Six Key Steps to Winning CFO (and CEO) Support for Increased Investment in Brand Marketing

After languishing in the shadow of performance marketing for more than two decades, B2B brand marketing is experiencing a renaissance. The number of blog articles, LinkedIn posts, and other forms of content highlighting the importance of having a strong B2B brand has increased dramatically over the past couple of years.

This growing interest in B2B brand building can be attributed to several factors. For one thing, many B2B marketers are finding that demand generation/performance marketing tactics that worked well only a few years ago have become less and less effective.

In addition, recent research studies by The B2B Institute, Bain & Company, Google, 6sense, and others have provided insights about the B2B buying process that make the value of a strong B2B brand abundantly clear.

Despite the increased attention on B2B brand building, many marketers are reporting that it's still difficult to win support from their CFO and CEO for increased investments in brand marketing programs.

In response to this challenge, several marketing pundits have published articles or guides advising marketing leaders on how to "sell" brand marketing to senior company leaders, particularly the CFO.

One of the better resources I've seen recently is "Selling brand marketing budgets to the CFO:  proof, not promises" by Wynter, a provider of B2B brand tracking and research software. This article describes five steps B2B marketing leaders should take to make their proposed brand marketing spending more likely to win support from their CFO.

Here are Wynter's five steps:

• Link brand investments to improved financial outcomes such as increased revenue, market share, and profit margin.

• Incorporate specific, quantifiable KPIs and targets in the budget proposal.

• Include competitive benchmarks whenever possible. What are your primary competitors spending on brand marketing? How does the health of your brand compare to that of your competitors?

• Make the risks of under-investing in brand explicit.

• Spell out when the proposed brand investments will produce results. In other words, provide a realistic ROI timeline that's supported by credible evidence.

I agree with these specific recommendations, but I have a couple of concerns about the section of the Wynter article that discusses "modeling brand ROI."

First, the article makes developing a credible, evidence-based quantitative model that shows the financial benefits of brand marketing appear to be simpler than it actually is.

And second, this portion of the article uses the term "brand ROI" in an overly broad way, which can make it more difficult for marketing leaders to win the support of their CFO for greater investment in brand marketing.

When You Say ROI . . . Mean ROI (The Sixth Step)

For years, many marketers have used "ROI" as a catch-all term to describe the value of a wide range of benefits produced by marketing activities, including brand marketing activities. Unfortunately, this practice has been perpetuated by marketing pundits and other industry participants who should know better.

Advocates of brand marketing forcefully argue that a strong brand produces several valuable benefits, including:

• Increased share of branded search (an indicator of brand awareness and possible purchase interest)

• Increased response and conversion rates from "performance marketing" programs

• Increased presence in "day-one consideration sets"

• Lower customer acquisition costs

• Increased market share

• Increased revenue (total revenue, not gross margin)

When some or all of these benefits are supported by credible evidence, marketing leaders should include them when discussing increased investment in brand marketing with their CFO. However, none of these benefits constitutes ROI.

Return on investment is a specific financial metric that has a well-established meaning among management and financial professionals. It's a ratio that compares the incremental financial gain from an investment (the "return") to the amount of the investment.

When marketing leaders use "ROI" to describe anything else, they can quickly lose credibility with their CFO, and probably with their CEO as well. If a marketing leader displays a fundamental misunderstanding of this basic financial metric, why should a CFO rely on any other financial estimates or projections the marketing leader provides?

The lesson here is clear:  If you're a marketing leader, you need to be careful to calculate and use financial metrics in ways that trained financial professionals (like CFOs) will see as proper. This will enhance your personal credibility with your CFO and make it more likely that he or she will support your proposed marketing plans.

Image courtesy of Limelight Leads via Flickr (CC).

Thought Leadership or Brand - Which Matters More to "Hidden Buyers"?

Edelman and LinkedIn recently published their 2025 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report, which was based on a survey of 1,934 management-level business professionals from a wide range of industries and company sizes. The survey was conducted March 17 - April 3, 2025.

The primary focus of this year's study was "hidden buyers" - people in the buying organization who influence a purchase decision even though they are not a primary user of the product or service being considered.

