These numbers shouldn’t add up in 2026. But they do.

91% of Australian marketing businesses say they use AI (BizCover, 2025). Three in four Australian business leaders say they wouldn’t hire someone without AI skills (Microsoft / LinkedIn Work Trend Index, 2024). Yet just 3.5 per cent of Australian marketing job ads ask for it (My2Cents Job Ads Analysis, Apr-2026)

Pick any two of those numbers, and the gap between them is enormous. Put all three together, and the contradiction is the whole story.

We went and looked at what Australian marketers — or the employers hiring them — are actually asking for in the job market. We analysed approximately 13,000 publicly available Australian marketing job ads from leading Australian job boards and filtered for ads that explicitly mention AI by name.

The answer: 3.5 per cent.

This isn’t a one-survey fluke. ADMA’s State of AI in Marketing 2026 (n=1,092) puts weekly AI use at 77 per cent and daily use at 52 per cent. Microsoft’s 2024 Work Trend Index puts AI use at work at 84 per cent across Australian knowledge workers. Everywhere you look, the “say” side is high. The “do” side — what employers write down — hasn’t moved.

And the part that made us stop and redo the numbers: the universities responsible for training the next generation of marketers are doing all three at once — using AI, hiring for it, yet rarely asking for it on paper. What’s more, they’re some of the more sophisticated users of AI, applying it to student recruitment and retention. More on that below.

What “performative AI” actually looks like

We built a four-level capability assessment to read these ads at scale (we’ll come back to the methodology). The bottom level we call Performative AI — roles where the employer markets itself as AI-driven, but the actual job description doesn’t need, require, or use AI.

We’re not naming and shaming. But we can describe the patterns cleanly, because they repeat.

The boilerplate twins. A major Australian education employer runs the line “access to targeted AI tools and training with a focus on innovation and strong ethical standards” in two unrelated school marketing roles. The actual duties — events, parent comms, and list-building — contain no AI work. When the same sentence appears verbatim in two job ads at the same organisation, it’s HR copy-paste.

The “AI-powered company, traditional role” move. A major creative asset platform uses the line “as AI transforms the creative landscape, we’re committed to building what’s next” in both a senior brand and social role and a senior CRM role. Neither JD asks for any AI capability. An Australian B2B data science business opens its content marketing JD, declaring itself “a world leader in data science and artificial intelligence” — then asks for thought leadership content production with zero AI tool mentions.

The job-board AI. In three content marketing roles in our dataset, the only AI mention in the entire ad is the recruiting platform’s own applicant-tracking algorithm. Your job is now AI-enabled because the job board’s back-end sorts résumés.

The “AI as elevator pitch” pattern. An AI-first B2B SaaS describes itself as building the world’s first AI-powered decision operating system. The role is junior marketing executive — content scheduling and event support.

In aggregate, this has two real consequences. Candidates searching “AI marketing roles” surface listings that have nothing to do with AI. And industry-level adoption statistics these ads feed into get inflated by language, not capability. The ad performs AI readiness. The job doesn’t require it.

Meet AI mentionitis

If performative AI is what ends up on the page, there’s a sibling condition that ends up in the meeting. We’re calling it AI mentionitis.

AI mentionitis is the manager who now prefaces every suggestion with “well, I asked Claude…”, or “Ben from accounts said ChatGPT said we should do this instead.” It’s the boss who used to drop client names, then consultancy names, and now drops AI tool names — as if the mention itself is the work. You know it when you see it. The comments section on any LinkedIn post about bad AI management reads like a support group.

It matters for the same reason performative AI matters: the claim to AI sophistication runs well ahead of the capability to back it up. Performative AI inflates the job market. Mentionitis inflates the company. Both are versions of the same thing — the say side of the gap running ahead of the do side. (A recent Substack post on exactly this phenomenon crystallised the pattern for us — worth a read.)

It’s also, for better or worse, the beat of corporate life in 2026. We’ll keep collecting examples. Send yours in.

