{ "schema_version": "1.0", "title": "How B2B Marketing Leaders Are Rewriting ROI", "report_url": "https://www.gatherhq.com/reports/b2b-marketing-roi", "content_type": "see_published_methodology", "description": "A Gather report from 114 B2B marketing leaders on ROI proof, AI's real role, metrics that matter, and the measurement gaps CMOs still cannot close.", "analysis_notes": "Published aggregates and report text only, not respondent-level records. Values retain their displayed precision. Do not infer counts, missing denominators, weights, confidence intervals or statistical significance. Multiple-response questions may total more than 100%. Fictional choice exercises are not observed purchases. Illustrative and simulated results are not surveys of real people. Read each chart question, notes and the report methodology before comparing results.", "coverage": { "scope": "Published page only. Linked external reports are separate publications.", "raw_respondent_data": false, "chart_extraction": "Recognized chart layouts only. Each figure also includes its published text; unrecognized layouts are marked text_only.", "table_extraction": "Published cells and spanning information; no inferred values." }, "methodology": [ "MethodologyThis study is built on open-ended, conversational interviews with 114 B2B marketing leaders, primarily CMOs and VPs of Marketing. We collected responses to eight core ROI topics plus a closing prompt, with one targeted follow-up per topic when an answer was vague or contrarian. Themes were identified through transcript review and pattern coding; percentages reflect the share of unique participants who raised each theme, not the share of mentions or messages.114B2B marketing leaders interviewed114Unique participant conversations analyzed8 + 1Core ROI topics plus a closing promptMay 2026Fieldwork periodMost ROI questions in this study were open-ended; participants frequently named more than one driver, metric, tool, or gap. Where a section reports a combined theme, for example economic pressure, it counts unique participants who raised at least one underlying sub-theme, with no double counting. Because most cuts are multi-mention, percentages within a chart do not sum to 100%. Quotes are presented verbatim from participant transcripts; identifying details have been excluded." ], "published_text": "ResourcesGather original research\nResearch Report\nHow B2B Marketing Leaders Are Rewriting ROI\nWe talked with 114 B2B marketing leaders about what proving ROI actually looks like in 2026. Their answers cut across measurement methods, AI's real and often overstated role, and the honest gaps that keep CMOs up at night.\nMay 2026114 respondentsB2B CMOs + VPs of Marketing\nFull Report\nRewriting ROI\nHow B2B marketing leaders are turning proof into a sharper boardroom language.\nMay 2026Gather\nExecutive Summary\nAcross 114 conversations with B2B CMOs and VPs of Marketing, two things came through clearly. ROI proof is becoming a sharper, smaller set of defensible numbers, not a broader dashboard. And AI is showing up in workflows faster than it is showing up in measurable outcomes, and leaders know it. This report organizes what we heard into the themes the study was designed to explore.\nStudy size\n114\nB2B marketing leaders interviewed across the study.\nTopics explored\n8\nOpen-ended ROI topics explored in each conversation.\nFieldwork\n2026\nFieldwork conducted in advance of the next budget cycle.\n01 The Pressure Climate\nHow ROI pressure has shifted\nAcross 114 participants, leaders described a tighter scrutiny climate over the past two years. Conversations surfaced economic pressure, board-level demands, and new tooling as recurring drivers. The findings here set the context for every other section in the report.\nSurvey question: \"How has proving marketing ROI changed for you over the past year or two? What's driving that change?\"\nThree forces are tightening ROI scrutiny\nEconomic pressure\nand CFO scrutiny\n54%\nBoard and CEO\ndemanding clearer math\n47%\nNew tools and AI\nchanging what is measurable\n38%\nThemes coded from open-ended conversations with 114 B2B marketing leaders. Multi-mention; bars represent the share of conversations where each driver came up.\nKey insight\nThe mood across these conversations is unmistakable. Marketing leaders are no longer being asked whether their work pays back; they are being asked to show the math. That single shift is reshaping which metrics they track, which tools they buy, and how they walk into the boardroom.\n\"The conversation has changed completely. Two years ago I was talking about brand and pipeline as a story. Now my CFO wants a defensible number for every dollar, and they want it before the quarter closes, not after.\"\n\"It's not that the board got hostile. They got educated. They've seen enough dashboards to know which ones are theater, and they're asking sharper questions every cycle.\"\n02 The Metrics Reset\nThe metrics that actually matter\nParticipants discussed which KPIs they now anchor ROI conversations around. Themes clustered around pipeline contribution, revenue influence, and efficiency ratios. Many leaders described moving away from vanity metrics toward fewer, more defensible numbers.