The Last CMO: The Future of the CMO Role

Spencer Stuart reports that 31 percent of the S&P 500 has no enterprise CMO. Its title and career data show several ways marketing authority is organized. The question for a leader is which decisions and budget the role actually controls.

This is the fifth piece in a six-part series on what marketing leadership looks like heading into 2027. The first four covered budget, agents, search, and personalization. This one covers the chair itself, because every recommendation in the other four assumes somebody with authority is still sitting in it.

Tenure and exit destinations

Start with the number that gets quoted wrong most often. Spencer Stuart's CMO Tenure 2026 study, published January 2026 and covering 346 named CMOs across the S&P 500 as of June 30, 2025, put average CMO tenure at 4.1 years against an all-C-suite average of 5.0. That gap is real. It is also smaller than the churn narrative implies, and the CMO is not the shortest seat in the building. The COO is, at 3.3 years.

The part that gets dropped entirely: of the 218 CMOs who left between 2021 and 2025, 62 percent moved into equivalent or bigger roles. Nine percent went straight to a CEO seat. Another 13 percent became a divisional CEO, president, or COO. Seventy-seven percent landed somewhere new inside six months. Fortune reported in June 2026 that 37 percent of sitting Fortune 500 CEOs have marketing somewhere in their background.

The same study reports that 73 percent of S&P 500 CMOs are first-time CMOs. That describes the experience mix in the sample; it does not establish that the role is failing.

Different titles, different cohorts

The fragmentation is easier to see in the title data than the tenure data. Spencer Stuart's March 2025 breakdown of 329 named Fortune 500 marketing leaders, measured as of June 30, 2024, splits four ways: 40 percent hold the plain chief marketing officer title, 16 percent hold a combined title such as chief marketing and communications officer, 33 percent keep marketing in the title but drop the word chief, an SVP or EVP of marketing, and 11 percent have no reference to marketing in the title at all, using commercial, growth, customer, brand, or strategy instead.

The 33 percent denominator is the 329 leaders in the sample, roughly a fifth of the Fortune 500. It is not a third of the Fortune 500. Title variation also does not establish the authority of each role; reporting line, budget, and remit need checking.

Named roles illustrate that variation. Jane Wakely at PepsiCo carries a combined consumer/marketing/growth remit. Vineet Mehra moved from chief marketing officer to chief growth officer at Chime in December 2025 while retaining marketing responsibility. Emily Prazer is Formula 1's chief commercial officer. These examples cannot establish that every title change is an expansion or demotion.

One housekeeping note, because it matters if you are going to repeat these figures in a board deck. Several write-ups report the 31 percent no-CMO figure as Fortune 500. Spencer Stuart's own January 2026 study says S&P 500, 346 named CMOs, as of June 30, 2025. The title breakdown above is the Fortune 500 sample, from a different study a year earlier. Two different indexes, two different measurement dates. Cite them as one dataset and someone will catch it.

AI accountability needs an explicit remit

Spencer Stuart surveyed CMOs about AI and published the results in December 2025. More than 80 percent said they are piloting AI projects or scaling proven use cases. And then this, verbatim from the study: "No CMOs, however, believe they have fully transformed their function, and only a tiny fraction believe they have integrated AI across all areas of the marketing function."

That is the self-reported state of the surveyed CMOs, not a measured outcome audit of every marketing function.

The same survey reports AI strategy and implementation led by the CTO or CIO at 44 percent, the CMO at 32 percent, and the CEO at 19 percent. It does not establish that collaboration with another executive removes the CMO's influence or ability to deliver results.

Now put that next to the pressure they are absorbing. More than two-thirds of the CMOs in that same survey said they feel leadership pressure to deliver cost savings within two years. Seventeen percent already cut headcount in the prior twelve months. Thirty-six percent expect AI-driven headcount reductions in the next twelve to twenty-four. Among large companies above $20 billion in revenue, 37 percent of CMOs expect savings of 20 percent or more, against 6 percent at smaller companies.

