Where does your CMO sit in the org chart? It’s a question that reveals more about your company’s growth stage and strategic priorities than you might think.
New data from Pave reveals the latest patterns in how marketing leaders report across company sizes. We analyzed Pave’s latest data on reporting structures for over 3,000 CMOs across companies ranging from 1-50 employees to 3,000+ employees.
The Data: A Clear Pattern Emerges Across Company Sizes
The numbers reveal a dramatic transformation in marketing leadership as companies grow:
- Small Companies (1-50 employees): 81% of marketing leaders report directly to the CEO, with minimal reporting to other executives. This makes intuitive sense—in early-stage companies, marketing is often a direct extension of the founder’s vision.
- Mid-Market Companies (51-500 employees): CEO reporting drops to 65-74%, while we see the emergence of alternative reporting structures. CPO/Product reporting ranges from 4-9%, CRO/Revenue reporting hits 6-12%, and “Other” executives account for 13-14%.
- Enterprise Companies (1000+ employees): The most distributed structure emerges. Only 48-67% report to the CEO, while CPO/Product reporting peaks at 21% in the largest companies (3000+ employees). CRO reporting stabilizes around 4-10%, and other executives account for 14-20%.
What This Tells Us About Marketing’s Strategic Evolution
The data reveals three distinct phases of marketing organizational maturity:
- Founder-Led Phase (1-50 employees): Marketing is tightly coupled with overall company strategy and vision
- Specialization Phase (51-1000 employees): Marketing begins to align with specific functional areas as the organization develops more sophisticated go-to-market strategies
- Product-Marketing Integration Phase (1000+ employees): The dramatic rise in CPO reporting suggests that mature SaaS companies increasingly view marketing as a product-led growth function
The consistency of these patterns across thousands of companies suggests this isn’t random—it’s a natural evolution of how marketing’s role and influence changes as SaaS companies scale.
Top 5 Key Learnings
1. CMO-to-CRO reporting is relatively rare (5-10% across all company sizes) despite more and more discussion on LinkedIn and otherwise about how marketing should report to sales for better alignment.
2. CEO reporting dominates but decreases with scale – from 81% at early-stage companies (1-50 employees) to just 48% at large enterprises (3,000+ employees).
3. Product leadership emerges as marketing’s home at scale – CPO reporting jumps from 3% at small companies to 21% at large companies, the biggest shift in the data. But this doesn’t cross 10% until 500+ employee stage.
4. The “other” category grows significantly (7% to 20%) as companies create specialized C-suite roles like Chief Customer Officers or Chief Growth Officers.
5. Company size fundamentally changes marketing’s organizational position – what works at 50 employees fails at 5,000.
Deep Dive: The Data Behind Marketing Reporting Structures
The CEO-Centric Early Stage Reality
At companies with 1-50 employees, 81% of CMOs report directly to the CEO. This makes intuitive sense:
- CEOs are heavily involved in messaging and positioning
- Marketing strategy closely mirrors overall company strategy
- Limited hierarchy requires direct communication
- Brand decisions can’t be delegated when the CEO is the primary spokesperson
The Mid-Stage Plateau (51-500 employees)
Across mid-stage companies (51-500 employees), CEO reporting remains strong at 65-74% but we start seeing cracks:
- CRO reporting stays consistently low (4-7%) – notable given how much sales-marketing alignment gets discussed
- “Other” reporting structures emerge (13-14%) as companies experiment with Chief Customer Officers, Chief Growth Officers, and other specialized roles
- CPO reporting remains minimal (6-10%) but begins its upward trajectory
The Large Company Transformation (1,000+ employees)
The most dramatic shifts happen at enterprise scale:
3,000+ Employee Companies:
- CEO reporting drops to 48% – nearly a 50% decrease from early stage
- CPO reporting explodes to 21% – a 7x increase from small companies
- CRO reporting peaks at 9% – still relatively rare but highest across all segments
- “Other” reporting hits 20% – indicating significant organizational innovation
The 1,001-3,000 Employee Sweet Spot: Interestingly, companies in the 1,001-3,000 range show the most CEO reporting (64%) among large companies, suggesting this may be an optimal size for CEO oversight before delegation becomes necessary.