The funnel — a way to read the market

We scored each AI-mentioning ad against a four-level capability assessment (we adapted Zapier’s AI Fluency Rubric to align more closely with the marketing function). Think of AI capability as a funnel: the top level is thick with language, the bottom is thin with actual capability. Most Australian marketing ads sit at the top two levels — and the numbers drop away quickly as real AI work enters the picture.

• Performative (Level 1). The ad mentions AI; the role doesn’t need it. The largest slice of AI-mentioning ads we’ve scored so far.

• Capable (Level 2). The role would benefit from AI fluency and lists one or two concrete tools or tasks. AI is a productivity helper, not a rethink.

• Adoptive (Level 3). The role explicitly redesigns workflows around AI. The marketer is expected to build prompt libraries, integrate tools across the stack, and lift team throughput.

• Transformative (Level 4). The role changes what’s possible — AI agents in the marketing function, retrieval systems wired into customer data, or new capabilities that didn’t exist two years ago. Extremely rare in Australian marketing right now.

An upcoming post will dig into what that Transformative tier actually looks like up close — the Australian companies hiring AI-fluent marketers properly. For now, just know the top of the funnel is performative.

Why do job ads lag? (The reasons don’t quite wash either.)

We don’t have definitive data on why the gap exists. But here are the likely explanations a hiring manager would offer — and a counter-question for each.

“We don’t need to put AI in the ad — it’s ubiquitous now.” Then how do you actually screen for it? If it’s not in the ad, candidates are less likely to include it — especially when they know their application is being screened by AI against the job description. The irony is that AI becomes invisible in the process designed to find it.

“We’ll just hire someone who picks it up on the job.” Like your existing team picked it up — quietly, without being asked, usually without being paid for the upskill. Are you running that play again for eighteen more months?

“We don’t have a company-wide position, so we won’t go out on a limb in the JD.” Fair. Which means the ad gets hedged, the marketer you hire hedges, and the gap persists another hiring cycle.

“It’s an old JD we haven’t updated.” Probably the most honest answer. The ATS was configured for 2022, the hiring manager is two rungs above day-to-day AI use, and the legal review flagged anything specific as a discrimination risk. Nobody’s wrong. Nothing moves.

“I use it daily. I’d never admit it at work.” A CMO at a large Australian employer told us this on a recent call. That’s the dynamic that creates shadow AI — and it’s in the same room as the data that says 91 per cent of marketing businesses use AI. Same gap, shorter distance.

None of these reasons are obviously wrong. Each one has a counterpoint that’s also not obviously wrong. The part worth noticing is that the reasons themselves carry the same say/do gap as the hiring data — and they probably always will, until the first hiring manager in each company decides to break the cycle and write the role at the Capable level.

The upside for marketers: if you use AI well, this is arbitrage. The demand is there — BizCover’s 91 per cent, Microsoft’s 75 per cent won’t-hire-without signal, ADMA’s 77 per cent weekly — it just hasn’t hit the job ads yet. Put AI on your CV in specifics, not adjectives.

Shadow AI is the symptom, not the disease

If 91 per cent of Australian marketing businesses use AI but only 3.5 per cent of marketing job ads ask for it, that gap has to land somewhere. It lands in shadow AI — employees using tools their employer hasn’t sanctioned, often on personal accounts, sometimes with client data in the prompt window.

Around one in four Australian employees are using AI tools without telling their managers (AHRI / HRM Magazine, December 2025). One in three Australian professionals regularly upload sensitive data to AI without oversight (Josys / Censuswide, September 2025). Only 30 per cent of Australian organisations have a workplace AI policy at all; 48 per cent of Australian employees admit using AI in ways that contravene company policies (KPMG / University of Melbourne, Trust in AI, September 2025). The State of AI in Australian HR report (QUT / AHRI, December 2024) found 27 per cent of Australian organisations have responded by banning generative AI outright — and the evidence says bans push shadow AI further underground, not out.

The instinctive read is that Australian professionals are risk-loving. They’re not. They’re operating in a policy vacuum. Only 13 per cent of marketers have had formal AI training (ADMA). IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report clocked an additional cost of about A$1 million on average when shadow AI is involved in a breach. That’s not a risk marketers are choosing to take — it’s one their employers have effectively outsourced to them by declining to write the policy.

