Marketing as a Service — a diagnostic that reveals where marketing loses its connection to business results.
What Problem Does a Marketing Department Audit Solve?
A Marketing Department Audit answers a key question:
Is marketing turning the company’s budget and people into measurable business results? If not, where exactly is the gap?
When This Question Arises
1
The company cannot connect its marketing budget to business results.
2
The company consistently fails to meet its targets, but the reasons remain unclear.
3
It is unclear whether the department’s structure is optimal, with gaps in responsibility or redundant roles.
4
The owner is still personally managing marketing and wants to understand what structure would allow them to step away from day-to-day operations.
Typical Problems We Identify
KPIs are disconnected from company goals. Individual metrics reflect employees’ interpretations of their roles rather than business expectations, so meeting them doesn’t necessarily drive company progress.
Some departmental activities do not contribute to business goals. The team is busy, but its activities are disconnected from the company’s business plan.
Critical knowledge and decision-making are concentrated in one or two people. The current structure does not account for this dependency, leaving the company exposed if those employees leave.
Responsibilities are duplicated or left unassigned. Several people cover the same tasks, while other business goals have no clearly accountable owner.
When Do You Need an Audit?
The marketing department consists of several people in different roles, making it possible to assess the structure rather than just an individual contributor.
There is no transparent KPI system or even basic data on how the department operates. This is not a barrier to an audit; it is a clear indication that one may be needed. The audit helps establish that transparency from the ground up.
The company is planning growth or organizational change, such as entering new markets, scaling operations, or appointing a new head of marketing, and needs to determine whether the current department can support these plans.
There is a tangible business problem, such as budget inefficiency, missed targets, or excessive dependence on specific individuals, rather than simply a general desire to review the department.
The owner or CEO is prepared to consider the findings and act on them, even if some conclusions are uncomfortable.
Who Is This Service Not For?
Very small teams without distinct roles. There is no meaningful departmental structure to assess.
Companies that need an audit of a single marketing channel. For example, an assessment of PPC alone requires a focused channel audit rather than a full department audit.
Companies that are unwilling to implement changes. An audit without follow-through will not improve departmental performance.
Companies seeking formal validation of a decision already made. The purpose of an audit is to provide an objective diagnosis, not to justify a predetermined conclusion.
What You Get
A clear picture of the current departmental structure — including who is actually responsible for what.
A responsibility comparison map — showing where the company’s expectations of each role align with the employee’s understanding of their responsibilities and where they diverge. These gaps often help explain missed targets: employees may not recognize certain outcomes as part of their remit.
A map of how current marketing activities align with business plans — identifying which activities contribute to the company’s goals and where adjustments are needed.
A target departmental structure designed to support the company’s primary business goal.
A KPI cascade connecting the company’s primary business goal to departmental objectives and individual employee KPIs, making it clear how each person contributes to the overall result.
An implementation plan outlining how to put the audit’s recommendations into practice.
Optional: updated job descriptions and role responsibilities for existing and newly created positions.
Methodology: What Are the Conclusions Based On?
The audit is based on comparing multiple sources of information rather than relying on opinions or impressions alone.
1
Responsibility Comparison Map
The map draws on two independent sources: an interview with each employee to understand how they perceive their role and responsibilities, and a separate conversation with the company’s CEO or owner to establish expectations for that role. Comparing these perspectives reveals where expectations and actual role ownership diverge. The findings are grounded in information gathered from both sides rather than in our subjective assessment.
2
Map of Marketing Activities Against Business Plans
We compare the company’s business plans — including its strategic direction and quarterly or annual goals — with the department’s current activities, using sources such as task management systems, reports, and team plans. This comparison shows which activities directly support business goals and which operate independently of them.
3
Target Departmental Structure
The target structure is not designed from scratch based solely on our experience. It follows from the findings of the two preceding analyses. If a business goal has no clear owner, the structure needs to address that gap. If several people cover the same area, responsibilities may need to be consolidated. If one person is responsible for too many areas, the structure should reduce that dependency.
4
KPI Cascade
The process starts with the company’s primary business goal, such as revenue or customer acquisition, and breaks it down into departmental objectives and then individual role-level KPIs. Each metric is assessed against one key question: Does achieving this KPI genuinely bring the company closer to the objective at the next level up? If it does not, the metric is a process indicator rather than a direct contributor to the business goal and should not be included in the KPI cascade.
The result: every audit conclusion can be traced back to a specific source, such as an interview, a business plan, or the department’s existing data, rather than resting on subjective judgment.
Project Stages
Collection of Input Data
Review of the current departmental structure, business plans, and available data, including task management systems, reports, and KPIs.
1
Interviews
Interviews with employees about their understanding of their roles, followed by a separate conversation with the CEO or owner about role expectations.
→ these inform the responsibility comparison map
2
Task Analysis
Comparison of current departmental activities against business plans to identify alignment and gaps.
3
Target Structure and KPI Cascade
Development of the target departmental structure and KPI cascade based on the findings of the preceding analyses.
4
Results Presentation and Implementation Plan
Presentation of the final report and a practical plan for implementing the recommendations.
5
Roles and Timelines
BASE Team
An experienced marketer or consultant who leads the project from the initial assessment through to the final presentation.
Client Team
CEO/owner: Participates in an initial interview to discuss the company’s vision, goals, and plans, a separate discussion about expectations for each role, and the final presentation of the findings. Estimated time commitment: approximately 4 hours.
Head of Marketing: Provides access to relevant data, including tasks, reports, and KPIs, and participates in discussions about the target departmental structure.
Each department member: Participates in an individual interview lasting approximately 45–60 minutes.
Estimated Timeline
Stage
Duration
Collection of Input Data
6–10 business days
Interviews
10–20 business days, depending on the size of the department
Task Analysis
6–10 business days
Development of the Target Structure and KPI Cascade
10–14 business days
Implementation Plan
4–6 business days
Total
36–60 business days
Service Limitations
The audit provides a diagnosis, not implementation. Addressing the identified gaps is a separate scope of work based on the audit’s findings.
The audit does not guarantee a specific percentage increase in business metrics. It provides a data-driven action plan, not a promise of particular results.
The quality of the findings depends on the quality of the input data. Incomplete or inaccurate business plans, limited access to information, or unreliable interview responses can affect the accuracy of the alignment maps and the proposed departmental structure.
The audit reflects the situation at a specific point in time., It is not an ongoing monitoring service. As the business evolves, the departmental structure and KPIs may need to be reassessed.
Our experience
Our clients' results speak for our work better than we or this beautiful website ever could
.svg)
.avif)
.png)
