I differentiate marketing services from marketing as a business function. The former, can be called little M marketing and the later big M marketing.
Marketing services can be strategic and include communications, demand generation, sales tools and training, and all the functions supporting strategic decisions such as market research, competitive analysis and customer analysis.
Marketing becomes a true business function when it goes beyond providing services to the other business functions and actually leads those functions by integrating its services into business plans. One could argue that the line between marketing services and marketing as a business function is blurry or that big M vs. little M is all semantics. However, the reality comes down to leadership and ownership.
The CMO may only have authority over marketing staff but like the CEO, they have responsibility for the whole organization. This is not true with the sales, engineering and finance functions. It is true for HR but let’s put that aside for a moment.
Big M marketing is the business strategy (versus business plan) and the go-to-market plan. It can be lead by the CEO, CFO, COO, GM, strong VP of Sales, strong VP of Products or by the whole management team in collaboration. Or it can be led by the CMO. A strong CMO in collaboration with the CEO or CTO (who own the vision) can create an executable business strategy to enable the other functions (including marketing) to help turn the strategy into a business plan.
This is what the business expects from a CMO or marketing whether it is stated or not. When the CMO or marketing does not provide big M marketing, the other functions move to fill that void and become stretched to fulfill their strategic roles. This is so common in technology companies that ‘marketing’ has come mean marketing services.
Anyone who has spent time in the consumer products industries understands the true role and importance of big M marketing. Consumer companies realize that sales, engineering and finance all are a part of marketing and need a marketing orientation (or organization) within those functions.
This is important because it gets directly at bridging the vision of ‘becoming a market-led vs. product-led’ company. As I’ve stated in other posts, a vision can only be realized through EXECUTABLE strategy. If a technology company does not have a CMO or marketing function strong enough to create an executable business strategy that accounts for the sales, engineering and financial realities, it is doomed to being technology-led.
Start-ups typically understand the market opportunity deeply often through years of personal experience with coping with the technology or product void. By filling this void, they are able to grow to a certain point based on the market size and business execution. For companies that reached saturation or maturity in their original business but seek to grow beyond that, the business of transformation becomes the challenge.
This is where the complexity of market choices and the lack of ‘new’ market knowledge limits the company’s ability to become market-led. The difference between finding markets for products and developing products for markets should not be underestimated. It is a fundamental difference that is reflected in both mindsets and development and planning processes.
So how can a technology company with lean marketing resources and a management team that has experienced success with a product-led strategy transform into a market-led business? Beats me—I’m two for five in that endeavor.
OK there is hope. It’s not rocket science but it does require two things. First is a commitment (not a willingness) from the BOD and CEO to drive that change at the real cost of necessary investment. By the ‘real cost of necessary investment’, I mean new management team members, new sales people, new business development, new marketing and of course new product development PLUS the impact on the existing business PLUS the cost of optimizing the existing business to free up resources. The full cost is rarely taken into account up front and most often results in failed attempts to build the new business.
The second requirement is that an ‘external’ marketing ‘force’ be given the power and time to lead the transformation initiative. In a way, this is the mirror reflection of the investment commitment because those investments will not and cannot be made without the growth and value creation side of the equation.
While this may sound a bit ‘chicken or egg’, it is fairly easy to spot an ‘external marketing force’ with a clear and achievable mandate. It’s sort of like pornography, you know when you see it. By ‘marketing force’, I mean a leader or organization that has the transformation process down to an executable science. Transformation involves multiple functions, multiple sub-functions, orchestration and deep experience with applying the right mix (not just marketing mix or 4Ps but business mix) to the various stages of corporate change.
With the right transformational leadership empowered, the company WILL transform and most likely succeed in both growth and enterprise value creation.
Costing out the full business plan against its returns over time is intellectually complex or difficult. It is a well understood process (by some) with very well understood sub-processes (by many). However it requires commitment, experience and time. Short change any one of these and the company is doomed to failed (read un-executable) strategic plan.