The university paradox

This is where it gets serious.

In March 2026, we analysed publicly available course information across 32 Australian universities — 629 marketing subject outlines in total. Eighty-four point three per cent had zero AI content in the syllabus. The two standouts were Bond University at 79 per cent of marketing subjects mentioning AI, and the University of Queensland at 61 per cent. Nobody else was close.

At the same time, Australian universities were advertising for AI-fluent applicants. A sessional academic role at an Australian university asked for applicants who can “operate in an AI-ready educational environment” and bring “familiarity with the appropriate and ethical use of AI tools, as well as the ability to guide students in developing responsible AI practices” — with no clarity, anywhere, on what “AI-ready” or “ethical” actually means in the institution’s own syllabus. Another Australian university recruited a digital PR producer, asking for “AI-driven” SEO and content skills. A third advertised a lecturer in data science and AI, while its own marketing faculty’s coursework contained zero AI references.

If AI is as ubiquitous as the industry says it is, you’d expect to see it clearly in how universities present their marketing capability. In practice, it’s hard to find. If a university were to say “this doesn’t reflect our current position” — that’s fine. The question then becomes: why isn’t it visible? If it’s a priority, it should be easy to find.

We’ve chosen not to name the institutions behind these examples — it’s a system problem, not a vice-chancellor problem. But if you’re a marketing graduate in 2026, this is the world you’re walking into: the employer market is asking for AI fluency you almost certainly weren’t taught, and the institution that just awarded you the degree — and very likely used AI to help recruit you — is asking for AI skills from its own staff that it didn’t put in your syllabus.

Meanwhile, in April 2026, the Australian and NSW Governments committed $11 million to turn TAFE NSW Meadowbank — already a Microsoft-partnered training site — into a national Digital TAFE Centre of Excellence: 50,000 Australians a year, microcredentials co-designed with Microsoft, AWS and Cisco, AI threaded through the curriculum (DEWR, Digital TAFE Centre of Excellence for New South Wales, 14 April 2026). The vocational sector is moving. Marketing schools are not.

We’ll dig into the university story properly in an upcoming post.

What good actually looks like

Bond and UQ are the named exemplars, and it’s worth being specific about why. Bond’s 79 per cent isn’t one headline “AI in Marketing” unit — it’s AI threaded through the curriculum, showing up in consumer behaviour, analytics, digital marketing and strategy subjects. UQ’s 61 per cent looks similar. Integrated, not bolted on.

RMIT added two new AI-focused units — AI in Marketing and Enterprise AI and Business Analytics — to its Bachelor of Commerce in March 2026. Progress, and heading in the right direction.

ADMA and AHRI have been publicly ahead of the industries they represent. ADMA’s State of AI in Marketing is the cleanest benchmark in the market. AHRI has been visible and direct about shadow AI and has called on HR leaders to stop treating it as a discipline problem and start treating it as a policy one.

They’re organisations that treated AI as a curriculum choice or a governance choice and wrote it down.

What this means for you

We’ll close with three things, because that’s what we do at My2Cents — make a point, analyse the data, then make recommendations on what you can do with it.

If you use AI, include it on your CV, but be specific. Not “AI-savvy” or “passionate about AI”. The exact tools, tasks and outcomes. Your dream employer probably hasn’t put AI on the JD yet, but there’s a three in four chance your hiring manager will screen you out if you can’t demonstrate how you use it. Give them the language. You’re the arbitrage.

If you hire marketers, your job ads are almost certainly sending the wrong signal. “AI-powered company” in the boilerplate with zero AI specificity in the role description is filtering out the candidates you actually want. Write the role at the Capable level at minimum — one or two concrete tools and tasks — and watch who turns up.

If you run a marketing function, your shadow-AI usage is a governance risk. It’s already happening, on someone’s personal ChatGPT account, with company/client data in the prompt. Build a usable policy — not legal’s “don’t”, but a real “do this, in these tools, with this oversight” — before the breach, not after.

What’s next

This is the first of four pieces this month. Over the next three posts, we’ll show you:

• What good looks like. The Australian companies demonstrating AI fluency as a hiring requirement, and a self-assessment you can run against your own marketing function.

