Marketing as Business Unit: CEO Guide to Growth Architecture

Stop marketing & start running the business

I've never worked directly with a P&G or Unilever marketer, but I wish I had. Because watching how B2B marketing leaders struggle with capital allocation conversations has made me realize we might be thinking about marketing investment entirely wrong.

Most B2B marketing directors I've worked with are operationally excellent—they can optimize campaigns, manage complex funnels, and hit quarterly targets. But ask them to articulate how marketing decisions should be evaluated as growth capital deployment across a product portfolio? The conversation gets uncomfortable fast.

Meanwhile, CPG marketers spend their entire careers managing products like independent businesses. They're trained from day one to think about capital allocation, margin optimization, and portfolio management because that's what the role requires. They don't just run campaigns—they run businesses.

This isn't about switching industries or completely rebuilding marketing teams. It's about recognizing that the most efficient growth capital allocation requires thinking that most B2B marketing teams were never trained to do.

Marketing isn't a budgeted cost, it's a capital allocation function

The fundamental issue isn't that marketing teams lack capability—it's that they've been structured to optimize for campaign efficiency instead of business outcomes. Most B2B marketers have been promoted through roles that rewarded lead generation and conversion optimization, not the kind of strategic thinking that drives systematic competitive advantages.

But here's what I've learned: treating marketing like a cost center rather than a capital allocation function leaves massive value on the table. The companies building sustainable competitive positions aren't just "optimizing the funnel"—they're deploying growth capital across time horizons to maximize enterprise value.

The job isn't to justify marketing spend—it's to demonstrate how marginal capital deployment creates margin expansion, customer lifetime value improvement, and market position strengthening. That requires thinking like a portfolio manager, not a campaign optimizer.

But most B2B marketing teams weren't trained for portfolio management. They need the tools, authority, and analytical frameworks to make that transition.

The CPG lesson: Portfolio management as competitive advantage

When I took Mark Ritson's MiniMBA, the gap became obvious. In the P&G model, brand managers are general managers. They live or die by P&L performance. They own pricing strategy, market positioning, competitive defense, and profitability—not just creative direction and campaign execution.

This orientation creates real accountability. Investment decisions tie directly to business outcomes. Positioning must withstand competitive pressure. Brand development is evaluated for its contribution to long-term cash flow, not just short-term pipeline generation.

That's the mindset mid-market B2B companies need to develop. Not because CPG marketing is inherently superior, but because CPG marketers are trained to think about capital allocation from day one. They understand that different products require different investment strategies, different time horizons, and different success metrics.

The opportunity for B2B companies isn't just adopting CPG frameworks—it's developing the analytical capabilities and decision-making authority that make portfolio management possible.

Product Marketing as business unit management

Product marketing holds the key to this transformation. Right now, most product marketers manage messaging, competitive intelligence, and sales enablement. Essentially, they're sophisticated communications coordinators.

But the highest-performing organizations I've seen give product marketers real business authority:

• Pricing and packaging strategy with direct margin impact
• Customer segmentation and economics modeling that drives investment allocation
• Competitive positioning and defensive strategies that protect market share
• Product lifecycle management that optimizes capital deployment over time
• Channel economics and route-to-market decisions that affect customer acquisition costs

The difference isn't just responsibility—it's authority. Instead of "recommending" pricing changes, they implement them. Instead of "supporting" product strategy, they co-own it with direct P&L accountability.

This requires analytical capabilities most product marketers don't currently have. Understanding unit economics, customer lifetime value modeling, and margin analysis isn't intuitive for people trained in campaign optimization. But it's learnable—especially with the right support systems.

Sales activation vs. brand development: Different capital, different returns

One area where capital gets misallocated—repeatedly—is in the over-weighting of short-term response activity and the under-weighting of brand development. Many organizations still operate under the assumption that marketers can "generate demand." But that misunderstands what marketing actually influences.

Marketers don’t create economic demand—that’s shaped by structural forces: category maturity, price accessibility, regulatory shifts, or broader economic need. What marketers do influence is how their brand is remembered, by whom, and under what conditions—so that when a buying situation emerges, they’re in the mental shortlist.

What often gets labeled “demand generation” is really brand development. It’s the process of building memory structures and distinctiveness that pay off later—when the buyer is finally in market. What gets called “demand capture” is better understood as sales activation—a form of direct response aimed at converting existing intent. It’s necessary, measurable, and efficient—but replicable by competitors.

So we don’t need to eliminate performance media. But we do need to reframe the capital strategy: treat sales activation as a short-term harvesting mechanism, and brand development as a long-term compounding asset. The risk and return profile is different, and so is the time horizon.

Sales Activation (0–3 months): Capture existing intent via direct response. High-certainty returns, easily measurable, but no lasting competitive advantage.
Brand Development (12+ months): Build mental availability and preference within existing or emerging demand. Harder to measure, but enables price elasticity, future CAC efficiency, and defensibility.

The organizations allocating capital well aren’t choosing one over the other. They’re managing both as interdependent growth levers—each with their own cadence, signal, and strategic purpose.

What capital allocation looks like in practice

Effective marketing capital allocation requires treating different investments like different asset classes:

This isn't just theory—it's how to align marketing strategy with enterprise value creation. Different investments require different measurement frameworks, different approval processes, and different success criteria.

The CMO's job becomes portfolio management: deciding which products get defensive investment (protect market share), which get offensive investment (build new positions), and which get structural investment (create switching costs or competitive moats).

Authority and capability requirements

Making this transition requires more than new frameworks—it requires new capabilities and organizational authority.

First, marketing teams need analytical support they probably don't have. Consider embedding FP&A resources directly into marketing to build financial modeling capabilities rather than expecting marketers to develop them independently.

Second, they need decision-making authority that matches their expanded responsibility. If product marketers are going to manage product lines like businesses, they need direct collaboration with product and sales teams—not just "input" or "recommendations."

Third, they need measurement systems that reward long-term value creation. If marketing success is still evaluated based on quarterly metrics, you'll get quarterly thinking. Strategic marketing requires investment in measurement frameworks that capture competitive positioning over time.

Most importantly, they need leadership support during the capability development process. Moving from tactical execution to strategic capital allocation means some short-term performance trade-offs while new skills develop.

The Conversation with Your CMO

The question isn't whether your marketing team has strategic potential—it's whether they have the tools and authority to realize it.

Start with capability assessment: Does your CMO think in capital allocation terms, or campaign optimization terms? Do your product marketers understand unit economics and customer lifetime value, or just competitive messaging and sales enablement?

Then consider the investment required. Strategic marketing capabilities are developed through deliberate organizational support, not just training programs. That might mean financial analytical resources. It might mean expanded decision-making authority. It almost certainly means longer measurement windows and different success metrics.

The conversation should focus on capability development: "What do you need to think more like a portfolio manager and less like a campaign optimizer?" "How do we give you the analytical tools to make capital allocation decisions?" "What authority do you need to manage product lines like businesses?"

The companies building systematic competitive advantages through marketing aren't just getting lucky with talent. They're making deliberate investments in developing strategic capabilities that most B2B marketing teams were never trained to have.

Your marketing team probably has more potential than your current organizational structure allows them to demonstrate. The question is whether you're willing to invest in developing that potential into strategic capability.