How Do You Know If a Fractional CMO Is Actually Any Good?

Hiring experienced outside marketing leadership sounds sensible. Figuring out whether you're actually getting it is considerably harder. There are a lot of fractional CMOs now. Spend five minutes on LinkedIn and you may get the impression there are more fractional CMOs than companies requiring CMOs.

I'm not knocking the model because I'm part of it, and I think it can give a growing company access to experience and capabilities it couldn't reasonably build internally. But if I were sitting on the other side of the table, I'd have some questions. The biggest one would be pretty simple: How do I know if this person is actually any good?

A résumé, relevant experience, references, use cases and testimonials all help, but none completely solves the problem. Unless someone has been the CMO of Nike, Apple or another company everyone immediately recognizes, most executives still have to interpret a career history and decide how well that experience will translate to their business. Testimonials aren't perfect either. The company selling you something selects them, which isn't exactly a randomized controlled trial. Case studies can be genuinely useful, but they're still stories written with the benefit of hindsight. Nobody publishes the case study where the client ignored half the recommendations, the market changed, three people quit and everyone quietly agreed to stop talking about Q3.

The skepticism is reasonable. Once a company reaches a certain size, another wrinkle rarely gets enough attention: You're probably not bringing outside marketing leadership into a marketing vacuum.

The problem with buying expertise

For the companies we tend to work with, particularly once they're north of several million dollars in annual revenue, there are usually already people responsible for marketing. Maybe there's a director or marketing manager. Maybe there's a small internal team, an agency, freelancers, a sales leader with marketing responsibilities, or some combination of all of them. Sometimes the CEO has also somehow become the final approval layer for everything from annual growth strategy to whether the button should be blue.

Bringing in senior outside leadership changes that system. The executive team may see additional experience, objectivity and horsepower. The people already doing the work may see someone walking through the front door whose job appears to include figuring out what's wrong. You don't need an MBA in organizational psychology to understand why that can get weird.

Some of the concern is entirely legitimate. Internal marketers may wonder whether an outsider will understand the history behind previous decisions. They may have seen consultants arrive with grand recommendations, create 87 slides, disappear and leave the internal team with six months of additional work. They may worry that someone with limited exposure to the company will start second-guessing decisions people made with considerably more context. Those are fair concerns, and outside leaders who dismiss them usually aren't helping themselves.

There can also be another dynamic that's harder to talk about politely: People protect their jobs. Marketing is particularly susceptible because the discipline has become extraordinarily broad. Someone can be excellent at brand and know very little about paid acquisition. Someone can understand performance marketing but have limited experience with positioning, customer experience, lifecycle strategy, analytics, technology or organizational design. A talented marketing manager may simply never have been responsible for the kinds of decisions a more experienced executive has made dozens of times.

That's normal; nobody knows everything. The problem is that organizations don't necessarily reward people for saying, "I have absolutely no idea how to do that." Gaps get covered, titles get inflated and confidence occasionally outruns experience. People volunteer to own things they're hoping to figure out along the way. To be fair, that's how many of us learned some of the most valuable things in our careers. The complication comes when the business doesn't have six months for someone to learn it.

An experienced outsider can make previously invisible gaps more visible, and that can feel threatening to someone who has spent years establishing themselves as the marketing expert in the building. It doesn't mean the internal person is bad at their job or deliberately obstructing progress. Sometimes they're absolutely right and the outsider is wrong. But executives shouldn't pretend organizational incentives disappear simply because everyone nodded enthusiastically during the kickoff meeting.

The opposite problem exists too. Outside marketing leaders can become obsessed with proving their value, which usually means finding things that are wrong. If the outside leader dismisses everything already working while treating every gap as evidence of why the company needs them, the relationship gets adversarial quickly. The objective shouldn't be to expose the internal team. It should be to make the company better.

The best outside leaders I've seen make talented internal people more capable, not less important. Your marketing manager shouldn't have to pretend to be a CMO. Your content person shouldn't suddenly need to become an analytics expert. Your CEO shouldn't be approving campaign architecture because nobody else feels comfortable making the call. Good people become considerably more effective when they're allowed to operate from their strengths and have experienced people around them who can cover their blind spots.

The math behind hiring versus outside leadership

Eventually, somebody is going to annualize the fee. If a company is considering spending $8,000, $10,000 or $15,000 a month on outside marketing leadership and execution, the conversation often becomes: "Wait. That's $120,000 a year. Couldn't we hire someone for that?"

