How Boards Decide Whether Marketing Is Working (Even When Revenue Lags)
Most boards cannot tell whether marketing is working, only whether they feel comfortable with it.
The problem is structural. Intangible assets account for 85% of S&P 500 value, yet boards evaluate them 30-60% less rigorously than tangible functions. When uncertainty rises, 65% of boards make decisions based on comfort rather than evidence. The result is predictable. Well-developed initiatives get killed. Momentum stalls. Market windows close. Not because marketing failed, but because the board lacked a framework to evaluate it properly.
This is a governance problem that costs shareholders real money.
A Framework Boards Can Actually Use
The core question is not whether marketing feels right. It is whether marketing is solving an agreed business problem with clear accountability and measurable signals that exist before revenue appears.
Five diagnostics separate functional marketing from expensive activity.
Clarity
Is marketing solving a specific, agreed business problem? Not "build awareness" or "drive engagement", but something concrete that connects to enterprise value. Pricing power. Market share. Customer acquisition cost. If the board cannot state the problem marketing is solving in one sentence, the function is ungoverned.
The test is simple. Ask the CMO what problem marketing is solving. If the answer requires context-setting, background, or multiple slides, clarity does not exist. The problem should be obvious. We are losing pricing power to competitors. Customer acquisition cost is rising faster than lifetime value. Market share has declined for three consecutive quarters.
Boards that understand marketing ask fewer, better questions. Boards that do not often overreach, micromanage, and unintentionally create failure. The literacy gap shows up immediately. A strong CEO shapes the board rather than being shaped by it. That creates space for marketing to operate. Without it, marketing burns energy without direction.
Research shows 51% of boards fail reasonable governance standards, particularly in reviewing marketing performance. The gap is not talent. It is frameworks. When directors lack functional expertise, they compensate by demanding more reporting, more detail, more justification. This creates the appearance of oversight without the substance. Marketing becomes busy defending itself rather than solving business problems.
Ownership
Who is accountable for outcomes, not activity? Many boards receive reports on campaign launches, social impressions, or marketing qualified leads. These are busy-ness metrics. They do not answer whether marketing is working.
High-performing functions show 29% revenue growth versus 19% for activity-driven ones. The difference is ownership structure. If marketing aligns with how the CFO thinks, the CFO becomes a champion. That changes everything. Only 34% of boards have clear marketing KPIs. The remaining 66% use activity metrics that disconnect effort from enterprise outcomes.
The relationship between CMO and CFO determines whether marketing is treated as strategic capital allocation or discretionary expense. Where that relationship breaks, marketing either stalls or becomes ungoverned.
Signal
What indicators matter before revenue shows up? Revenue is a lagging outcome of decisions made months or years earlier. Boards evaluating quarterly revenue alone are flying blind.
Leading indicators that predict growth include concurrent website users, email list growth from strangers rather than existing networks, and press comparisons to established competitors. These signal demand, relevance, and market intrigue before cash appears in accounts.
If you have 100 people on your site at any point in the day, something is happening. The first thousand email subscribers matter more than the next ten thousand, provided they are strangers from outside the immediate network, not friends and family.
When journalists compare a startup to an incumbent, the market is granting permission to compete. That permission translates to customer consideration, which translates to revenue months later.
Extra share of voice is definitive. A brand maintaining a 10-point advantage in share of voice over share of market can anticipate yearly market share growth of approximately 1.5 points.
By the time the board cycle catches up, the moment has often passed. Trends now move in days, not quarters.
Decision Cadence
How often are decisions made or avoided? The typical board meets eight times yearly. Marketing compounds over quarters, sometimes years. The mismatch is structural, not tactical.
When boards operate quarterly, they consistently see activation outperform brand building. This creates a short-term trap where they cut the very activity that drives long-term profitability. Threat rigidity accelerates the problem. Under pressure, boards narrow focus, become less flexible, and overvalue proposals that fit established patterns, primarily cost-cutting.
80% of directors felt their board was overly focused on tactical details in 2024. This tactical focus drives marketing short-termism where CMOs are pressured to deliver immediate results at the expense of long-term brand health.
If a board cannot step back from quarterly cycles to evaluate momentum over six-month periods, it is not being cautious. It is governing blind.
Risk Exposure
What happens if nothing changes for six months? The real cost is loss of momentum. Momentum is incredibly hard to restart.
Marketing underinvestment causes 16-36% market share loss over 1-3 years. Brand decay accelerates after six months, with 25% value erosion in the first year. Getting momentum moving requires enormous effort. Once moving, it demands constant energy. Slow it down, and restarting is expensive and slow.
In today's pay-to-play environment, hesitation is particularly damaging. Audiences move fast. Platforms reward speed. Opportunities appear and disappear within weeks. If you are not early, you are late. If you are late, you are paying more for less impact.
Three States of Marketing Performance
Most content never clearly separates what working marketing looks like from what failing marketing looks like. This creates the governance gap. Boards cannot diagnose their situation, so they default to comfort.
Three states exist. Each has distinct signals.
State 1: Marketing is working but early
This is the most dangerous moment for boards. Activity is accelerating. Signals are positive. Revenue has not yet appeared.
Concurrent website users above 100 at any point in the day indicate something is happening. Email list growth from strangers, not friends and family, matters deeply. Press comparisons to established players signal market relevance.
These are all signals that something is working before revenue shows up.
37% of B2B marketing impact appears in the first quarter. 50% takes six months or longer. Brands maintaining marketing during revenue lag recover market share twice as fast as those that cut spend.
