too.

So, the thought experiment question becomes:

“Would you rather have a 1 in 10 shot at £1m now, or a 1 in 3 shot at £76m+ over time?”

There’s only one correct answer here (and it’s the one that proves the power of brand marketing in clear, financial terms).

> Reporting on what matters (to the business)

Chuck the waffle, and bluster – that’s used to justify the “doing” of marketing – in the bin especially when it comes to talking about marketing to the wider business.

Decision makers and stakeholders don’t understand it, don’t care about it, and don’t want to hear it.

Focus instead on what the business actually cares about – buyers, deals, and ROI.

Sure, it can be tricky to directly relate what marketing is doing to actual revenue, but it should be fairly easily with minimal amounts of tech and common sense to provide a view on:

• Buying audience size, growth, and growth rate
• Direct engagement with and influence of this audience (over time)
• Marketing generated and/or influenced pipeline

All of these will be directly connected to bottom line revenue and will demonstrate the active contribution marketing is making to driving this.

Doing this will also help you gain deeper, more meaningful insights into these buyers. Which will enable you to much more easily identify trends and patterns in buyer and market behaviour, and therefore spot opportunities to exploit before any one else.

You know, providing a view on the market!

> Properly Professionalising

‘Good enough’ is not good enough.

This isn’t just about paying top whack for the most experienced marketers you can find. I’ve met some very highly-paid marketers who couldn’t market their way out of a wet paper bag.

It’s also not about engaging in a race to the bottom and paying as little as possible for someone to do ALL the marketing for you.

It’s about working with, for and alongside marketers who get what marketing is and should be.

Seek out skilled, experienced (or at least enthusiastic), strategic marketers that will help you fight the good fight

If your marketing team aren’t trained, train them (and maybe even yourself?).

Ritson has been on the war path lately around the lack of training of marketers (and sure he has an ulterior motive in trying to get people signed up to his Mini-MBA) but how can you expect anyone to be good at a job if they don’t understand the tried, tested and proven fundamentals of the profession?

If we want to improve the perception of marketing we need to improve the capability of the marketers. End of.

Marketing the marketing

Now I know we’re not going to solve anything via a single blog post.

But if this can act as a small call to arms or just a reassurance that you’re not in this alone then we’re on the right path.

LET’S GO!

Let’s properly market the marketing

(so we don’t have to keep on doing it in the future!)