Proving Brand ROI When the CFO Doesn’t Believe in “Top-of-Funnel”

There’s a moment every marketing leader recognizes. You walk into a budget meeting ready to defend the brand. You talk about awareness, category presence, inbound momentum, social lift, and how the market “feels” different than it did six months ago. And then the CFO says the sentence that shuts down the room:

“I hear you. But where does this show up in revenue?”

Not engagement. Not impressions. Not “influence.” Revenue.

The CFO isn’t being difficult. They’re doing their job. They’re asking for proof that this investment is measurable, defensible, and repeatable because finance doesn’t fund vibes. Finance funds systems.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth: most brand reporting still reads like a belief system disguised as measurement.

Brand gets described as “important,” “strategic,” and “long-term,” but when it’s time to quantify impact, marketing often reaches for metrics that are easy to produce and hard to defend. That’s why brand is the first budget item questioned and the fastest to be cut when the business tightens.

Not because brand doesn’t work. Because brand impact is often presented in a way that makes it sound optional.

‍

The CFO Doesn’t Hate Brand. They Hate Uncertainty.

Marketing leaders often treat finance skepticism like a cultural problem. As if the CFO just doesn’t “get” marketing. That’s rarely what’s happening.

Most CFOs understand brand matters. They’ve seen strong brands win faster, discount less, recruit better talent, and dominate categories. The skepticism isn’t philosophical; it’s structural. Finance is trained to allocate capital toward outcomes that feel modelable. Things that can be forecasted, controlled, and validated over time. Brand, as it’s traditionally measured, doesn’t fit that pattern. It’s interpreted as soft. Directional. Indirect. The kind of investment that is hard to attribute and easy to dispute.

And when you’re sitting in the CFO seat, the biggest threat isn’t “missing a marketing opportunity.” It’s funding something that can’t be defended when results dip or conditions change.

So brand doesn’t get cut because it’s fluff. Brand gets cut because it’s ambiguous. That’s the real problem marketing has to solve, not whether brand works, but whether brand can be proven in a language finance trusts.

‍

Why Attribution Doesn’t Save Brand (and Sometimes Makes It Look Worse)

Most marketing teams try to win the brand argument using attribution. That’s understandable, but it often backfires.

Attribution models were built to assign credit to actions that appear to be conversion triggers. Clicks. Form fills. Demo requests. Last-touch events. Those are demand-capture mechanisms. Brand isn’t built like that.

Brand does not behave like paid search. It does not behave like retargeting. It doesn’t create a tidy “touch → form fill → opportunity” storyline. Brand creates readiness. Trust. Momentum. It changes how buyers respond when sales shows up. It changes whether the buying committee takes the meeting. It changes whether they believe you’re credible before they’ve even spoken to you.

So when you force brand into a direct-response measurement framework, it either gets undervalued or it gets presented as “influencing everything,” which CFOs correctly interpret as unfalsifiable. This is why many brand ROI discussions get stuck in a stalemate: marketing claims brand is driving impact, finance assumes marketing is stretching the story, and both sides leave the room frustrated.

‍

Brand Isn’t “Top-of-Funnel.” It’s Revenue Friction Reduction.

Here’s the truth most marketing teams don’t say out loud: Brand is not an awareness activity. It’s a revenue efficiency asset.

A strong brand reduces friction in the revenue system. It compresses the time it takes for a buyer to trust you. It reduces the cost of convincing. It changes conversion behavior before the buyer ever becomes a lead. When brand is working, you don’t just get “more attention.” You get better downstream behavior. You see less resistance, faster movement, and higher conversion at the moments that matter.

Brand shows up in outcomes that CFOs actually care about:

• Higher conversion from marketing engagement into sales conversations
• Shorter time-to-meeting in accounts that have prior brand exposure
• Improved stage-to-stage progression once opportunities are created
• Better win rates in competitive deals where trust is a deciding factor
• Reduced reliance on discounting or excessive sales effort

That list is not “vanity metrics.” It’s revenue efficiency. It’s the difference between growth that costs more every quarter and growth that compounds. But to prove it, marketing needs to stop measuring brand as activity and start measuring brand as system behavior change.

