Solo Stove’s CMO Lesson: When Brand Fame Backfires

The Solo Stove CMO story is one of the more instructive case studies in recent marketing history, not because it involves a celebrity campaign gone wrong, but because of what the fallout revealed about how brand decisions get made and who carries the consequences. When Solo Stove fired its CMO in late 2023 after a Snoop Dogg campaign failed to convert awareness into sales, it exposed a tension that sits at the heart of most marketing leadership roles: the gap between what gets celebrated and what actually moves the business.

The campaign made headlines. The sales numbers did not follow. And the CMO, not the strategy, took the fall.

What Actually Happened With Solo Stove and Snoop Dogg

In November 2023, Solo Stove ran a campaign built around Snoop Dogg’s announcement that he was “giving up smoke.” It was a clever misdirect. Snoop, famous for the opposite, was actually promoting Solo Stove’s smokeless fire pit. The campaign earned significant media coverage, social engagement, and PR pickup. By most awareness metrics, it worked.

But within weeks, Solo Brands CEO John Merris acknowledged that the campaign had not driven the expected revenue impact. It confused consumers about what Solo Stove actually was. People who had never heard of the brand did not come away with a clear sense of what they were being sold or why they needed it. The awareness spike did not convert. Shortly after, Solo Stove’s CMO departed.

This is where the story gets interesting, because the campaign itself was not obviously bad. The creative was sharp. The media value was real. The problem was the gap between brand-level ambition and commercial-level execution. Awareness without context is not always useful, particularly for a considered purchase like a premium outdoor fire pit that most people have never encountered before.

The Awareness Trap That Catches More CMOs Than You’d Think

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the relationship between brand awareness and commercial outcomes, partly because I spent the early part of my career too focused on the bottom of the funnel. Performance marketing is seductive. You can see the numbers. You can attribute the clicks. You feel in control. But over time I came to understand that much of what performance marketing gets credited for was going to happen anyway. You are often just capturing demand that already existed, not creating new demand from people who had never considered your category.

The Solo Stove campaign went to the other extreme. It chased awareness at scale without building the connective tissue between brand fame and purchase intent. Snoop Dogg is famous. Solo Stove is not. Putting them together generated attention, but attention without a clear product story is just noise with a celebrity face on it.

The challenge for any brand trying to grow beyond its existing customer base is that awareness alone does not close the gap. You need people to understand what you sell, why it matters, and why they should care enough to spend money on it. That is a harder creative and strategic brief than “get people talking.” It requires the kind of story-based messaging that connects the brand to a felt need, not just a cultural moment.

I have seen this pattern play out across multiple clients over the years. A brand runs a campaign that earns industry recognition or social buzz, and then six months later the commercial team is asking why revenue did not move. The marketing team points to the awareness numbers. The commercial team points to the sales numbers. And somewhere in the middle, a CMO starts updating their LinkedIn profile.

Why the CMO Gets Fired When the Campaign Underperforms

There is a structural problem embedded in most CMO roles that the Solo Stove situation illustrates clearly. Marketing leaders are typically held accountable for revenue outcomes they do not fully control. Pricing is usually owned by finance or the CEO. Distribution and retail partnerships sit with sales or commercial leadership. Product development has its own team. Customer service shapes the post-purchase experience. The CMO owns the campaign, but the campaign is only one input into whether someone buys.

When I was running agencies, I watched this dynamic play out from the outside. A client CMO would brief us on a campaign, we would deliver strong creative and media work, and then the results would be shaped by factors neither of us controlled. A competitor dropped their price. The product had a quality issue. The retail placement was poor. The attribution model was not capturing the full picture. But when the quarterly numbers came in flat, the conversation always started with the campaign.

This is not unique to Solo Stove. It is one of the reasons CMO tenure remains shorter than almost any other C-suite role. The accountability is broad, but the authority is often narrow. You can read more about the structural challenges facing marketing leaders in the Career and Leadership in Marketing hub, where I have covered the CMO tenure problem from several different angles.

What made the Solo Stove situation particularly visible was the public nature of the campaign. When you put Snoop Dogg in your advertising, you invite scrutiny. Everyone saw the campaign. Everyone then watched to see if it worked. When the CEO publicly acknowledged it had not driven revenue, the CMO’s position became untenable. The transparency that made the campaign newsworthy also made the failure newsworthy.

What the Campaign Got Wrong About the Purchase experience

Solo Stove sells a premium product. Fire pits in the several hundred dollar range are not impulse purchases. They require consideration, research, and a clear sense of value. The consumer experience for that kind of purchase typically involves multiple touchpoints: awareness, then education, then evaluation, then conversion. The Snoop Dogg campaign was strong at the awareness stage. It was weak at everything that came after.

There is a retail analogy I come back to often. When someone tries on a piece of clothing in a shop, they are significantly more likely to buy it than someone who just browses the rack. The act of engagement, of trying the product, imagining themselves using it, creates purchase momentum. A celebrity campaign can create awareness, but it does not create that felt sense of “I want this for myself.” For that, you need the consumer to understand the product well enough to see themselves owning it.

