Journal of Marketing Research Scholarly Insights are produced in partnership with the AMA Doctoral Students SIG – a shared interest network for Marketing PhD students across the world.
In recent years, marketing scholars and practitioners have expressed growing concern about the diminishing influence of marketing departments. Against this backdrop, a Journal of Marketing Research study examines how governance networks may determine marketing department power (MDP). Drawing on data from over 6,000 publicly traded firms from 2007 to 2021, the researchers show that directors’ exposure through board service at other firms (i.e., board interlocks) affects MDP in the firms on whose boards they also serve (i.e., focal firms). More importantly, the strength of this effect hinges on three interlocking dimensions:
- the reach of a firm’s board network,
- the richness of marketing information within that network, and
- the firm’s receptivity to information furnished by the board interlock network.
This work shifts the lens to upstream factors that shape MDP, suggesting that marketing’s influence is not built solely internally—it is also transmitted through board interlocks, making the board not only a governance body but also a conduit for influencing a firm’s MDP. For scholars of marketing’s organizational role, functional power, and network diffusion effects, this study offers a fresh vantage point and a reminder that if marketing wants to increase its power in firms, the conversation must extend beyond the CMO’s office into the boardroom.
For marketers, the core takeaway is clear: the board matters. Firms whose directors are connected to companies where marketing holds greater influence are more likely to elevate marketing’s importance within their own organization. These networks shape how leaders think about growth, which is a key priority for every board. While firms often call on marketers when facing serious challenges or major opportunities, marketing should not be reserved for exceptional circumstances. A key priority for marketers and CMOs is to educate their boards on how and why marketing drives firm growth, a shared goal across virtually all boards.
A key priority for marketers and CMOs is to educate their boards on how and why marketing drives firm growth, a shared goal across virtually all boards.
In short, governance structures are not just background context; they are powerful levers that can strengthen or diminish marketing’s strategic voice in the firm.
We recently had the opportunity to meet with all three authors of this research, who kindly offered additional insights into their motivations, managerial implications, and prospective avenues for future research.
Q: Your research shows that boards of directors, often overlooked in marketing, can shape marketing’s strategic importance. What led you to recognize the board as a missing piece in the marketing power puzzle, and how did this idea develop into the published study?
A: The idea grew from our earlier work on Chief Marketing Officers, where we found that firms that employ CMOs tend to perform better. But we also noticed that the presence of marketers on top management teams and the overall influence of marketing within firms has declined over time. That pattern made us think about what other forces might shape marketing’s standing in firms, beyond what happens inside the organization. The board of directors emerged as a natural next place to look, because directors serve on multiple boards and can bring with them ideas about what marketing should look like. When the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative released a call for projects offering access to large-scale data on board linkages, it gave us a perfect opportunity to test this idea. That combination of prior research, the open question around marketing’s declining power, and the new data on board interlocks ultimately came together in this study.
Q: Do firms need a formal “Marketing Department” to have influence at the top, or is it enough to possess strong marketing capabilities and a deep understanding of what marketing brings to the organization?
A: That’s more of a philosophical question. While marketing today is highly cross-functional, a formal marketing function still matters. Having a defined department or leadership structure gives marketing visibility and accountability at the top. Without it, the customer perspective can easily get lost amid competing priorities. As we often say, “when something is everybody’s responsibility, it ends up being nobody’s responsibility.” A clear advocate, like a marketing department, helps ensure that the customer’s voice is represented in key decisions.
At the same time, the role of marketing looks very different across industries. In consumer goods and retail, marketing tends to have comprehensive control and plays a central strategic role. In banking, it often has a narrower focus on promotions or communications. In professional services like accounting, marketing is more standardized and peripheral. Unlike functions such as accounting, which look similar across most firms, marketing differs widely in scope, influence, and integration. That diversity makes it distinctive: its impact depends on how the organization chooses to empower it. Companies with a more comprehensive marketing approach tend to outperform those with limited marketing responsibilities. Ultimately, marketing power depends on balancing formal structure with shared responsibility.
Q: You show that marketing department power can diffuse across firms through board interlocks. In other areas, firms also learn through executive mobility, strategic alliances, shared consultants, or even investor influence. How does the kind of knowledge transfer you uncover through board ties differ from these other diffusion channels, and what kinds of marketing knowledge travels across boards?
A: Other knowledge transfer channels certainly exist, such as executive mobility or strategic alliances, and with the appropriate data, they could be modeled in a similar framework. Our study focuses specifically on board interlocks, and because we do not observe boardroom conversations directly, we can capture them only through proxies. Similar mechanisms may operate through other channels, but we cannot directly test them.
A key idea here is that boards prioritize growth. When a director sees marketing contributing to growth in one firm, that perspective may diffuse through the interlock to another board. What travels may be high-level mental models about how marketing contributes to performance, or, in some cases, even specific examples shared by directors. Still, the exact mechanism remains a conjecture because we do not observe the discussions themselves; we only observe their downstream effects.
