While splitting marketing seems like a solution to the unicorn CMO problem, it introduces a new flaw. Few sales or product leaders have the domain expertise to identify and hire truly exceptional demand gen or brand marketers, perpetuating the original issue of building a mediocre team.
Founders' expectations are higher than ever, requiring world-class skill in both technical growth and creative brand strategy. Since few individuals can master both extremes, the single CMO role is often split, paradoxically diminishing as marketing's overall value increases.
Marketers historically advanced by becoming 'extreme specialists' in narrow fields like email or paid ads. This system has failed to produce well-rounded leaders. Founders now need generalists who excel across the full marketing spectrum, a skill set the current talent pipeline rarely provides.
The damage from a bad senior marketing hire—building the wrong team, executing flawed strategy—is far greater than the opportunity cost of leaving the seat empty. Companies are better off waiting 12, 24, or even 36 months to find the right person than to make a poor hire out of expediency.
Founders judge a CMO by their team's quality. When a CMO, lacking domain knowledge, hires a weak leader, the founder doesn't just see a bad hire—they see a CMO with poor judgment. This is a primary driver of lost confidence and a key reason for CMO turnover.
The pool of perfect, experienced CMOs is small. A better strategy is to hire a high-potential marketer who can grow into the role. To mitigate risk, founders should contract an experienced CMO as a paid advisor to mentor them, providing strategic oversight and a model for what 'good' looks like.
The best marketing leaders are never actively job hunting. The only way to hire them is to cultivate a relationship over many months or years. This involves 'keep warm' lists, regular check-ins, and potentially small advisory roles, so when the time is right, you are the obvious choice.