
How Marketing Teams Can Implement AI Successfully
Marketers are widely acknowledged to be among those greatly affected by AI, which has made many of us race blindly into haphazard adoption. While some action is usually better than none, marketers risk disrupting their already chaotic processes if they don't approach AI strategically.
At my company, we've been asking marketers around the world about how they get work done for eight years now. But this year, we decided it was time to really dive into AI for the first time. What we found in our State of Agile Marketing Report is that one group of marketers was more likely to have adopted AI and see positive results. Peeling back the layers, we learned there's a clear set of agile practices, mindsets and approaches that can increase marketing teams' likelihood of productivity, prioritization and AI adoption.
My company provides agile training for marketing teams, and I believe the lessons we learned this year can be used to inform how businesses approach work management, even outside of marketing.
Today, the pressure to adopt and integrate AI into business processes can be overwhelming. It's no wonder that our report found only 7% of the 430 marketers surveyed said they weren't considering AI at all. But, despite the fact that 93% of marketers want to integrate AI, only 17% have fully worked it into their marketing processes.
So what's stopping them?
First, they're overwhelmed by an endless number of AI tools. From 2023 to 2024 alone, the number of marketing technology products increased by more than 27%, with many of those solutions featuring AI. I've learned through conversations with marketers that many are also concerned about compliance and wondering how to approach the AI integration process. It can all feel like trying to drink from a firehose, except the firehose itself is also moving, and there's a big timer letting them know they need to finish drinking before their competitors do.
But despite these challenges, some teams are figuring out how to turn that firehose where they need it to go.
One of the most surprising takeaways from our report was how much a team's level of agility could impact their ability to fully integrate AI. "Fully agile" teams were more than three times as likely to have done so compared to their less agile counterparts. This aligns with 2021 research from McKinsey, which found that "highly successful agile transformations" led to improvements in efficiency, employee engagement and operational performance, as well as "turbocharged innovation."
But besides agility, what practices enabled marketers who called themselves "extremely successful" with AI adoption to excel? We found they had more leadership support and agile training, focused on fewer high-value activities and enjoyed greater autonomy. This environment enabled these marketers to rigorously test and experiment with AI. Instead of simply adopting whatever AI tool their leaders told them to, greater autonomy enabled marketers to figure out what worked for them. As a result, we saw those higher AI integration rates.
This tells me that giving teams the tools and culture they need to solve as complex a problem as AI integration really makes a difference.
Knowing that agile, autonomous and supported marketing teams can perform in all these ways is great, but what about knowing how to unlock those benefits? We asked how people educated themselves about agility, and many respondents used free and paid self-paced video learning, agile certification courses, written content, attended conferences and worked with coaches. However, leaders can go beyond this. I recommend:
The bigger takeaway for leaders is that while agile practices are important, their foundation is always mindset. The first step to unlocking all of these benefits is to think like an agile leader. For example, instead of stepping in to directly 'help' your teams with AI adoption, figure out what tools and training they need, provide them and give them space to figure things out. Micromanagement isn't what teams need here.
A part of that agile mindset is ruthlessly prioritizing your work. For AI integration, this means not letting perfect become the enemy of good. For example, accept that you're better off running a test on a tool and learning something as opposed to waiting weeks and weeks to find the perfect tool to test.
The reason this is so important is that each time you experiment with a new AI tool or use case, you'll gain valuable insights. Those insights can then be applied to the next test. In my experience, the value of waiting for a better tool or use case to test rarely outweighs the benefits of gaining those insights fast, particularly in a space as fast-moving as AI.
Another common hurdle leaders need to overcome is compliance. There's no getting around the reality that navigating compliance with AI is tricky, but treating compliance or legal teams as stakeholders can help. That means involving them in AI adoption early and seeking their input at a regular cadence.
When compliance teams are actively involved in the AI adoption process, you get more mutual understanding. Compliance can see what challenges the teams implementing and testing AI are up against, while those teams are better able to see what compliance is trying to do.
So, whether you're a marketer or not, this data shows a clear path forward. Fully integrating AI into your processes can help you remain competitive in today's landscape, but getting there requires giving teams the support they need to cultivate agile mindsets and behaviors.
Once marketing teams can embrace experimentation, continuous improvement, focus and prioritization, and autonomy, they're uniquely positioned to thrive in an AI-first business environment.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Global-E Online Ltd. (NASDAQ:GLBE) Shares Could Be 26% Below Their Intrinsic Value Estimate
Using the 2 Stage Free Cash Flow to Equity, Global-E Online fair value estimate is US$45.08 Global-E Online's US$33.54 share price signals that it might be 26% undervalued Analyst price target for GLBE is US$46.74, which is 3.7% above our fair value estimate In this article we are going to estimate the intrinsic value of Global-E Online Ltd. (NASDAQ:GLBE) by projecting its future cash flows and then discounting them to today's value. The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model is the tool we will apply to do this. Believe it or not, it's not too difficult to follow, as you'll see from our example! We would caution that there are many ways of valuing a company and, like the DCF, each technique has advantages and disadvantages in certain scenarios. If you still have some burning questions about this type of valuation, take a look at the Simply Wall St analysis model. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. We use what is known as a 2-stage model, which simply means we have two different periods of growth rates for the company's cash flows. Generally the first stage is higher growth, and the second stage is a lower growth phase. To begin with, we have to get estimates of the next ten years of cash flows. Where possible we use analyst estimates, but when these aren't available we extrapolate the previous free cash flow (FCF) from the last estimate or reported value. We assume companies with shrinking free cash flow will slow their rate of shrinkage, and that companies with growing free cash flow will see their growth rate slow, over this period. We do this to reflect that growth tends to slow more in the early years than it does in later years. A DCF is all about the idea that a dollar in the future is less valuable than a dollar today, so we discount the value of these future cash flows to their estimated value in today's dollars: 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Levered FCF ($, Millions) US$188.4m US$256.4m US$381.3m US$476.4m US$563.8m US$641.1m US$708.4m US$766.7m US$817.6m US$862.8m Growth Rate Estimate Source Analyst x3 Analyst x4 Analyst x2 Est @ 24.95% Est @ 18.35% Est @ 13.72% Est @ 10.49% Est @ 8.22% Est @ 6.64% Est @ 5.53% Present Value ($, Millions) Discounted @ 10% US$171 US$211 US$285 US$322 US$346 US$357 US$358 US$351 US$340 US$325 ("Est" = FCF growth rate estimated by Simply Wall St)Present Value of 10-year Cash Flow (PVCF) = US$3.1b The second stage is also known as Terminal Value, this is the business's cash flow after the first stage. For a number of reasons a very conservative growth rate is used that cannot exceed that of a country's GDP growth. In this case we have used the 5-year average of the 10-year government bond yield (2.9%) to estimate future growth. In the same way as with the 10-year 'growth' period, we discount future cash flows to today's value, using a cost of equity of 10%. Terminal Value (TV)= FCF2034 × (1 + g) ÷ (r – g) = US$863m× (1 + 2.9%) ÷ (10%– 2.9%) = US$12b Present Value of Terminal Value (PVTV)= TV / (1 + r)10= US$12b÷ ( 1 + 10%)10= US$4.6b The total value, or equity value, is then the sum of the present value of the future cash flows, which in this case is US$7.7b. In the final step we divide the equity value by the number of shares outstanding. Compared to the current share price of US$33.5, the company appears a touch undervalued at a 26% discount to where the stock price trades currently. Valuations are imprecise instruments though, rather like a telescope - move a few degrees and end up in a different galaxy. Do keep this in mind. We would point out that the most important inputs to a discounted cash flow are the discount rate and of course the actual cash flows. If you don't agree with these result, have a go at the calculation yourself and play with the assumptions. The DCF also does not consider the possible cyclicality of an industry, or a company's future capital requirements, so it does not give a full picture of a company's potential performance. Given that we are looking at Global-E Online as potential shareholders, the cost of equity is used as the discount rate, rather than the cost of capital (or weighted average cost of capital, WACC) which accounts for debt. In this calculation we've used 10%, which is based on a levered beta of 1.131. Beta is a measure of a stock's volatility, compared to the market as a whole. We get our beta from the industry average beta of globally comparable companies, with an imposed limit between 0.8 and 2.0, which is a reasonable range for a stable business. See our latest analysis for Global-E Online Valuation is only one side of the coin in terms of building your investment thesis, and it ideally won't be the sole piece of analysis you scrutinize for a company. It's not possible to obtain a foolproof valuation with a DCF model. Preferably you'd apply different cases and assumptions and see how they would impact the company's valuation. If a company grows at a different rate, or if its cost of equity or risk free rate changes sharply, the output can look very different. Can we work out why the company is trading at a discount to intrinsic value? For Global-E Online, there are three further aspects you should further research: Financial Health: Does GLBE have a healthy balance sheet? Take a look at our free balance sheet analysis with six simple checks on key factors like leverage and risk. Future Earnings: How does GLBE's growth rate compare to its peers and the wider market? Dig deeper into the analyst consensus number for the upcoming years by interacting with our free analyst growth expectation chart. Other Solid Businesses: Low debt, high returns on equity and good past performance are fundamental to a strong business. Why not explore our interactive list of stocks with solid business fundamentals to see if there are other companies you may not have considered! PS. Simply Wall St updates its DCF calculation for every American stock every day, so if you want to find the intrinsic value of any other stock just search here. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


New York Times
36 minutes ago
- New York Times
Columbia Will Pay $9 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over U.S. News Ranking
Columbia University has agreed to pay $9 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by students who claimed they had been overcharged for their educations as a result of incorrect data that they said the school had provided to U.S. News & World Report to artificially inflate its national ranking. The lawsuit stemmed from a 2022 scandal over how Columbia earned a No. 2 spot in the magazine's annual 'Best Colleges' rankings that year, acing a process that is a powerful driver of prestige and applications for American universities. Believing there were flaws in the data underpinning the university's score, a Columbia mathematician investigated and published a blog post asserting that several key figures were 'inaccurate, dubious or highly misleading.' The discrepancies caused Columbia to drop to No. 18 in the rankings. The next year, Columbia opted out of the rankings all together. The proposed settlement, which was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Monday, did not require Columbia to formally admit wrongdoing. But the university said in a statement on Tuesday that it 'deeply regrets deficiencies in prior reporting.' The settlement agreement covers some 22,000 former undergraduate students who attended Columbia College, Columbia Engineering, or Columbia's School of General Studies between 2016 and 2022 and will be eligible to apply for a slice of the award. If all the students applied, taking into account likely lawyers' fees, they would each receive about $273. The lawsuit claimed that Columbia had artificially inflated its ranking by consistently reporting false data, including that 83 percent of its classes had fewer than 20 students. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Canadian pride surging amid rising tension with the U.S., poll finds
Canadian attitudes toward the United States have soured further during U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war, as a growing majority of Canadians are avoiding U.S. goods and travel compared with four months ago. That's according to a new Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News, released in time for Canada Day. Global's Touria Izri reports.