<p>A board discussion at a consumer facing company turned tense when the CFO was questioned about a proposed increase in marketing expenditure. The economy was slowing, margins were under pressure and investors were asking harder questions about profitability. One independent director asked a simple question. “If we increase the marketing budget by Rs 75 crore, what precisely do we get in return?” The CFO was stumped. What followed was revealing. There were feeble mumbles about brand visibility and digital traction. The board, however, remained unconvinced. Finally, the chairman asked the question that increasingly haunts marketing departments across India. “How much of this actually creates long term value and how much is simply expenditure disguised as strategy?”</p><p>That exchange captures a frequent tension inside companies. For nearly two decades, marketing enjoyed a relatively comfortable environment. Digital platforms allowed targeted advertising at scale and boards were willing to support spending because growth itself masked inefficiency. That era is changing. Customer acquisition costs are rising sharply and digital advertising has become crowded. Consequently, CFOs are under pressure to defend every rupee of expenditure. So, marketing is being evaluated not as a creative function but as a capital allocation decision. The problem is that CFOs and CMOs frequently speak different languages. The finance team wants measurable returns and defined accountability. Marketing teams often speak in concepts such as emotional connection. None of these are trivial, but many are difficult to quantify. Part of the problem lies in the growing misuse of marketing metrics themselves. Vanity indicators have become common in corporate presentations. A campaign may generate millions of impressions, yet contribute little to actual commercial performance. This is particularly visible in the fintech sector where aggressive customer acquisition became almost a badge of honour. Several fintech firms spent extraordinary sums on celebrity endorsements and cashback campaigns in pursuit of scale. In some cases it did create visibility, but many firms discovered that large numbers of acquired customers generated poor profitability. Boards and investors are now asking questions about lifetime value and sustainable monetisation. </p><p>The irony is that some of India’s most successful companies have always understood marketing differently. Asian Paints is a useful example. Its brand investment has rarely been impulsive or excessively fashionable. Over decades, the company built familiarity and distribution consistency so deeply that the brand itself became part of household decision making. Advertising was important, but it worked in conjunction with dealer relationships. Marketing was not treated as a quarterly burst of visibility but as long term brand construction. Titan followed a similar path with Tanishq. Jewellery is a category built heavily on trust because consumers are simultaneously buying adornment and financial security. Tanishq succeeded not because it shouted louder than competitors but because it reduced anxiety through transparency and certification. </p><p>CMOs therefore need to rethink how they present investment proposals internally. Marketing budgets can no longer be defended through abstract language. A better approach is to frame marketing as a portfolio of investments with different time horizons. Some expenditure drives immediate sales activation. Some strengthens customer retention. Boards understand portfolios because that is how they already think about capital allocation elsewhere in the business. The relationship between the CFO and CMO is therefore becoming one of the important partnerships inside modern companies. Finance must recognise that not all valuable outcomes can be measured instantly. Marketing, meanwhile, must accept that emotional storytelling alone is no longer sufficient justification for rising expenditure.</p>
<p>A board discussion at a consumer facing company turned tense when the CFO was questioned about a proposed increase in marketing expenditure. The economy was slowing, margins were under pressure and investors were asking harder questions about profitability. One independent director asked a simple question. “If we increase the marketing budget by Rs 75 crore, what precisely do we get in return?” The CFO was stumped. What followed was revealing. There were feeble mumbles about brand visibility and digital traction. The board, however, remained unconvinced. Finally, the chairman asked the question that increasingly haunts marketing departments across India. “How much of this actually creates long term value and how much is simply expenditure disguised as strategy?”</p><p>That exchange captures a frequent tension inside companies. For nearly two decades, marketing enjoyed a relatively comfortable environment. Digital platforms allowed targeted advertising at scale and boards were willing to support spending because growth itself masked inefficiency. That era is changing. Customer acquisition costs are rising sharply and digital advertising has become crowded. Consequently, CFOs are under pressure to defend every rupee of expenditure. So, marketing is being evaluated not as a creative function but as a capital allocation decision. The problem is that CFOs and CMOs frequently speak different languages. The finance team wants measurable returns and defined accountability. Marketing teams often speak in concepts such as emotional connection. None of these are trivial, but many are difficult to quantify. Part of the problem lies in the growing misuse of marketing metrics themselves. Vanity indicators have become common in corporate presentations. A campaign may generate millions of impressions, yet contribute little to actual commercial performance. This is particularly visible in the fintech sector where aggressive customer acquisition became almost a badge of honour. Several fintech firms spent extraordinary sums on celebrity endorsements and cashback campaigns in pursuit of scale. In some cases it did create visibility, but many firms discovered that large numbers of acquired customers generated poor profitability. Boards and investors are now asking questions about lifetime value and sustainable monetisation. </p><p>The irony is that some of India’s most successful companies have always understood marketing differently. Asian Paints is a useful example. Its brand investment has rarely been impulsive or excessively fashionable. Over decades, the company built familiarity and distribution consistency so deeply that the brand itself became part of household decision making. Advertising was important, but it worked in conjunction with dealer relationships. Marketing was not treated as a quarterly burst of visibility but as long term brand construction. Titan followed a similar path with Tanishq. Jewellery is a category built heavily on trust because consumers are simultaneously buying adornment and financial security. Tanishq succeeded not because it shouted louder than competitors but because it reduced anxiety through transparency and certification. </p><p>CMOs therefore need to rethink how they present investment proposals internally. Marketing budgets can no longer be defended through abstract language. A better approach is to frame marketing as a portfolio of investments with different time horizons. Some expenditure drives immediate sales activation. Some strengthens customer retention. Boards understand portfolios because that is how they already think about capital allocation elsewhere in the business. The relationship between the CFO and CMO is therefore becoming one of the important partnerships inside modern companies. Finance must recognise that not all valuable outcomes can be measured instantly. Marketing, meanwhile, must accept that emotional storytelling alone is no longer sufficient justification for rising expenditure.</p>