\nSurvey question: \"What metrics or KPIs matter most to you now when proving ROI? Why those specific metrics?\"\nWhere CMOs are anchoring the ROI conversation\nPipeline contribution\nsourced or influenced\n62%\nRevenue influence\nand customer LTV\n49%\nEfficiency ratios\nCAC payback, ROAS\n41%\nCutting vanity metrics\non purpose\n33%\nThemes coded from open-ended responses. Leaders typically named two to three priority metrics; bars show how often each cluster came up across the 114 conversations.\nKey insight\nThe pattern in the data is a narrowing, not a broadening. Leaders are killing legacy metrics on purpose. The CMOs who sound most confident in front of their boards are the ones who can name the three or four numbers they will defend, and what they have stopped reporting because it was getting in the way.\n\"I cut half my dashboard last year. MQLs were eating air time and not predicting revenue. Now I report pipeline sourced, pipeline influenced, and CAC payback. Three numbers. The conversation got better immediately.\"\n\"Vanity metrics aren't dead because they're wrong. They're dead because the board stopped asking about them. Once the CEO stops nodding at impressions, you stop putting them on the slide.\"\n03 Methods In Use\nMethods and frameworks in use\nAcross 114 conversations, leaders described the tools and frameworks behind their ROI work. Approaches ranged from attribution platforms to marketing mix modeling to manual analysis. When choosing an approach, leaders weighed speed, defensibility, and how easily a CFO could read it.\nSurvey question: \"What tools, frameworks, or methods are you using to measure and prove ROI?\"\nThe measurement stack today\nMulti-touch attribution\nplatforms\n51%\nMarketing mix\nmodeling\n36%\nManual analysis\nand spreadsheets\n32%\nCRM-native\nreporting\n28%\nSurvey question: \"What made you choose that approach over others?\"\nWhat CMOs optimize for when they pick a method\nDefensibility\nwith finance\n48%\nSpeed to\nan answer\n39%\nBoard readability\n34%\nCost and\nimplementation effort\n22%\nKey insight\nMost leaders are running more than one method in parallel. A platform handles the day-to-day reporting. A periodic mix model or manual analysis backstops the boardroom number. The deciding factor is rarely the method's sophistication; it is whether the CFO will sign off on the inputs.\n\"We run attribution for the team and mix modeling for the board. They answer different questions. Pretending one tool covers both is how you get caught explaining a number you can't actually defend.\"\n\"I picked the boring option on purpose. The fanciest tool we evaluated would have given me prettier charts and zero credibility with finance. Defensibility beats sophistication every time at my stage.\"\n04 AI, Honestly\nAI's real role beyond the hype\nParticipants drew a clear line between AI hype and AI that has actually moved the needle. Concrete examples clustered around content production, analysis acceleration, and targeting. Several leaders pushed back on AI's measured ROI contribution to date.\nSurvey question: \"What role is AI playing in your ROI outcomes, either in driving results or measuring them? Can you give a specific example of where AI has actually moved the needle?\"\nWhere AI is earning its keep in marketing today\nContent production\nand drafting\n58%\nAnalysis and\nsegmentation acceleration\n44%\nTargeting and\npersonalization\n36%\nSkepticism on AI's\nmeasured ROI to date\n29%\nThemes coded from open-ended responses; many leaders cited more than one use case, while others explicitly pushed back on AI's measured ROI to date.\nKey insight\nThe honest read on AI from this group is split. The wins are real and concrete: faster drafts, faster analysis, sharper targeting. The skepticism is also real. Leaders who can name a specific AI win can usually also name where it has not yet shown up in the revenue line, and they are not pretending otherwise.\n\"AI saved us weeks of analyst time on segmentation. That's a real win. But when the CEO asks me how AI moved revenue this quarter, I have to be careful. The honest answer is that it made my team faster, not that it made the number bigger. Yet.\"\n\"Everyone wants an AI ROI story. The most useful thing I did this year was tell my board where AI is helping and where it isn't. They respected that more than another inflated case study they'd have to discount.\"\n05 The Honest Gaps\nWhere ROI measurement still breaks\nLeaders were candid about what they still cannot prove cleanly. Recurring gaps included brand impact, long sales cycles, and dark social influence. Most participants described workarounds rather than solutions, signaling an open industry problem.\nSurvey question: \"Where does your ROI measurement still fall short? What's hard to prove? How are you dealing with that gap?\"\nThe measurement problems CMOs have not solved\nBrand impact\n56%\nLong sales cycles\nand lag effects\n47%\nDark social and\ncommunity influence\n39%\nCross-channel\ninteraction effects\n31%\nThemes coded from open-ended responses across 114 conversations. Most leaders named more than one gap and described workarounds rather than solutions.