Operationally, even though we cannot measure every variable directly, our use of instrumental-variable methods helps mitigate omitted-variable concerns in this observational setting. We also know from broader research that top management buy-in is essential. That is what makes boards distinctive: because the CEO reports directly to them, any shift in board-level thinking carries disproportionate weight. These mechanisms remain hypotheses that could be examined in more depth when richer data become available.
Q: When boards are interlocked within the same industry, marketing power may spread more easily across firms. Could that connectivity also create unintended consequences? For example, could firms converge on similar, potentially less differentiated strategies?
A: As board members generally cannot serve on the boards of direct competitors, true competitor‐to‐competitor interlocks are uncommon. However, if firms are not direct competitors but are in related industries, shared information could lead them to become more similar, potentially reducing differentiation and creating herding effects. This relates to some of the network measures we used, such as degree and brokerage. Degree centrality suggests that more connections may lead firms to behave more similarly. In contrast, in brokerage, a board member links otherwise unconnected parts of the network and can introduce more diverse and innovative ideas. So, the risk depends on the structure of the interlock network.
Technically speaking, more substantial board interlock effects may mean that firms are more likely to follow their existing connections. If boards increasingly form interlocks with boards they are already connected to, then the likelihood of convergence increases. Studying this convergence would require looking at network dynamics, how these connections form and evolve over time, presenting an interesting future direction. So, the risk depends on whether board networks become more tightly clustered. If that clustering does occur, the risk of strategic convergence increases.
Q: As marketing becomes linked to broader corporate priorities like DEI and ESG initiatives, does this interconnectedness strengthen marketing’s strategic influence or risk diluting its focus?
A: Any initiative that customers value is worth pursuing, whether it’s DEI, ESG, or something else. If diversity, equity, and inclusion lead to broader thinking and help the company better serve customers, they naturally add to both customer and corporate value. The key is to have a clear understanding of how these initiatives benefit customers. For example, Unilever’s Project Shakti in India empowered women entrepreneurs while also expanding distribution in rural markets. This is an example where a social initiative directly supported business goals. If firms can articulate how these priorities connect to customer value, then marketing’s role becomes more pronounced. But if the link isn’t clear, there’s a risk that marketing’s focus becomes scattered. Many companies still treat DEI and ESG as compliance initiatives rather than customer-driven ones, so marketing often isn’t leading those efforts. If marketing leads them and grounds them in what matters to customers, that can actually elevate marketing’s strategic influence rather than diluting it.
Q: If you were to extend this research further, which context or mechanism would you most like to explore to deepen our understanding of how governance structures shape marketing’s strategic importance?
A: From a technical perspective, an important next step would be to examine how board connections form and evolve. Some drivers are endogenous; for example, boards that share indirect connections are more likely to become directly connected, much like “friends of friends” becoming friends. Understanding those processes would be valuable, particularly when marketing-affiliated directors drive the connection. If a marketing-driven tie disappears and later reappears, is it due to a marketing-affiliated person? Examining these processes could deepen our understanding of marketing’s strategic influence.
More broadly, another valuable direction is to examine marketing’s organizational role and influence within firms. Some work, including this practitioner-oriented special issue, builds on the idea that marketing’s influence within firms has been declining and thus asks: how can marketers regain strategic influence? As the focus increasingly shifts to marketing activities and the creation of customer value, not merely the marketing department, future research should prioritize these value-creating functions rather than focusing solely on the department. In addition, management research suggests that board interlock effects have been weakening or disappearing. We do not see that in our data; the effect remains stable over time. That leads to an interesting question about what’s actually happening: is the board interlock effect still active?
References:
Frank Germann (2025), “Beyond the 4 Ps: Marketing’s Strategic Comeback [Special issue], NIM Marketing Intelligence Review, https://www.nim.org/en/publications/nim-marketing-intelligence-review/detail-issue/beyond-the-4-ps.
Frank Germann, Peter Ebbes, and Rajdeep Grewal (2015), “The Chief Marketing Officer Matters!” Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.14.0244.
Unilever (2024), “Harnessing the Potential of India’s Growing Workforce,” (July 23), https://www.unilever.com/news/news-search/2024/harnessing-the-potential-of-indias-growing-workforce/.
Read the Full Study for Complete Details
Source: Peter Ebbes, Frank Germann, and Rajdeep Grewal (2024), “Getting the Board on Board: Marketing Department Power and Board Interlocks,” Journal of Marketing Research, 62 (1), 1−21. doi:10.1177/00222437241272180
Go to the Journal of Marketing Research
Aadya Sanwal is a doctoral student in marketing, Pennsylvania State University, USA.
Mostofa Wahid Soykoth is a doctoral student in marketing, Louisiana State University, USA.