Across the marketing procurement sector, there is a growing recognition that the role has expanded significantly in recent years. It now goes beyond cost control to encompass value, speed, innovation, risk and accountability. While this sounds logical on paper, in practice it’s more complicated, creating a set of expectations that can be in tension with one another.

The modern marketing procurement team is being asked to prove its strategic value to the C-suite as well as continuing to deliver cost savings, all while keeping pace with a marketing ecosystem that is rapidly becoming more complex with factors such as the impact of AI on production and workflows and the sheer volume of channels and partners in play. Individually, none of these expectations are unreasonable, but collectively they are challenging to align.

More responsibility, without a clear framework

One of the underlying challenges is that the role of marketing procurement has evolved faster than the frameworks used to support it. Procurement is increasingly positioned as a partner in marketing investment decisions, and not just a cost control function – it is expected to influence decisions about agency structures, ad spend, production models, and technology choices. In many organizations, that means being involved across the full marketing value chain, from creative through to media and production. Traditionally, success meant cost savings, but procurement is now also being asked to contribute to business growth, which requires a different kind of measurement, beyond rates, benchmarks and cost efficiencies. However, measurement frameworks aren’t keeping pace.

The sector is still anchored in cost

Despite the shift in expectations, much of the marketing procurement sector’s language and measurement is still anchored in cost. Savings, efficiencies and cost avoidance remain the most clearly defined metrics, making them more straightforward to report. ‘Value’, on the other hand, is less consistently defined – it can mean improved performance, better outcomes, increased flexibility or stronger partnerships, depending on who you ask. This lack of shared definition makes it difficult for procurement, marketing and finance departments to align. That means different stakeholders prioritize different outcomes, and it’s often procurement who must find a way to align them. Procurement is therefore left balancing competing priorities, including delivering cost efficiencies, enabling markets to move faster, supporting innovation and new channels, and managing risk and governance. These goals can conflict: faster decision-making rubs up against governance, innovation can introduce cost volatility, and long-term value creation can be harder to prove in the short term.

Speed is exacerbating the tension between conflicting responsibilities

The pace of marketing is amplifying these tensions - campaigns move more quickly, production cycles are shorter, and new channels are emerging without established, agreed-upon benchmarks. AI and automation are accelerating some workflows, but they’re also raising questions around pricing, ownership and value creation. Procurement processes, which were often designed for more stable environments, can struggle to keep up and the result is often a trade-off between control and agility. Conversations around media and production are only emphasizing that trade-off, with procurement needing to drive accountability whilst simultaneously enabling speed and flexibility.

A measurement problem, not just a procurement one

At its core, this tension is a measurement challenge as well as a procurement one. If procurement is expected to arbitrate between cost, speed, innovation and risk, it needs a way to evaluate those factors consistently. That means moving beyond inputs (rates, fees, costs) towards outputs and outcomes. However, measurement frameworks across the industry haven’t fully caught up; in many cases, the data needed to directly link marketing investment to business impact is still fragmented, inconsistent or simply difficult to interpret, making it harder for procurement to demonstrate the value it is being asked to deliver with any clarity.

The implication for marketing and procurement

It’s clear that expectations of marketing procurement teams will continue to expand, but what is less obvious is how the sector can close the gap between those expectations and the tools, frameworks and definitions used to assess success. Without alignment, there’s a real risk that procurement teams are set up to fail if they are judged on a broader remit without the clarity or consistency needed to prove their impact. Realistically, the role will always involve trade-offs; these must be made explicit, rather than trying to optimize for everything all at once.