"Stroll through the C-suite at many companies, and it's an easy bet which executive is a dead man (or woman) walking: the chief marketing officer. CMOs have lasted 26 months on average these days, says recruiter Spencer Stuart, vs. 44 months for CEOs. CMOs at Chico's (CHS), Home Depot (HD), MySpace (NWS), and Rite Aid (RAD) all left their posts after short tenures" said Business Week a few years ago. WHY? Why is it that the chief marketing guy is at the cross hairs too often? Having been in leading marketing roles of high technology companies, I have seen my share of guts, glory and blood shed in the job.
Fundamentally, marketing a product or a company requires understanding the customers and a gut on the direction of the market. A marketing chief of any company is often required to present a detailed and convincing business case showing potential revenues and profits for 5 years from start of production or sometimes 5 years from start of program. Nonetheless, in a market and a customer base where end consumer needs & wants are altered every year or even every few months, it is absolutely impossible to defend a return on investment (ROI) for the next 5 years. With shifting sands underneath, no one, in all honesty, has a clue about the next year. Even worse, in a semiconductor company, where the design cycle of the product takes over 2 years and $20 Million, there is no way for a marketing guy to even alter the features and functions of a product once the product is deep in the design process and the success is determined a few more years later when the customer is in production. In such markets with a long design cycle, long customer engagement cycles and lack of options to test the waters on a regular basis during development process, there is a high likelihood of the product not meeting the exact needs/requirements of the future market.
Since most people in a company tend to have an opinion on the direction of the company or a product, the marketing chief whose job it is to define a strategy for the unknowns in the future has every person around him/her second guessing them and looking over their shoulders. Few have any opinions on their counterparts in finance, operations or engineering. In addition, with most marketing strategies including branding being a long term process, it is only a matter of time for the financial markets looking for quarterly and monthly improvements to lay the blame on the chief marketer.
In my short experience of 20 years in the high technology industry, it is definitely better to be the CEO, CFO, CIO or any other CXO except CMO unless the CEO has been in a chief marketing role to understand the complications involved or has the guts to shield CMO from short term complaints from everyone around them in the interest of the long term future of the company. Believe me, every marketing chief requires lots of guts to serve in a position with little glory and lots of blood shed. Now, tell me why anyone would seek a leading marketing job? Genuine interest to change the world? This ain't a job for the faint hearted for sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
it seems like this fragile nature of the CMO is happening in other industries too...and that is the uncertain part - now whether CMO's need to to dropped or fired or whether CMO's need to learn and adapt and move on is another matter altogether....two sides to this coin eh - Another reason could be CMO's are sometimes confused ( by both the company and the employee) with being the PR / PITCH Person in the companies - if you hire for pitching - then the person is out after the season is over is over - at sale in the bargain - since the new black is in - because you don't need to the same PITCH again - right??!! So there is folly on the employers too...but either way it CMO or media or marketing is a risky proposition with half the world of sensible adults on FB posting pictures of their navel fuzz and their pet skinny cat and ignoring the main purpose of communicating!
Post a Comment