According to The State of Communication in Spain 2025 by Dircom, more than half of communications directors in Spain now report directly to the CEO, and one in three sits on their company’s executive committee. In addition, a third of communications departments have seen their budget grow over the past year, and 90.6% of organisations consider the function “important or very important”.
These figures contradict a widely held belief in B2B SMEs: that communication is marketing’s little sister, or that it is simply the same thing under a different name.
Marketing and Communication are, in fact, different disciplines, with different goals, timelines, and ways of measuring success. And although they should work hand in hand, confusing them has a tangible cost: campaigns that do not generate sales, press releases nobody reads, or a CFO asking “and what is this for?” in response to an initiative that was never intended to sell anything directly.
Two disciplines with different goals
Marketing, according to the American Marketing Association’s definition, is “the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large”. In practice, it has a commercial purpose: it brings the product to market, generates demand, and contributes to sales. It works with segmentation, conversion funnels, and goals measured in leads, conversion rate, or customer acquisition cost.
Corporate communication starts from a different place: public relations. Its role is to make the aspects related to the company known to its target audience through a coherent brand image. It does not seek to sell directly, but to build reputation, credibility, and a sustained brand perception over time. And that reputation, over time, is what makes it easier for marketing to sell better and at a lower cost.
Why B2B confuses one with the other so often
In the B2B environment, this overlap is even more common than in consumer markets. One structural reason is that, in many SMEs, a single person (or a very small team) takes on marketing, communication, and sometimes sales as well. Without a clear separation of roles, everything ends up being called “marketing”, because it is the better-known term, even when the specific action (a press release, an institutional post by the CEO) is actually communication.
On top of that, the B2B sales cycle is long and rational. The buying decision involves several people, requires trust, and often takes months, so communication actions (building authority, positioning the company as a reference) and marketing actions (generating and nurturing leads) become so intertwined over time that they end up looking like the same thing, even though they serve different functions within the same process.
Then there is the challenge of a complex product, which does not always translate well into clear, compelling content for a potential customer. That difficulty in explaining the value of what is being sold means many B2B companies end up competing only on price, precisely because they have not invested in communicating why they should be chosen over competitors. That gap is often patched with more marketing (more ads, more product promotions), when the real issue lies in the value proposition, which is communication territory, not conversion.
What the data says about the cost of this confusion
There is a study that puts precise numbers on this difference, and it is worth pausing on it. The Edelman-LinkedIn B2B Thought Leadership Impact 2024 report surveyed B2B purchase decision-makers and found that 73% consider thought leadership content (communication, essentially) a more reliable basis for assessing a supplier’s capabilities than marketing materials or product sheets. 75% say an article of this kind led them to research a product or service they had not previously considered, and 60% would be willing to pay more to work with an organisation that produces consistent, authoritative content.
The same report points to the underlying problem: 50% of organisations that produce this type of content acknowledge that it is underfunded, precisely because it is measured (or not measured) by the same yardstick as conversion marketing. It is the same pattern Dircom describes for Spain: communication is gaining strategic weight, but it is still fighting for budget against marketing that can show immediate ROI in any performance meeting.
Examples that help distinguish them
A LinkedIn Ads campaign offering a free demo is marketing: it has a clear commercial objective and is measured in leads. A product webinar with a discount for signing at the end is, too. But a press release about a funding round is not, even if it generates visibility: it aims for institutional reputation, not direct sales. Nor is a CEO posting on LinkedIn with their views on the future of their sector, which is pure thought leadership: it builds authority, it does not convert.
Likewise, a crisis management plan in response to a service failure is communication, as is a sustainability report or internal communication around an organisational change. And, no matter how it is dressed up, a monthly newsletter full of product offers is marketing more than communication.
What you pay for not distinguishing them
Confusing marketing and communication is not a semantic issue; it has very real effects on how a B2B company’s strategy works (or stops working). Immediate ROI is demanded from actions that were never designed to generate it, which often ends in cancelling initiatives that did deliver value in the medium term. Reputation-building is abandoned because the entire budget goes to conversion marketing, and the company never builds the authority that would reduce the cost of that same marketing over time. Messaging loses coherence because, without a communication strategy that sets the frame (who we are, what we stand for, how we speak), commercial campaigns end up sounding disconnected from one another. And, in the end, the company competes only on price: if it does not communicate its differentiating value well, the only lever left is to lower it, which erodes margin in the long term.
How they should work together
Communication builds the framework—who the company is, what differentiates it, what reputation it wants to have—and marketing executes within that framework, turning that value proposition into campaigns and content that generate business. They reinforce each other: a strong reputation reduces cost and improves marketing effectiveness, and marketing that is consistent with the brand strengthens communication.
For a B2B SME, this does not necessarily mean setting up two separate departments, but being clear, for each action, what is being done and why. If the goal is to sell something specific and measurable, it is marketing. If the goal is to build trust or long-term reputation, it is communication. A question as simple as “Am I trying to sell or build trust?” resolves part of the confusion before it turns into a misallocated budget.
Marketing sells. Communication builds the trust that makes that sale possible—and sustainable over time. In an environment where, according to Edelman, three out of four buyers trust authoritative content more than commercial material, continuing to treat communication as the poor relation of marketing is not just an org chart mistake. It is leaving money on the table.
Main sources
Dircom – The State of Communication in Spain 2025
Edelman / LinkedIn – 2024 B2B Thought Leadership Impact Report
