One of the most popular industries that both newly minted MBA students and executive-level marketers are interested to work in is the tech industry. There seems to be a pull that fascinates marketers of all levels. However, in research I’ve conducted which was published in Harvard Business Review, the role that marketers play in tech is often quite different than say CPG or financial services or retailing or hospitality.
Yet, when I talk to students or executives, there is often a perception that both the importance of marketing to the firm and the role that marketers play do not vary across industries (or firms). In other words, taking a marketing job at JNJ or Google is the same. With this logic, it makes sense to go to the "hot" company or industry of the moment. Of course, in the early 2000's, some of the popular companies included Yahoo! and AOL (or before that Pets.com, Webvan, etc.), and so the companies that may be attractive tomorrow are not necessarily the same as today.
Last week, I published an article that described the 4 types of marketing roles that exist within tech. To better understand how roles in tech differ relative to other industries, particularly consumer packaged goods companies (I picked CPG because it is ranked the highest at producing C-level marketing talent in this survey), I turned to David Wiser, an executive recruiting veteran who places marketers across all industries. Over his 24 year career, he has developed a network of over 37,000 people, and has placed over 1,000 marketers. In addition to being an expert, what I appreciate about Wiser is that he is direct, does not pull punches, and is exceptionally open with his perspective. What follows may not be what some people want to hear, but it is refreshingly authentic and honest.
Kimberly Whitler: To start with, how do you define tech?
David Wiser: I basically think about a 2x2 matrix. On one axis, you have the target: consumer or enterprise. On the other axis, you have the type of offering: product or service. So, in the consumer + product quadrant you would have companies like Apple and Microsoft. In the enterprise + product quadrant you would have companies that sell tangible products to firms, such as HP Enterprise or Intel. In the consumer + service quadrant you would have Google and Facebook and in the enterprise + service quadrant you could have a company like Hubspot or Baracuda Networks. You also have firms that cover a number of different quadrants such as Amazon. Amazon sells consumer products (e.g., Echo) and enterprise services (e.g., cloud service). So while this 2x2 matrix is helpful, it’s not always clean.
If you look at how companies build brands and how marketers deploy their craft it is different within each of those quadrants. So this 2x2 matrix is one way to think about the different types of tech firms that exist. While the way in which marketers will operate may differ in these firms, the legacy model across all of tech is one in which marketers largely play a communications function (see HBR article here for the different types of marketers). Their job is to create advertising, social media programs, influencer strategies, content, and then connect this with the right media vehicles to communicate the price and features of the company’s products and/or services. It is downstream marketing and not upstream strategic leadership of the business. Marketing is still important — don’t get me wrong — but it is a different role than what you’d find in CPG. This different role is far less important to the functioning of the firm, has a smaller set of responsibilities, and tends to be more marginalized relative to their peers. In most tech companies, you not only aren’t the king of the hill, you often have to fight to get a seat at the grown-up’s table.
Whitler: That's interesting. I just read an article that made a similar point: "The product manager (in tech) is the person responsible for defining, in detail, the why, what, and when of the product that the engineering team will build. The product marketing manager is responsible for clearly communicating the why, what, and when to the marketplace. The roles are often considered ‘inbound’ versus ‘outbound’ ..." They suggest that marketers in tech are more responsible for selling the products that somebody else determined should be sold. As you suggest, this is quite different than developing the overall business strategy, product innovation pipeline, and downstream marketing plan. To dive further into the topic, are there any observations you have about the current popularity of tech as a career for marketers?
Wiser: To be honest, it’s a point of major frustration for us. We deal with a version of this issue when we get calls from CEOs and private equity groups. The calls go something like this. I want a marketing leader (CMO) who is an expert in digital. I then have to go through this long explanation of how digital is a tactical competency and isn’t a strategic, leadership competency and should be something that you hire at the 2nd or 3rd down level of the organization. There is a deficiency that occurs when you hire digital natives as CMO, as they often don’t know the difference between strategic marketing leadership and tactical management of marketing.
Whitler: Interesting. I use the following metaphor to make a similar point. There is a difference between a conductor and a specialist, such as a drummer or violinist. The conductor needs to understand all instruments, the music, and the interaction and integration of it all to achieve the end goal. The specialists need to be experts at a single instrument. These are different roles. Consistently, you want the specialists (such as a digital expert) reporting up to the CMO — not necessarily in the CMO role. The problem, it sounds like, is that CEOs and VCs often don't understand the difference between needing a conductor in the CMO role versus an Oboe Player. Let’s talk about this shift in interest from CPG (the more traditional training ground for marketing) to tech. Is CPG dead as a career path?
