Self-rated Martech Maturity

Approximately half of the respondents rate their company's overall Martech maturity on an average level. 29% rate themselves on the upper scale, indicating higher maturity (4-5), while 22% rate themselves below average (1-2). This suggests that there is room for improvement and growth in Martech capabilities for a considerable portion of the respondents' companies.

There are big differences between the different markets with German respondents rating themselves the highest within all four dimensions, closely followed by Norway

The companies that rate themselves high in terms of overall Martech maturity seem to have succeeded with putting focus on all four dimensions. This shows that emphasizing and actively working with all four dimensions is a prerequisite in order to succeed and get the most out of the Martech area.

When looking at the overall Martech maturity level we see a clear correlation between overall Martech maturity and company turnover. Only 12% of low turnover companies rate themselves on a high or very high level of Martech maturity compared to 54% of the high turnover respondents.

Importance of all four dimensions

When looking at the rating per dimension we can see that the dimensions of technology & data have a slightly higher share of top raters compared to the people & process dimension. This difference in self-rating can also be seen both for low as well as high-turnover companies.

There is a tendency that companies are too one-dimensional in their efforts and fail to consider the entire journey of change that needs to be undertaken. A lot of companies tend to put their primary focus on two dimensions - technology & data. Why is that?

Technology is more tangible and can be easily grasped. It is relatively straightforward to define requirements and form a concrete understanding of potential outcomes. Moreover, the rapid pace of technological advancements, especially in recent times related to generative AI, fuels a strong emphasis on the technology dimension.

Allowing technology & data to overshadow the necessary changes that encompass altered strategies, workflows, governance, and more, can result in not achieving the expected returns. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for organizations to possess highly sophisticated Martech solutions but lack the ability to utilize them for anything beyond basic email campaigns. This certainly does not drive customer value or business value.

Overall, the data suggests that organizations have recognized the importance of process improvement in maximizing Martech investments, while data-related challenges and tools may not receive as much focus. This could mean that organizations have made significant progress in these areas, or that other challenges overshadow them in terms of priority. I.e. budget constraints and the need for better processes emerge as key areas for improvement in achieving Martech goals.

46% of respondents say that a high level of Top management involvement in Martech makes it easier to attract relevant competence vs only 3 % if top management is not involved.

As mentioned in the “About the report section”

this report is based on respondents rating themselves in terms of different dimensions and areas within Martech. Each respondent assesses their organization relative to others they are familiar with and have experience in. Cultural factors most certainly influence these self-ratings, along with the concept of the "innovation curve." (See graph below.)

For instance, Finland serves as a good example in this context. The Finnish market was an early adopter of Martech, both in terms of technology and working methods (processes). They have likely already surpassed the initial peak of excitement, where new technologies were seen as the ultimate solution to all challenges, with the potential for significant impact. Currently, they have reached a stage of realizing that achieving complete Martech maturity requires a comprehensive focus on all four dimensions.

Germany & Finland - high vs low-raters

Let's take a closer look at the differences we see between the Finnish and German markets. 29% of all respondents rate themselves on the upper scale (4-5) when it comes to overall Martech maturity, whereas only 14% of Finnish respondents provide a similar rating. Conversely, in Germany, a significant 42% of respondents claim to have a high or very high level of overall Martech maturity.

It is worth noting that Finnish respondents consistently rate themselves lower than the average across the entire Martech survey. On the other hand, German respondents consistently hold a more optimistic view regarding their own maturity level and the anticipated impact of their Martech investments.

The level of responsibility among respondents is similar between the Finnish and German participants, showing no notable difference. However, there is a discrepancy in the proportion of companies operating in the global market, with Germany having a larger share compared to Finland.

This disparity can potentially impact strategic considerations and the organizational structure of the Martech domain, as companies operating globally may face different challenges and require specific approaches in managing their Martech efforts.

Finland has already made substantial investments in data and technology and is now prioritizing the development of "People and competence" to achieve the desired level of expertise. Their focus is on increasing sales and profitability and compared to the other markets their need to “Access to new technology” is significantly lower (25% compared to an average of 38% and Germany at 44%). This is also evident in the responses regarding future investments in Martech. 43% of Finnish respondents anticipate an increase in their company's investments in Martech over the next couple of years, whereas in Germany, this percentage is higher at 54%.

In contrast, 52% of Finnish respondents expect their future Martech investments to remain at the same level as today, whereas in Germany, this figure is 43%. These insights highlight the differing investment expectations and priorities in Martech between Finland and Germany.

Involvement from Top management makes a huge difference

The active participation of Top management plays a crucial role in attaining high Martech maturity and success. The involvement and commitment of Top management are of great importance in achieving the desired goals behind investments in Martech.

Around one-third (33%) of respondents from Denmark, the UK, Germany, and Norway indicate that Top management is highly involved and possesses the necessary competence to achieve Martech objectives. In contrast, approximately 22% of respondents from Austria, France, and Finland state the same level of Top management involvement.

These findings highlight the disparity in the level of top management engagement across different countries, with Denmark, the UK, Germany, and Norway exhibiting higher levels of top management involvement compared to Austria, France, and Finland.

Martech investments expected to increase

A significant 54% of all respondents anticipate a rise in their company's Martech investments in the coming years. Notably, Norway and the UK are even more optimistic, with over 60% of respondents from these countries indicating an expected increase in Martech investments.

The primary reasons/goals driving these investments are centered around "Access to new technology," with 38% of respondents rating it as the main factor. Among Norwegian respondents, an even higher proportion of respondents (50%) cite this as the primary goal behind their investments. In the case of UK respondents, 36% specifically mention their intention to "Develop and retain customers with upselling and cross-selling opportunities" as the main reason for investing in Martech, surpassing the average response rate of 28%.

