[Research Round-Up] Notable Insights from the 2026 Edition of "The CMO Survey"

Source:  "The CMO Survey"

(This month's Research Round-Up focuses exclusively on the 2026 edition of "The CMO Survey." This research has been conducted since 2008, and it consistently provides valuable information about marketing spending, practices, and trends.)

The findings of the 35th edition of "The CMO Survey" were published near the end of last month. "The CMO Survey" is directed by Dr. Christine Moorman and is sponsored by Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, Deloitte, and the American Marketing Association.

From 2008 through 2024, the survey was conducted semi-annually. In 2025, the research shifted to an annual survey.

The 2026 survey results are based on responses from 308 marketing leaders as U.S. for-profit companies. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (65.0%) were affiliated with B2B companies, and 97% were VP-level or above. Respondents worked at companies operating in 15 industry sectors. The 2026 survey was conducted January 7 - January 29, 2026.

In addition to overall response data, "The CMO Survey" provides response data by four economic sectors (B2B product companies, B2B services companies, B2C product companies, and B2C services companies), 15 industry sectors, company size, and percentage of online sales.

The data discussed in this post is based on the responses of all survey participants unless otherwise indicated. The percentages and other numerical values in this post are the mean of applicable survey responses, also unless otherwise indicated.

A Tale of Economic Concern

Concerns about the health of the U.S. economy echo throughout the 2026 edition of "The CMO Survey." In every edition of the survey, the researchers have asked participants to rate their optimism about the U.S. economy on a 100-point scale, with 100 being the most optimistic. The 2026 survey respondents put their level of optimism at 56.8.

To place this optimism rating in context, the rating given by respondents in the June 2020 edition of the survey (at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic) was 50.9. The lowest optimism rating ever given in the 18-year history of "The CMO Survey" was 47.7 in both the February 2009 survey (during the "Great Recession") and the February 2013 survey.

There was little difference in the level of optimism expressed by marketers at B2B companies and those at B2C companies.

Economic concerns seem to have had a substantial impact on marketing budgets. The marketing leaders participating in the 2026 survey reported that marketing budgets represented 9.0% of total company revenue. That was down from 9.4% in the 2025 edition of the survey.

The 2026 survey respondents also reported that marketing spending increased by only 1.7% over the 12 months preceding the survey. That was the slowest growth of marketing spending since 2021.

Economic uncertainty also appears to have prompted changes in some marketing priorities. When participants in the 2026 survey were asked how they are changing their customer targeting strategies in response to recent changes in economic conditions, the most frequently selected change - chosen by 43.7% of survey respondents - was "increase our focus on building loyalty / retention of existing customers."

The percentages of B2B marketers who indicated they were making this change were very similar - 43.3% of marketers in B2B product companies and 42.0% of those in B2B services companies.

It's noteworthy, however, that about one-third of B2B survey respondents said they were making no change in their customer targeting strategies, compared to only 26.5% of all survey respondents.

Other Notable Findings

Here are a few other findings from the 2026 survey that I found notable and interesting.

Importance of Marketing Capabilities and Talent - Survey respondents viewed their marketing capabilities as critical to their company's business success (5.9 on a 7-point scale), and 34.5% of the respondents said that "having the right talent" is the most important factor for driving future revenue growth. But . . .

Spending on Training & Development Is at a 9-Year Low - Survey respondents said they currently devote only 3.8% of their marketing budget to training and development. This is the lowest percentage seen in "The CMO Survey" since the February 2017 edition of the research.

Use of Generative AI - Survey respondents said their company is using generative AI technologies in 22.4% of its marketing activities, up from 15.1% in the 2025 edition of the survey.

*****

"The CMO Survey" does not claim that its survey panel is a representative sample of all marketers. So the survey findings cannot be "projected" to all marketers. Nevertheless, "The CMO Survey" provides valuable insights about the current state of marketing, and I recommend that you read the full survey report.

Why CMO Candidates Should Uncover and Confront Mismatched Expectations

A recent post at LinkedIn described a situation that occurs far more that it should. The post author wrote that he had been contacted by a CEO who was planning to replace his CMO because "marketing isn't working." The CEO asked if the post author could recommend someone for the job.

By asking a few questions, the post author identified several circumstances that were contributing to the CMO's perceived underperformance. While all these circumstances were important, one was particularly significant. The post author wrote:

"She [the current CMO] had made smart budget calls six months ago, killed low-performing channels, and shifted spend. But pipeline from these decisions won't land for two more quarters. And she's being judged on the lagging output of a strategy she already replaced."

After his conversation with the post author, the CEO decided to address the problematic circumstances and stick with the current CMO, but this isn't the typical outcome. More often, CEOs decide to "fix" their "marketing" problem by replacing their senior marketing leader, which usually leaves the real problems unresolved.

A Revolving Door of Senior Marketing Leaders

The short tenure of chief marketing officers has been well documented. According to the most recent research by Spencer Stuart, the average tenure of CMOs at S&P 500 companies in 2025 was 4.1 years, down from 4.3 years in 2024. CMO tenure is even shorter if we include a wider range of companies.

Marketing academics have attributed the high level of churn among senior marketing leaders to a variety of factors, but most of the "involuntary" churn ultimately results from mismatched expectations.

When the CEO and the senior marketing leader have mismatched expectations regarding the role or performance of marketing, the odds of developing a long, mutually-satisfactory relationship are not good.

Dealing With Mismatched Expectations

The story recounted at the beginning of this post illustrates what can happen when a CEO and a senior marketing leader have different expectations regarding when marketing programs will produce desired results.

Making these mismatched expectations visible before accepting a marketing leadership position with a new company can help a marketer avoid beginning a relationship that has little chance of long-term success.

So, if you're a candidate for a senior marketing leadership role, there are four questions you need to answer before you accept a job offer.

• What are the most important results your prospective CEO expects to see from marketing within the first 12 months that you're in the job?

• When does your prospective CEO expect to begin seeing those results?

• Are your prospective CEO's expectations for beginning to see those results realistic given the economic and competitive conditions in the market(s) the company serves and the resources (budget, people, technology, etc.) you will have available to conduct marketing programs?

• If you determine that those expectations aren't realistic, can you persuade your prospective CEO to modify his or her expectations to make them more realistic?

The answers to some of these questions can be obtained during the interview process, while others will require you to perform some research. The amount of research needed won't always be trivial, but neither is it out-of-line with the importance of the career decision you're making.

If you're a candidate for a senior marketing leadership role, you probably have several years of marketing experience. Therefore, you should be able to use your experience, combined with a moderate amount of research, to come up with a reasonable approximation of how long it will take sound marketing programs to deliver various kinds of results.

For example, suppose that your prospective CEO says that pipeline contribution is the marketing result he deems most important and that he would expect increases in pipeline contribution to begin within 3 or 4 months after you start work.

If you're confident that you can deliver increases in pipeline contribution within 4 or 5 months, this would not be a huge mismatch of expectations. On the other hand, if you judge that it will take 6 to 8 months for your marketing programs to begin having a meaningful impact on the pipeline, this would be a significant mismatch of expectations that should be addressed during the interview process.

There are several other issues where mismatched expectations can undermine the relationship between a CEO and a senior marketing leader. I'll cover some of those issues in a future post.

Top image courtesy of Heather Paul via Flickr (CC).