Fear of spending money and not immediately making money kills well-developed tactical initiatives. The marketing team has done the work. Guardrails are there. Investment is sensibly structured. But fear steps in.
Everyone wants step-change growth. Very few are willing to fund the fuel required to create it. If you are not prepared to invest in that fuel, then by definition you are choosing incrementalism.
State 2: Marketing is busy but ungoverned
High activity, unclear outcomes, no ownership structure.
This state is characterised by campaign launches, content shipping, and social media momentum with no clear connection to revenue contribution. The team is working hard. Deliverables are produced on schedule. Yet revenue growth stalls and no one can explain what should happen next.
The diagnostic is straightforward. Ask the marketing team what happens if they stop all activity tomorrow. If the answer is "nothing immediately changes", the function is ungoverned. Marketing should create momentum that compounds. When it does not, something structural is broken.
Typically, the break appears in one of three places. First, marketing is organised by channel rather than outcome. The social media manager optimises impressions. The email manager optimises open rates. The content manager optimises readership. No one owns revenue contribution. Second, the CMO lacks authority to make decisions or allocate budget. Everything requires approval, consensus, or escalation. Third, marketing does not align with how the CFO thinks about the business.
That third point determines everything. If marketing aligns with how the CFO thinks, the CFO becomes a champion. If it does not, marketing remains a cost to be managed rather than capital to be allocated.
66% of boards use activity metrics versus 34% with clear outcome KPIs. The performance premium is significant. High-performing functions show 29% revenue growth versus 19% for others. The difference is governance structure, not talent.
The cost is invisible until it compounds. Misdirected spend consumes 35% of budgets. Paralysis costs 20-30% more than targeted spend during downturns. Marketing becomes expensive coordination rather than strategic function. Teams work harder while producing less enterprise value. The board sees busy-ness and assumes competence. Revenue tells a different story.
State 3: Marketing is structurally failing
Not tactical failure. Governance failure.
This state appears when boards lack marketing literacy and either overreach into operations or withdraw oversight entirely. Both create structural failure.
Nike over-indexed on short-term performance marketing and direct-to-consumer channels under its previous CEO. The brand lost innovation and differentiation. Business declined. The current CEO has been forced to shift investment back to brand marketing to safeguard USD 29.4 billion in brand value.
Adidas followed a similar pattern, actively reducing dependence on short-term performance campaigns to safeguard brand equity.
The pattern is consistent. Loss of pricing power. Rising customer acquisition cost. Market share erosion of 16-36% over 1-3 years. Fragmented portfolio creating stakeholder confusion and high equity-building costs.
Leadership structure determines outcome. A strong CEO who shapes the board rather than being shaped by it creates space for marketing to operate. Trust, clarity of decision rights, and honest assessment of risk appetite separate working from failing.
Where those are absent, marketing either stalls or burns energy without direction.
Why Revenue Is A Lagging Indicator
Revenue lag is mechanical, not optional.
At any given moment, only 5% of potential buyers are in-market for a specific product or service. The other 95% are out-of-market and will not buy for months or years. Marketing's primary role for the 95% is creating mental availability, the probability the brand will be recalled first when the buyer eventually enters the market.
Boards demanding immediate revenue from all marketing investments force the team to over-invest in the 5% already buying while ignoring the 95% representing future growth. Six months later, revenue stalls because no one invested in creating demand among the 95% who were not yet ready to buy. This is not marketing failure. This is board failure.
The delay between marketing investment and revenue impact varies by sector but is never immediate. B2B sectors show 6-12 month revenue lag. Sports sponsorship runs 12-24 months. Premium consumer averages 6-12 months. Financial services extends to 9-15 months. Only 37% of revenue impact appears within a single quarter.
The 60:40 rule between brand building and sales activation reflects this temporal reality. Brand building creates emotional bonds that reduce price sensitivity. Activation drives short-term ROI. The crossover point occurs at six months. Boards evaluating quarterly will consistently see activation outperforming brand, leading them to cut brand investment during the modest impact phase, just before exponential returns materialise.
Brand decay is non-linear. Once a brand drops below a certain salience threshold, the cost to recover increases exponentially. Regaining lost market share requires investment of £1.85 for every pound saved through cutting. Brands maintaining marketing during downturns recover market share 2.5 times faster than competitors who cut back.
This is why short-term thinking compounds into long-term value destruction. The board meets eight times a year. Marketing compounds over quarters, sometimes years. The mismatch is structural. This is why comfort wins over evidence.
The Gap Fractional Leadership Is Supposed To Fill
Boards increasingly face a specific problem. Marketing activity feels busy but unproductive. Campaigns launch. Content ships. Revenue growth stalls. No one can clearly explain what should happen next.
The dividing line between success and failure is governance design.
Transparency matters. Open the books. Without full visibility, diagnosing problems and building credible roadmaps is impossible. A fractional CMO is not a part-time marketer or agency replacement. The role must sit above channels and tools to own marketing as a system. When they lack this authority, the engagement collapses into expensive coordination.
60-70% of fractional engagements fail when scope is misaligned. The failure is not talent. It is boards hiring for experience but denying the authority required to drive change.
This is the gap fractional marketing leadership is supposed to fill. Most models do not. That is why boards stay uneasy.
Need help implementing these strategies?
With 15 years scaling global sports and entertainment properties, I now work as a fractional CMO UK helping brands turn marketing into measurable commercial results. Whether you need diagnostic strategy, urgent launch leadership or ongoing fractional CMO support, I embed with your team to deliver results.
Flexible engagement models from day rates to retained partnerships.
