Mark Ritson, the marketing columnist and consultant, argues the chief marketing officer role has shrunk in authority while the titles given to its occupants have multiplied. His latest column, published on The Drum, frames the proliferation of expanded acronyms as a cosmetic response to a contracting remit.

The column's title — "The CMO role has shrunk. The extra letters are an attempt to regrow it" — sets out Ritson's core diagnosis. The "extra letters" he references point to expanded acronyms that have replaced or layered over the original three-letter "CMO" label at consumer-facing companies — growth-, customer- and brand-flavoured variants.

What does Ritson mean by "shrunk"?

His argument implies that the CMO function has lost ground on measurable fronts such as budget authority, headcount span and a seat at the executive strategy table. Boards have restructured reporting lines and moved brand work into growth or product organisations. The role's centre of gravity, in Ritson's framing, has drifted toward the edges of the C-suite.

What are the "extra letters"?

The phrase covers the broader industry trend of marketers being granted expanded C-suite labels — chief growth officer, chief customer officer and similar variants. The Drum column treats the trend as a label attached to an older, smaller remit rather than evidence of new authority. A new title, in Ritson's framing, does not by itself deliver the budget or the boardroom seat.

Why this debate matters now

The commentary lands in a longer-running conversation about CMO tenure and influence. Executive search firms and HR research bodies have repeatedly tracked CMOs among the shortest-tenured C-suite members. Ritson's column reframes that tenure pressure as a symptom of role erosion. When tenures are short and scope is narrowing, boards have an incentive to rename the job without reauthorising the work behind it.

What "regrow" actually requires

Ritson's headline point is that a rebrand alone does not regrow the function. Real growth in remit, in his framing, comes from operating decisions: a larger P&L, expanded headcount, direct line authority or a place in the CEO succession pipeline. Anything short of those shifts is — to use the column's logic — extra letters without the substance.

What marketers should take from it

The column is a provocation rather than a verdict. A title change can mark a genuine expansion — broader P&L, growth-target ownership, customer-experience oversight — or it can be a cosmetic adjustment around an unchanged remit. Ritson's argument, as the headline states, is that the two often diverge. Marketing leaders weighing a title change, and the boards granting one, should be clear which kind they are doing.

Ritson publishes regularly for The Drum on marketing leadership, branding and the positioning of the marketing function inside the C-suite.