How To End The CMO Revolving-Door Syndrome

	Gary M. Katz Founder & Chief Strategy Officer Marketing Operations Partners
	Glen S. Petersen Founder GSP & Associates

North American management has a history of popularizing new concepts and then demonizing them with the same energy when they appear to not deliver the spectacular results originally promised. The chief marketing officer is becoming a poster child for this phenomenon and is in danger of becoming more road kill on the highway of discarded management ideas. In fact, Verizon recently eliminated its companywide CMO position, claiming that the restructuring aims to move marketing execution closer to customer-facing operations.

There is a pattern involved here, one that must be broken to achieve the benefit that originally spawned the CMO idea. The revolving-door phenomenon exacts an enormous price on the organization in terms of:

• the cost of hiring and firing;
• the cost of productivity lost by changes in leadership;
• the cost of staff turnover associated with changes in focus;
• continued deterioration of one’s competitive position;
• waste of marketing resources that are misdirected;
• loss of credibility for the CMO position no matter who is hired;
• erosion of company brand due to the revolving door; and
• a short-term orientation that prevents sustainable, longer-term marketing initiatives, such as competency development and aligning marketing to enterprise strategic objectives, from getting needed attention.

The first step to breaking the pattern is to recognize that a CMO is not a rock star or a senior vice president of marketing with a fancy new hat. The CMO is a partner with the CEO in terms of the creation and execution of strategy. This position is critical because the market, media, and customer environments are becoming too complex; CEOs and their boards need insight and ideas that pertain to business models, not just brands. The reality is that most marketing executives have not pursued a career path that qualifies for this role.

On the other side of the spectrum, CFOs are concerned about the economic value of marketing spend. The irony of these twin needs is that it suggests the CMO is bipolar and can simultaneously deal with macro and micro issues (assuming the knowledge to do both). To accomplish both objectives, the CMO needs a chief of staff similar to the role one often finds within sales in a sales operations position. In this manner, both needs are served without dilution of focus.

Thus, to end the revolving door:

• The strategic purpose of the position must be recognized and serve as a basis for hiring.
• A CMO charter document must be created and serve as a source for setting expectations.
• The CMO must be supported by a chief of staff representing marketing operations to complete the balance required for the position.

Background
It can be argued that the CMO position was spawned back in the 1970s when high-profile marketers created high-impact campaigns for the consumer goods industry. Their success made them virtual rock stars, and they were given the mantle of CMO. Unfortunately, these individuals tended to move on to the challenge of the next company. This phenomenon has a counterpart in the annals of CEOs, where individuals have turned companies around and achieved similar rock star status. Despite the recognition that this single-handed turnaround is a rare occurrence and can be a liability, there remains in everyone a yearning for the miraculous solution.

In the latter portion of the 1990s and early years of 2000, there appeared what could be described as the perfect storm in marketing:

• CRM was birthed with the promise of better management of the customer experience.
• The Internet matured and offered new distribution options and empowered the customer with access to unparalleled sources of product, price, and company information.
• Cable TV offered consumers the ability to choose channels based on their interests and, in some cases, commercial-free.
• The Internet became a source of entertainment.

With the collapse of the tech bubble, organizations needed to retrench, and there was (and still is) a desire to better understand the return on marketing investment. This desire is manifest in establishing a ROI for the marketing spend. This pressure has only increased with the evolution of social networks, the complexity of consumer and industrial purchasing processes, and the most turbulent economic climate many of us have seen during our lifetimes.

To unravel all of this complexity and to chart an appropriate course, senior management is seeking leadership in the form of a CMO. Unfortunately, the landscape is filled with hype in every direction, and this complicates defining the role -- much less setting reasonable expectations.

Next: Do we really need a CMO?