B2B marketing revenue impact claims are not convincing most UK business leaders. New Propolis research finds that 76% believe marketers overstate their effect on revenue.
The survey of 150 CEOs and senior leaders at UK B2B organisations points to a boardroom credibility problem. Yet the data also exposes a catch-22: many leaders expect stronger commercial proof while excluding marketing from decisions that produce that proof.
Almost two thirds do not involve marketing in the full growth strategy. Meanwhile, 76% leave marketing out of revenue forecasting, according to supporting findings published by B2B Marketing.
That makes this more than a reporting problem. It is also an access problem.
What the Propolis research found
The headline figures show broad scepticism about marketing’s commercial claims.
| Finding | Share of UK B2B leaders |
|---|---|
| Believe marketers overstate their impact on revenue | 76% |
| Say marketers would be more credible if they spoke the “language of business” | 88% |
| Would have more confidence in marketers with stronger commercial understanding | 83% |
| Are more likely to support brand investment when marketers show commercial credibility | 83% |
| Cite weak confidence in marketing’s commercial impact as limiting its influence | 24% |
| Do not involve marketing throughout revenue forecasting | 76% |
| Do not involve marketing in the full growth strategy | 65% |
Propolis commissioned the research for its CEO Blind Spot report. Its report page also says 75% of senior leaders do not believe B2B marketing drives business growth. In addition, 84% see marketing as a support function, while 77% view sales as the larger growth driver.
These results describe related, but different, questions. The 76% headline concerns whether marketers exaggerate revenue impact. The 75% figure concerns whether B2B marketing drives growth.
The B2B marketing revenue impact catch-22
Boards have a fair reason to challenge weak measurement. Lead totals, impressions and share of voice do not show what happened to revenue on their own.
However, senior teams also shape marketing’s ability to provide better evidence. A department excluded from forecasting has less access to sales assumptions, expected deal values and revenue timing. If marketing joins growth planning late, it may inherit targets without helping to define them.
The result can become a closed loop:
- Leaders see marketing as a support function.
- Marketing receives limited access to commercial planning.
- Reporting stays focused on campaign activity.
- The board sees little proof of commercial influence.
- Marketing remains outside the next planning cycle.
The research therefore does not show that marketing creates no revenue value. It records leaders’ perceptions of that value. That distinction matters.
Richard O’Connor, CEO of Propolis, described a “clear disconnect” between value created by marketing and value recognised by senior leaders.
He also argued that commercial credibility should not turn marketers into salespeople. Instead, marketers should connect decisions to business objectives and understand how the wider company makes money.
What does “the language of business” mean in practice?
The phrase risks becoming empty management speak. In practice, it should mean reporting decisions, financial effects and risks in terms that other directors use.
A board-ready marketing report could cover:
- revenue influenced, with the attribution rule clearly stated;
- qualified pipeline created and its movement between reporting periods;
- conversion rates from enquiry to opportunity and opportunity to sale;
- customer acquisition cost and payback period;
- sales-cycle length by source or campaign;
- retention, expansion or repeat revenue influenced by marketing;
- spending against forecast, including what changed and why;
- brand indicators linked to a stated commercial hypothesis;
- evidence that challenges the marketing team’s own preferred explanation.
The last point is important. Credibility rises when marketers explain uncertainty instead of presenting every positive movement as proof of success.
Attribution software can help connect activity with pipeline. However, no platform can settle every question of cause and effect. TheMarketingBlog’s guide to marketing attribution tools explains what the main systems track.
Teams that need better control of budgets, work and reporting can also compare marketing campaign management software.
Why brand investment is part of the argument
One result cuts against the idea that CEOs only want immediate leads. Propolis reports that 83% are more likely to support brand investment when marketers show commercial credibility.
That changes the debate. Brand activity does not need a false claim that every impression produced a sale. It needs a clear case for how stronger awareness, consideration or trust could affect future demand, pricing power, conversion or sales efficiency.
Marketing leaders should state the timeframe before a campaign begins. They should also agree what evidence would support or weaken the case.
For example, a six-month brand programme might track prompted awareness, branded search demand, direct traffic and sales conversion among exposed accounts. Revenue remains the commercial outcome, but the team does not pretend it appears at once.
What CEOs should change as well
The findings place most of the burden on marketers. Yet O’Connor says companies must give marketing leaders the access and development needed to become stronger commercial partners.
Three changes would make that possible:
- Include marketing in revenue forecasts before targets are fixed.
- Give marketing and sales shared definitions for leads, opportunities, pipeline and sourced revenue.
- Review performance with finance, so assumptions and disputed credit are visible.
This does not remove accountability. It creates a fairer test.
If leaders want marketing to explain revenue, marketing needs access to the systems and discussions where revenue is planned, recorded and reviewed.
How much weight should businesses place on the survey?
The research offers a useful snapshot, but it should not be treated as a census of every UK B2B boardroom.
The stated sample is 150 UK CEOs and business leaders. The public press material does not give the respondent breakdown, company-size mix, sector split, fieldwork dates, sampling method or margin of error.
It is also perception research. It measures what leaders believe about marketing, not an audited comparison between marketing claims and company revenue.
Those limits do not make the findings unhelpful. However, they do mean the 76% figure should prompt better internal analysis, rather than serve as proof that most marketing teams exaggerate.
TheMarketingBlog view
The biggest warning is not that marketers use the wrong vocabulary. It is that marketing and senior leadership may work with different versions of commercial reality.
Marketers can improve their case by replacing activity reports with shared financial measures. CEOs can improve the evidence by bringing marketing into forecasting and growth planning earlier.
If only one side changes, the credibility gap is likely to remain.
FAQ
What did the Propolis survey find?
It found that 76% of 150 UK B2B CEOs and business leaders believe marketers overstate their impact on revenue.
Why do business leaders doubt marketing’s revenue impact?
The study points to weak commercial understanding and language as major concerns. It also reports that many leaders still view marketing as a support function.
What would make marketers more credible to CEOs?
Eighty-eight per cent said speaking the “language of business” would help. In practice, that means connecting activity to revenue, pipeline, cost, risk and future growth while explaining measurement limits.
Does the research prove that marketing has little effect on revenue?
No. It measures the opinions of 150 business leaders. It does not audit marketing performance or prove the size of marketing’s revenue contribution.
Where can the full report be read?
Propolis has published The CEO Blind Spot: How B2B Marketers Prove, Protect and Grow Their Commercial Impact through B2B Marketing.
Sources
- Propolis: The CEO Blind Spot report
- B2B Marketing: The Boardroom Credibility Crunch
- Press release supplied to TheMarketingBlog, dated 8 September 2026.
Image brief
Hero image concept: A British B2B board meeting with a marketing performance screen split into two columns: campaign activity on one side and revenue, pipeline and forecast measures on the other. Use an original editorial illustration rather than corporate logos or copied report artwork.
Alt text: UK business leaders reviewing B2B marketing revenue impact and pipeline data
Suggested size: 1600 × 900 pixels, WebP.
Caption: New Propolis research suggests UK business leaders want marketers to connect campaign decisions more clearly with commercial results.
Video recommendation
Do not add a generic video. Add an embed only if TheMarketingBlog records an interview with Richard O’Connor or Propolis publishes a video that directly explains this study.
NewsArticle schema
Replace the image URL, publication URL and publication times when the page goes live.
{