In many organisations, marketing does not begin with a sharp point of view. It begins with alignment. Consultation. The balancing of legitimate interests. That is reasonable. It is also why so few plans contain a genuine choice.

What emerges is thoughtful, defensible and broadly supported. It reads well. It survives meetings. It accommodates multiple audiences and multiple objectives. It feels responsible. What it rarely does is draw a clear line.

And without a line, there is no standard.

This is not a creative failure. It is a leadership one. If you do not define what “excellent” looks like before the work begins, the process will quietly redefine it for you. The benchmark becomes whatever competent proposal appears first. Not because it is exceptional, but because nothing more demanding was established.

Research from Effie and System1 demonstrates that creative quality is materially linked to business performance, particularly when it is consistently supported. Direction is therefore not a matter of taste. It is a commercial variable. When it is softened to protect consensus, the probability of outperformance declines with it.

Under pressure, the instinct is to broaden rather than sharpen. Objectives are combined to preserve alignment. Positioning is softened to avoid resistance. Ambition is moderated so that it remains internally comfortable. The result is safe. It is rarely distinctive.

When such a brief reaches an agency, the outcome is predictable. Agencies can elevate and refine, but they cannot invent clarity that was never defined. The strongest idea within a cautious frame will still be constrained by that frame. Approval then becomes a choice between acceptable options rather than a commitment to a strategic standard.

That is what drinking sand looks like in practice. You commit to what is available, not to what is required to win. You move forward, but rarely beyond the category average.

For a CMO, this is where leadership is tested. The role is not to manage outputs. It is to set a direction strong enough to exclude mediocrity. To decide explicitly what is not a priority. To accept that a real choice creates visibility and accountability. And to protect that choice long enough for it to compound in market memory and commercial results.

Without that resolve, “good enough” becomes institutionalised. With it, the gap between adequate and advantaged becomes unmistakable.

Direction is not administration. It is leadership exercised early, before compromise dilutes it. It is the willingness to choose before circumstances force a choice upon you. And it is the discipline to hold that line when pressure builds.

That is the difference between marketing that merely functions and marketing that creates advantage.