The 2025 report includes several survey findings for "hidden buyers" and "target buyers," defined as follows:

• Hidden Buyers - "People who . . . are a final decision-maker in group purchasing decisions and are primarily involved as a representative of a function that does not require in-depth knowledge of the specific product or service. These functions might include finance, operations, legal, compliance, procurement, and others."

• Target Buyers - "People who . . . are both a final decision-maker and are primarily involved as an expert in the service or product being offered."

Here are some of the major findings from the Edelman/LinkedIn report.

Consumption and Use of Thought Leadership

 Hidden buyers consume as much thought leadership content as target buyers. Sixty-three percent (63%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents said they spend an hour per week (on average) consuming thought leadership, compared to 64% of target buyer respondents.

Fifty-five percent (55%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents reported using thought leadership content to evaluate potential vendors, compared to 56% of target buyer respondents.

Impact on Marketing/Sales Interactions

Seventy-one percent (71%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents reported having little or no interaction with vendor sales reps. However, 95% said that strong thought leadership content made them more receptive to marketing and sales outreach from companies producing such content.

Attributes of Strong Thought Leadership

Ninety-one percent (91%) of the hidden buyer survey respondents said that a key attribute of high-quality thought leadership content is that it helps them uncover challenges, needs, or opportunities that they hadn't previously recognized.

Two Controversial Findings

The Edelman/LinkedIn report contains two somewhat controversial findings. In this study, the researchers asked participants to rate the importance of several considerations when selecting a vendor.

The following table shows the percentages of hidden buyer respondents who rated each consideration as very important or moderately important.

As this table shows, hidden buyer survey respondents rated "Vendor is the 'safest choice'" as less important than five other considerations.

The second controversial finding relates to the importance of brand. The researchers asked study participants how much they agreed or disagreed with this statement:  "In vetting vendors, if an organization produces high-quality thought leadership, it matters much less to me how well known they are." Fifty-three percent (53%) of both hidden buyer and target buyer survey respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with this statement.

The Alternative View

These two findings differ significantly from the results of other recent research. One example of this research is a recent study by The B2B Institute, Bain & Company, and NewtonX (the "B2B Institute Study").

(Note:  This study is described in a 2024 LinkedIn article written by Mimi Turner and Jann Schwarz, both with The B2B Institute. I understand The B2B Institute is planning to publish  a report or paper discussing this research later this year.)

The B2B Institute Study examined the attitudes and behaviors of hidden buyers and target buyers using definitions of those terms similar to those used in the Edelman/LinkedIn study. The study found that making a "safe" purchase decision is a primary driver for hidden buyers.

• Hidden buyers care more than target buyers about factors such as brand reliability and "peace of mind." (See the graphic accompanying "Finding #2" in the LinkedIn article.)

• About two-thirds of hidden buyers and target buyers said they would prefer products or services that "provide peace of mind without career advancement" over products or services that offer "business growth that involves potential career uncertainty."

The B2B Institute Study also found that a strong, well-known brand is important to both hidden buyers and target buyers, but is more influential with hidden buyers.

• Eighty-one percent (81%) of the study participants said the brand they ultimately bought was known to everyone or almost everyone in the buying group at the start of the purchase process.

• Hidden buyers are 31% more likely to reject brands they don't know and 70% more likely to reject brands that aren't well-known to other members of the buying group.

My Take

These two studies present starkly different perspectives regarding the tendency of B2B hidden buyers to make "safe" purchase decisions and the influence that brand has with hidden buyers.

I suggest that most of these differences can be attributed to differences in the focus and design of the underlying surveys. The B2B Institute Study focused on high-consideration, high-value technology purchases by large enterprises. Sixty-four percent (64%) of the survey respondents in this study were with companies having more than 10,000 employees.

The survey used in the Edelman/LinkedIn thought leadership study had very different survey demographics. In fact, 48% of those survey respondents were with companies having 200 or fewer employees.

Several other recent studies have highlighted the preference of most B2B buyers for safe purchase decisions and the important role that brand plays in B2B buying decisions.

Under these circumstances, I think the findings of the B2B Institute Study provide a more accurate picture of real-world B2B buying.

Top image courtesy of Hans Splinter via Flickr (CC).