The collaboration between CMO and CEO often decides more about the impact of marketing than any single campaign. When both share an understanding of what the brand should do for the company, marketing becomes a strategic lever. When that understanding is missing, it remains a department that executes measures and fights for budget.
The topic matters more than it seems at first glance. The relationship between CMO and CEO is rarely discussed openly, because it is seen as a personal matter. Yet it is a structural question. It determines how early marketing is involved in decisions, how long term brand work may be thought through and how much patience the company has for impact that does not show immediately.
- The collaboration between CMO and CEO determines whether marketing has a strategic effect.
- Different time horizons have to be spoken about openly.
- Expectations of marketing should be clarified explicitly and reviewed regularly.
- Brand strength needs an economic language in the leadership team.
- Trust grows through closeness and early openness, including with bad news.
Table of contents
What the collaboration of CMO and CEO really means
Formally, CMO and CEO are both part of the top management level. Among the chief officers of a company, the chief executive officer carries overall responsibility, the chief marketing officer responsibility for brand, market and customers. This division only describes responsibilities, however, not the quality of the collaboration.
In my view, good collaboration between CMO and CEO rests on three things. First, a shared picture of how the company wants to grow and what role the brand plays in it. Second, a shared language in which brand impact and economic success are thought of together. And third, trust that holds even when results take time.
The CEO does not have to be a marketing expert. But he or she has to understand why brand work takes time and why not every effect can be measured immediately. Conversely, the CMO has to understand the business as a whole: margins, liquidity, sales logic and the expectations of the owners. A CMO who only talks about brand is seen as a specialist, not as someone who shapes the company.
At Breuninger, between 2020 and 2024, I was responsible for marketing, content and production with a team of 37 people and reported at board level. This role shaped my view of working with company leadership. A board takes brand work seriously when it shows up in the questions that occupy it anyway: growth, positioning and impact across the whole funnel. Whoever only reports on campaigns is seen as a function. Whoever shows how the brand carries the business becomes a partner at eye level.
On top of that, the two roles look at the same people from different angles. From overall responsibility, customers quickly appear as part of a revenue calculation, from marketing as people with expectations, memories and habits. Both views are right. Only together do they give a complete picture of why a company succeeds or not.
Where the collaboration of CMO and CEO fails in practice
The most common reason is a different time horizon. The CEO is under pressure from short term numbers. The CMO thinks about the brand in longer periods. Both perspectives are legitimate. It becomes a problem when they are not spoken about openly and each side considers the other short sighted or detached from reality.
A second reason is unclear expectations. Some CEOs expect marketing above all to drive sales, others a strong brand, others again the digital renewal of the business. If this expectation is never discussed explicitly, everyone measures success against something different. In my experience, many conflicts that later look like personal tension actually go back to this misunderstanding.
In fashion this is sharper, because brand and sales are particularly closely linked. The pressure to sell a season can quickly lead to decisions that harm the brand in the long run, for example through discounts or retail spaces that do not fit. These conflicts between brand and sales almost always end up on the CEO’s desk. How well they are resolved depends on whether marketing has built a comprehensible position beforehand.
A third reason is a lack of closeness. If CMO and CEO only meet in formal rounds, there is no room for the conversations in which trust develops. Trust grows in situations where you can voice doubts without having to present a finished solution straight away. Such situations rarely arise by themselves, you have to create them deliberately.
What this means for a brand
For the brand, the relationship between CMO and CEO is a kind of protective layer. A CEO who understands the brand as an asset will defend it even in difficult times. A CEO who sees it as a cost centre will cut at the first opportunity. The difference rarely shows in good years, but almost always when things get tight.
This attitude can be influenced. One important way is to present the brand in a form that is taken seriously in the leadership team. I consider it essential to report brand strength regularly and in economic language, as I describe in the article on brand equity reporting. A comprehensible brand valuation can also help make the value of the brand tangible.
Strong collaboration shows outwardly above all in clarity. When leadership and marketing say the same about the brand, it appears coherent. Employees, retail partners and customers sense very precisely whether a brand is carried from the top or only by one department.
And not least, the relationship influences how bold a brand may be. Bold decisions need backing. A CMO who is sure of the CEO’s support can take risks that move a brand forward. Without this backing, marketing becomes cautious, and cautious brands become invisible over time.
What I would do differently
At the start of a new collaboration between CMO and CEO, I would clarify very explicitly how both sides want to measure the success of marketing. Not as a catalogue of targets, but as an honest conversation about what really matters to leadership and what marketing considers necessary for the brand. I would repeat this conversation every year.
I would also invest more time in informal encounters. A short exchange after a store visit or a shared look at a campaign before approval often creates more understanding than any presentation in a committee. In such moments a shared feeling for the brand develops, which pays off later in difficult decisions.
And I would deliver bad news earlier. If a campaign does not work or a project is delayed, the CEO should hear it from marketing and not only from the numbers. Openness in difficult moments is the foundation for trust in good ones.
I am unsure how much adapting to a CEO’s style is right. Every leader has their own preferences for how they want to be informed and how they decide. Adjusting to that is wise. Losing yourself in it would be a mistake, because marketing also has the task of standing up for the brand when it becomes uncomfortable. The right balance between adapting and standing firm has to be found anew in every relationship between CMO and CEO.