Marketing Didn’t Get Tied to Revenue by Accident: A Historiography

Marketing didn’t get reduced to a pipeline machine by accident. It happened because, at a critical moment, marketing couldn’t explain its value and what replaced it reshaped the entire function.

I hate, and I’m using the word hate here with all its full force and passion, I hate the idea that marketing should be tied to revenue. I’ve fought against for years, before it became trendy to do so. I fought it inside of corporate and out. Several articles, countless LinkedIn rants, and many podcast appearances…still no traction. No matter what I do or say, this idea isn’t changing inside corporate businesses.

So inside of continuing to fight, I had to take a step back and examine my own ideology. Am I wrong? Is there something deeper at play here? Is this more nuanced than I’m giving it credit? Are there environments or types of businesses where this ideology is needed or works best?

Maybe I shouldn’t just outright dismiss the idea. So, I went back and researched the concept to understand how we got here. Was this a legitimate idea that got misconstrued or was this a farce from the beginning?

Let’s go back to the room where this actually happened, because it didn’t just take off from some blog post, or a framework, or some neat little marketing theory that got out of hand. If you look deep, it took shape in a boardroom, under pressure, with people who needed answers and a function that couldn’t quite give them one.

Marketing accountability tied to performance measurement was gaining stream in the early 2000s. CMO Council, Advertising Research Foundation, ANA were all producing studies and surveys highlighting marketing’s weakness when it comes to measurement and floating the notion that formal measurement would earn confidence from CEO’s.

The early 2000s were not a great time to be vague about anything tied to money. The dot-com crash is still fresh. Suddenly “fiscal responsibility” became the term of the year. Budgets got tighter, executives are being asked harder questions by boards and investors who suddenly care a lot more about discipline than they did a few years earlier, and every department is being dragged into the same uncomfortable spotlight.

Does any of this sound familiar? We love repeating history.

Inside the boardroom, every department steps to the front, seemingly prepared.

Finance walks in with models, forecasts, margins, cost controls, all wrapped neatly in a language the business understands.

Sales walks in with pipeline, deals, forecasts, maybe a story or two about a big account they’re close to landing.

Operations talks efficiency, throughput, delivery, timelines, things that feel tangible and grounded in reality.

And then marketing walks in.

Campaigns, brand awareness, creative, engagement. Maybe a lift study if they’re feeling ambitious.

All of it real and valuable. But none of it concrete. Marketing can’t answer the question that’s actually being asked,“what did it do for the business?”

In the post dot-com era, when every dollar is getting scrutinized and spend had to be justified, marketing couldn’t pass the test. It often didn’t understand the business deeply enough to translate its work into something that could stand up in that room without feeling… interpretive (aka vibey). But to be fair, prior to the 2000s, it never had to.

When social media and iPhones weren’t as prevalent, mass media, brand recognition and reputation were much more important. The control of the media (and thus the audience) was in a few TV networks, radio broadcasters and print publications. Those relationships meant everything. Marketing’s value wasn’t in a spreadsheet, it showed up in access and association.

So when the boardroom wanted logic, process and data, marketing could only give ambiguity. We know the campaign kinda sorta had an impact…I don’t have spreadsheets and charts to prove directly how though.

Before we get self-righteous about it, let’s be clear about something.

The push to tie marketing to revenue came from a legitimate gap.

For a long time, marketing operated in a kind of protected space where its impact was understood intuitively but not expressed concretely, and that works…until it doesn’t.

Business philosophy had evolved. The Mad Men days were long gone and now the Silicon Valley approach was the law of the land. Slick creative and clever copy weren’t enough. We had moved into the stat era, they wanted Moneyball.

If marketing influences demand, shapes perception, attracts customers, and supports growth, then it should be able to connect its work to business outcomes, not just activity. Marketing was not getting a pass.

That’s where concepts like Return on Marketing Investment started gaining traction in the early 2000s, and not in the watered-down way we talk about it now, but in a much broader sense that included customer lifetime value, brand equity, and long-term cash flow impact. The original concept was much more encompassing and in line with broader business outcomes.

This was marketing trying to grow up. Trying to speak the language of the business and earn credibility in these new boardrooms that didn’t have much patience for soft explanations.

And in that form, the idea holds up.

Marketing should be accountable. It should understand how it contributes to growth. It should be able to connect what it does to what the business is trying to achieve.

None of that is the problem.

The problem is what happens when that idea leaves the hands of people who understand it and gets operationalized by people who need to manage it.