Of course you can hire someone for $120,000 a year, and in some situations that's exactly what you should do. But annualizing an outside firm's fee and comparing it with someone's salary creates a tidy spreadsheet comparison between two things that aren't necessarily equivalent. The more useful question is who you can actually hire for that money, what that person will know how to do, and what capabilities you'll still need after they arrive.

The employee also costs more than the number in the offer letter once you include benefits, payroll taxes, recruiting, technology, equipment and everything else that comes with adding headcount. Even that misses the bigger point, though. Cost doesn't determine equivalency. Capability does.

There are fantastic marketers earning $100,000 to $150,000, and there are mediocre marketers earning considerably more. Titles aren't particularly useful here either. One company's CMO is another company's marketing manager with a better business card. At many growing companies, the realistic choice isn't between a deeply experienced CMO working internally and the same caliber of CMO working externally. The economics often don't support that comparison.

A genuinely seasoned VP of Marketing or CMO can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars once fully loaded, and you're still hiring one person. That person probably isn't simultaneously exceptional at brand strategy, demand generation, paid media, content, analytics, customer experience, conversion, lifecycle marketing, technology, AI, SEO, creative direction and whatever new acronym showed up at a conference last Tuesday.

That's where an external model can become interesting. The company isn't necessarily buying a part-time version of an employee. It's buying access to experience, judgment and specialized capability without having to own all of it as permanent overhead.

This doesn't mean external is always better. Sometimes the correct answer is absolutely to hire. If you have enough sustained work for a capability, need that person deeply embedded every day and can attract the right talent, build it internally. Sometimes you need a specialist. Sometimes you need an agency to execute a clearly defined body of work. Sometimes you need more junior hands doing more things, not another senior person thinking about them. A good outside advisor should be willing to tell you that. I'd be suspicious of anyone whose diagnosis somehow always ends with buying more of what they sell.

The value you can't put in an attribution report

I've been thinking about this differently lately because of my own experience building OutSwarm. I've spent my career in marketing, advertising, customer experience and technology. I've worked with growing businesses and some of the largest brands in the world. I've helped build an agency before. I consider myself pretty business savvy.

I've also wasted money building my own company. Nothing catastrophic. I didn't buy a corporate yacht or lease office space in the metaverse. But I've spent thousands of dollars on things I would approach differently today. I've made investments too early, paid for things that sounded more important than they turned out to be, and spent time solving problems that, in retrospect, weren't the problems that mattered most.

That's part of the tuition you pay as a founder. Looking back, though, I'm fairly certain that having the right experienced agency founder sitting beside me at certain moments would have saved me substantially more than I would have paid them. The irony is that I probably wouldn't have known it. That's one of the problems with calculating the ROI of experience. How do you measure the value of an expensive mistake you never made? It doesn't appear in QuickBooks. There's no attribution model for "we almost wasted $75,000 and then someone who had seen this movie before asked three uncomfortable questions."

Yet this may be one of the most valuable things experienced people provide. They help you see around corners because they've already walked around some of them, and occasionally straight into them. They've watched companies overspend on acquisition before fixing conversion. They've seen businesses buy technology they weren't organizationally capable of using. They've watched companies blame agencies for problems created by weak positioning, blame marketing for problems inside sales, and pour more money into lead generation while quietly ignoring the leads already leaking out of the bottom of the funnel. They've also seen seemingly smart strategies fail for reasons that looked painfully obvious only afterward.

Experience doesn't eliminate mistakes. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling something stronger than marketing advice. But it can make certain mistakes considerably less likely, and sometimes speed is the bigger prize. Six months spent discovering something another person recognizes in six days has a cost even if nobody ever sends you an invoice for it.

This is why "fractional CMO" can be a slightly misleading description of the value. Fractional tells you how much of someone's time you get. It doesn't explain why that time is valuable. What you're really buying, when the model works, is compressed experience: years of decisions, mistakes, pattern recognition and exposure to situations your company may only encounter once every few years. Ideally, you're also gaining access to specialists who can execute against those decisions rather than expecting one senior generalist to personally do everything.

That distinction matters because strategy without execution has its own problems. Most CEOs don't need another person pointing thoughtfully at a whiteboard while everyone else takes notes. They need someone capable of understanding the business, helping determine what actually matters, assembling the right capabilities and then making sure something happens.

