Inside the pressures facing marketing and business development leadership—and how professional services firms are adapting

The CMO and CBDO roles at professional services firms are being fundamentally rewritten. Growth expectations are rising, technology is accelerating, and accountability has never been more critical—yet many leaders are navigating these pressures without a clear playbook.

In late 2025, Greentarget launched a research initiative to understand how senior marketing and business development leaders across the legal, accounting, consulting and professional services organizations are responding to this moment and how they are preparing for what comes next. We termed this the Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Outlook.

Drawing on in-depth conversations with C-suite executives, CMOs, CBDOs, and industry consultants, our research examines the concerns and priorities shaping their agendas, as well as the strategies peers are using to address them. Among the most pressing issues:

Our goal was to surface practical guidance that reflects how senior marketing and business development roles are evolving inside complex, high-stakes organizations.

What follows is the first in a series of short insights drawn from this work and from internal working sessions with Greentarget senior leadership. Each piece focuses on a single pain point or opportunity emerging from the research, and the guidance we suggest for firms moving forward.

Measurement Is Valued, But Rarely Trusted

If one theme consistently surfaced across our Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Outlook conversations, it was frustration with measurement.

That’s not because leaders doubt its importance. Quite the opposite—measurement is widely viewed as essential as marketing and business development leaders face growing pressure to demonstrate impact, justify investment, and connect their efforts to firm growth.

The challenge is that in professional services, measurement rarely behaves the way leaders want it to.

Influence builds over time. Yet firm leaders, boards, and finance and operational teams increasingly expect clear proof of ROI and business impact quickly.

A core tension emerged in our discussions: measurement isn’t failing because firms lack data. It’s failing because of the widening gap between what leaders are asked to prove and what measurement can realistically show.

The Competitive Set Is Often the First Thing That Breaks

One of the clearest pressure points is how firms define who they are measuring against.

Competitive sets are frequently too broad to be meaningful. Teams attempt to measure against “everyone”—which makes comparison and insight nearly impossible. Even when competitors are defined, there is often little clarity around what firms are trying to measure—visibility, authority, relevance, or business influence.

Effective measurement starts with disciplined choices:

Without this clarity, measurement struggles to answer even the most basic strategic questions.

Qualitative Impact Still Carries Disproportionate Weight

Another recurring theme was the imbalance between quantitative and qualitative insight. Many of the most meaningful outcomes such as partner conversations, inbound interest, or credibility in a pitch never show up cleanly in dashboards or reports.

These signals often live with partners and business development teams, yet firms often lack structured ways to capture or value them. Elevating qualitative insight from anecdote to intentional input remains one of the biggest opportunities to improve how firms approach measurement.

Data Exists, But Insight Doesn’t Travel

Silos further compound the problem. Another recurring theme was the disconnect between the different teams responsible for generating, interpreting, and acting on data.

Marketing, business development, and digital teams often measure different things, in different ways, and for different reasons. What insights exist are rarely shared or translated into collective decision-making.

Measurement breaks down not because firms lack sophistication, but because data is siloed, teams don’t share a common definition of success, and insight isn’t consistently used to inform strategy.

In this environment, measurement becomes a reporting exercise rather than a strategic tool.

Vanity Metrics Persist Because They’re Easy

Volume continues to dominate many measurement conversations. Our research indicates that’s because metrics like impressions or follower totals are familiar and easy to count—not because they meaningfully informs decision-making.

Several leaders emphasized that metrics only become meaningful when placed in context against a baseline, a peer set, or a clearly defined business objective. Without that framing, activity can look impressive without actually informing decisions.

What this suggests is not a need for more measurement, but for better framing. Clearer choices about what matters. Greater alignment across teams. And a willingness to let go of metrics that don’t serve a strategic purpose.

What This Signals for Firms Moving Forward

Measurement in professional services will never be perfect. But when approached intentionally, it can still be one of the most powerful tools firms have to guide strategy, align teams, and support growth.

The firms making progress aren’t chasing more data. They are making clearer choices about what matters, aligning teams around shared priorities, and using measurement to inform strategy rather than justify activity.

As the CMO and CMBDO roles continue to evolve, measurement will remain a point of tension—but also a powerful lever for firms willing to rethink how and why they use it.