Cost targets and technology decisions need agreed responsibilities. The separate title and AI surveys do not establish that AI ownership caused title fragmentation. A marketing leader can work with a CTO or CIO while retaining the commercial decisions that make the program accountable.

What executive search is actually screening for now

The cited executive-search screen asks for examples of decisions and limitations, rather than a list of tools.

Hager Executive Search published a five-question AI-fluency screen in March 2026, updated in August. The questions are unglamorous and they work: describe a decision you made differently because of AI and what you learned from it; where does AI create the most risk in your function right now; how are you developing your team's capability and what resistance have you hit; what tool or application surprised you most in the last six months; where will humans keep outperforming AI in your function.

These questions test specific decisions and results. A candidate should explain their role, collaborators, limits, and evidence. Partnering with IT is not itself a failure of ownership; claiming another team's work without naming the contribution is the problem.

The cited forecasts and survey adoption figures describe different populations and measures. Use the interview to check what the candidate actually did and what they can demonstrate, rather than treating an industry percentage as evidence about that person.

The combination that survives the next org chart

The IBM studies examine AI leadership using different samples from the Spencer Stuart marketing-title studies.

IBM's May 4, 2026 CEO Study announcement reports that 76 percent of surveyed organizations had a Chief AI Officer, versus 26 percent in 2025. The study surveyed 2,000 CEOs in 33 geographies and 21 industries with Oxford Economics from February through April 2026. That is the study sample, not a census of all organizations.

The separate July 15, 2025 IBM/Dubai Future Foundation study surveyed more than 600 Chief AI Officers across 21 industries and 22 countries in Q1 2025. It reports a 36 percent higher-ROI comparison for centralized or hub-and-spoke structures versus decentralized ones. That association does not establish that the title or structure alone caused the ROI difference.

I argue for combining commercial and AI fluency in the marketing role, and hold the Certified Chief AI Officer credential alongside the marketing seat. That is an operating choice, not the only structure capable of results. Model selection, workflow cost, margin, and review authority still need explicit responsibilities across the team.

The AI commercialization guide covers those operating decisions. A credential or title does not settle them.

What to do before the next planning cycle

Four things, in order of how quickly they change your position.

Ask who leads AI strategy and what the marketing role controls. If a CTO or CIO leads the technical program, agree on the commercial outcome, budget, dependencies, and shared authority before committing to the target.

Put the savings target beside a written scope: which workflow changes, who controls it, which costs count, and which quality standard must hold. That makes a shared commitment inspectable.

Prepare specific examples of the decision you changed, a tool or workflow you stopped, its recurring cost, and who reviewed consequential output. Name the contribution and the evidence without claiming the collaborators' work.

Before the next planning cycle, agree on which commercial and AI decisions your role can approve and which budget pays for them.

The series

Six deep dives on marketing leadership heading into 2027:

The AI Budget Trap: the readiness gap behind the 15.3 percent, and how to fund AI without writing it off.
Marketing to Machines: when AI agents become the customer.
AI Search Traffic: What Queries, Clicks and Pipeline Can Tell You: queries, clicks, observed referrals, and commercial outcomes.
Personalization After the Cookie Reversal: first-party or bust.
The Last CMO: the fragmenting title and the expanding mandate. This piece.
The 2027 Marketing Stack: what earns budget and what gets cut.

The hub for all six is The 2027 CMO: what marketing leaders must prepare for. If the AI-ownership question in this piece is the one you are actually stuck on, who should own AI: CAIO vs CTO vs CIO takes it apart properly, and the Chief AI Officer guide covers what the role owns when it is set up correctly.

Frequently asked questions

Is the CMO role going away?

The cited studies show varied titles and remit, not a universal disappearance of marketing leadership. Spencer Stuart's January 2026 S&P 500 study reports 31 percent without an enterprise CMO and substantial movement into equivalent or larger roles. Check authority and responsibilities alongside the title.

What is the average CMO tenure in 2026?

