4 Types of A/E/C Marketing Structures

One of the questions I get asked a lot is what the ideal marketing department structure for an A/E/C firm is. Of course, that is nearly an impossible question to answer as one structure won’t work for every firm. Many factors need to be considered when you are building your department. In this article, I share four different types of marketing structures that I have either worked in or researched through my network. I attempt to point out the pros and cons of each to help you decide what may work best for your firm and its current situation.

Centralized Structure

In this structure, the entire marketing department reports to one person in charge—most often a Director of Marketing or Chief Marketing Officer (CMO). This means that in this structure, the entire department relies heavily on this one individual to make decisions and provide direction for the department.

In A/E/C firms, this can even mean that the entire marketing department has a separate budget and reporting structure. I worked for a firm with this structure. It was a very large firm. There were a few levels of management between me and the CMO, but marketing was a separate department from the operations or technical staff. We had different timesheet numbers and budgets. We were housed in the same offices as the technical staff.

In this structure, you could physically house the entire department in one office or spread out into multiple offices. It is dependent on the reporting and decision-making structure.

Pros:

• It can be efficient to make decisions in this
  structure.
• Create a team atmosphere if your department is
  in one physical location.
• Ability to better manage brand and marketing
  procedures.
• May be easier to set up and track budgets and
  spending.

Cons:

• May create unnecessary divisions between
  marketing and operations.
• Often difficult to hire and house all the
  marketing departments in one location.
• May not be as flexible to react quickly and
  efficiently to specific region or office needs.
• A lot of time is spent on administering rather
  than marketing.

Decentralized Structure

In this type of structure, there are several individuals responsible for making marketing decisions and running the department. It relies on a team environment at different levels of the firm. Individuals at each level in the department may have some autonomy to make decisions. There is also some shared decision-making regarding marketing programs and budgets.

In A/E/C firms this may look like different marketing directors or managers responsible for different geographic regions or markets. Instead of reporting to a CMO, they report to someone on the operations side. The marketing manager almost acts independently within their region or market. He/She may work collectively with their counterparts on shared initiatives, but most likely for workload/resource sharing.

I also worked at a firm with this structure. The marketing department was completely decentralized. We did get a brand standard book from the Corporate Communications Director, but I reported directly to my Regional Operations Director. I served the needs of my region. There were other marketing managers across the country, but we rarely worked together or knew each other’s marketing efforts, budgets, or strategies. We operated completely independently of each other.

Pros:

• Marketers may have more autonomy to be creative
  and adapt quickly to changing market/region needs.
• Closer to clients and the market can help with
  personalizing messages, content, etc. that resonate better with clients and
  potential clients.
• Could be more of a team member with operations
  and technical staff.

Cons:

• Easier for each market/region to develop its own
  marketing procedures
• Each market and region could become its own brand or
  sub-brand, if no stringent brand standards are set and followed
• Greater possibility for redundant systems
  (technology) and marketing efforts

Hub and Spoke Structure

I am stealing this term from the airline industry. This structure is more of a hybrid of the two described above. I think this may be the most common structure in the A/E/C industry. It mimics the airlines that have regional hubs that you must fly through to get to your final destination. (Anyone in Florida who flies Delta knows you must go through Atlanta to get anywhere else.)

There is a central corporate marketing department that sets the firm’s strategic marketing direction, and firm-wide marketing strategies, and manages firm-wide marketing communications. Then different regions cover either geographies or markets. The difference from the decentralized structure is that each region’s marketing manager reports back to that corporate marketing department. Each region (or hub) gets its strategic direction, policies, budgets, etc. from the corporate marketing department.

This structure also can support the matrix organization. In this organization, you report to two (or more!) different departments. The hub marketing manager could report to both the CMO and their assigned market or regional operations director as well.

I built a marketing department using this model. The firm was re-organizing to form market sectors. Each market sector had a director, key project managers, and technical specialists that would serve that market.  As I was adding marketing coordinators, each of them was assigned to a market sector. The marketing coordinators were technically in the marketing department (meaning they reported to me) but worked very closely with their market director. I would consult with the market directors for their goal-setting and performance reviews.

Pros:

• Takes the best of both the centralized and
  decentralized structures and smashes them together.
• Provides for more autonomy at the hub level while
  still providing structure and guidance from the top.
• Fosters greater collaboration between the hub
  marketing manager and the market sector or region he/she is working with.

Cons:

• With a matrix-type structure, you could have two
  “bosses.” This can lead to conflicting expectations and confusion for the hub
  manager.
• May accidently create divides between the
  markets and geographic regions. This is when a strong CMO or Director of
  Marketing is needed to keep the overall firm marketing strategies and branding intact.
  

Free Range Structure

I am completely making up this structure name. This term, free range, is more commonly seen on a package of eggs or chicken so you might not think of it when you think of an A/E/C marketing department. It is also kind of an oxy-moron – FREE and STRUCTURE – when you think about it even closer. I digress.

For me, a firm with this kind of structure has marketing professionals scattered throughout the organization. Marketing professionals can be coordinators, managers, or directors. They might be grouped in one office or housed in separate offices. One marketer may report to an office manager, while there might be a marketing manager with a direct marketing report in another office. If there is more than one marketing professional at the firm, he/she may not work or coordinate marketing efforts with any others.

Meaning, that this structure really has no structure. I see this a lot in firms that are very small and then grow rapidly. The firm adds an office and that office grows fast. Then that office needs a marketing person. And so on.

Pros:

• Marketers are all-in-one resources. This means
  they are responsible for all of the marketing functions for that particular office.
  He/she can learn a lot in a short amount of time.
• Ability to adapt as rapidly as the firm is growing
  and changing.
• May be easier to find marketing professionals to
  hire.

Cons:

• Marketers are all-in-one resources. This means
  they are responsible for all of the marketing functions for that particular office.
  He/she may have limited availability to work on more strategic marketing items.
• Hard to establish a strong firm brand and set
  marketing processes.
• Constantly in a reactive marketing mode.
• Lack of a defined career path and in turn may be
  hard to retain marketing professionals.

Others

I am sure there are a dozen other marketing department structures out there. Your firm may be structured entirely differently than any of those I have mentioned. If that is the case, please share yours below in the comments.

Your Turn

Do you work in any of these structures? Have you experienced any of the pros or cons? Did I miss any? Let me know in the comments below.