What the Numbers Really Mean
The Product-Led Growth Signal: The dramatic rise in marketing reporting to a CPO (3% → 21%) reflects the shift toward product-led growth strategies where marketing and product development are deeply intertwined.
The Specialization Trend: The growth in “other” reporting structures (7% → 20%) shows companies creating specialized roles like Chief Revenue Officers (different from traditional sales VPs), Chief Customer Officers, and Chief Growth Officers.
The Efficiency vs. Control Trade-off: As CEO reporting decreases, companies are trading direct strategic control for operational efficiency and specialized leadership.
A New Trend: The Rise of Parallel Marketing Organizations
While the Pave data shows traditional CMO-to-CRO reporting remains relatively rare, it may be missing a trend I’m seeing more and more at the fastest growth B2B start-ups: 2 parallel marketing orgs. One demand gen focused, reporting to the CRO. Another reporting to the CEO.
Many driven CROs just take demand gen or a portion of it over when the CMO doesn’t deliver or is focused on other areas (brand, media, etc). Several of my top investments have 2 parallel marketing orgs now at scale, in essence.
How Parallel Marketing Organizations Work
Marketing Org #1: Brand & Strategic Marketing (Reports to CEO/CPO)
- Brand positioning and messaging
- Content marketing and thought leadership
- Product marketing and go-to-market strategy
- Public relations and analyst relations
- Long-term market research and competitive intelligence
- Event marketing and community building
Marketing Org #2: Demand Generation (Reports to CRO)
- Paid advertising and performance marketing
- Lead generation and qualification
- Marketing automation and nurturing
- Sales enablement and collateral
- Attribution and conversion optimization
- Pipeline acceleration programs
Why This Hybrid Model is Emerging
1. Specialization at Scale: Different marketing functions require fundamentally different skill sets and success metrics. Brand marketers think in years; demand gen marketers think in quarters.
2. Accountability Clarity: When demand gen reports to the CRO, there’s crystal clear accountability for pipeline contribution. When brand reports to the CEO, there’s strategic oversight for long-term positioning.
3. Budget Optimization: The CRO can spend aggressively on proven demand gen channels while the CEO maintains discipline around brand investments with longer payback periods.
4. Speed vs. Strategy: Demand gen can move at sales velocity while brand marketing can maintain strategic consistency and long-term thinking.
5. CRO Impatience in Hypergrowth Era: In an era of hypergrowth expectations, CROs are tired of waiting. Tired of waiting for the leads. When marketing can’t deliver pipeline fast enough, revenue leaders take control of what they can directly influence – demand generation – rather than hoping brand initiatives will eventually convert.
The Risks of Parallel Organizations
Potential for Brand-Performance Disconnect: When messaging and demand gen are managed separately, you risk inconsistent customer experiences and conflicting market positioning.
Resource Competition: Two marketing organizations may compete for budget, talent, and leadership attention, creating internal friction.
Measurement Complexity: Attribution becomes more complex when brand and performance marketing are managed by different teams with different reporting lines.
Cultural Fragmentation: Marketing team unity and shared culture can suffer when the organization is split across different leadership structures.
The Case Against CMO-to-CRO Reporting
Despite the apparent logic of sales-marketing alignment, the data shows this structure remains rare for good reasons. As Jason Lemkin argues, there are two fundamental problems:
Problem 1: Knowledge Gap
“Almost all CROs don’t deeply know what marketers do.”
CROs typically view marketing through a lead generation lens, missing critical functions:
- Brand strategy and positioning
- Product marketing and messaging
- Customer lifecycle optimization
- Market research and competitive intelligence
- Long-term demand generation programs
When marketing reports to sales, the CMO’s role gets “loosely simplified to just quarter-over-quarter lead gen” while strategic initiatives suffer.
Problem 2: Budget Discipline Erosion
“You spend even more money; there are no controls.”
CROs are incentivized to hit revenue targets at any cost. They’ll approve marketing spend and headcount increases without the same budget discipline a CEO or CFO would maintain.