4.1 years, per Spencer Stuart's CMO Tenure 2026 study published January 2026, covering 346 named CMOs across the S&P 500 as of June 30, 2025. The all-C-suite average is 5.0 years. Only the COO is shorter, at 3.3. Consumer companies run shortest for CMOs at 3.5 years, healthcare at 3.9. Short tenure alone does not establish failure; 62 percent of the reported departures moved to equivalent or bigger roles.

Why do so many companies no longer have a CMO title?

Spencer Stuart's March 2025 sample of 329 named Fortune 500 marketing leaders splits into plain CMO titles (40 percent), combined titles (16 percent), marketing titles without chief (33 percent), and titles without marketing (11 percent). It describes variation; it does not establish one cause for every title change.

Should the CMO own AI, or the CTO?

The December 2025 Spencer Stuart survey reports technical executives, CMOs, and CEOs leading AI at different shares. The right division depends on the organization. Agree on commercial outcomes, technical authority, budget, review, and dependencies; partnering with IT does not by itself remove marketing accountability.

How do executive search firms test AI fluency in CMO candidates?

With specificity questions rather than vocabulary checks. Hager Executive Search published a five-question screen in March 2026: describe a decision you made differently because of AI and what you learned; where does AI create the most risk in your function; how are you building your team's capability and what resistance did you hit; what tool surprised you in the last six months; where will humans keep outperforming AI. The firm flags three AI-washing tells: buzzwords without implementation detail, enthusiasm without skepticism, and delegating AI strategy while claiming it.

What is a CMO and Chief AI Officer combination?

It is an operating choice in which one executive holds commercial and AI responsibilities. IBM's 2026 CEO survey reports Chief AI Officer adoption in its sample; a separate 2025 study compares organizational structures and ROI. Neither proves a combined marketing/AI role is the only effective arrangement.

Sources

CMO tenure, the 31 percent no-CMO figure, and exit destinations: Spencer Stuart, "CMO Tenure 2026: Snapshot of an Expanding Role for Marketing Leaders" (January 2026; 346 named S&P 500 CMOs as of June 30, 2025). Note that Spencer Stuart uses the figure 62 percent for two different things in that study, exits to similar or bigger roles and CMOs promoted from within; the exits number is the one used here. Title fragmentation (40/16/33/11): Spencer Stuart, "CMO Tenure Study 2025: The Evolution of Marketing Leadership" (March 2025; 329 named Fortune 500 marketing leaders as of June 30, 2024). AI ownership split, the "no CMOs" transformation finding, and the two-thirds cost-savings pressure figure: Spencer Stuart, "The AI Reckoning: Why Marketers Think 2026 Is a Make-or-Break Year" (December 2025; Spencer Stuart publishes no methodology section, sample size, or fieldwork dates for this survey, so treat the percentages as directional rather than projectable). Chief AI Officer adoption (76 percent, up from 26 percent): IBM Institute for Business Value 2026 CEO Study, released May 4, 2026, 2,000 CEOs across 33 geographies and 21 industries, fieldwork February to April 2026 with Oxford Economics. The 36 percent hub-and-spoke ROI figure comes from a different study and is frequently misattributed to the CEO Study: IBM Institute for Business Value with the Dubai Future Foundation and Oxford Economics (published July 15, 2025; more than 600 Chief AI Officers across 21 industries and 22 countries, fieldwork Q1 2025). Executive search AI-fluency screening, and the 34 and 53 percent figures: Greg Lamboy, Hager Executive Search, "How to Hire an Executive Who Actually Understands AI" (March 17, 2026, updated August 13, 2026). The agentic-AI cancellation projection: Gartner (June 25, 2025), which forecasts over 40 percent, a floor rather than a ceiling. The Apotheker quote and the roughly 37 percent CEO-marketing-background figure (which Fortune attributes to Spencer Stuart): Fortune (June 22, 2026). Named executive titles are taken from each company directly rather than from press coverage: PepsiCo for Jane Wakely, Chime's December 10, 2025 promotion announcement for Vineet Mehra, and Formula 1 for Emily Prazer.

About the author

Jeff Brokaw is a CMO and Certified Chief AI Officer who builds AI workflows, measurement systems, and the commercial operations around them.