Wiser: That is just garbage. It simply isn’t true. I’ve been recruiting for over 24 years. We were placing .com people back in the late 1990’s and I’ve seen the ebb and flow of interest in tech. When you talk about tech, the roles are predominantly marcom (marketing communication roles). The marketers in tech typically do not sit at the hub of the wheel, they are often very disconnected from the innovation function, and consequently, they rarely have good consumer insight generating competencies. On top of it, in many tech firms, they aren’t invited to participate in firm-level strategy-setting discussions. This isn’t surprising because the engineering function is typically the most important function in tech — not the consumer understanding function. The headline in Silicon Valley is that “If Engineering can build it, they (consumers) will come.” Nobody is asking Marketing “Where do we go next?”
Whitler: Historically, recruiters who have knowledge about marketing across industries would recommend CPG brand management as the best training ground. With the emergence of tech, has this changed?
Wiser: If you go back 20 years, technology existed but not like today. When tech companies started emerging and they wanted marketing talent, they would turn to CPG because it was the largest breeding ground for skilled marketing talent. About 10 years ago, things starting turning, because there were enough young people who had migrated to tech. Today, recruiters and hiring executives still want people to have the foundational, CPG/GM marketing training but they also want them to have another industry experience. The individuals you want are those who started in CPG and then moved into retail or tech or financial services or hospitality. This second industry experience provides individuals with breadth of training and agility.
Whitler: What advice would you give somebody who ultimately wants to be a C-level marketer and/or run a company?
Wiser: Spend 4-5 years in the best CPG you can find. Get credentialed. Take advantage of the influence marketing has, and learn to think like a general manager. The time to leave is during your second round as a brand manager or as a marketing director. CPG is still the absolute best foundation. In terms of skill building, go there. After that, consider a different industry and gain additional experience in a different model with different channel dynamics, different competitors, different products, and different problems. This provides you with greater insight and market agility.
The most valuable profile we have is one generation removed from a big CPG firm or one sector away. For example, if somebody has five years at Pepsi and then three years at AMEX – this is a blue chip profile and I can sell this to anybody.
Whitler: How about consulting? Wouldn’t that be a terrific foundation?
Wiser: Whenever I send out email alerts for our searches, I always get responses from people who work for the big consulting firms. However, we rarely engage these folks. My clients want to hire people who have had hands-on, operational experience. It’s hard to sell consulting folks, unless it’s for a narrow consulting role, or a “Strategy” role, because they haven’t had GM/operations/leadership training. There are a lot of consultants who tell me routinely that they have a hard time moving to the client side because they can’t compete without the operating / leadership experience of those who come from GM training (whether it’s brand management or something else).
Whitler: So are you suggesting that you would never recommend consulting?
Wiser: Not at all. I would recommend thinking about consulting out of undergrad, then get your MBA, and then migrate into a GM/operating/leadership role.
Whitler: If somebody says “I really want to work in tech, as a marketer, what company would you steer them to”?
Wiser: Wow – that’s a tough question. And it also depends on whether we’re talking about an entry-level marketing role, or an opportunity further into their career. The fact that nobody really jumps to mind is actually quite telling. To be honest, there really isn’t a tech company that would make my top 10 list of great places to learn how to be a strategic marketing leader. But I do want to make a distinction here. We coach marketers to prepare themselves to be successful in the long term which means that they need to acquire skills and be trained by people who are expert at leveraging marketing to generate business results. With that in mind, we're just not likely to steer someone towards tech early in their career. In terms of marketing yourself, there can be value moving into a strong tech company, and we will advocate that move, particulary at higher levels. A lot of people will value the Google, Facebook and Apple brands. But that is different than having the training, skill, and preparation to be a strategic leader who can drive growth. These companies aren’t developing strategic marketing talent – it’s much more focused on the tactical side. When I think about sourcing CMOs, I don’t typically turn to those who have spent most of their career, especially the early part of their career, in the tech industry because there are often major skill and experience gaps.
Thanks to Jordan Clarke for sharing the following podcast which provides more insight on important considerations if pursuing a consulting career path.
Join the Discussion: @KimWhitler