• The missing middle. What’s happening to junior marketing roles as AI gets pulled to leadership? The squeeze is real, and the consequences compound.

• The university story. Most Australian marketing courses still aren’t teaching AI. A handful are getting it right, the AI-ban paradox, and what marketing graduates are walking into.

The say/do gap won’t close on its own. It closes when individual marketers, hiring managers, curriculum leads and CMOs decide to put what they actually do with AI into what they say about it. Job ads. Syllabi. Policies. CVs.

A note on methodology

BizCover’s 91 per cent is a meaningful headline, and it deserves its caveat. It comes from a small-business sample of 92 marketing businesses in their 2025 Australian Small Business AI Report — a slice of their broader survey. The Microsoft / LinkedIn 75 per cent figure (”leaders would not hire without AI skills”) comes from the Australian leader subset of their Work Trend Index 2024. ADMA’s 77 per cent (n=1,092) and Microsoft’s 84 per cent Australian knowledge-worker figure corroborate the direction, at different samples and methodologies.

Our 3.5 per cent comes from approximately 13,000 publicly available Australian marketing job ads across leading Australian job boards between January and April 2026, filtered for ads that explicitly mention AI by name, and then scored against a four-level capability assessment. The university curriculum figures come from our March 2026 analysis of publicly available course information across 32 Australian universities and 629 marketing subjects.

For the full interactive dataset, head to jobs.my2cents.com.au.

Watch or Listen | - YouTube | Spotify | My 2 Cents Podcast Episode #5 |

Much like Mark Twain, SEO has had its fair share of premature obituaries — and we think the rumours of its death ARE greatly exaggerated. Which is why this month, we’ve brought in someone who’s been proving that for more than two decades.
​

We’re joined by our very special guest: Chris Hamlin, who is a 20+ year SEO veteran who’s worked across ecommerce, tech, travel and banking for brands including eBay, Harvey Norman, Suncorp and Tourism Australia. He’s also the founder of byMarketers.co, a go-to library of resources and templates for marketers — including ready-to-use GA4 and Looker Studio dashboards.

​

Has Google Killed SEO | Survey Results

​103 Aussie marketers contributed to our survey - thank you!

Q: We asked marketers how Google’s AI-driven search results have affected their website traffic?

Our survey results echo what we’re seeing globally: AI-driven changes to search are impacting marketers, but not in a uniform or catastrophic way. About half reported some level of traffic decline, while more than a third saw no change or even an increase — a reminder that the effects vary wildly by category and intent. And the 14% who were “unsure or haven’t measured it” offer a gentle reminder that marketers sometimes feel the impact of AI long before they bother to quantify it. Overall, it’s less an SEO collapse and more an uneven, early-stage shift.

According to our podcast guest, Chris Hamlin, this range of responses isn’t surprising: there has been a “permanent shift in traffic that will become the new normal”. However, AI hasn’t broken SEO, it’s just changed the rules again.

Q: We asked marketers how they are addressing the rise of AI-driven Search?

When we asked marketers what one change they’ve made to SEO or content in the age of AI, a clear theme emerged: don’t panic, get sharper. Some are levelling up authority with structured content and unique data that actually gives people a reason to click. Others are hedging their bets, turning top content into short videos and email to build traffic Google can’t intercept. And a growing group is watching the numbers differently — tracking when impressions rise but clicks don’t, a tell-tale sign that AI features are stepping in.

Bottom line: the best marketers aren’t ditching SEO — they’re evolving their strategy to keep pace with the changes. Acccording to Chris, this entails embracing AI for content generation, but judiciously checking verifiable facts and always ensuring that’s there a unique, human layer.

Thanks for taking part.

Cheers

Chris & Denise

Watch or Listen | My 2 Cents Podcast Episode #4

In this episode, our guest is James Hurman, one of the world’s leading voices on marketing effectiveness. ANZ entrepreneur, investor and author, he’s built and backed brand-led startups, advised global giants and helped rewrite the rules of what makes marketing actually work. Our conversation didn’t disappoint. Spoiler alert: if you’re like the majority of the marketers who responded to our Brand Vs Performance survey, you might like to re-think your strategy : )

Brand Vs Performance | Survey Results

103 Aussie marketers contributed to our survey - thank you!

Q: We asked marketers how much budget they allocated to Performance and brand in the last 12 months.

