Sales and marketing alignment: does the 32% have a source?

The claim that “companies with aligned marketing and sales grow revenue 32% faster” has appeared in presentations and statistics roundups for more than a decade, and I could not find any report with a sample and a method behind it. The roundups credit the number to Aberdeen or to SiriusDecisions, and the Aberdeen page they link to is a 2017 guest post that does not contain the number. The closest verifiable figure comes from SiriusDecisions itself, now part of Forrester: in a benchmark of 400 B2B companies between 2006 and 2014, organizations that sustained alignment grew revenue up to 19% faster and were up to 15% more profitable than the rest. The “US$ 1 trillion a year” appears in a 2008 vendor white paper with no source, and “67% better at closing” leads to no published report. Peer-reviewed academic research with real samples supports a positive link between collaboration and performance, and shows that this link depends on executive support, on the structural ties between the teams and on the kind of difference that exists between them.

I hear these numbers in board meetings in almost the same scene every time: someone uses the 32% to approve an alignment project, someone else asks where the number came from, and the room has no answer. I went after the sources with the method I used to investigate the failure rate of CRM projects, opening the original document and checking sample and definition before accepting the number.

Where does the 32% figure on sales and marketing alignment come from?

The most common version says highly aligned organizations achieve 32% year-over-year revenue growth while competitors decline 7%, and the statistics roundups that repeat it cite Aberdeen Group, linking to a page on the firm’s blog. I opened the page: it is a guest post from March 2017, written by two executives of a software company, that compares the marketing and sales partnership to a marriage and neither contains the 32% figure nor cites any research (Aberdeen, 2017). Other roundups credit the same sentence to Forrester or to SiriusDecisions, also with no report, year or sample, and I could not find the document under any of the three attributions.

What SiriusDecisions published

SiriusDecisions, the B2B research firm Forrester acquired in 2019, published a different number. A recap of the firm’s 2015 annual event records a presentation by cofounder John Neeson, who analyzed benchmark data from 400 B2B organizations between 2006 and 2014 and answers from 300 sales, marketing and product leaders (Forrester, 2015). According to the recap, market growth explained 48% to 79% of these companies’ growth, competitiveness and efficiency explained 12% to 34%, and cross-functional alignment accounted for 5% to 36%. Organizations that sustained alignment over time grew revenue up to 19% faster and were up to 15% more profitable.

Two details change how you read it. The “up to” marks the top of a range, and the framing shifts: in 2019, the same pair of numbers appears in a Forrester post as the effect of aligning sales, marketing and product (Forrester, 2019) and, in the announcement of the SiriusDecisions acquisition, as the performance of the firm’s clients compared with their peers (Colony, 2019). Aligned companies and a research firm’s clients are different groups, and none of the public texts describes how alignment was measured. The version with 24% faster three-year revenue growth and 27% faster profit growth, also credited to SiriusDecisions, circulates with no original document that I could find.

What Aberdeen measured in 2010

Aberdeen did publish a report on the subject, and it shows why this kind of number misleads. In September 2010, the firm released a study of 453 companies surveyed online in June and August of that year, partly underwritten by a business data provider (Aberdeen Group, 2010). Companies classified as best-in-class, the top 20% performers, grew annual revenue 20% on average, the middle group grew 7% and the bottom 30% declined 4%. The problem lies in how the groups were formed. Aberdeen ranked companies on two criteria, annual revenue growth and the share of pipeline generated by marketing, so the top group grows more because it was chosen for growing more. The study describes that group’s practices without showing that they caused the growth.

Does sales and marketing misalignment cost US$ 1 trillion a year?

The oldest version of the trillion I found sits in a 2008 white paper from a marketing automation vendor, written for salespeople and hosted on a CRM vendor’s marketplace (Marketo, 2008). The text states that lost sales productivity and wasted marketing budget cost companies worldwide at least US$ 1 trillion a year, without citing a study, a sample or a calculation. The same paragraph carries two more unsourced numbers: up to 50% of sales time spent on unproductive prospecting and 80% of marketing leads ignored by sellers. Ten years later, a post on LinkedIn’s marketing blog repeated the trillion, now limited to the United States and also without a source (LinkedIn, 2018). The scope went from the world to one country and the amount stayed the same, and neither text shows the math.

Are aligned companies 67% better at closing deals?

The 67% is usually credited to a 2013 alignment study by the same automation vendor, sometimes in partnership with a data company, and it shows up in different wordings: 67% better at closing, 67% more effective at closing or 67% more likely to close. Each wording describes a different metric, and the pages that repeat the number do not report the comparison, the sample or the alignment criterion. I could not find the published report. A 2023 statistics roundup credits the same 67% to the 2018 LinkedIn post cited above, and that page does not contain the number.

