The CEO Doesn't Want a CMO

(Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here.)

The JD came across my slack last week. Anonymized, but not by much. Title: Chief Marketing Officer. Company: B2B SaaS, around $90M ARR, venture-backed, founder-led, three years from an expected exit. The scorecard, verbatim:

• Own and accelerate pipeline generation across marketing-sourced channels; hit 4x coverage against quarterly bookings targets

• Drive blended CAC reduction of 15% YoY while maintaining LTV: CAC above 3.5

• Build and manage a predictable revenue contribution model; report marketing-sourced and -influenced revenue quarterly to the board

• Partner closely with the CRO to align on ICP, SLAs, and full-funnel conversion velocity

• Own the narrative, brand, and positioning that supports our next stage of growth

Five bullets. Four are revenue. The fifth is "narrative, brand, and positioning," which shares a comma with "supports our next stage of growth," a qualifier that quietly turns the brand bullet into a demand-gen bullet too.

That's a CRO job with brand tacked on as a fifth bullet.

Everyone reading it knows that, except the hiring CEO. And the CMO candidate who's about to take it, thinking they'll reshape the role once they're in.

They won't. It's already shaped.

Most CEOs hiring a CMO actually want a Growth Officer. The mismatch explains the 18-month tenure better than any org chart. The title says marketing. The scorecard says revenue. The person hired to bridge the gap gets fired for doing either job.

Two jobs, one business card

A CMO's job is brand, positioning, category definition, creative direction, PR, comms, and increasingly product marketing. The output is a durable asset. A brand, a market position, a set of category-defining concepts that outlast any given campaign. The timeline is slow. The ROI is diffuse. The best measure of a CMO's work is typically whether the company can charge more for the same product than it could a year ago.

A Growth Officer's job (CRO, Chief Growth Officer, Head of Revenue Operations) is pipeline, demand generation, funnel economics, martech, rev ops, and the attribution plumbing that connects spend to revenue. The output is a working revenue engine. Growth Officers don't build brands. They build systems. The best measure of their work is pipeline coverage against plan, CAC direction, and whether the forecast stopped being a surprise.

The two started diverging around 2012, when B2B SaaS discovered it could build revenue engines almost independent of brand. Spencer Stuart's 2025 CMO Tenure Study found only 40% of marketing leaders at Fortune 500 companies still hold the CMO title. The other 60% are Chief Growth Officer, Chief Brand Officer, Chief Commercial Officer, or some variant. The CMO title at growth-stage companies bifurcated in the same period. At companies where the revenue engine was built by sales, CMO stayed brand-and-comms. At companies where the revenue engine was built by marketing, CMO quietly became Growth Officer with the old title. Most companies, in transition, ended up with a CMO role drifting from the first job to the second while still using the first job's hiring profile.

That drift produced the JD above.

Why CEOs write Growth Officer JDs and title them CMO

Four reasons, roughly in order of frequency.

The board pattern-matches. Most boards have one or two directors who were CMOs in the 1990s. The title still signals strategic leadership to them. "Growth Officer" doesn't. When the CEO goes to the comp committee asking for a senior marketing leader, CMO gets approved and Head of Demand Gen gets questioned. The title is a funding device.

"Growth Officer" sounds dated. It was a cohort marker for a 2014-2017 Silicon Valley hiring stretch that didn't age well. CEOs who used the title then are reluctant to reach for it now.

Political cover. Hiring a CMO signals to the board, investors, and the executive team that the company is investing in marketing. The narrative carries weight even as the function has changed shape. "We hired a Growth Officer" sounds operational.

The CEO genuinely doesn't know the difference. In the last company they ran, the two jobs were performed by one person because the company was small enough. That experience becomes the mental model. When they post a JD at a bigger company, they reproduce it. Two jobs that belong to one person at a fifty-person company become one person's job at a four-hundred-person company. The company fires that person in eighteen months and the CEO doesn't understand why.

