CNET CMO: What the Role Reveals About Modern Media Marketing

The CNET CMO role sits at an intersection that most marketing leaders never have to handle: a legacy media brand trying to stay commercially relevant in a market that has fundamentally changed around it. CNET has been through editorial upheaval, AI content controversies, and ownership changes, and whoever holds the CMO seat has to do more than manage campaigns. They have to rebuild audience trust while hitting revenue targets at the same time.

That combination, brand repair and commercial growth, is one of the hardest briefs in marketing. It requires a specific kind of leader: someone who understands performance without being captured by it, and who can hold a long-term brand view when the business is asking for short-term results.

Why the CNET CMO Role Is More Complex Than It Looks

From the outside, being CMO of a tech media brand looks like a relatively contained brief. You have a recognisable name, an established audience, and decades of content behind you. The problem is that brand equity built in 2005 does not automatically transfer to 2025. The audience that grew up with CNET as the authoritative voice on consumer technology has fragmented across YouTube channels, Reddit threads, newsletters, and social accounts run by individual creators with no institutional overhead.

I spent several years working with media clients during a period when digital disruption was forcing every publisher to rethink how they defined their audience. The instinct in most of those organisations was to double down on traffic metrics, to optimise for volume and hope the advertising revenue followed. It rarely did, at least not at the margins they needed. The brands that came through that period in better shape were the ones that got honest about what they actually stood for and who they were genuinely serving.

CNET’s challenge is a version of that problem, amplified by the very public nature of its stumbles. When the AI content controversy broke in early 2023, it was not just an editorial story. It was a brand story. And brand stories of that kind land squarely in the CMO’s lap, whether or not the CMO had anything to do with the original decision.

If you are interested in how marketing leadership operates at this level of complexity, the broader Career and Leadership in Marketing hub covers the commercial and strategic pressures that define senior marketing roles across different sectors and business contexts.

What Does a Media Brand CMO Actually Own?

The scope of a CMO role at a media company is genuinely different from the equivalent role in a product or retail business. In most sectors, the CMO owns the brand, the demand generation function, and the customer relationship. In media, those responsibilities overlap with editorial in ways that create constant tension.

A media brand’s content is its product. Which means the editorial decisions that shape that content are also, functionally, product decisions. The CMO cannot simply brief a campaign and walk away. They have to work with editorial leadership to ensure that what gets published actually supports the brand positioning they are trying to build in market. That requires a level of cross-functional influence that many CMOs are not set up for.

When I was running an agency and working with publisher clients, I noticed that the marketing function in media organisations was often the last to be consulted on decisions that had major brand implications. Editorial would make a call, it would land badly, and then marketing would be asked to manage the fallout. The CNET situation is a textbook example of what happens when the CMO is not in the room when those decisions are made.

At a functional level, the CNET CMO would typically own audience development, brand partnerships, social strategy, and the commercial marketing that supports the advertising sales team. That last piece matters more than it sounds. Media brands live and die by their ability to attract advertising spend, and the CMO’s job includes making the case to media buyers that CNET’s audience is worth paying for. That is a sales support function as much as it is a brand function.

The Performance Marketing Trap in Media

One of the more persistent mistakes I see in media brand marketing is the over-reliance on performance channels to drive audience growth. The logic is understandable: paid social and search deliver measurable traffic, and traffic feeds the advertising model. But there is a ceiling to that approach, and it is lower than most people think.

Earlier in my career, I was as guilty as anyone of overweighting lower-funnel activity. It felt efficient. You could see exactly where every pound was going and what it was returning. The problem is that performance marketing, by definition, captures existing demand. It finds people who are already looking for something and puts your brand in front of them at the moment of intent. That is valuable, but it does not grow the total audience. It just competes for the audience that already exists.

For a brand like CNET, whose challenge is not just traffic volume but audience quality and loyalty, that distinction matters enormously. You can buy clicks from people who have no relationship with the brand and will not come back. Or you can invest in building the kind of presence that creates genuine preference. The second approach is harder to measure and slower to show results, but it is the one that actually compounds over time.

BCG’s work on personalisation in media and retail makes a similar point about the difference between capturing intent and building preference. The brands that win long-term are the ones that invest in the relationship, not just the transaction.

A well-executed social media campaign can support audience development, but only if it is designed to build genuine connection rather than just drive clicks. The distribution channel is not the strategy. The strategy is what you are trying to build in the mind of the audience.

Brand Rehabilitation as a Marketing Discipline

Rebuilding trust after a public credibility hit is one of the least glamorous and most technically demanding things a CMO can be asked to do. There is no campaign that fixes it. There is no clever creative execution that makes people forget what they read. Trust is rebuilt through behaviour over time, and the CMO’s job is to create the conditions in which that behaviour can be demonstrated consistently.

I have worked with brands that were dealing with reputational damage, not at CNET’s scale, but the dynamics are similar regardless of size. The instinct is always to communicate your way out of the problem: put out a statement, run a campaign about your values, lean into transparency. Some of that has a place. But it only works if there is genuine substance behind it. Audiences are not stupid. They can tell the difference between a brand that has actually changed and one that is performing change for an audience.

For CNET, the credibility question is inseparable from the editorial question. If the content is genuinely good and independently produced, the brand has something real to market. If the content is still being shaped primarily by algorithmic optimisation or cost reduction, no amount of marketing will hold the audience long-term. The CMO has to be honest about which situation they are actually in before they can build a credible strategy.

Copyblogger’s writing on what makes copy feel untrustworthy is worth reading in this context. The signals that make audiences distrust content are often subtle, and they accumulate. A brand trying to rebuild credibility has to be rigorous about every touchpoint, not just the flagship pieces.

