Chief Marketing Officer / India
The useful finding changed what we could claim
- Company employees
- 235
- March 2026; twelve marketing colleagues through three leads
- Company revenue
- ₹88 crore
- FY 2025–26; ₹6.8 crore operating profit
- Business marketing experience
- 28 years
- Communications coordination through industrial CMO responsibility
Decisions & consequences
01Withdrawing an event-return claim I had already presented
In 2019 I reported twenty-four orders from accounts associated with an industrial exhibition as business generated by the event. The presentation supported a proposal to raise annual exhibition spending from ₹48 lakh to ₹72 lakh. Sales colleagues valued the meetings, and the event team had worked hard. The order total made a convenient justification for spending more.
A review of the account histories showed that eleven of the twenty-four orders had active quotations before the exhibition. The other thirteen followed the event, but there was no comparison showing what those buyers would have done without it. We had evidence of association and timing, not a defensible measure of incremental orders. I had approved the stronger interpretation, so I corrected it in the same management forum rather than quietly changing the next report.
We spent ₹12 lakh over six weeks reconstructing the relevant histories and revising the investment account. I recommended retaining the ₹48 lakh event programme for the next cycle while deferring the proposed increase. The decision recognised the event's relationship and learning purposes without claiming a return we could not establish. It did not show that the eleven earlier quotations received no benefit from the event, or that all thirteen later orders depended on it.
Some colleagues worried that the correction would make useful marketing activity impossible to defend. I disagreed with that conclusion. An activity can have a reasonable purpose and still lack a precise causal revenue estimate. The response was to describe the purpose, the available evidence and the next question, not to pretend that uncertainty was proof of failure. Commercial colleagues retained their account knowledge, and finance helped distinguish order value from contribution.
The outcome was a smaller approved programme than the proposed expansion and a more honest report. We did not describe the deferred ₹24 lakh as a realised operating saving or invent an incremental return from the remaining orders. I learned to ask whether a number explains the customer's choice or merely appears near it. That question now comes before I use a campaign result to support another funding request.
Interviewing the buyers behind forty bids coded as price
In 2023 forty lost industrial bids were recorded with price as the reason in our commercial system. A proposal suggested responding with a broad discount initiative. The code was useful for administration, but it did not tell us whether the buyer had compared equivalent applications, understood the support available or mentioned more than one concern. I asked to hear from the buyers before marketing helped justify a general response.
We funded a ten-week, ₹18 lakh interview programme. Twenty-six of the forty buyers participated; fourteen did not. Among participants, fourteen mentioned price and seventeen application support, with nine mentioning both. Four discussed other reasons outside those two categories. The counts therefore described overlapping explanations, not mutually exclusive shares to be added as though they represented different customers.
The research did not establish that price was unimportant. Nor did it prove that all fourteen nonrespondents would have answered in the same way as participants. Commercial head Rupa Nerqathi retained pricing authority. I recommended against using the original single-code report as sufficient justification for a blanket discount, and instead proposed a defined support-communication programme addressing questions raised in the interviews.
The company approved ₹31 lakh for application-discussion material and commercial training, separate from the ₹18 lakh research cost. Engineering reviewed technical content and continued to decide suitability through the appropriate process. Marketing could improve the explanation of support; it could not promise that every application would be accepted or that better material would recover every lost order.
We reported the completed research and the funded response without claiming a measured win-rate increase at that point. That boundary mattered because an appealing explanation can otherwise become another unsupported success story. My learning was to keep the buyer's multiple concerns intact and connect them to a proportionate decision. The research improved the question management asked; it did not remove commercial judgement or provide a universal substitute for examining the next customer's circumstances.
Testing whether a catalogue phrase conveyed the scope we intended
A 2025 review asked twenty-four prospective industrial users to explain a catalogue phrase describing a standard brush arrangement. Fifteen interpreted it as covering application-specific choices that still needed review. The wording was familiar inside the company, and I had approved it. Engineering colleagues understood its intended boundary, but the review showed that readers did not reliably share that background.
We withdrew the ambiguous version and funded an eight-week, ₹26 lakh revision covering the explanation, diagrams and commercial briefing. The revised account separated the standard body from choices that depended on the intended use. Qualified engineering and customer specialists retained suitability and operating decisions. The marketing work did not create a universal application claim or a safety certification.
Some colleagues preferred adding a short qualification at the end of the existing description. I supported a more visible change because the broad impression arose before a reader reached that qualification. The practical question was what the customer believed they were selecting, not whether a technically correct caveat existed somewhere in the material. We wanted the next sales conversation to start from the actual scope.
A separate group of twenty-four participants reviewed the revised explanation. Nineteen identified the intended distinction, while five still needed further explanation. Because these were different participants, we did not describe the result as a fifteen-to-five improvement in the same people or a controlled causal estimate. It was a second comprehension check, with its own limits and an unresolved need for assisted discussion.
The revised material was released with a clear route to the appropriate commercial and technical conversation. We did not claim that it eliminated incorrect selection or improved a customer's production performance. I learned that asking readers to explain a phrase can expose a gap that an internal approval meeting misses. Marketing must own the expectation created by its presentation, even when the specialist meaning of each individual word can be defended.