Nuance doesn’t scale well. But simple spreads quickly.

These broad, complex and nuanced topics got flattened and severely simplified over time.

We went from asking “How does marketing influence the quality and timing of revenue over time?”

To asking “What revenue did this campaign generate?”

And just like that, we entered the “marketing for dummies” era.

Accountability didn’t mean this quarter. Influence didn’t mean which campaigns.

Now layer in what happened next and this is where things really accelerated.

In the Mid-2000s, tools like Google Analytics start becoming mainstream, CRM systems get more sophisticated, marketing automation platforms enter the picture, and suddenly marketing activity is being tracked in a way that feels precise.

You can get information like clicks, conversions, form fills and lead sources in real time. You can craft pipeline stages to predict when deals will close.

You have the ability to build funnels and assign credit. You can now create dashboards that map a journey from first touch to closed deal, even if that journey is more stitched together than the drywall your dad put up last Christmas.

Before these tools, marketing required interpretation. After these tools, marketing looked objective.

Once something looks objective, executives trust it differently. They don’t just see data, they see control.

“If we can track it, we can manage it. If we can manage it, we can optimize it. If we can optimize it, we can tie it directly to revenue.”

We went from one end of the spectrum to the other with no sliding scale. We swapped creative and craft with structure and process. And when things are structured and processed, they become very easy to control (and manipulate).

And it’s incredibly seductive.

The idea of marketing accountability being tied to revenue got cemented with SiriusDecisions.

The SiriusDecisions Demand Waterfall didn’t just describe the buyer journey, they operationalized it, turning marketing into a measurable set of stages inside a revenue system, where leads become MQLs, MQLs become SQLs, SQLs become opportunities, and everything is tracked, reported, and optimized.

Research firms like Forrester and Gartner reinforced it, dashboards reflected it, marketing and sales teams institutionalized it, and Prest-O Change-O, marketing wasn’t just contributing to revenue. It was now being defined by its ability to produce it.

And this is where the wheels start to fall off and the original concept starts to morph into something different.

Overtime marketing stops being the function that understands the market, shapes positioning, and communicates value, and starts becoming the function that feeds the pipeline.

In trying to make marketing more accountable, we made it more legible. In making it more legible, we made it more measurable. And in making it more measurable, we quietly replaced large parts of what marketing is supposed to do with the parts that are easiest to track.

The things that matter most in marketing don’t behave nicely in dashboards.

Understanding your customer at a psychological level doesn’t show up as a metric. Shifting how the market perceives your company doesn’t tie cleanly to a campaign ID. Building trust over time, through consistent, relevant, meaningful interactions, doesn’t belong to a single touchpoint that you can assign 37% attribution to and call it a day.

So instead of figuring out how to measure these things better, we started prioritizing the things we could already measure.

And that’s the trade-off.

Marketing wasn’t misunderstood.

Marketing got tied to revenue because the business needed clarity, marketing couldn’t provide it in the right boardroom style language, finance/sales stepped in with a framework that made sense, and technology made that framework feel real enough to trust.

And once it started working in certain environments, like those with short sales cycles, high intent demand, and linear digital journeys (aka B2C), well then it became universally true. Success stories travel faster than caveats and nuance.

That’s how ideas become doctrine.

We adopted the idea, operationalized it and scaled it. And then we stopped questioning it.

We never went back to ask where it actually works, where it starts to strain under complexity, and where it breaks entirely.

We never asked whether the way we were measuring marketing was shaping the way marketing behaved or what we might have lost in the process.

Instead, we leaned deeper into proof. Dug our heels into finding the metrics that mattered. Metrics that led to attribution and direct lines to revenue.

As if the problem was that marketing hadn’t proven itself enough yet. That was never the problem. We just wanted to hold marketing to be accountable for its spend, not have its value tied to it.

Now you have a function that’s supposed to shape markets, build trust, define positioning, and deeply understand customers, being evaluated primarily on its ability to produce immediate, attributable revenue.

And those two things don’t always align. Not everything that drives revenue behaves in a way that can be measured cleanly in the moment.

That’s the crack in the system. And that’s what we need to start unpacking next.

The goal isn’t to throw this idea out and pretend revenue doesn’t matter.

The goal is to understand it well enough to stop using it as a shortcut for understanding marketing itself.

---

Follow Moni Oloyede at https://www.linkedin.com/in/moni-oloyede/

If you want help reconnecting to your marketing, sign up for MOM’s Weekly Newsletter Let’s bring the soul back to your strategy.