Audience Development in a Fragmented Media Landscape

One of the structural challenges facing any legacy media CMO is that the concept of a single, unified audience has largely dissolved. CNET’s audience in 2025 is not one group of people. It is a collection of overlapping segments with different consumption habits, different platforms, and different relationships with the brand.

Some of those people still visit the website directly. Others encounter CNET content through search. Some follow CNET accounts on social platforms without ever visiting the site. And some who would have been loyal CNET readers ten years ago have migrated entirely to YouTube creators or specialist newsletters that cover the same territory with more personality and less institutional overhead.

The CMO’s job is to have a coherent strategy across all of those touchpoints, while being honest about which ones are actually worth investing in. Not every platform deserves equal attention. The question is where the brand can create genuine value for the audience, not just where it can maintain a presence for its own sake.

Understanding how audiences actually behave across those touchpoints requires proper measurement infrastructure. Tools that track how visitors interact with content give you a more honest picture of engagement than pageview counts alone. The difference between someone who spends four minutes with a piece of content and someone who bounces in fifteen seconds matters enormously for understanding what is actually working.

The role of a community manager within a media brand’s marketing structure has also changed significantly. In a fragmented landscape, community is not a nice-to-have. It is one of the few genuine moats a media brand can build. Audiences that feel a sense of belonging are harder to poach than audiences that are simply consuming content passively.

The Commercial Reality Behind the Brand Strategy

Media brands are advertising businesses, or increasingly, subscription businesses, or some combination of both. The CMO has to understand the commercial model well enough to ensure that brand strategy actually supports revenue generation, not just brand health scores.

This is where I think a lot of senior marketers in media make a category error. They treat brand work and commercial work as separate tracks, with brand being the long-term play and performance being the short-term play. In practice, the two have to be integrated from the start. A brand that advertisers do not trust will not attract premium spend, regardless of its traffic numbers. And a brand that readers do not trust will not hold the audience quality that justifies premium rates.

When I was growing an agency from around 20 people to over 100, one of the things I learned was that commercial credibility and brand credibility reinforce each other. The clients who trusted us gave us more interesting briefs. The more interesting briefs produced better work. The better work attracted more clients who wanted that kind of work. It was not a linear process and it did not happen quickly, but the compound effect was real.

The same logic applies to CNET. If the CMO can rebuild genuine audience trust, that trust becomes a commercial asset. Media buyers pay more for audiences that are genuinely engaged with a brand than for audiences that are just passing through. The brand work is the commercial work. They are not in tension.

Understanding how audiences convert from passive visitors to active, engaged readers also requires honest measurement. Landing page optimisation tools can surface where the experience is breaking down, which is often more useful than knowing that the numbers are not where you want them without knowing why.

What the Right CNET CMO Looks Like

If I were advising on the profile for this role, I would be looking for someone with a specific combination of capabilities that does not map neatly onto a standard CMO job description.

First, they need genuine editorial empathy. Not editorial experience necessarily, but the ability to understand why editorial decisions get made and how to work with journalists and editors without being seen as a commercial threat to the newsroom. That requires a kind of political intelligence that not all senior marketers have developed.

Second, they need to be commercially literate in the specific way that media businesses require. Understanding CPMs, yield management, audience segmentation for advertising purposes, and the dynamics of programmatic versus direct sales is not optional. The CMO who cannot talk fluently with the advertising sales team will be marginalised quickly.

Third, and this is the one that gets overlooked most often, they need to be comfortable with ambiguity in measurement. Media marketing does not produce the clean attribution models that performance marketing promises. A lot of what drives audience loyalty and brand preference is not directly measurable in any meaningful timeframe. The CMO who needs a clear ROI number for every initiative will make systematically bad decisions in this environment.

I judged the Effie Awards for several years, and one of the things that experience reinforced was how rarely the most effective marketing work was the most easily measurable. The campaigns that genuinely moved the needle for brands were almost always the ones that had invested in something harder to quantify: reputation, cultural relevance, audience trust. The measurement came later, and it came in the form of business results rather than campaign metrics.

Fourth, they need to be a builder, not just a manager. The content creation and entrepreneurial instinct that defines great media marketers is something I recognise from my own early career. When I was refused budget for a new website in my first marketing role, I did not accept the answer. I taught myself to code and built it. That kind of resourcefulness, the willingness to find another route when the obvious one is blocked, is exactly what a turnaround situation like CNET requires. Copyblogger’s perspective on the creative entrepreneurial mindset captures something of this: the best media marketers combine creative instinct with commercial pragmatism in a way that purely analytical marketers rarely manage.

The Broader Lesson for Marketing Leaders

CNET’s situation is an extreme version of a challenge that many established brands face: how do you stay commercially relevant when the market has shifted around you, and how do you rebuild credibility when you have made public mistakes?

The answer is not a campaign. It is not a rebrand. It is not a new social strategy or a different content format. It is a sustained commitment to doing the thing the brand is supposed to do, doing it well, and being honest when it falls short. The CMO’s job is to create the conditions for that to happen and then to make sure the market knows about it when it does.

That is unglamorous work. It does not produce the kind of case studies that win awards in the short term. But it is the work that actually matters, and it is the work that distinguishes marketing leaders who understand business from marketing leaders who understand marketing.

The distinction sounds subtle. In practice, it is the difference between a CMO who lasts eighteen months and one who actually turns something around.

For more on how senior marketing roles are evolving across different business contexts, the Career and Leadership in Marketing section of The Marketing Juice covers the commercial, structural, and strategic dimensions of marketing at the top level, including how CMOs build credibility internally and what separates the ones who drive real change from the ones who manage the status quo.

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