The result: “I almost always see a huge amount of spend when marketing reports to sales. Especially in well-funded start-ups. ‘GET ME THE LEADS. I DON’T CARE WHAT IT COSTS!'”
Problem 3: Short-Term Bias
CROs naturally focus on this quarter’s pipeline, not next year’s brand equity. Longer-term marketing initiatives – from brand building to thought leadership – often get deprioritized in favor of immediate lead generation tactics.
The Case for Alternative Reporting Structures
Why CEO Reporting Works (But Has Limits)
Pros:
- ✅ Strategic alignment: Marketing strategy mirrors company strategy
- ✅ Brand authority: CEO involvement in messaging and positioning
- ✅ Resource allocation: Balanced view of marketing ROI vs. other investments
- ✅ Long-term focus: CEOs think beyond quarterly numbers
Cons:
- ❌ Bandwidth limitations: CEOs get overwhelmed as companies scale
- ❌ Skill gaps: Technical founders may lack marketing intuition
- ❌ Execution delays: CEO bottlenecks can slow marketing decisions
Why Product Reporting is Emerging (The Future?)
Pros:
- ✅ Customer-centric alignment: Both functions optimize for user experience
- ✅ Data integration: Product usage data + marketing attribution = better insights
- ✅ Product-led growth: Natural fit for PLG strategies
- ✅ Shared metrics: Both care about activation, retention, and expansion
Cons:
- ❌ Top-of-funnel gaps: Product leaders may undervalue awareness and demand gen
- ❌ Sales disconnect: Potential misalignment with traditional sales processes
- ❌ Brand limitations: Product focus might neglect broader brand building
When CRO Reporting Might Actually Work
Pros:
- ✅ Speed: Eliminates handoffs between marketing and sales
- ✅ Accountability: Clear revenue responsibility and metrics alignment
- ✅ Resource sharing: Unified budget for customer acquisition
- ✅ Execution focus: Strong bias toward measurable, immediate results
Cons:
- ❌ Budget bloat: Spending without efficiency controls
- ❌ Strategic myopia: Short-term focus undermines long-term positioning
- ❌ Skill mismatch: CROs rarely have deep marketing expertise
- ❌ Brand neglect: Non-performance marketing gets deprioritized
Recommendations by Company Stage
Early Stage (1-50 employees): Stick with CEO
- Default choice: CEO reporting (81% of companies do this)
- Why it works: Strategy alignment, brand authority, resource efficiency
- Watch out for: CEO bandwidth as you scale
Growth Stage (51-1,000 employees): CEO with Specialization.
- Consider: Specialized C-suite roles (Chief Growth Officer, Chief Customer Officer)
- Evaluate: Whether your CEO has marketing sophistication
- Avoid: CRO reporting unless you have unlimited capital and shared incentives, and/or CRO can prove they can own demand gen successfully
Scale Stage (1,000+ employees): Strategic Choice Point
- Product-Led Growth: Consider CPO reporting (21% of large companies)
- Traditional SaaS: Maintain CEO reporting with strong delegation
- Hybrid Models: Explore Chief Revenue Officer or Chief Growth Officer structures
Enterprise (3,000+ employees): Delegation Required
- Accept: CEO can’t manage marketing directly at this scale
- Choose carefully: Between CPO, CRO, or specialized executive roles
- Maintain: Clear strategic alignment regardless of reporting structure
The Bottom Line
The data reveals that most successful companies avoid the seemingly obvious choice of marketing reporting to sales. Instead, they evolve their structures thoughtfully:
- Start with CEO reporting for strategic alignment
- Transition to specialized leadership as you scale
- Consider product alignment for PLG strategies
- Use CRO reporting sparingly and only with clear guardrails
The key insight: marketing’s job extends far beyond feeding the sales machine. Companies that recognize this complexity tend to structure their organizations accordingly – and the reporting relationships in Pave’s data reflect those strategic priorities.
Methodology: Analysis of 3,000+ CMOs (or equivalent senior marketing leaders) at companies participating in Pave’s real-time compensation database, measuring reporting relationships to CEO, CRO, CPO, and other executives.
