Here’s the default structure at most associations: marketing and communications exists to support the other departments. Certification needs a campaign, marketing builds it. Membership wants an email, marketing writes it. Education has a webinar, marketing promotes it.
That structure is understandable. It’s also the reason most association marketing underperforms.
What the Service Model Actually Produces
When marketing is positioned as a service function, a few predictable things happen.
Content becomes departmental, not organizational. Each department tells its own story from its own perspective. The newsletter becomes a collection of department updates that don’t add up to anything. A reader encounters six disconnected messages instead of one coherent organization.
Marketing becomes a bottleneck instead of a multiplier. The team spends its time fulfilling requests instead of building strategy. Every cycle starts with “what does everyone need this month” instead of “what does the organization need to accomplish this year.”
Strategic gaps go unnoticed. Nobody’s job is to look across all the content and ask whether the organization is actually saying what it needs to say. Department owners know their lane. Marketing is too busy filling requests to build a map – let alone follow it.
What the Strategic Model Looks Like Instead
A marketing function operating as a strategic layer looks different in practice. The shift isn’t about authority. It’s about where the thinking happens.
In the service model, departments set the agenda and marketing executes. In the strategic model, marketing owns the integrated picture and departments contribute to it. The distinction matters because the integrated picture — what the organization is trying to accomplish, what the membership needs to understand, where the strategic gaps are — doesn’t belong to any single department. It belongs to whoever has visibility across all of them.
That’s the marketing function, or it should be.
In practice, this means marketing is in the room when strategic planning happens, not just when implementation starts. It means the content calendar is built around organizational priorities, not department submission deadlines. It means when a department comes to marketing with a request, the first question is “what outcome does this serve” — not “when do you need it.”
The Resistance You’ll Encounter
This shift doesn’t happen easily, and it shouldn’t. Departments that have always controlled their own communications aren’t wrong to have done so — they know their audiences and their priorities better than anyone. The strategic positioning of marketing isn’t an argument that departments lose their voice. It’s an argument that someone needs to ensure the voices add up to something.
The resistance usually comes from two places. 1) Leadership that has historically thought of marketing as a cost center rather than a value driver — and hasn’t seen evidence to think otherwise. And/or 2) departments that have worked previously in an outsourced-marketing construct that was too slow, too generic, or too disconnected from their actual needs.
Both resistances are earned and the post-traumatic feelings are real. The way through them is demonstrated value, not organizational argument. When the marketing function starts producing things that departments couldn’t have built themselves — integrated campaigns that serve multiple strategic priorities, content that performs better because it was built on member insight rather than departmental instinct, data that shows what’s actually landing — the argument for strategic positioning makes itself.
The Question Worth Asking
If your association’s marketing department disappeared tomorrow, would the organization lose a production capacity or a strategic capability?
If the honest answer is production capacity — someone to write the emails, manage the social accounts, send the newsletter — then the function is positioned as a service department.
That’s not an indictment. It’s a diagnosis.
The strategic capability version of that question is harder to answer yes to. It requires the function to own something that can’t be easily distributed across other departments when the team is short-staffed or the budget is cut. It requires demonstrable organizational impact that traces back to marketing’s work — not just to marketing’s output.
Getting there is a long game. It starts with a clear-eyed assessment of where you actually are, and an honest case to leadership about what the gap costs the organization. Not in terms of brand aesthetics. In terms of member retention, revenue, and strategic momentum.
That’s a conversation worth having. The associations that have it tend to be the ones that figure out the difference between a department that fills requests and one that drives results.
In all senses, it is worth it.
Kitchen's Ink 
Leave a comment