Number in circulation	Usual attribution	What I found in the original	Status
32% more revenue growth, competitors down 7%	Aberdeen, Forrester or SiriusDecisions	The cited Aberdeen page is a 2017 guest post without the number	No primary source found
24% faster three-year revenue growth	SiriusDecisions	No original document found	No primary source found
Up to 19% faster growth and up to 15% higher profitability	SiriusDecisions, now Forrester	Benchmark of 400 B2B companies, 2006 to 2014, presented in 2015	Verifiable, method summarized
20% growth for best-in-class versus a 4% decline	Aberdeen, 2010	Survey of 453 companies; groups formed by growth itself	Verifiable, with selection bias
US$ 1 trillion a year	Various sources	2008 vendor white paper, no study cited	No primary source
67% better at closing	Automation vendor, 2013	No report with a method found	No primary source found

What does academic research say about the marketing-sales interface?

Scholars study the topic as the marketing-sales interface, and a systematic review published in 2022 covered more than 25 years of this work (Biemans, Malshe and Johnson, 2022). The studies below are among the most cited for the board’s question, whether alignment is worth the investment, and each answers part of it.

Kotler, Rackham and Krishnaswamy: four types of relationship

The 2006 Harvard Business Review article grew out of interviews with pairs of chief marketing officers and sales vice presidents, in companies across several industries, with no company count reported (Kotler, Rackham and Krishnaswamy, 2006). The authors split the tensions into economic ones, from dividing a single budget, and cultural ones, from the different profiles each team attracts. The relationship moves through four types: undefined, where each team follows its own agenda and meetings exist to settle conflict; defined, with rules and a common language for topics such as what counts as a lead; aligned, with joint planning and training; and integrated, with shared structures, systems, metrics and rewards. The authors say they saw few cases of full integration and that most companies work well at the aligned stage, especially when the sales cycle is short and the process is simple.

Homburg and Jensen: which differences make a difference

Christian Homburg and Ove Jensen investigated in the Journal of Marketing whether differences in mindset between marketing and sales hurt or help the business unit (Homburg and Jensen, 2007). In general, the differences hamper cooperation and, through it, lower market performance. Two differences, however, raise performance through a direct effect larger than the loss through cooperation: one team advocating for the customer while the other advocates for the product, and one team advocating for the short term while the other advocates for the long term. Differences in product knowledge and interpersonal skills hurt results. The finding undercuts the idea that alignment means getting both teams to think the same way.

Homburg, Jensen and Krohmer: five configurations

The following year, the same researchers, with Harley Krohmer, studied 337 companies across industries in the European Union and found five archetypes of the marketing and sales interface (Homburg, Jensen and Krohmer, 2008). The best performing configurations combined strong structural linkages between the teams with a marketing function that holds solid market knowledge. A structural linkage is what the company formalizes, such as joint planning and the handoff rules I describe in the SLA between marketing, sales and customer success.

Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy: collaboration, conflict and incentives

Kenneth Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Nigel Piercy tested in B2B companies whether collaboration between sales and marketing affects business performance and found a direct, positive relationship (Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy, 2007). Among the antecedents of collaboration, the study pointed to a positive senior management attitude, reduced conflict, communication and market intelligence systems. In a later study, with Graham Massey, the authors combined five case studies with a survey sent to 1,000 large B2B companies in the United Kingdom, which returned 223 responses, 77 of them discarded as ineligible (Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Massey and Piercy, 2011).

The 2011 result matters to whoever designs compensation. Senior management support for coordination increased collaboration and sharply reduced conflict between the teams, and conflict in turn had a strong negative effect on collaboration. Aligned rewards, such as bonuses tied to company results, increased collaboration with a small effect at the edge of statistical significance, and did not reduce conflict. A shared target helps, but the research gives more weight to visible executive sponsorship of coordination, a point worth weighing before redesigning sales commission in the hope that it will settle the dispute on its own.

Why does the buying journey cut across marketing and sales?

Gartner provides the evidence from the buyer’s side. In a survey of 632 B2B buyers conducted in August and September 2024, 72% completed their purchase through a rep-led channel and 28% through a digital-led channel, and the firm’s analyst uses the data to argue for a less siloed approach between the functions (Gartner, 2024). The close goes through a seller in most cases, and the research that comes before it goes through the website and the content that marketing runs.

A 2021 release shows the cost of treating the two channels separately. Drawing on surveys of B2B customers conducted in late 2020, one of them with nearly 1,000 respondents, Gartner reported that customers who preferred a rep-free experience had 23% higher purchase regret than those who interacted with a sales rep (Gartner, 2021). In another survey, of more than 1,100 B2B customers in December 2020, 64% could not tell one B2B brand’s digital experience from another’s, and 76% said they did nothing different after engaging with suppliers’ digital channels. As I read it, the buyer moves between what marketing publishes and what the seller discusses, and neither team alone delivers the confidence the buyer needs to decide, which gets harder when the buying committee has many people.