Traditional consulting can leave companies with more work to manage. Traditional agencies can require considerable oversight. Individual fractional executives can identify what should happen without having the resources to execute it. The useful space is somewhere between all three: senior enough to challenge the strategy, practical enough to get into the work, and flexible enough to bring in expertise when it's needed without building a miniature holding company inside your payroll. That's much closer to how we think about OutSwarm.

How do you know if someone actually knows what they're doing?

This is where things become frustrating because there isn't a magic credential. Use cases, references, previous responsibilities and testimonials all provide evidence, and you should examine all of it. But I'd pay unusually close attention to something much simpler during the first few conversations: the questions they ask.

Someone who understands growth shouldn't be able to confidently prescribe your marketing strategy 11 minutes after meeting you. They should want to understand how the company actually makes money, who the best customers are, why customers choose you, why they leave, how sales works, what happens to leads after marketing generates them, where margins are strongest, what you've already tried and what failed. They should want to understand what the internal team believes is happening, what management believes is happening and, where possible, what the data and customers say is actually happening.

Good questions expose how someone thinks. I'd also pay attention to whether they're willing to disagree with the premise of the assignment. If you ask someone to help select a new CRM and their only question is which CRM vendors you're considering, that's one kind of partner. If they first want to understand why you believe the CRM is the problem, that's another.

You should hear "I don't know" occasionally too. Marketing has too many variables for someone to know the answer to everything immediately. Confidence is useful. Certainty without evidence isn't. I'd also watch whether they're willing to tell you not to spend money. That's one of my favorite tests of an advisor, particularly when the money you shouldn't spend would otherwise have gone to them.

Then put them in a room with your marketing team. You can learn a remarkable amount by watching what happens next. Does the outside leader ask questions and listen, or immediately establish themselves as the smartest person in the room? Do they give the internal team credit for what's working? Can they challenge an idea without making the person who had it feel stupid? Do your existing people start sharing information freely, asking better questions and exposing things that aren't working, or does everything suddenly become territorial?

Executives should watch both sides of that interaction. If information becomes strangely difficult to obtain, every new idea comes with six reasons it can't work, or conversations become more focused on defending previous decisions than improving future ones, there may be an organizational issue worth understanding. That doesn't automatically mean someone is protecting their job. Outside partners can be wrong, and internal teams frequently possess context outsiders don't. Healthy teams should be able to challenge the outsider too.

The standard has to work both ways. If your fractional CMO needs to win every argument, take credit for every improvement and remind everyone how many impressive companies they've worked with, congratulations: You've hired another organizational problem. The objective isn't for the outside leader to become more important. It's for the company to become more capable.

What are you actually trying to solve?

Ultimately, the question isn't whether fractional leadership is better than hiring, or whether an outside team knows more than the people already inside the building. Those are the wrong comparisons. The question is what the business needs to accomplish next, what capabilities it already has, what it's missing and how much money, time and opportunity the business will spend learning the rest on its own.

The answer may be another employee, an agency, a specialist or an advisor. It may also be a senior outside leader who can connect those pieces, see around a few corners and help the people already there perform at a level they haven't reached yet. The label matters considerably less than whether the arrangement improves the quality and speed of the company's decisions and its ability to execute against them.

That's also why evaluating this kind of partner from a résumé alone is so difficult. Experience should start showing up before the engagement begins: in the questions they ask, the assumptions they challenge, the connections they make, what they're willing to admit they don't know and, perhaps most importantly, what they tell you not to spend money on. You should leave an early conversation thinking differently about your business, not simply impressed by theirs.

Then watch the room when they meet your team. The outside leader shouldn't need to diminish the people inside the company to demonstrate their value, and the internal team shouldn't need to protect its territory to demonstrate theirs. The strongest arrangement isn't one where the fractional CMO becomes the hero. It's one where the CEO makes better decisions, the internal team gets stronger, specialists fill the gaps that actually need filling, fewer bad bets survive unchallenged and more good ideas make it into the market.

When everyone stops worrying quite so much about who owns marketing and starts worrying about whether marketing is actually helping build the business, you've probably created something worth considerably more than another box on the org chart. And if that's happening, nobody should care very much whether the person helping make it happen is sitting in your office 40 hours a week.

Explore OutSwarm fractional CMO leadership →