\nKey insight\nBrand, long cycles, and dark social are the three problems no one has cleanly solved. Leaders are pairing imperfect proxies with honest framing for the board, rather than pretending the gap doesn't exist. The CMOs who win the next budget cycle will be the ones who can name what they cannot yet measure, and show a credible plan to close that gap.\n\"Dark social is the one that keeps me up. I know our Slack communities and podcast mentions are doing real work. I cannot put a clean number on any of it, and the honest answer when the board asks is that we're using proxies and judgment.\"\n\"Brand is the gap I've stopped trying to fully prove. We measure what we can, we triangulate, and we tell the board what's directional versus what's audited. That candor has bought us more credibility than any model would have.\"\nThe next budget cycle belongs to the CMOs who can name what they can't yet measure.\nTwo takeaways stand out from these 114 conversations. ROI proof is becoming a sharper, smaller set of defensible numbers, not a broader dashboard. And AI is showing up in workflows faster than it is showing up in outcomes. The leaders who close that gap honestly will set the standard for everyone else.\nName the few numbers worth defending\nShow where AI is creating speed before claiming revenue lift\nSeparate audited metrics from directional proxies\nBuild a credible plan for the gaps you cannot yet measure\nFull Report\nRewriting ROI\nHow B2B marketing leaders are turning proof into a sharper boardroom language.\nMay 2026Gather\nTalk with us about your research\nMethodology\nThis study is built on open-ended, conversational interviews with 114 B2B marketing leaders, primarily CMOs and VPs of Marketing. We collected responses to eight core ROI topics plus a closing prompt, with one targeted follow-up per topic when an answer was vague or contrarian. Themes were identified through transcript review and pattern coding; percentages reflect the share of unique participants who raised each theme, not the share of mentions or messages.\n114\nB2B marketing leaders interviewed\n114\nUnique participant conversations analyzed\n8 + 1\nCore ROI topics plus a closing prompt\nMay 2026\nFieldwork period\nMost ROI questions in this study were open-ended; participants frequently named more than one driver, metric, tool, or gap. Where a section reports a combined theme, for example economic pressure, it counts unique participants who raised at least one underlying sub-theme, with no double counting. Because most cuts are multi-mention, percentages within a chart do not sum to 100%. Quotes are presented verbatim from participant transcripts; identifying details have been excluded.", "sections": [ { "type": "p", "text": "Research Report" }, { "type": "h1", "text": "How B2B Marketing Leaders Are Rewriting ROI" }, { "type": "p", "text": "We talked with 114 B2B marketing leaders about what proving ROI actually looks like in 2026. Their answers cut across measurement methods, AI's real and often overstated role, and the honest gaps that keep CMOs up at night." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Full Report" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Rewriting ROI" }, { "type": "p", "text": "How B2B marketing leaders are turning proof into a sharper boardroom language." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Executive Summary" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Across 114 conversations with B2B CMOs and VPs of Marketing, two things came through clearly. ROI proof is becoming a sharper, smaller set of defensible numbers, not a broader dashboard. And AI is showing up in workflows faster than it is showing up in measurable outcomes, and leaders know it. This report organizes what we heard into the themes the study was designed to explore." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Study size" }, { "type": "p", "text": "114" }, { "type": "p", "text": "B2B marketing leaders interviewed across the study." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Topics explored" }, { "type": "p", "text": "8" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Open-ended ROI topics explored in each conversation." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Fieldwork" }, { "type": "p", "text": "2026" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Fieldwork conducted in advance of the next budget cycle." }, { "type": "p", "text": "01 The Pressure Climate" }, { "type": "h2", "text": "How ROI pressure has shifted" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Across 114 participants, leaders described a tighter scrutiny climate over the past two years. Conversations surfaced economic pressure, board-level demands, and new tooling as recurring drivers. The findings here set the context for every other section in the report." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Survey question: \"How has proving marketing ROI changed for you over the past year or two? What's driving that change?