Addicted To Dysfunction: The Marketing Platform Codependency Cycle
Two years ago, at our annual Zeta Live conference, I had an interaction that changed my perspective.
A Fortune 500 CMO had just finished a panel discussion on customer centricity. When she stepped off stage, I asked about her company’s plans to create better customer experiences. After 45 minutes of championing customer centricity on stage, she admitted they didn’t believe they could achieve it themselves.
She went on to share that she had long been frustrated with her technology stack. Teams that should collaborate were disconnected. The media team didn’t know what the email team was doing. There was no central solution for identity or measurement—just a hodge-podge of partners. They had checked the boxes through the lens of procurement, but their heir go-to-market was lagging.
Their dependence on technology ran deep and created an uncontrolled recklessness across her teams rather than a thoughtfully orchestrated enabler of customer experience. This infinitely capable and accomplished leader had resigned herself, and her team, to accept it.
After hearing this story, and many more just like it, I realized that she wasn’t alone. Much of the industry has fallen into a codependent relationship with marketing technology.
It’s like a relationship with an airline we stay loyal to despite constant delays, or the cell phone carrier whose signal drops whenever we walk from the kitchen to the living room. We just relegate ourselves, rather than demanding better.
So, what can we do about it?
CMOs are caught in a precarious cycle
Due to CEO and CFO pressure, CMOs are often under-invested in their marketing technology. Meanwhile their broader organization is over-investing in massive data lakes that don’t adequately serve marketing use cases.
They’re trying to solve complex data and identity challenges with general-purpose tools, loosely coupled vendors, and limited resources. It’s like trying to perform surgery with a butter knife. These centralized data solutions simply weren’t designed for the real-time, personalized nature of modern marketing.
Of the hundreds of customers, I've personally worked with in recent years, roughly 90% had plans to centralize all their data in a warehouse—and exactly 0% have succeeded to date.
This likely won’t change. Data is fragmented, data sources evolve, and scalable real-time uses cases aren’t supported by most data warehouses.
Just last month, a major retail brand approached us after signing with a leading marketing cloud. They carefully got into a relationship with one of the big system integrators then proceeded with two years and seven figures worth of work only to discover that the platform couldn’t accommodate their existing data structure. After what they dubbed “the most expensive single campaign ever launched”, they threw in the towel. Now they’re starting over.
My concern is that dutiful buyers are putting their trust in technology and partners without understanding the pitfalls in front of them. The path forward must accommodate data that lives in the system of origin, and marketing technology capable of accessing it where it resides. As we advance, I’m convinced that connecting your data in real-time will matter more than centralizing it. The most valuable data wants to move.
Rigid platforms become a trap
Early adopters are great at leveraging new tools but typically don’t give much thought to integration and interdependence. This modular approach works well for a time but eventually, as the organization matures, they often realize that a bunch of disconnected tools aren’t serving them anymore. What they actually need is a cohesive, well-integrated solution.
This typically necessitates a move to a marketing platform, which is a bit like getting married. You’re making a big commitment. The problem is that most platforms are too rigid to wrap around the existing tech stack and solve the needs of the buyer. Buyers like the one I mentioned above expect that their partner is going to change, which just like in marriage, is a recipe for divorce.
For a modular approach to work, proper standards must exist. Clay Christiansen, the author of Innovators Dilemma says it best:
The challenge is, there are no standards for some of the most important and foundational facets of marketing. For example, how do we stitch together identities across channels? What is the standard for attribution? We’ve been talking about connected experiences for decades and most platforms can’t track a user from email to mobile to CTV.
To succeed CMOs need to focus on reconnecting data, technology, and business outcomes. Data needs to be sanitized, real-time, and connected to identity. It also needs to be available for intelligence, activation, and measurement. Data, rather than UI, is where the questions should start.
AI adoption requires a cultural change
It’s now clear that investing in AI is non-negotiable, but implementations fail when they’re treated as bolt-on features rather than catalysts for organizational transformation. We’re in the early innings of AI adoption but forward-thinking brands are already creating innovation sub-committees that are helping individuals get comfortable with AI’s potential.
The problem is that the tools themselves are slow to reach the front lines. Legal and compliance hurdles often bottleneck the implantation process which slows adoption. This is where the right partner can help facilitate organizational change, provided their solution can adapt to your specific needs. The cadre of generic AI tools popping up every day can’t drive the meaningful behavior changes and efficiency gains that larger organizations require.
Recently we’ve seen shifts and alignment around Agentic AI Experience (AX) standards that may change the game. Specifically, around MCP (model context protocol) that will help drive the adoption of more flexible and open AI standards, across partners and home-grown technology.
Partners, not just vendors
To succeed you need a partner for solutions, education, strategy, creative work, and research. An emerging shortcoming of traditional SaaS tools is that they lack the support structure that enterprises need.
When searching for a new solution, look for partners who can solve the hard problems at the data and identity layer. Most internal marketing organizations lack the specialized expertise needed to bridge these deep engineering gaps. This is where most of the challenges begin, and without a solid foundation, the house will fall over.
Next, look for highly modular solutions that give you exactly what you need but don’t lock you into a one-size-fits-all contract. The right partner isn’t just checking boxes on an RFP. They’re understanding your specific challenges and packaging their solution in ways that mirror your business structure.
Most system Integrators that are just looking to rack up billable hours will soon find that they can no longer deliver the types of solutions that customers are asking for. Recently I heard a customer say: “We were paying our SI to integrate a marketing cloud, but they spent more time with the vendor than they did trying to understand our business needs.” When customization is just paint-by-numbers, the nuance required for individualized experiences is lost.
It’s time to break the cycle
The stakes are high. If we don’t break this cycle of codependency, we’ll continue building sophisticated technology that delivers unsophisticated results. We’ll keep having panels about customer centricity while our customers experience anything but.
I’m not suggesting you lower your expectations. Quite the opposite. I’m suggesting you raise them but direct them toward outcomes. Start with what you want to achieve and work backward. Build new workflows rather than automating old ones.
The organizations that succeed will be those who recognize that technology should adapt to your business, not the other way around. And perhaps most importantly, those who remember that behind all the data points and automation are real people seeking real connections with your brand.
Want to see Zeta in action?
