Zero-based marketing budget for 2027: a step-by-step method for B2B teams

Zero-based budgeting is, in Workday's definition, a method that requires every expense to be justified from scratch for each new budgeting period. Applied to marketing, it replaces "last year plus or minus a percentage" with a fresh case for each program.

The timing is right for it. Forrester's July 2026 budget planning guidance tells B2B marketing leaders that "the traditional assumption that more budget is necessary to achieve better outcomes no longer holds" and asks them to decide what to stop funding entirely. In MarTech in August, Forrester's Mark Ogne noted that Forrester's Budget Planning Guide research found nearly nine in 10 B2B marketing decision-makers expected marketing investment to increase over the next 12 months, and argued that more money flowing into an outdated model will not automatically produce more impact. Zero-based planning is how you avoid that.

It is not a cost-cutting tool first. Dave Chaffey's summary of McKinsey's work on zero-based marketing quotes savings opportunities "worth 10 to 25 percent of spending in certain categories" and the point that reinvesting in high-return work usually beats banking the savings. The value is in where the money moves.

If you only have two weeks, run the audit instead; our marketing spend audit before the 2027 budget gives the four tests. If your buyers, channels or team structure have changed enough that last year's lines no longer describe the work, zero-based is worth the extra effort.

1. Agree the 2027 revenue target with finance and convert it to the pipeline marketing must create or influence, using your own win rate and cycle length.
2. List the outcomes needed to reach that pipeline: accounts engaged by tier, opportunities by segment, expansion pipeline, and the share expected from each motion.
3. Write decision packages: one per program or capability, each with an owner, the outcome it supports, the evidence it works and three funding levels (minimum, base, expanded).
4. Fund the enablers first: CRM and marketing operations, measurement, data and the people who run them. Without them no other package can prove anything.
5. Rank the remaining packages by expected pipeline per dollar and strength of evidence, then fund down the list until the budget runs out.
6. Reserve a capped test line for new bets, with entry criteria and exit dates, rather than hiding experiments inside other packages.
7. Agree quarterly review gates with finance where money can move between packages based on results.

Pipeline math anchors the first step. Our article on pipeline coverage math for 2027 shows how to convert the revenue target into the pipeline you need and by when.

Keep each package to one page so finance can compare them. The minimum level is the smallest version that still produces a result; the expanded level is what you would do with more money and the evidence that it would pay.

• Program name, owner and the outcome it supports in the pipeline model.
• Evidence from 2026: pipeline created or influenced, cost per qualified opportunity, or leading indicators if it is new.
• Minimum, base and expanded funding, with what changes at each level.
• Dependencies on other packages, such as CRM fields, content or sales capacity.
• The measure and review date that would move it up or down the list.

Zero-based planning fails when it starts too late and is rushed into the final budget meeting. This is the calendar we use with enterprise teams.

• Week 1: revenue and pipeline target agreed with finance; package owners named; evidence requests sent.
• Week 2: owners write decision packages at three funding levels; RevOps supplies 2026 pipeline evidence per program.
• Week 3: ranking session with marketing leadership, sales and finance; enablers and the test line fixed first.
• Week 4: final budget, quarterly gates and the stop list written up; owners briefed on what changed and why.

The ranking session is the heart of it. Put every package on one table with expected pipeline per dollar, strength of evidence and dependencies, and fund down the list. Disputes about rank are useful: they show where evidence is weak and what to measure in 2027.

• Treating it as a one-off cut: Workday lists the risk of focusing on short-term savings at the expense of long-term goals.
• Ranking brand and reach against demand capture on short-term pipeline alone, which defunds the accounts that enter the market next year.
• Underfunding measurement, so next year’s zero-based review has even less evidence.
• Running it without sales and finance, so the ranking is disputed in January.
• Rebuilding every line in detail when only a few are material; set a threshold below which lines are reviewed in groups.

We like zero-based planning for teams whose model is changing: moving to buying groups, adding ABM, shifting budget into AI search or rebuilding the website. For stable programs, an audit and scenario plan is faster. Either way, the output should be a budget that finance can read as a portfolio of bets with review dates.

If you are building the 2027 plan now, read what to stop funding in your 2027 marketing plan for the lines we most often see cut.

Our paid media team can rebuild the channel packages from your CRM data.

Talk to our team about a pipeline plan before the budget is locked.