\"" }, { "type": "h3", "text": "Three forces are tightening ROI scrutiny" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Economic pressure" }, { "type": "p", "text": "and CFO scrutiny" }, { "type": "p", "text": "54%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Board and CEO" }, { "type": "p", "text": "demanding clearer math" }, { "type": "p", "text": "47%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "New tools and AI" }, { "type": "p", "text": "changing what is measurable" }, { "type": "p", "text": "38%" }, { "type": "figcaption", "text": "Themes coded from open-ended conversations with 114 B2B marketing leaders. Multi-mention; bars represent the share of conversations where each driver came up." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Key insight" }, { "type": "p", "text": "The mood across these conversations is unmistakable. Marketing leaders are no longer being asked whether their work pays back; they are being asked to show the math. That single shift is reshaping which metrics they track, which tools they buy, and how they walk into the boardroom." }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"The conversation has changed completely. Two years ago I was talking about brand and pipeline as a story. Now my CFO wants a defensible number for every dollar, and they want it before the quarter closes, not after.\"" }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"It's not that the board got hostile. They got educated. They've seen enough dashboards to know which ones are theater, and they're asking sharper questions every cycle.\"" }, { "type": "p", "text": "02 The Metrics Reset" }, { "type": "h2", "text": "The metrics that actually matter" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Participants discussed which KPIs they now anchor ROI conversations around. Themes clustered around pipeline contribution, revenue influence, and efficiency ratios. Many leaders described moving away from vanity metrics toward fewer, more defensible numbers." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Survey question: \"What metrics or KPIs matter most to you now when proving ROI? Why those specific metrics?\"" }, { "type": "h3", "text": "Where CMOs are anchoring the ROI conversation" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Pipeline contribution" }, { "type": "p", "text": "sourced or influenced" }, { "type": "p", "text": "62%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Revenue influence" }, { "type": "p", "text": "and customer LTV" }, { "type": "p", "text": "49%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Efficiency ratios" }, { "type": "p", "text": "CAC payback, ROAS" }, { "type": "p", "text": "41%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Cutting vanity metrics" }, { "type": "p", "text": "on purpose" }, { "type": "p", "text": "33%" }, { "type": "figcaption", "text": "Themes coded from open-ended responses. Leaders typically named two to three priority metrics; bars show how often each cluster came up across the 114 conversations." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Key insight" }, { "type": "p", "text": "The pattern in the data is a narrowing, not a broadening. Leaders are killing legacy metrics on purpose. The CMOs who sound most confident in front of their boards are the ones who can name the three or four numbers they will defend, and what they have stopped reporting because it was getting in the way." }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"I cut half my dashboard last year. MQLs were eating air time and not predicting revenue. Now I report pipeline sourced, pipeline influenced, and CAC payback. Three numbers. The conversation got better immediately.\"" }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"Vanity metrics aren't dead because they're wrong. They're dead because the board stopped asking about them. Once the CEO stops nodding at impressions, you stop putting them on the slide.\"" }, { "type": "p", "text": "03 Methods In Use" }, { "type": "h2", "text": "Methods and frameworks in use" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Across 114 conversations, leaders described the tools and frameworks behind their ROI work. Approaches ranged from attribution platforms to marketing mix modeling to manual analysis. When choosing an approach, leaders weighed speed, defensibility, and how easily a CFO could read it." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Survey question: \"What tools, frameworks, or methods are you using to measure and prove ROI?\"" }, { "type": "h3", "text": "The measurement stack today" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Multi-touch attribution" }, { "type": "p", "text": "platforms" }, { "type": "p", "text": "51%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Marketing mix" }, { "type": "p", "text": "modeling" }, { "type": "p", "text": "36%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Manual analysis" }, { "type": "p", "text": "and spreadsheets" }, { "type": "p", "text": "32%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "CRM-native" }, { "type": "p", "text": "reporting" }, { "type": "p", "text": "28%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Survey question: \"What made you choose that approach over others?