Martech investments are expected to increase - again

Looking at the Martech report from 2021, 70% of the respondents said that their investments in Martech would continue to increase in the coming years. In 2022 that number dropped dramatically to 36% of the respondents stating that their Martech investments would increase. This year, we see that the predicted investments have recovered and 54% of respondents expect Martech investments to increase in the coming years.

When looking at the other side of the scale we can see that last year 12% of the respondents said that their Martech investments would decrease, compared to 5% in 2021. This year only 3% of respondents think their martech investments will decrease.

Is Sweden still falling behind?

In last year’s Martech report we saw that Sweden was falling behind - and landing at the bottom amongst the low raters. This year we’ve had the opportunity to increase the number of respondents per market and we can see that Sweden is actually rating themselves somewhere in the middle, compared to the other nine markets surveyed.

Compared to the other Nordic countries, Finland is rating themselves lower than Sweden (and is actually the market rating themselves the lowest throughout all dimensions and areas). Norway and Denmark are rating themselves higher compared to Sweden, with Norway being at the forefront together with Germany in the whole Martech study.

70% of respondents state that they lack resources or have resources but lack the right skills in order to achieve their Martech goals. That means only one in three respondents believe their company has the right people and skills in place to achieve their Martech goals.

Now, here comes the tricky part. When looking at the availability of relevant competence for Martech, the data reveals interesting insights. Out of the respondents, 28% expressed that finding the required competence encompassing customer, commercial, and tech perspectives is relatively easy. However, in Sweden, this percentage drops to 22%, suggesting a more challenging situation in terms of availability. Almost half of the respondents acknowledged that they can find the necessary competence, but the talent they encounter lacks the holistic experience needed to fully optimize Martech in terms of customer, commercial, and tech aspects. Notably, for Sweden, this rises to 53%, indicating a perceived higher prevalence of this issue compared to other markets.

Conversely, 23% of respondents find it difficult to locate the right competence for their Martech needs. Finland holds the highest percentage in this category at 32%, while Sweden follows at 26%. This highlights the challenges faced by organizations in these regions when seeking the appropriate expertise for their Martech initiatives. Looking specifically at low-turnover companies they seem to have an even greater challenge with finding the right competence compared to both medium and high-turnover companies. 32% of low turnover companies state that it is difficult to find the right Martech competence, compared to 14-17% of the medium and high turnover companies.

Half of the respondents state that there is a general lack of Martech competence in their respective markets. Sweden, closely followed by France and UK, seems to have an even bigger challenge here, stating that the general lack of competence is the main factor contributing to recruitment difficulties.

In summary, the data suggest that many companies encounter challenges related to resources, skills, and finding the right competence for their Martech initiatives. There is a recognized shortage of Martech competence in the respective markets, and companies adopt various approaches such as utilizing consultants, hiring partners, training existing staff, and recruiting new talent to address these challenges.

Throughout the competence and recruitment-related questions asked in this year’s Martech questionnaire, we can see that Swedes seem to experience an even greater challenge compared to peers in other markets. This view is also confirmed in a few of the interviews where, for example, Tele2 changed their recruitment approach to put less emphasis on actual Martech skills and more focus on finding the right personality and then educating in terms of  Martech skills.

Artificial Intelligence as a phenomenon exploded in 2023, following the introduction of generative AI. Earlier, rule-based versions of AI have been a part of forefront Martech tech stacks for years – sometimes labeled as AI, sometimes not.

At the forefront of Martech AI implementation 2023 we find the verticals that are closest to the technology tools: Hardware, Software, Network, IT Services and Design. Looking 1-2 years ahead, several verticals seem ready to run Martech with AI support. A few of them stand out as being more ready for adoption than others; Finance, Entertainment and Consumer Goods.

This Martech report covers the current Martech situation across 10 European markets. When it comes to AI adoption, Germany and France adoption levels stand out as significantly higher than other markets,  more than 70% of businesses state they have already implemented AI, or plan to do so within 1-2 years. At the other end of the scale, more than 30% of businesses in Austria and Finland say they currently don’t plan to adopt AI into their Martech tech stack.

Implementation level linked to company size

As in the “Martech done right - Keys to Success” section of this report we can see that Top management support is key to the implementation of AI. Especially for high-turnover companies,  even though smaller companies are not far behind, the majority of them plan to implement AI within 1-2 years. Marketing & communication together with IT & technology are the areas where most respondents believe AI will be implemented.

1 out of 3 Ai rejectors struggle to find the value of AI

Despite the recent AI evolution, 39% do not plan to use AI any time soon and the main obstacle to effectively using AI is the difficulty in recognizing its implementation value. 39% of the AI rejectors indicate that they cannot see how AI can create value for them. This barrier is prevalent across companies of all revenue sizes, job levels, industry sectors, and those operating in single or multiple/global markets. However, it is worth noting that respondents working at high-turnover companies consider this barrier less significant compared to respondents working at low and medium turnover companies (22% vs as many as 46% among low-turnover companies).

The second most significant barrier is ethical and moral concerns connected to using AI, with 18% of respondents considering this a barrier. High-turnover companies are particularly worried about this, with 24% perceiving it as a barrier. In third place, we find the barrier of lacking the necessary competence to use AI, which is a struggle for 15% of all respondents.

To address these challenges, it is essential to begin by identifying the purpose and value that AI can offer within your company and proceed accordingly.