A CEO's CMO

In the last six months, I have read numerous articles (too many to cite here) about how CMOs can increase their effectiveness.  In one of them, a retail CMO coins the term "the CEO's CMO." He says a CEO's CMO has three qualities that make the difference between a good CMO and a great CMO:

1. Knows the value chain
2. Is a disruptive innovator
3. Speaks the CEO's language

It seems to me that most professional service CMOs either know or can find out what the value chain is in their firm.  The other two traits are a bit murky.  "Disruptive innovation" feels like a buzz term coined by Clayton Christensen, a Harvard Business School professor.  The idea holds some merit, but maybe it's simply about bringing new marketing strategies to fruition before the competition.   

Similarly, "speak the CEO's language" seems like an obvious requirement for being a CMO. Being conversant in finance and economics , IT, business strategy, research, product development, etc. -- as well as, of course, the business of the firm  -- is increasingly the domain of all CMOs.   

Having said this, however, I'm intrigued by the notion that professional service firms could begin to increase the purview and the stature of their CMO position.  Certainly, professional firms increasingly need great CMOs, not just good ones.  Yet too many CMOs are still viewed as master communicators, and either aren't required to become more effective executive-suite strategic partners -- or don't insist on it.      

Comments

[Suzanne Lowe]

Regarding "speaking the CEOs language," your comments about communications style make a lot of sense. As for the "substance" part, however, I think the original authors of this remark rightly suggest that CMOs must begin to do better at providing the hard facts and figures that CEOs need in order to make credible decisions. This means, of course, that they must become conversant in the language of metrics.

[James Shewmaker]

This comment is reference to "Speaks The CEO's language."

Since you did not reference the context of the source article, I can only guess at the author's intent. But my guess is that the author is refering to the fact that different people think and word things differently.

For example, when speaking metaphorically about comprehension, some people will use audio metaphors, ("I hear what you are saying") others use visual metaphors (clarity and murkiness), while others use kinetic metaphors (I get it).

It may be that the article author was saying that the CEO's CMO reframes or rewords the message that he/she is communicating in order to better interface with the CEO and that this CMO understands the communication eccentricities of the CEO and therefore comprehends the CEO's messages faster and deeper.

Then again, I'm just guessing.