Summary table of the research cited

Source	Year	Sample and method	Main finding
SiriusDecisions, via Forrester	2015	Benchmark of 400 B2B companies, 2006 to 2014	Alignment explains 5% to 36% of growth; up to 19% faster revenue growth
Aberdeen Group	2010	453 companies, groups formed by growth itself	Top group grows 20%, bottom group declines 4%
Kotler, Rackham and Krishnaswamy (HBR)	2006	Interviews with marketing and sales executives	Four types of relationship; most work well when aligned
Homburg and Jensen (Journal of Marketing)	2007	Empirical study of business units	Some differences in orientation improve performance
Homburg, Jensen and Krohmer (Journal of Marketing)	2008	337 companies in the European Union, several industries	Five configurations; the best have strong structural linkages
Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy (JPSSM)	2007	Survey of B2B companies	Collaboration has a direct, positive relationship with performance
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Massey and Piercy (IMM)	2011	Five cases and a UK survey, 223 responses	Executive support matters more than aligned rewards
Gartner	2021	About 1,000 and more than 1,100 B2B customers, late 2020	64% cannot tell digital experiences apart
Gartner	2024	632 B2B buyers, August and September 2024	72% close through a rep-led channel and 28% through a digital one

What these data do not tell you

None of the sources lets you state how much your company will grow if it aligns marketing and sales. The research firm studies compare groups without controlling for other variables, and the SiriusDecisions benchmark attributes most of the companies’ growth to market growth. The academic studies use statistical models with controls, but they measure collaboration and performance through questionnaires answered by executives, and self-reporting tends to inflate the relationship between the two, because people who see good results tend to describe collaboration as good.

There are also limits of place and time. The academic studies cited here come from the United Kingdom and the European Union and are more than ten years old. The 2022 systematic review lists as research gaps the effect of digital technologies, the role of national culture and how the interface works in small and midsize companies (Biemans, Malshe and Johnson, 2022), three points that weigh on a Brazilian company. I found no study with a Brazilian sample and a published method that measures the effect of alignment on revenue. Gartner’s releases, finally, summarize research available only to clients and do not report the respondents’ countries.

What leadership should do with these numbers

Use the research to choose where to act and use your CRM to measure whether the action worked.

1. Drop unsourced numbers from your presentations. The 32%, the trillion and the 67% weaken the argument in front of a CFO who asks for the source. If you need an external figure, cite the SiriusDecisions benchmark with its caveats.
2. Measure the baseline before investing. Pull from the CRM the rate at which sales accepts leads, the time to first contact and new revenue by source, and track the RevOps metrics that show whether growth pays for itself.
3. Decide what type of relationship the operation needs. Under the Kotler, Rackham and Krishnaswamy typology, a company with a short cycle can stop at the aligned stage, while long cycles with large committees justify integrating metrics and systems.
4. Formalize the structural linkages. Write the definitions of lead and opportunity, the handoff rules and the joint meeting cadence, because the best performing configurations in the 2008 study combined those linkages with market knowledge in marketing.
5. Put the executive team in front of coordination. Visible sponsorship from whoever sits above both teams had the largest effect on collaboration in the 2011 study, and a shared target comes in as a complement.
6. Keep the differences that help. If one team advocates for the customer and the other for the product, or one for the short term and the other for the long term, use the monthly meeting to arbitrate that tension with data instead of eliminating it, as I propose in Revenue Operations in practice.

Alignment and L&D: what HR needs to assess

The most useful data point for HR is in the 2011 study: senior management support sharply reduced conflict between the teams, and aligned rewards did not. A program limited to the operating teams, without the leaders and the executive team, targets the part with the smallest effect. Before the program, record with the leaders the lead acceptance rate, the time to first contact and how often the joint meeting happens, and compare the same indicators after one average sales cycle.

If your leaders argue about lead quality at every month-end close and use numbers with no source to defend each side, that is the work of the in-company Revenue Operations training. I run the program with the marketing, sales and CS leaders in the same room, on your operation’s data, and the group leaves with the SLA between marketing, sales and CS in writing and with the RevOps metrics matrix that measures whether alignment changes revenue.

Frequently asked questions

Do companies with aligned marketing and sales grow 32% faster?

I could not find a report with a sample and a method that supports this number. The Aberdeen page that statistics roundups cite is a 2017 guest post without the 32%. The closest verifiable figure is the SiriusDecisions benchmark, with up to 19% faster revenue growth for companies that sustained alignment.

Where does the US$ 1 trillion misalignment cost come from?

The oldest version I found is in a 2008 vendor white paper, which mentions at least US$ 1 trillion a year worldwide without citing a study. In 2018, the same amount reappeared limited to the United States, also without a source.

What is smarketing?

Smarketing is the name part of the market gives to alignment between sales and marketing, blending the two words. In practice, it involves shared lead definitions, handoff rules, targets that connect and a meeting where both teams look at the same numbers.

Does sales and marketing alignment improve company results?

Academic studies with real samples find a positive relationship between collaboration and performance, especially when the executive team supports coordination and when the teams have strong structural linkages. These studies rely on questionnaires answered by executives, and they show association without letting you calculate how much a specific company will grow.

Do marketing and sales need the same target?

A shared target helps, and in the 2011 UK study aligned rewards increased collaboration with a small effect, without reducing conflict. Visible executive support had a larger effect on both fronts.

How do you prepare the team to work in alignment?

Start with the leaders of both teams and the executive who sponsors coordination, because that is where the research finds the largest effect. Then train the people who operate on lead definitions, handoff rules and CRM records, and measure the lead acceptance rate and the time to first contact before and after the program.