Our survey shows Aussie marketers are broadly in line with global peers — with most leaning heavily toward performance, with around 60–80% of spend focused on short-term activity, while only a small group report a balanced or brand-led approach.

As our podcast guest James Hurman explains, while a bias toward performance may feel sensible, it can quietly limit long-term growth. Decades of evidence show the most effective marketers invest slightly more in brand than performance, using each to play a different role over time.

“Think of marketing like an investment portfolio,” James said. “Performance delivers short-term liquidity, but brand is the equity that compounds your future returns.”

The takeaway? It’s not about choosing one over the other — it’s about balancing today’s results with tomorrow’s growth.

Q: We asked about the single biggest challenge in building long-term brand and short term performance ?

Marketers told us their biggest barriers are short-term pressure, tight budgets and difficulty proving brand ROI. Many said brand spend is the first to be questioned or cut when results aren’t immediate.

Many marketers also find themselves using performance spend as a safety net — as a reliable way to replace the reach once delivered by SEO and content marketing (channels that are heavily impacted by AI).

James sees this as a universal tension. Performance campaigns show quick wins, so they feel safer, but they can also create a cycle of short-termism that limits future demand.

“Brand investment isn’t risky — it’s proven to return three to six times what you put in,” he said. “The real risk is not investing at all.”

His advice: treat brand building like R&D — an investment in future demand, not a cost to be managed down.

Standing Still Isn’t An Option

​If most of your spend still leans toward performance, it might be time to start rebalancing. Even a small shift toward brand can make a big difference over time.

It’s also worth lifting your view beyond the quarter. The brands that grow are the ones that stay consistent — building recognition and trust long before someone’s ready to buy.

AI isn’t going away. It’s already changed how people search and make choices. In the world of algorithms, strong brands will be the ones the machines remember.
​

We’re crowdsourcing the answer in a lightning-fast, 2-question survey (🕑 < 2-min).

Share an unconventional experiment that drove real upside for you, and we’ll send the aggregated results & top experiments so you can steal with pride.

Ready to see where you stand?

TAKE THE 2-MINUTE SURVEY

Thanks
Chris & Denise

Watch or Listen | My 2 Cents Podcast Episode #4

In this episode we’re joined by Christian Young – founder of the award-winning Lord Howe Island Distilling Co. and board director of the Australian Distillers Association. After years in senior product marketing roles at some of Australia’s biggest tech and telco brands, Christian made the bold leap from corporate life to crafting some of the country’s finest gin and boutique beer. We dive into his journey, what makes LHIDC so unique, and how email marketing fits into growing a premium small business. Along the way, we share insights from this month’s community survey: Email – the OG of Digital Marketing.

Email: the OG of Digital Marketing | Survey Results

103 Aussie Marketers contributed to our survey - thank you!

Q: We asked marketers about the email’s revenue contribution

Email marketing is one of the most powerful digital channels in Australia, yet many businesses may be underestimating its potential. While only 1 in 3 Australian businesses include email in their marketing mix, it’s second only to organic social media. For businesses using email, it drives an average of 25% of sales – four times more than any other digital marketing channel.

Our survey reveals a slightly different picture:

• 31% of businesses derive less than 10% of revenue from email marketing
  ​

• A further 26% report earning between 11–25% of revenue from email.

The maths on this is pretty simple: more than half of Australian businesses derive less than 20% of their income from email. A further 19% are unsure of emails revenue contribution. This suggests a couple of different scenarios:

• While some digitally savvy businesses and online retailers are achieving strong results, there’s a clear gap for others to close. Tapping into email’s revenue-driving power could represent a major opportunity.
  ​

• Are businesses focused on the right metrics? While direct revenue (last click) may be a good fit for E-commerce, more nuanced analysis might be needed to understand how email serves brand performance (and indirectly, sales).

Q: We asked what email tactics were most successful?