\"" }, { "type": "h3", "text": "What CMOs optimize for when they pick a method" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Defensibility" }, { "type": "p", "text": "with finance" }, { "type": "p", "text": "48%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Speed to" }, { "type": "p", "text": "an answer" }, { "type": "p", "text": "39%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Board readability" }, { "type": "p", "text": "34%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Cost and" }, { "type": "p", "text": "implementation effort" }, { "type": "p", "text": "22%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Key insight" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Most leaders are running more than one method in parallel. A platform handles the day-to-day reporting. A periodic mix model or manual analysis backstops the boardroom number. The deciding factor is rarely the method's sophistication; it is whether the CFO will sign off on the inputs." }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"We run attribution for the team and mix modeling for the board. They answer different questions. Pretending one tool covers both is how you get caught explaining a number you can't actually defend.\"" }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"I picked the boring option on purpose. The fanciest tool we evaluated would have given me prettier charts and zero credibility with finance. Defensibility beats sophistication every time at my stage.\"" }, { "type": "p", "text": "04 AI, Honestly" }, { "type": "h2", "text": "AI's real role beyond the hype" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Participants drew a clear line between AI hype and AI that has actually moved the needle. Concrete examples clustered around content production, analysis acceleration, and targeting. Several leaders pushed back on AI's measured ROI contribution to date." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Survey question: \"What role is AI playing in your ROI outcomes, either in driving results or measuring them? Can you give a specific example of where AI has actually moved the needle?\"" }, { "type": "h3", "text": "Where AI is earning its keep in marketing today" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Content production" }, { "type": "p", "text": "and drafting" }, { "type": "p", "text": "58%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Analysis and" }, { "type": "p", "text": "segmentation acceleration" }, { "type": "p", "text": "44%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Targeting and" }, { "type": "p", "text": "personalization" }, { "type": "p", "text": "36%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Skepticism on AI's" }, { "type": "p", "text": "measured ROI to date" }, { "type": "p", "text": "29%" }, { "type": "figcaption", "text": "Themes coded from open-ended responses; many leaders cited more than one use case, while others explicitly pushed back on AI's measured ROI to date." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Key insight" }, { "type": "p", "text": "The honest read on AI from this group is split. The wins are real and concrete: faster drafts, faster analysis, sharper targeting. The skepticism is also real. Leaders who can name a specific AI win can usually also name where it has not yet shown up in the revenue line, and they are not pretending otherwise." }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"AI saved us weeks of analyst time on segmentation. That's a real win. But when the CEO asks me how AI moved revenue this quarter, I have to be careful. The honest answer is that it made my team faster, not that it made the number bigger. Yet.\"" }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"Everyone wants an AI ROI story. The most useful thing I did this year was tell my board where AI is helping and where it isn't. They respected that more than another inflated case study they'd have to discount.\"" }, { "type": "p", "text": "05 The Honest Gaps" }, { "type": "h2", "text": "Where ROI measurement still breaks" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Leaders were candid about what they still cannot prove cleanly. Recurring gaps included brand impact, long sales cycles, and dark social influence. Most participants described workarounds rather than solutions, signaling an open industry problem." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Survey question: \"Where does your ROI measurement still fall short? What's hard to prove? How are you dealing with that gap?\"" }, { "type": "h3", "text": "The measurement problems CMOs have not solved" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Brand impact" }, { "type": "p", "text": "56%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Long sales cycles" }, { "type": "p", "text": "and lag effects" }, { "type": "p", "text": "47%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Dark social and" }, { "type": "p", "text": "community influence" }, { "type": "p", "text": "39%" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Cross-channel" }, { "type": "p", "text": "interaction effects" }, { "type": "p", "text": "31%" }, { "type": "figcaption", "text": "Themes coded from open-ended responses across 114 conversations. Most leaders named more than one gap and described workarounds rather than solutions." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Key insight" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Brand, long cycles, and dark social are the three problems no one has cleanly solved. Leaders are pairing imperfect proxies with honest framing for the board, rather than pretending the gap doesn't exist. The CMOs who win the next budget cycle will be the ones who can name what they cannot yet measure, and show a credible plan to close that gap." }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"Dark social is the one that keeps me up. I know our Slack communities and podcast mentions are doing real work. I cannot put a clean number on any of it, and the honest answer when the board asks is that we're using proxies and judgment.\"" }, { "type": "blockquote", "text": "\"Brand is the gap I've stopped trying to fully prove. We measure what we can, we triangulate, and we tell the board what's directional versus what's audited. That candor has bought us more credibility than any model would have.\"" }, { "type": "h2", "text": "The next budget cycle belongs to the CMOs who can name what they can't yet measure." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Two takeaways stand out from these 114 conversations. ROI proof is becoming a sharper, smaller set of defensible numbers, not a broader dashboard. And AI is showing up in workflows faster than it is showing up in outcomes. The leaders who close that gap honestly will set the standard for everyone else." }, { "type": "p", "text": "Name the few numbers worth defending" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Show where AI is creating speed before claiming revenue lift" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Separate audited metrics from directional proxies" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Build a credible plan for the gaps you cannot yet measure" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Full Report" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Rewriting ROI" }, { "type": "p", "text": "How B2B marketing leaders are turning proof into a sharper boardroom language." }, { "type": "h2", "text": "Methodology" }, { "type": "p", "text": "This study is built on open-ended, conversational interviews with 114 B2B marketing leaders, primarily CMOs and VPs of Marketing. We collected responses to eight core ROI topics plus a closing prompt, with one targeted follow-up per topic when an answer was vague or contrarian. Themes were identified through transcript review and pattern coding; percentages reflect the share of unique participants who raised each theme, not the share of mentions or messages." }, { "type": "p", "text": "114" }, { "type": "p", "text": "B2B marketing leaders interviewed" }, { "type": "p", "text": "114" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Unique participant conversations analyzed" }, { "type": "p", "text": "8 + 1" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Core ROI topics plus a closing prompt" }, { "type": "p", "text": "May 2026" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Fieldwork period" }, { "type": "p", "text": "Most ROI questions in this study were open-ended; participants frequently named more than one driver, metric, tool, or gap. Where a section reports a combined theme, for example economic pressure, it counts unique participants who raised at least one underlying sub-theme, with no double counting. Because most cuts are multi-mention, percentages within a chart do not sum to 100%. Quotes are presented verbatim from participant transcripts; identifying details have been excluded." } ], "figures": [ { "id": "figure-1", "title": "Three forces are tightening ROI scrutiny", "question": "Survey question: \"How has proving marketing ROI changed for you over the past year or two? What's driving that change?\"", "notes": "Themes coded from open-ended conversations with 114 B2B marketing leaders. Multi-mention; bars represent the share of conversations where each driver came up.", "records": [ { "label": "Economic pressure and CFO scrutiny", "series": "", "display_value": "54%", "value": 54, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Board and CEO demanding clearer math", "series": "", "display_value": "47%", "value": 47, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "New tools and AI changing what is measurable", "series": "", "display_value": "38%", "value": 38, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null } ], "published_text": "Survey question: \"How has proving marketing ROI changed for you over the past year or two? What's driving that change?