How the hire breaks

The candidate is a CMO. They've done CMO jobs. They interview on brand strategy. The CEO nods politely, asks a few questions about positioning, and the candidate gives good answers. Both leave feeling aligned. The candidate is thinking about how they'll shape the narrative. The CEO is thinking about how this person will execute on pipeline. Neither corrects the other, because neither realizes they're misreading.

Month 0-3 is the honeymoon.

Month 3-6, the CMO writes the strategic assessment as a CMO. Brand positioning, customer research, a category definition that takes 12-18 months to pay off.

Month 6, the CEO asks the first sharp question. "When are we going to see pipeline impact?" The CMO, still thinking of themselves as a CMO, says pipeline is a lagging indicator and the first lift should show up in months 9-12. The CEO nods, but something has shifted.

Month 9, pipeline is flat. The CEO is having conversations with the CRO about "marketing velocity."

Month 12, the first hard-feedback meeting.

Month 15, the CEO has a consultant on retainer doing a "marketing function assessment."

Month 18, the CMO is out. Replaced by someone the recruiter calls "more operator-minded," who turns out to be a Growth Officer, who runs the function for another eighteen months before they get fired for not doing any of the brand work the board wanted.

The 18-month tenure isn't a fit or performance problem. It's a category mismatch between what the company hired and what the company measured, and the CMO is paying for it.

Red flags and green flags

For the candidates reading this: the mismatch is legible on the front end.

Red flags. The scorecard is pipeline-heavy. "Brand" appears once or not at all. The CEO in the interview talks about "growth" more than "customers." The CEO can recite last quarter's pipeline coverage from memory but can't tell you what the company's brand pyramid looks like or whether it has one. The CFO is more excited about your hire than the CEO is. The board deck they share has sections on pipeline, product, and finance, and no section on brand health. You ask about the last CMO and hear "fit" and "execution" in the same sentence.

Green flags. The CEO opens with a question about positioning, not pipeline. The board deck has a section on brand health with three years of tracking data. The CFO can walk you through the brand-to-revenue logic chain. The most recent marketing win the CEO cites is a category-definition move, not a channel optimization. The CRO describes marketing as "where the top of the funnel lives," not "where our demo requests come from."

Two conversations is enough to tell the difference.

The two honest moves

If the JD on your desk has the red flags, there are two honest moves.

Negotiate the reframe before you accept. Between offer and accept, put it on the table in plain language. "Looking at the scorecard, this role is primarily about building a revenue engine, which I'm happy to own, but I want to make sure we agree on the title. If the job is a CRO's job with brand oversight, let's title it CRO and compensate accordingly. If it's a CMO's job, the scorecard needs a brand and positioning section that isn't a bullet under a pipeline target. Either works. Calling it a CMO and measuring it like a CRO doesn't." The CEOs who respond well to that conversation are the ones you actually want to work for. The ones who don't are telling you something important.

Accept the Growth Officer scorecard eyes-open. Build the Growth Officer org under the CMO title. Your first hire is a VP of Brand who owns brand work at a level below you. You personally own the revenue engine. You report to the board on revenue. You push brand metrics down the deck. Compensated like a CMO, evaluated like a CRO. This works if you know that's what you signed up for.

The failure mode, and the one I see most, is pretending your title is the job. You accept at the CMO title and the CRO scorecard, tell yourself you'll make them co-equal, and spend eighteen months slowly discovering that only one is actually being graded. That's the version that produces the 18-month tenure.

What to do on Monday

The JD from the top of this essay is still live. Somebody is going to take it. They'll be a good marketer. Strong brand track record. They'll believe they can shape the role once they're in.

Eighteen months from now a recruiter will call them and say the role "wasn't a fit." They'll spend a year in therapy trying to figure out what went wrong.

Nothing went wrong. The CEO hired the wrong person.

The person they hired was you.

Before you accept, go back to the JD and read the scorecard. Not what you want it to say. What it says.

If four of five bullets are revenue bullets, the title is a misprint.

Ask for the correction before you accept.

The answer you get tells you what Monday looks like.