Marketing is being asked to show its work.

Having more data, adopting the latest technology or launching another experiment isn't enough if marketers can't answer the question leadership increasingly wants answered: What changed because we made this investment?

In this episode of MarketingEDGE, Abby White and Alexis Gajewski examine three areas where that pressure is showing up. They explore why traditional marketing metrics can fall flat in executive conversations, how marketers can build 2027 budgets for an environment that refuses to stand still, and why AI is quickly moving from its promise phase into its prove-it phase.

The conversation isn't about measuring everything. It's about getting clearer on what deserves investment — and being willing to change course when the evidence says otherwise.

What You’ll Learn

• Why having more marketing data doesn't necessarily make it easier to demonstrate business value
• How marketers can communicate performance in terms that resonate beyond the marketing department
• Why 2027 marketing budgets need to balance proven investments with experimentation
• How to build flexibility into a budget without creating an unaccountable pool of spending
• Why marketers should challenge assumptions carried forward from previous plans
• What emerging data tells us about AI's impact on customer discovery and behavior
• Why AI investments are increasingly facing the same ROI expectations as the rest of the marketing budget
  
  Why It Matters
  Marketing has become very good at measuring activity. The harder challenge is demonstrating what changed because of that activity. That's becoming particularly important as budgets remain constrained and AI adds another layer of complexity to marketing investment decisions.
  
  For marketing leaders, the opportunity is to approach measurement, budgeting and experimentation as parts of the same discipline: define what you're trying to accomplish, determine what evidence would demonstrate progress and be prepared to invest — or stop investing — based on what you learn.

Prefer to read? Here's an excerpt from the podcast transcript:

Abby White: Alexis, I noticed something while looking through our most popular articles this month. It sounds like marketing is being asked to show its work.

We've got one story about why the metrics marketers have relied on for years often fall flat in executive conversations. Another asks how you build a 2027 budget when some assumptions will probably be wrong before the year is over. And your latest Unprompted argues that AI has reached the same point because the promise alone isn't enough anymore. Your executive team and your board want receipts, right?

Alexis Gajewski: Everyone is going into budgeting and thinking about the numbers, and that ultimately means everyone is thinking about the money. So everything is converging into that one idea.

Abby White: Our first story is by contributor Jess Mand. It's called "Financially Fluent Marketing: How Marketing Leaders are Demonstrating Value and Impact in Executive Conversations." Marketing has no shortage of data, but a lot of it doesn't answer the question executives care about: What did marketing actually contribute to the business?

Jess's article argues that marketing leaders need to move beyond activity metrics and build investment cases around financial measures leadership already uses, including incremental revenue, profitability and payback period. Does this mean we can ditch all those dashboards?

Alexis Gajewski: As a data-driven girly myself, the short answer is no. A lot of this article talks about what you're doing with the numbers and how you're communicating them. Often, we're speaking in a language that we, as marketers or content creators, understand. The problem is, how do we translate that into a different perspective for a different department? The article is really talking about how you translate that into financial terms. It's not saying your metrics are wrong or bad. They're just not necessarily making the same point.

Abby White: Also, the dashboard can be accurate without answering the business questions leadership is asking. Marketers have spent years getting better at measurement, but somehow we ended up with so much data and still struggle to prove our value. What did Jess point out that could help marketers go into 2027 planning better prepared?

Alexis Gajewski: I keep saying it on all different fronts: storytelling. We've all been in that meeting where you come with a chart or graph and know exactly what it means, but you're not able to communicate the actual story because you assume people understand the numbers like you do. If you go in without a story and a way to better communicate this, it's ultimately going to fall flat, even if your metrics are 100 percent on point.

Abby White: One thing I liked is the advice for CMOs heading into budget season: arrive with that investment case. The information in those dashboards is still important because it helps you make that case.

It's also OK to say, "A program did not work, and we stopped funding it." That builds more credibility with your executive team than a dashboard where every campaign somehow looks successful. Consider which metrics actually matter outside the marketing department. Can you explain what changed because of the investment, and would finance agree with the way you're calculating success? Financial fluency gives marketing leaders a stronger case for investment because you can explain marketing performance in terms the rest of the business already uses.

That takes us to our second story by contributor Bridget McCreea, "How to Build a 2027 Marketing Budget for AI, ROI and Flexibility." Bridget argues for budgets that preserve proven investments while leaving marketers room to test new ideas and reallocate funds when something performs better or worse than expected. How much should we actually be locking down right now?

Alexis Gajewski: You need to be thinking about it as the catalyst for what next year is going to look like. If you're not a huge fan of budgeting, think of this as the opportunity to start planning. With the proliferation of AI tools, we're going to see it showing up in places you're not even thinking about right now. A tool you looked at this year and thought wasn't necessary could entirely change within six months and redirect your budget in ways you aren't thinking of. Having a line item for changing software, campaigns or workflows can be really helpful.

Abby White: Bridget recommends challenging assumptions carried forward from previous plans rather than simply adjusting last year's numbers. One thing I like is the 70-20-10 framework she outlines as a way to protect dependable programs while reserving room for experimentation.

Questions to ask include: Which assumptions from the 2026 plan may already be outdated? Where do you need enough flexibility to move money during the year? What would make you increase an experimental investment, and what would make you stop? A useful 2027 budget gives marketers enough structure to make deliberate investments while preserving the ability to respond when buyer behavior or performance changes.

Now, AI might be the clearest example of why that matters, as the conversation around AI spending has changed dramatically. Alexis, this last one is yours: "The Proof Era: Why AI's Promise Phase Is Over for B2B Marketers." Does that mean the party's over?

Alexis Gajewski: It definitely doesn't. But using AI for everything indiscriminately is going away. Even people paying for programs are seeing structures change. What used to be, go crazy, ask it 10,000 questions a day, ask for all these reports — that party is ending. Being able to use AI in a thoughtful way and having it help with your workflows isn't going away. The bigger trend is how AI is going to be built into almost everything you touch and do.

What's different now is how we're accounting for this. At the start of the year, very few people were budgeting for the use of AI or how it was going to show up. Now it's mandatory. People are saying, we need to change our budgeting and our approach right now. It may push people into more thoughtful use of it. Maybe you're not asking AI to optimize the subject line for your webinar email a thousand different ways. Maybe you're giving it a better prompt, parameters and guardrails so you're getting a better program.

Abby White: When I read that you wrote the "vibes era" of AI is behind us, I actually felt relief. We've all been experimenting with these toys. If people are coming into their AI usage with more intent — and we know they're discovering brands that way and making decisions there — that creates an opportunity for marketers to zero in on making sure their brand appears in those queries, and they're getting content out there that builds trust with their audiences.

So, we're moving away from the "look what we did" phase to "here's what changed because we did it" as we walk into planning for the upcoming year. That's a good place to be, right?

Alexis Gajewski: It definitely is. The programs that didn't work or didn't perform the way you wanted are all useful information. If you're a data person like me, you haven't lost anything. Maybe this wasn't the AI tool for you. Maybe this wasn't the right way to address your audience about a topic.

Don't look at those as bad things. Now you have more information going into your planning for next year. Bring the story of, "We tried this, then we pivoted." All of that is going to be essential information because the only wrong path is last year's path. If you just copy and paste it again, nothing good will come of that.

Abby White: You make a pretty strong case for asking harder questions before the budget is spent rather than trying to justify it afterward. 

*Transcript lightly edited for clarity and brevity