\"Three forces are tightening ROI scrutinyEconomic pressureand CFO scrutiny54%Board and CEOdemanding clearer math47%New tools and AIchanging what is measurable38%Themes coded from open-ended conversations with 114 B2B marketing leaders. Multi-mention; bars represent the share of conversations where each driver came up.", "extraction": "recognized_chart_values" }, { "id": "figure-2", "title": "Where CMOs are anchoring the ROI conversation", "question": "Survey question: \"What metrics or KPIs matter most to you now when proving ROI? Why those specific metrics?\"", "notes": "Themes coded from open-ended responses. Leaders typically named two to three priority metrics; bars show how often each cluster came up across the 114 conversations.", "records": [ { "label": "Pipeline contribution sourced or influenced", "series": "", "display_value": "62%", "value": 62, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Revenue influence and customer LTV", "series": "", "display_value": "49%", "value": 49, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Efficiency ratios CAC payback, ROAS", "series": "", "display_value": "41%", "value": 41, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Cutting vanity metrics on purpose", "series": "", "display_value": "33%", "value": 33, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null } ], "published_text": "Survey question: \"What metrics or KPIs matter most to you now when proving ROI? Why those specific metrics?\"Where CMOs are anchoring the ROI conversationPipeline contributionsourced or influenced62%Revenue influenceand customer LTV49%Efficiency ratiosCAC payback, ROAS41%Cutting vanity metricson purpose33%Themes coded from open-ended responses. Leaders typically named two to three priority metrics; bars show how often each cluster came up across the 114 conversations.", "extraction": "recognized_chart_values" }, { "id": "figure-3", "title": "The measurement stack today", "question": "Survey question: \"What tools, frameworks, or methods are you using to measure and prove ROI?\"", "notes": "", "records": [ { "label": "Multi-touch attribution platforms", "series": "", "display_value": "51%", "value": 51, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Marketing mix modeling", "series": "", "display_value": "36%", "value": 36, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Manual analysis and spreadsheets", "series": "", "display_value": "32%", "value": 32, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "CRM-native reporting", "series": "", "display_value": "28%", "value": 28, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null } ], "published_text": "Survey question: \"What tools, frameworks, or methods are you using to measure and prove ROI?\"The measurement stack todayMulti-touch attributionplatforms51%Marketing mixmodeling36%Manual analysisand spreadsheets32%CRM-nativereporting28%", "extraction": "recognized_chart_values" }, { "id": "figure-4", "title": "What CMOs optimize for when they pick a method", "question": "Survey question: \"What made you choose that approach over others?\"", "notes": "", "records": [ { "label": "Defensibility with finance", "series": "", "display_value": "48%", "value": 48, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Speed to an answer", "series": "", "display_value": "39%", "value": 39, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Board readability", "series": "", "display_value": "34%", "value": 34, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Cost and implementation effort", "series": "", "display_value": "22%", "value": 22, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null } ], "published_text": "Survey question: \"What made you choose that approach over others?\"What CMOs optimize for when they pick a methodDefensibilitywith finance48%Speed toan answer39%Board readability34%Cost andimplementation effort22%", "extraction": "recognized_chart_values" }, { "id": "figure-5", "title": "Where AI is earning its keep in marketing today", "question": "Survey question: \"What role is AI playing in your ROI outcomes, either in driving results or measuring them? Can you give a specific example of where AI has actually moved the needle?\"", "notes": "Themes coded from open-ended responses; many leaders cited more than one use case, while others explicitly pushed back on AI's measured ROI to date.", "records": [ { "label": "Content production and drafting", "series": "", "display_value": "58%", "value": 58, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Analysis and segmentation acceleration", "series": "", "display_value": "44%", "value": 44, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Targeting and personalization", "series": "", "display_value": "36%", "value": 36, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Skepticism on AI's measured ROI to date", "series": "", "display_value": "29%", "value": 29, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null } ], "published_text": "Survey question: \"What role is AI playing in your ROI outcomes, either in driving results or measuring them? Can you give a specific example of where AI has actually moved the needle?