I know some viewers are irritated by Boz doing “explainer” or follow up videos on social media to double down on or deep dive on or explain a point that didn’t get fleshed out on the show, or that she wants to add more context to. I get that at times it comes across like an attempt to regain control of the narrative if she hasn’t come across well. She did do one apologising for and acknowledging the fact that she made that Pinocchio mask joke about Amanda once the episode aired and it was obvious she did, after saying she didn’t remember saying anything later that evening at dinner. I actually like that she fessed up (it was unavoidable anyway cause the cameras don’t lie as Kyle would say) and was gracious about how she wasn’t proud of it and how it came across.
However I do appreciate her latest “explainer” about the comment from Andy (or maybe it was a question from a fan) about how she hasn’t had long tenures in her CMO jobs. She could’ve gone into this detail in the reunion but it would’ve been a waste of reunion time and wouldn’t have made sense. Also would’ve looked defensive. But she’s right, the CMO jobs she’s had for major corporate brands hired her to come in, achieve a specific goal, which she did and anyone who knows the story of those brands and what they were trying to achieve while she was there can see she achieved that, and then move on. If she was fired for under-performing as CMO, she would never have gotten her next big CMO job at another huge brand soon after. It would be known in the industry if she wasn’t performing.
Andy’s comment made sense from his perspective, and he doubled down with a comment on social saying the CMOs he’s worked with have been there for the long-haul, and that’s understandable. Why? Because the CMO role at Bravo or a TV Network that size that has a very defined brand, audience and growth trajectory is very different from a CMO role at a fast-moving global tech company with a ton of negative PR that has a brand transformation to achieve within 6 months. Not saying one CMO is better than the other, just that the jobs have different goals and the businesses operate differently. I’m sure Andy knows other CMOs who are long-standing, but that would be more common in the entertainment world like in luxury fashion brands, reality TV networks, event companies etc. At these big tech companies it’s just handled differently. Not only the CMO, but other C-suite roles will frequently change out depending on what the business needs in that moment. And Boz is right that CMOs are absolutely on the hook if revenue or share price decreases, as are the CRO and other C-suite roles in tech depending on the nature and size of the business.
Here’s her instagram “explainer” in case you want to see. Not always a fan of the explainers, but I know that industry, and this insinuation that she can’t hold down a job is silly, so wanted to share my two cents from my perspective.