The marketing planning step most frameworks leave out
Many of us learned marketing planning through a framework such as SOSTAC: situation, objectives, strategy, tactics, action and control. It is a sound sequence, and it still works. But it was built for a time when the hard part was deciding what to do. In 2027, for many teams, the hard part is getting the work through the building.
The pressure on the next plan is real. Gartner's 2026 CMO Spend Survey found marketing budgets effectively flat at 7.8% of company revenue. In the same survey, 56% of CMOs said they lack the budget to deliver their 2026 strategy. In the UK, the IPA Bellwether Report published on 15 October 2026 showed budgets revised up in the third quarter. Yet the Bellwether forecast for 2027 adspend growth was cut from 2.3% to 1.3%.
So most of us will plan 2027 with roughly the same money and higher expectations. That makes one question more important than any channel decision: how much capacity does the team really have?
Capacity belongs in the situation analysis
A situation analysis usually covers the market, competitors, customers and last year's results. It rarely covers the team's own week. Yet the evidence suggests a large share of that week never reaches a customer.
Optimizely's August 2026 research found 45% of UK marketers spend at least a quarter of their working week on low-value admin tasks. That time rarely appears in a plan, because nobody invoices for it.
If a plan assumes full-time capacity, it can be wrong by a quarter before the year begins. I would add one line to every situation analysis: the time spent briefing, checking and approving work, measured over one normal working week rather than guessed.
Approvals belong in action and control
The action stage of most plans lists campaigns, owners and dates. It rarely lists who signs each piece of work off, or how long they have to do it.
That is where plans slip. When nobody owns sign-off, work queues behind whoever is most senior or least busy, and launch dates move without anyone deciding they should.
AI makes this more pressing, not less. Optimizely's June 2026 study of 2,003 marketing leaders across seven markets found 65% would pause or adjust their AI rollout if given the chance to strengthen guardrails, improve governance or rethink their operating model. In practice, governance means every review has an owner and a turnaround time.
In control, I would track one extra measure alongside results: cycle time, the working days from an agreed brief to approved work. If cycle time rises while drafting gets faster, the checking has grown, and the plan should change.
Three questions for your next planning meeting
Before the 2027 plan is signed off, I would ask the team three things:
- How much of last year's capacity went on briefing, checking and approvals, and how do we know?
- Is there one shared brief that every campaign starts from, holding the audience, positioning, proof and the decisions already made?
- Does the budget give checking time its own line, or is it hidden inside salaries and missed dates?
None of this replaces the frameworks we learned. It makes them honest about the work. Strategy still comes first, and judgement still sits with people. The plan simply counts the time those people need to exercise it.
The full eight-step process is on the Jam 7 blog: Marketing planning for 2027 without the coordination tax.
About the Author
Jack Hardy is the Chief Marketing Officer at Jam 7, an award-winning Chartered Marketer, and a CIM board member with over a decade of experience in crafting B2B growth strategies across various technology platforms and SaaS providers.