• by Pat LaPointe , Op-Ed Contributor, March 3, 2010

When responsibility for selecting critical marketing metrics gets delegated by the CMO to one of his or her direct reports (or even an indirect report once- or twice-removed), it sets off a series of unfortunate events reminiscent of Lemony Snicket in the boardroom.

First of all, the fundamental orientation for the process starts on an "inside/out" track. Middle managers tend to have a propensity to view the role of marketing with a bias favoring their personal domain of expertise or responsibility. It's just natural. Sure, you can counterbalance by naming a team of managers who will supposedly neutralize each others' biases, but the result is often a recommendation derived primarily through compromise, by peers whose first consideration is often a need to maintain good working relationships. Worse yet, this tactic may exacerbate the extent to which the measurement challenge is viewed as an internal marketing project, and not a cross-organizational one.

Second, delegating elevates the chances that the proposed metrics will be heavily weighted towards things that can more likely be accomplished (and measured) within the autonomy scope of the "delegatee." Intermediary metrics like awareness or leads generated are accorded greater weight because of the degree of control recommenders perceive they (or the marketing department) have over the outcome. The danger here is, of course, that these may be the very same "marketing-babble" concepts that frustrate the other members of the executive committee, undermining the perception that marketing really is adding value.

Third, when marketing measurement is delegated, reality is often a casualty. The more people who review the metrics before they are presented to the CMO, the greater the likelihood they will arrive "polished" in some more-or-less altruistic manner to slightly favor all of the good things that are going on, even if the underlying message is a disturbing one. Again, human nature.

The right role for the CMO in the process is to champion the need for an insightful, objective measurement framework, and then to engage his/her executive committee peers in framing and reviewing its evolution. Measurement of marketing begins with an understanding of the specific role of marketing within the organization. That's a big task for most CMOs to clarify, never mind hard-working folks who might not have the benefit of the broader perspective. And only someone with that vision can ruthlessly screen the proposed metrics to ensure they are focused on the key questions facing the business, not just reflecting the present perspectives or operating capabilities.

Finally, CMOs needs to be the lead agent of change, visibly and consistently reinforcing the need for rapid iteration toward the most insightful measures of effectiveness and efficiency, and promoting continual improvement. In other words, they need to take a personal stake in the measurement framework and tie themselves visibly to it, so others will more willingly accept the challenge.

There are some very competent, productive people working for the CMO who would love to take this kind of a project on and uncover all the areas for improvement -- people who can do a terrific job of building insightful, objective measurement capabilities. But the CMO who delegates too much responsibility for directing measurement risks undermining both the insight and organizational value of the outcome -- not to mention the credibility of the approach in the eyes of the key stakeholders.