Demand Gen Analysis 2025

What 97 Practitioners Actually Shared

👋 Hi, it's Kaylee Edmondson and welcome to Looped In, my newsletter exploring demand gen and growth frameworks in B2B SaaS.

I just finished analyzing the most comprehensive survey of demand generation practitioners I've seen this year, and honestly? The results are both validating and deeply concerning.

Over the past few months, I've been talking to CMOs and demand gen leaders about a disconnect I keep witnessing: everyone's talking about signal-based marketing and AI transformation, but something felt off about the gap between the hype and reality. I originally searched the market for someone who’d already conducted research with key demand gen leaders but all I found was outdated or heavily vendor-skewed insights. I pulled this together kind of on a whim, and 97 of you showed up - thank you! Given that, this data set and these findings are meant to be directional and informational in nature. This article won’t be statistically significant (yet, maybe next year 😉).

What I found confirms what I've been seeing in my consulting work—and frankly, it should be a wake-up call for anyone in GTM leadership.

The TL;DR That Should Keep You Up Tonight

Only 12.4% of demand gen practitioners say their metrics are completely aligned with how their performance is actually evaluated.

Let that sink in. Nearly 9 out of 10 demand gen professionals are being measured on things that don't match what they're actually responsible for. And we wonder why there's a war on attribution.

But here's what's really fascinating: despite this massive disconnect, 67% of respondents earn over $125,000 annually, with 48.5% earning $150k+. The market clearly values demand gen expertise—but we're stuck in a broken measurement paradigm.

The Experience Paradox: Senior Talent, Junior Challenges

The survey revealed something I've been seeing in my client work: this isn't a junior function anymore.

33% of respondents have 10+ years of experience, and another 23% have 7-10 years. These aren't recent college grads figuring out how to run a Facebook ad. These are seasoned professionals who've lived through multiple economic cycles, platform changes, and GTM strategy evolutions.

Yet the challenges they're facing sound exactly like what I was dealing with as a marketing coordinator ten years ago:

• Attribution and measuring ROI (mentioned by nearly everyone)

• Proving marketing's impact on revenue

• Data quality and management

• Sales and marketing alignment

If senior practitioners with a decade of experience are still fighting the same battles I fought as a coordinator, we have a systems problem, not a talent problem.

The Stakeholder Education Tax

Here's a stat that made me physically cringe: practitioners are spending an enormous amount of time educating stakeholders about what demand generation actually entails.

The most frequent response to "How often do you need to educate stakeholders?" wasn't "rarely" or "sometimes"—it was "constantly" and "frequently."

Think about the productivity tax this represents. These are people earning $150k+ who could be building programs, optimizing campaigns, and driving revenue. Instead, they're explaining to their own executives what their job actually involves.

This isn't just frustrating—it's economically inefficient at a scale that should alarm every CFO reading this.

The Small Team, Big Expectations Reality

37% of respondents work at growth-stage companies, and 32% are at Series A-C startups. But here's what caught my attention: 33% work on marketing teams of just 2-5 people. (Obviously this data is directional and not stat sig. Don’t come for me.)

Let me paint this picture for you. You're a Director of Demand Generation (32% of our respondents) at a growth-stage company doing $6-20M ARR (the most common ARR bracket at 31%). You're on a tiny team, probably reporting to a CMO who's also wearing twelve other hats, and you're somehow supposed to:

• Generate qualified pipeline

• Prove ROI on every dollar spent

• Implement AI tools (everyone's doing it, right?)

• Build signal-based marketing programs (I've been writing about this for months)

• Maintain data quality across a fractured tech stack

• Educate stakeholders on what your job actually involves

• Plan events all across the globe

• Launch campaigns that are omni-channel in nature but support 8 different GTM segments

• … the list goes on

No wonder 47% are only "somewhat satisfied" with their compensation, despite earning well above market average.

The AI Reality vs. The AI Hype

I've been writing about AI transformation in demand gen, particularly around the need for systems thinkers rather than just prompt engineers. This survey revealed the gap I suspected exists.

Nearly everyone reported some form of AI usage in their demand gen efforts. But when you dig into the implementation challenges, the real story emerges:

• Integration with existing tech stacks

• Data quality requirements for AI to be effective

• Understanding which AI capabilities actually drive business outcomes

This aligns perfectly with what I wrote about the "AI skill gap"—companies are hiring prompt engineers when they need systems thinkers who can connect AI capabilities to business outcomes.

The Tools vs. Strategy Imbalance

The survey revealed budget ranges that honestly surprised me. 25% spend $50-100k annually on software and tools, and 22% spend $100-200k. For teams of 2-5 people, that's a lot of tech.