The Snoop Dogg execution was built around a joke. It was funny and clever, but jokes do not sell considered purchases on their own. The consumer who saw the campaign and laughed did not necessarily come away with a clear understanding of what a smokeless fire pit is, why it is better than a regular fire pit, or why Solo Stove’s version is worth the price. The creative prioritised the punchline over the product story.

This is a tension that has existed in advertising forever. Entertaining campaigns get attention. Informative campaigns drive consideration. The best campaigns do both, but that is genuinely hard to pull off. When you have a celebrity as the centrepiece, there is a gravitational pull toward entertainment, because that is what the celebrity is good at. The product can end up as a supporting character in its own campaign.

The Commercial Case Has to Come Before the Campaign

One of the lessons I took from years of agency work, particularly in the period when I was growing a team from around 20 people to over 100, is that the commercial brief has to be set before the creative brief. Not after. Not alongside it. Before. If you do not know what commercial outcome you are trying to drive, and specifically how the campaign is expected to contribute to it, you are building on sand.

This sounds obvious. It is not, in practice. Creative teams want to make interesting work. Media teams want to reach large audiences. PR teams want coverage. All of these things are legitimate goals, but they are not the same as driving revenue. When the commercial logic is not embedded in the campaign from the start, you end up with work that wins awards and loses budgets.

The question that should have been asked before the Snoop Dogg campaign launched is: what does a consumer need to know, feel, and believe in order to spend three hundred dollars on a fire pit from a brand they have never heard of? That question has a specific answer. The campaign should have been built around that answer, with Snoop Dogg as the vehicle for delivering it, not as the point of the exercise.

Building that kind of commercial logic into a campaign also makes it easier to defend when results are mixed. If you can show that the campaign moved the metrics it was designed to move, and that other factors contributed to the revenue shortfall, you have a case to make. If the campaign was primarily designed to generate buzz, and it generated buzz, you have a harder conversation when the CEO asks why sales are flat.

What CMOs Can Take From the Solo Stove Case

The Solo Stove CMO situation is not a cautionary tale about celebrity partnerships or bold creative choices. Those can work. The lesson is more specific than that.

First, any campaign that is primarily designed to generate awareness needs a clear mechanism for converting that awareness into something commercially useful. That might be a strong lower-funnel follow-through, a retail activation, a direct response layer, or a content strategy that educates the newly aware consumer. Awareness without a conversion pathway is an incomplete plan.

Second, CMOs need to be explicit with their CEOs and boards about what a given campaign is designed to do and over what timeframe. Brand-building campaigns operate on longer time horizons than performance campaigns. If the CEO expects a revenue spike in Q4 from a brand awareness play, that expectation needs to be corrected before the campaign runs, not after. Getting alignment on the commercial logic upfront is not just good practice. It is self-preservation.

Third, the measurement framework matters enormously. If the only metric the CEO is watching is short-term revenue, and the campaign is designed to build long-term brand equity, there is a measurement mismatch that will end badly. I have seen this play out at agency level when clients measure brand campaigns with performance KPIs and then conclude the campaign failed. Understanding what drives conversion requires measuring the right things at the right stage of the funnel, not applying a single metric across the entire customer experience.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, CMOs need to build relationships across the C-suite that give them visibility into the commercial context their campaigns are operating in. If pricing is changing, if a competitor is about to launch, if the retail relationship is complicated, those things affect what marketing can realistically deliver. A CMO who is siloed from those conversations is flying blind.

The Broader Pattern This Case Reflects

Solo Stove is a specific story, but the pattern it reflects is not unusual. A brand with strong direct-to-consumer growth tries to scale by reaching new audiences. It hires or empowers a CMO to make a bold brand move. The move generates attention but not the expected commercial return. The CMO departs. The brand recalibrates.

I have watched versions of this cycle across multiple industries over two decades. The brands that break the cycle tend to be the ones where the CEO and CMO have a genuinely shared view of what marketing is for and how it creates commercial value. That alignment is rarer than it should be. When it exists, bold campaigns can be evaluated honestly, course corrections happen faster, and the CMO is not the first person to take the fall when something does not land as expected.

The Effie Awards, which I have had the chance to judge, are specifically designed to recognise marketing effectiveness rather than just creative quality. The entries that stand out are not the ones with the biggest celebrity or the cleverest concept. They are the ones where the commercial problem is clearly defined, the strategy is built around solving it, and the results are measured against that specific problem. That discipline, applied before a campaign launches rather than after it fails, is what separates durable marketing leadership from a short tenure and a press release.

If you are thinking about how to build a longer, more commercially grounded marketing career, the Career and Leadership in Marketing section covers the structural and strategic challenges that marketing leaders face at every stage, from first leadership role to the C-suite.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions