Saw a post recently from a CEO talking about why they’d hire a fractional CMO before an agency if they were getting serious about marketing.
They referenced a conversation with Grant and broke it down pretty simply. Start with diagnosis. Understand the business. Build the plan. Then decide what actually needs to be executed and who should do it.
Nothing groundbreaking. Just a different starting point than jumping straight into campaigns.
Then a comment underneath pushed back.
The argument was that “fractional” is mostly just a new label for consulting. Someone comes in, gives advice, and moves on. Agencies execute. Consultants don’t. The rest is just packaging.
Grant responded and made a fair distinction. A fractional role, at least the way he approaches it, doesn’t stop at advice. It stays in the work, helps manage it, and carries accountability alongside the team.
That exchange stuck for a different reason.
Because most companies that struggle with marketing aren’t really stuck on definitions.
They’re stuck on ownership.
The strategy gets built. The direction is clear enough. Marketing starts producing. Sales keeps moving.
But no one is actually responsible for whether the whole thing works together.
Not just the thinking.
Not just the output.
The outcome.
So the business ends up in a place that feels familiar. There’s a plan in one place, execution in another, and a gap in between where expectations live.
That gap is where things start to slip.
True fractionals:
It doesn’t really matter what title is sitting on top of that role.
Call it a consultant. Call it a fractional. Call it internal leadership. Call it whatever you want. It still has to be owned.
At some point, someone has to own the number, make the calls, connect sales and marketing, and stay close enough to adjust things when they’re not working.
When that doesn’t happen, companies usually don’t feel like they got bad advice.
It just feels like nothing fully came together.
By
·
1 minute read