\"Where AI is earning its keep in marketing todayContent productionand drafting58%Analysis andsegmentation acceleration44%Targeting andpersonalization36%Skepticism on AI'smeasured ROI to date29%Themes coded from open-ended responses; many leaders cited more than one use case, while others explicitly pushed back on AI's measured ROI to date.", "extraction": "recognized_chart_values" }, { "id": "figure-6", "title": "The measurement problems CMOs have not solved", "question": "Survey question: \"Where does your ROI measurement still fall short? What's hard to prove? How are you dealing with that gap?\"", "notes": "Themes coded from open-ended responses across 114 conversations. Most leaders named more than one gap and described workarounds rather than solutions.", "records": [ { "label": "Brand impact", "series": "", "display_value": "56%", "value": 56, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Long sales cycles and lag effects", "series": "", "display_value": "47%", "value": 47, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Dark social and community influence", "series": "", "display_value": "39%", "value": 39, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null }, { "label": "Cross-channel interaction effects", "series": "", "display_value": "31%", "value": 31, "unit": "percent", "denominator": null } ], "published_text": "Survey question: \"Where does your ROI measurement still fall short? What's hard to prove? How are you dealing with that gap?\"The measurement problems CMOs have not solvedBrand impact56%Long sales cyclesand lag effects47%Dark social andcommunity influence39%Cross-channelinteraction effects31%Themes coded from open-ended responses across 114 conversations. Most leaders named more than one gap and described workarounds rather than solutions.", "extraction": "recognized_chart_values" } ], "tables": [], "metrics": [], "metric_statements": [ { "text": "54%", "values": [ { "value": 54, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "54%" } ] }, { "text": "47%", "values": [ { "value": 47, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "47%" } ] }, { "text": "38%", "values": [ { "value": 38, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "38%" } ] }, { "text": "62%", "values": [ { "value": 62, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "62%" } ] }, { "text": "49%", "values": [ { "value": 49, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "49%" } ] }, { "text": "41%", "values": [ { "value": 41, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "41%" } ] }, { "text": "33%", "values": [ { "value": 33, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "33%" } ] }, { "text": "51%", "values": [ { "value": 51, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "51%" } ] }, { "text": "36%", "values": [ { "value": 36, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "36%" } ] }, { "text": "32%", "values": [ { "value": 32, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "32%" } ] }, { "text": "28%", "values": [ { "value": 28, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "28%" } ] }, { "text": "48%", "values": [ { "value": 48, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "48%" } ] }, { "text": "39%", "values": [ { "value": 39, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "39%" } ] }, { "text": "34%", "values": [ { "value": 34, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "34%" } ] }, { "text": "22%", "values": [ { "value": 22, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "22%" } ] }, { "text": "58%", "values": [ { "value": 58, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "58%" } ] }, { "text": "44%", "values": [ { "value": 44, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "44%" } ] }, { "text": "36%", "values": [ { "value": 36, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "36%" } ] }, { "text": "29%", "values": [ { "value": 29, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "29%" } ] }, { "text": "56%", "values": [ { "value": 56, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "56%" } ] }, { "text": "47%", "values": [ { "value": 47, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "47%" } ] }, { "text": "39%", "values": [ { "value": 39, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "39%" } ] }, { "text": "31%", "values": [ { "value": 31, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "31%" } ] }, { "text": "Most ROI questions in this study were open-ended; participants frequently named more than one driver, metric, tool, or gap. Where a section reports a combined theme, for example economic pressure, it counts unique participants who raised at least one underlying sub-theme, with no double counting. Because most cuts are multi-mention, percentages within a chart do not sum to 100%. Quotes are presented verbatim from participant transcripts; identifying details have been excluded.", "values": [ { "value": 100, "unit": "percent", "display_value": "100%" } ] } ], "content_sha256": "2a857e3fc7bf08dd121008c929fc8b4df3f2e5576e62003c928fe82347412bae", "downloads": { "json": "https://www.gatherhq.com/report-data/reports/b2b-marketing-roi.json", "csv": "https://www.gatherhq.com/report-data/reports/b2b-marketing-roi.csv", "markdown": "https://www.gatherhq.com/report-data/reports/b2b-marketing-roi.md" } }