But here's what I found telling: with all this investment in tools, the top challenges remain fundamentally strategic:

• Attribution and measuring ROI

• Proving marketing's impact on revenue

• Balancing short-term tactics with long-term strategy

We're solving tool problems when we have strategy problems.

This reminds me of something I've seen in every demand gen audit I've conducted: companies layer on more tools thinking it will solve their fundamental issues with measurement, alignment, and strategy. It doesn't.

The Signal-Based Marketing Gap

I've been documenting the shift toward signal-based marketing and the unbundling of traditional ABM platforms. This survey confirms we're in the middle of a massive transition that most teams aren't prepared for.

When asked about their biggest 2025 priorities, responses clustered around:

• Improving marketing and sales alignment

• Increasing pipeline contribution

• Building signal-based marketing programs

• Implementing/optimizing Account-Based strategy

These aren't separate initiatives—they're all part of the same fundamental shift toward account-driven GTM that I've been writing about.

But here's the disconnect: teams want to implement these new approaches, but they're still stuck with metrics that don't align with their actual performance evaluation. You can't build a signal-based program when you're being measured on MQLs.

The Compensation Satisfaction Paradox

Despite earning strong salaries ($150k+ for nearly half the respondents), only 22.7% are "very satisfied" with their compensation, while 47.4% are merely "somewhat satisfied."

This isn't about the money—it's about the value perception mismatch. When you're constantly educating stakeholders about your role's value, when your metrics don't align with your evaluation, when you're expected to be strategic but spend time on tactical execution, satisfaction suffers regardless of salary level.

The dissatisfaction isn't financial—it's professional.

What This Means for 2025 (And What You Should Do About It)

Based on this data and what I'm seeing in my consulting work, here's my prediction: 2025 will be the year demand gen either evolves or stagnates.

The companies that thrive will be those that:

1. Fix the Metrics Alignment Crisis

Stop measuring demand gen professionals on metrics that don't correlate with their actual impact. If you care about pipeline contribution and revenue impact, measure that. If you care about account engagement and progression, measure that. But pick one story and stick with it.

2. Invest in Systems Thinking, Not Just Tools

That $100k+ tool budget isn't the problem—it's how you're thinking about tools. Before adding another signal provider or AI tool, audit whether your team has the systems thinking capabilities to orchestrate these tools into cohesive programs.

3. Reduce the Stakeholder Education Tax

Create internal documentation, frameworks, and regular communication about what demand gen actually entails. Every hour your Director of Demand Gen spends explaining account scoring is an hour not spent optimizing conversion rates, orchestrating ICP buyer campaigns, activating an in-opp campaign, etc..

4. Right-size Team Expectations

You can't run a modern demand gen program with 2-5 people and expect enterprise-level sophistication. Either invest in team growth or accept that you'll need to focus on fewer initiatives done well rather than trying to keep up with every industry trend.

The Framework: Your 2025 Demand Gen Health Check

Based on these findings, here's how to assess whether your demand gen function is set up for success:

Metrics Alignment Score:

• Completely aligned = 5 points

• Mostly aligned = 3 points

• Somewhat aligned = 1 point

• Misaligned = 0 points

Stakeholder Education Burden:

• Rarely need to educate = 5 points

• Sometimes = 3 points

• Frequently = 1 point

• Constantly = 0 points

Team Resource Ratio:

• 1+ demand gen person per $10M ARR = 5 points

• 1 per $10-20M = 3 points

• 1 per $20M+ = 1 point

Strategic Time Allocation:

• 60%+ strategic = 5 points

• 40-60% strategic = 3 points

• 20-40% strategic = 1 point

• <20% strategic = 0 points

Score Interpretation:

• 15-20: You're positioned for growth

• 10-14: Address gaps before scaling

• 5-9: Systemic issues need attention

• 0-4: Fundamental restructuring required

The Bottom Line

This survey revealed something I've suspected for months: demand gen has matured as a discipline, but organizational support hasn't kept pace.

We have experienced practitioners earning strong salaries, working with sophisticated tools, at growing companies. But we're still fighting battles that should have been resolved years ago because the fundamental disconnect between what demand gen professionals do and how they're evaluated hasn't been addressed.

The solution isn't better attribution modeling or more AI tools—it's organizational clarity about what demand generation actually contributes and how to measure that contribution effectively.

For those of you building demand gen programs in 2025, remember: the tools and tactics will continue to evolve, but the fundamental challenge remains connecting your work to business outcomes in a way that stakeholders understand and value.

The companies that solve this alignment problem will have a massive competitive advantage. The ones that don't will continue cycling through demand gen talent, wondering why nothing seems to work.

---

What resonates most with your experience? I'd love to hear how these findings align with what you're seeing in your organization. Hit reply—I read every response.

Here's to growth!

See ya next week,
Kaylee ✌