The Real Reason CMOs Don’t Last
Most postmortems on CMO tenure are aimed at the wrong target. Boards point to budget pressure, marketing points back at boards, and AI gets credited for squeezing line items that used to be untouchable.
The numbers back up the churn, if not the explanation. According to Forrester, the average CMO tenure is now just 3.9 years, down from 4.1 the year before. And just over half, or 58%, Fortune 500 companies have a marketing executive reporting directly to the CEO down from 63% the year prior.
None of this explains why marketing leadership has churned for well over a decade, in good budget years and bad. CMO’s who don’t make it past year three aren’t the anomaly, they’re the norm.
Want more from The CMO?
Sign up for a free membership to complete reading this article:
Have an account? Log In
The real failure happens earlier, inside a hiring process that rewards growth, category fluency, and board presence. But fails to test whether the CEO and the CMO align on what good looks like. This is the gap nobody screens for, and it's the one deciding who survives the role.
The Sensibility Gap
Jay Livingston, spent six and a half years as CMO of Shake Shack after building the role at Barkbox. He has a theory that doesn't show up in the usual postmortems.
A CEO doesn't need to share a worldview with the CFO, because the numbers either work or they don't. But a CMO is a different kind of hire.
"If the Head of Marketing and the CEO of the company walk through the world and look at everything and say, 'Wow, that's terrible,' where the one says, 'That's fantastic'... it's probably not going to go well," Livingston says.
This gap doesn't resolve itself, it compounds. It's where a CMO ends up defending instincts to a boss who simply doesn’t see things the same way.
Companies rarely test for this. They seek a candidate who has proven outcomes somewhere else. They also look for category fluency, which, can demonstrate proficiency, but can also highlight a line of thinking that leans into repetition over imagination. And, ofen leaders want to see a growth story that reads well in a board deck.
"This is a relationship that I think often gets overlooked," Livingston says.
What teams need to consider is whether the CEO and the prospective CMO share a similar line of thinking. Or, whether they'd point at the same competitor's campaign and have the same reaction. And also, whether their sense of what's tasteful or sharp or worth doing lines up before either of them signs anything.
What Holds a Brand Together
Mike Slatkin has watched this play out from the agency side and the in-house side. He's the Chief Strategy Officer and CMO at RYTChain. His read on why some brands hold their shape under new marketing leadership while others don't comes down to something specific.
Whether there's a founder or CEO still entrenched enough in the business to function as a kind of gravity for the brand. As Slatkin puts it, new leadership tends to revisit the core tenets of the brand.
Unless you have a founder or CEO that's been entrenched and wants to participate in that type of work, the institutional sort of reverence for the brand... doesn't really exist.
When you have someone genuinely invested in what the brand stands for, a new CMO has something real to align to, push against, and build with.
But when that person isn't there, or has checked out of the brand's identity in favor of pure operating metrics, marketing leadership cycles through fast.
And it's not because any individual CMO failed. But, because there was nothing stable underneath them for them to align with in the first place. As Slatkin notes, "the famously short CMO tenures, there is often a connection there."
It tracks with the broader retreat of marketing from the room where that gravity would even register. Fewer CMOs now sit close enough to the CEO to test for fit at all, let alone find it.
The challenge is when a CMO is hired into a vacuum. They'll come into a place where leadership wants "a new direction" without being able to say what direction they want. This leads to CMOs being set up to fail before they have any real runway.
Sure, they'll deliver competent work, but it will get questioned anyway. And, not on its merits but on suspicion that something is off. Ultimately, when direction isn't aligned in the first place, the CMO is up against unsurmountable odds.
Alignment, Not Agreement
None of this means a CEO and a CMO need to agree on everything. Livingston is careful about that distinction.
It doesn't mean you don't want a place where you can push back on each other, but you kind of have to have a sense of... we think the same, we find beauty in the same things.
What it requires is a shared sense of what good looks like underneath the disagreement, so the pushback lands as collaboration instead of confusion. Two people can fight hard about execution and still align on what they're building toward. But the same leaders can agree on every tactic and still end the relationship wondering what went wrong.
The stakes on this are only going up. AI is compressing timelines, how fast budgets are shifting, and how quickly a CMO needs to prove themselves. Leading to there being less time to discover misalignment that erodes brand, morale, and leadership trust.
What to Ask Before You Sign
Sensibility fit isn't something either side can take a leap of faith on, and it isn't something a reference check will be able to surface either. Ingredients and temperature has to be right for a recipe to pan out, CMO-CEO alignment needs the right chemistry to work.
For CMOs evaluating a role, this means a different kind of due diligence than the one most candidates run. Past growth numbers and category fit are table stakes. The tough question is what the CEO actually finds compelling, distasteful, embarrassing, exciting, and whether those reactions track with your own.
Getting a read might be as simple as asking the CEO to walk you through a campaign, a competitor's launch, or a brand moment they found genuinely sharp. In tandem, ask which one they found embarrassing and what they'd do differently in your shoes. Listen for whether their reasons track with yours or demonstrate a wholly different perspective.
Ask what they argued about with the last person in this seat, not whether there was conflict, but what the conflict was actually about. If the answer is tactics and timelines, that's a healthy relationship working through normal friction. If the answer circles back to taste, something neither side could quite name, that's the pattern repeating.
For boards and CEOs doing the hiring, the same logic runs in reverse. Ask candidates to react, on the spot, to a real piece of work the company has shipped. Their unfiltered read, before they've had time to calibrate the answer to what they think you want to hear, says more than any case study in their portfolio. Treat that reaction as a real evaluation criterion, not a soft afterthought to a resume that already checks every box.
More Articles
The Question Nobody Asks
Ask a CEO what they looked for in their last CMO hire. You're likely to hear about growth numbers, category fluency, pipeline, and executive presence.
Find out where the friction points were with that person in the first six months. You'll discover the answer is usually some version of taste.
Likely, it'll show up as a campaign one of them loved and the other found embarrassing. Or as a brand decision that felt obvious to one person and baffling to the other.
Nobody put that disagreement in the job description, or to screen for it.
If you're wondering why the relationship with your CEO feels harder than the job should be, ask what good looks like. Whether you agree will shape the next three years, for better or worse.
What's Next?
Sign up for a free account on The CMO Club for insights on marketing and leadership straight to your inbox.