Our results show that segmentation and personalisation are the clear winners when it comes to email marketing success, with automation and abandoned cart tactics strong performers as well. And it’s not just us – international trends back this up too. Studies consistently rank segmentation, personalisation and automation as the most effective strategies for driving results.

It’s a strong reminder that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to email is rarely enough – the more relevant and tailored your emails, the better they perform.
​
Key Takeaways: We will leave you with three interesting quotes to ponder:

1. Automation keeps leads warm without us babysitting the inbox​

2. Abandoned cart emails practically pay our monthly email software bill by themselves!

3. The monthly newsletter keeps us top‑of‑mind; it’s not a quick win but it builds trust, especially for our B2B clients.

Watch or Listen | Youtube or Spotify | My 2 Cents Podcast Episode #3

In this episode, our guest is Zac King, Fractional VP Sales and Founder of the Fractional Exec Community. With experience in GTM strategy, building outreach campaigns, and pipeline reviews, he gave us lots of great insights into the role of email in the current digital marketing landscape.

Email: the OG of Digital Marketing | Survey Results

103 Aussie Marketers contributed to our survey - thank you!

Q: We asked marketers about the email’s revenue contribution

Email marketing is one of the most powerful digital channels in Australia, yet many businesses may be underestimating its potential. While only 1 in 3 Australian businesses include email in their marketing mix, it’s second only to organic social media. For businesses using email, it drives an average of 25% of sales – four times more than any other digital marketing channel.

Our survey reveals a slightly different picture:

• 31% of businesses derive less than 10% of revenue from email marketing
  ​

• A further 26% report earning between 11–25% of revenue from email.

The maths on this is pretty simple: more than half of Australian businesses derive less than 20% of their income from email. A further 19% are unsure of emails revenue contribution. This suggests a couple of different scenarios:

• While some digitally savvy businesses and online retailers are achieving strong results, there’s a clear gap for others to close. Tapping into email’s revenue-driving power could represent a major opportunity.
  ​

• Are businesses focused on the right metrics? While direct revenue (last click) may be a good fit for E-commerce, more nuanced analysis might be needed to understand how email serves brand performance (and indirectly, sales).

Q: We asked what email tactics were most successful?

Our results show that segmentation and personalisation are the clear winners when it comes to email marketing success, with automation and abandoned cart tactics strong performers as well. And it’s not just us – international trends back this up too. Studies consistently rank segmentation, personalisation and automation as the most effective strategies for driving results.

It’s a strong reminder that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to email is rarely enough – the more relevant and tailored your emails, the better they perform.

Key Takeaways: we will leave you with three interesting quotes to ponder:

• Automation keeps leads warm without us babysitting the inbox
  ​

• Abandoned cart emails practically pay our monthly email software bill by themselves!
  ​

• The monthly newsletter keeps us top‑of‑mind; it’s not a quick win but it builds trust, especially for our B2B clients.

Hi Reader,
​
​Has Google just pulled the rug out from under SEO?

Latest (July’25) research from Pew Research Centre shows some significant user changes with AI Summaries

If your organic traffic has taken a hit or even seen a bump, this 2-question survey is for you.

We’re collecting insights on how Aussie marketers are adapting to Google’s AI-generated summaries, ChatGPT, and the changing SERP landscape.

Takes <60 seconds. Helps us all see the bigger picture.

TAKE THE 2-MINUTE SURVEY

Thanks
Chris & Denise

Watch or Listen | Youtube or Spotify | My 2 Cents Podcast Episode #2

In this episode, our guest is Taz Bareham, former fractional and now full-time CMO of Fair Supply. She gave us way more than 2 cents’ worth as she shares practical advice on how she’s using AI every day in her work and her life.

AI for Marketing | Survey Results

103 Aussie Marketers contributed to our survey - thank you!

Q: We asked marketers, what’s their go-to AI tool?

Our second poll responses were no great surprise. ChatGPT leads the pack with 58% of users — likely driven by their first-mover advantage and brand familiarity. Claude (23%) and Gemini (13%) trail in its wake. For now.

​

The remaining 6% of “other” could point to a broader ecosystem of AI tools that marketers are exploring — often embedded in platforms such as Google Workspace, Canva, Hubspot and others.

