Marketing Measurement Maturity Assessment
Seven dimensions, ten trade-offs, one honest answer about where you actually stand and what to do first. Takes about four minutes. No email required to see your result.
Free diagnostic
Most maturity models flatter you. This one reports your weakest link.
Capability is only as strong as its weakest dimension, so an average across seven scores tells you almost nothing useful. A team with a pristine data pipeline and a finance director who ignores the output is not a mature measurement function. It is a stalled one.
This assessment does two things. First it places you on the same seven dimensions we use in client work. Then it puts you through a set of forced trade-offs to work out what you are really optimising for, because what a team says it wants and what it will actually protect under pressure are rarely the same thing.
- Seven questions placing you from foundational to embedded on data, tooling, literacy, finance trust, governance, planning and organisational placement.
- Ten trade-offs between the things a measurement programme can optimise for, adapting as you answer.
- A plan naming your weakest link, the tensions in what you want, and the three moves to make in order.
Nothing is sent anywhere until you choose to send it. Your answers stay in this browser tab.
How the trade-off scoring works
We do not ask you to rank your priorities, because asked directly everybody wants measurement that is fast, rigorous, transparent, cheap, comprehensive and owned internally. Direct ranking measures how agreeable the list is, not what you would defend.
Instead you see two priorities at a time and say which you would protect. Those answers fit a Bradley-Terry model: each priority is given a latent worth, and the chance of preferring one over another is a logistic function of the difference between them. Because ten comparisons across eight items is not much data, the fit is ridge-penalised, which shrinks the estimates toward each other and stops any priority that happened to win every time it appeared from running away.
The order is adaptive. After each answer the model refits and picks the next pair it can least predict, since a comparison between two items you rate equally carries the most information. Where too few comparisons separate two priorities, the result says so rather than printing a rank order the data will not support.
This is the same reasoning we apply to measurement generally: state the model, state what it assumes, and be explicit about how much the evidence can carry. If that sounds like the way you would like your marketing measured, that is rather the point.
Want the thinking behind the assessment?
The full working paper covers all of it: maturity, stakeholder mapping, the data audit, build versus buy, scenario planning, validation, and the four ways in-housed measurement quietly dies.