‍

The Only Brand ROI Story Finance Believes: Start With Outcomes, Not Impressions.

Most brand dashboards start at the top of the funnel. Impressions. Reach. CTR. Video completion. Engagement. That’s not wrong. It’s just irrelevant in the CFO conversation.

Finance doesn’t fund activities. Finance funds outcomes. So if you want brand to be taken seriously, stop starting the story with “what we did” and start it with “what changed.”

Begin with pipeline outcomes. Meetings created. Conversion lift. Deal velocity. Win rate. Then work backwards to show how brand touches created measurable movement.

This isn’t just a narrative trick. It’s the correct model for how brand creates value. Brand rarely creates immediate conversion events. It changes buyer predisposition. It warms the system so conversion becomes easier and faster. When you flip the lens from impressions to outcomes, brand becomes measurable without pretending it’s a direct-response channel. And when brand becomes measurable, it becomes fundable.

‍

How RevSure Helped Glean Quantify Brand Impact

Daniel Henderson, Head of Digital Marketing at Glean, is exactly the kind of marketer CFOs respect. He’s performance-first. ROI-driven. If it can’t be tracked, it doesn’t deserve budget. And for a long time, that mindset made brand campaigns feel like the weakest part of the marketing portfolio. Too vague. Too easy to spin. Too hard to defend when pipeline slowed down. In other words: too risky.

But that changed when Daniel and his team used RevSure to evaluate LinkedIn brand and awareness campaigns through a fundamentally different lens.

Instead of measuring success through impressions or clicks, they started at the point that executives actually care about: pipeline outcomes. They asked a more uncomfortable, finance-friendly question: did these brand touches cause leads to progress faster through the funnel?

Working backward from conversion points, Daniel’s team discovered that brand exposure wasn’t just creating awareness; it was changing behavior. Leads that encountered LinkedIn Sponsored Updates showed meaningfully stronger conversion patterns, and so-called “direct” traffic often wasn’t truly direct at all. It had been primed by brand.

That shift matters because it turns brand from a creative bet into an analytical conclusion. It makes brand defensible in the language finance trusts: conversion lift, journey acceleration, and measurable funnel impact. RevSure helped Glean translate “brand works” from a belief into an executive-ready story, grounded in actual outcomes, not top-of-funnel proxies.

Read more about Daniel’s perspective in his recent LinkedIn post.

‍

Brand ROI Is Not One Metric. It’s a Pattern of Efficiency.

The biggest mistake GTM teams make is trying to find the “one number” that proves brand. There isn’t one.

Brand ROI is a pattern. A measurable shift in how efficiently revenue gets created. It shows up over time, not instantly. It’s revealed in improved conversion behavior, not just increased attention. Brand works when it improves the performance of everything else: outbound, inbound, pipeline velocity, win rate, cost per opportunity, and the sales team’s ability to close without fighting skepticism at every step.

This is why the smartest marketing teams don’t defend brand like a channel. They defend it like infrastructure. If performance marketing is demand capture, brand is demand readiness. One converts interest. The other creates it.

And if you don’t invest in readiness, you end up paying more and more to capture demand that isn’t there—or demand that doesn’t trust you.

‍

The Budget Conversation You Actually Want

When brand is measured the wrong way, the CFO hears: “Trust us.”

When brand is measured the right way, the CFO hears: “This improves revenue efficiency.”

That’s the difference between an argument and a strategy.

Because once brand is tied to conversion lift, pipeline acceleration, and win-rate improvement, the question stops being whether to fund brand. The question becomes what happens to revenue efficiency when you don’t. In high-performing companies, brand isn’t the first thing questioned. It’s one of the hardest things to cut, because leaders understand it is not cosmetic; it is structural.

CFOs don’t need you to romanticize brand. They need you to prove it, like finance would. And when you do, brand stops being “top-of-funnel.” It becomes what it always was: a measurable growth lever hiding in plain sight.