Are we entering an era where marketers will assemble their own AI stacks — picking tools for specific tasks rather than relying on a single go-to? At this stage, there’s no fixed answer, but it’s clear that experimentation is well underway.

Q: What are the primary use cases for AI?

​The top use cases aren’t surprising: written content (26%), personalisation (25%) and data analysis (23%) led the way — all areas where AI can drive speed, scale and smarter outputs.

What’s more interesting is what didn’t rise to the top. Some of the more obvious applications — including SEO and automation — are still flying under the radar. Are these underused, undervalued or simply happening in the background without conscious attention?

And beyond the categories, the most compelling insights came from how AI is actually being used: to mine podcasts for thought leadership, act as a sounding board or editor and streamlining the leap from customer interviews to strategy. These aren’t just time-savers — they hint at a deeper shift in how marketers think, create and collaborate.

The real power of AI may not be in accelerating our work — but in rewiring how we think before we even begin.
​
Key Takeaways: maybe the most profound shift AI brings isn’t faster content — but a new kind of thinking behind it. As marketers, we’re not just outsourcing execution — we’re reimagining the creative process itself. AI is becoming less of a tool we use at the end, and more of a partner we engage from the start.

The future isn’t just about what we do with AI, but how we work with it — creatively, critically, and consciously.

Watch or Listen | Youtube or Spotify | My 2 Cents Podcast Episode #1

In this episode, our guest is Michelle Kvello, Fractional CFO & founder of Lantern Partners, named one of the Top 50 Women in Accounting. We’re discussing marketing budgets, how they’re set and how they’re typically spent.

Marketing Budgets - Survey Results

103 Aussie Marketers contributed to our survey - thank you!

Q: What is your total annual marketing budget

Our first-ever marketing survey yielded some interesting results! Most of our respondents are smaller businesses with modest marketing budgets, with less than 5% spending more than $250K annually.

Q: How is your marketing budget set?

Unsurprisingly, most businesses set marketing budgets as a fixed percentage of revenue. As much as marketers often like to believe that they decide the overall allocation, it’s most commonly decided by the owner or CEO of the business and is highly dependent on the company’s fiscal health. The reasons cited for the fixed percentage model include the ability to scale allocations with revenue attainment as well as simplifying and integrating with broader company-wide financial plans.

Marketers spend on average between 10-13% of revenue on marketing, with a broad correlation of % spend and company size: the larger the organisation, the bigger the spend.

Q: How is your marketing budget allocated?

As we anticipated, it appears that rumours of the demise of email are greatly exaggerated! Here are the top three channels:

1. Email
   ​
   ​This is seen as the most cost-effective channel for all types of business and is used to acquire and nurture new leads and existing customers. The ability to more accurately measure ROI supports its dominance — which was also noted by Hubspot in their State of the Marketing Report 2024 (both email and paid social were tied at #2 as the most effective channels, resulting in the largest ROI).
   ​

2. Content Marketing​
   ​
   Content is still king, focusing on delivering helpful, educational or entertaining content. AI now plays a major role, especially for smaller businesses, offering tools to streamline the generation of ideas and content creation — traditionally, these were common challenges.
   ​

3. Paid Social​
   ​
   Somewhat surprisingly, paid social has pipped paid search for third spot. This shift suggests that marketers are prioritising awareness and engagement, together with social media’s range of interactive formats. As one of our respondents says: “I can quickly increase brand exposure, accurately target audiences and enhance brand engagement”.
   ​
   ​Takeaway: Paid social platforms — still primarily Facebook and Instagram — are especially cost effective for smaller businesses. We’ve also noted this trend with our clients: as CPMs are levelling out or even declining, there are opportunities to effectively target and run balanced brand and lead generation campaigns.

Hello, possums!

Back in the day, your opinion was only worth 2c. With inflation, your insights are now priceless, especially for other marketers who are flying solo or are working as part of a small marketing team.

Invest just five minutes of your time to answer three simple questions.

We’ll share real-time, anonymised, aggregated data, plus actionable insights from our panel of seasoned Aussie marketers.

New data and insights every month!

Subscribe now