Strategic Thinking Tops Marketing's Skills Gaps in New WFA Research. Better Tools Won't Close It.

The world's biggest advertisers say their scarcest capability is not technical. The harder finding is organisational: they doubt they can develop it fast enough, and their incentives do not reward it.

7 October 2026 · 4 min read

What happened

On 22 September 2026 the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) published Humans, Marketing and Machines: How talent, skills and incentives are being redefined, produced with its strategic partner mediasense.

The study is based on responses from 166 industry professionals across brands, agencies, platforms and other organisations, including representatives of 65 brands that WFA says spend $80 billion on global marketing each year.

Strategic thinking was cited by 72% of respondents as a talent shortage — more than any other skill — ahead of data strategy and execution (46%), insight development (36%) and marketing fundamentals (34%). Fifty-nine percent say strategic judgement and prioritisation will matter more in the age of AI.

The same release does not dismiss technical skills. AI fluency (56%) and data-driven decision-making (55%) are named as the most underdeveloped capabilities today. But only 1% believe better tools and platforms will be the primary differentiator of organisations with strong marketing talent; leadership and culture rank far ahead.

What the evidence actually says

Reported. The percentages describe what respondents perceive and expect. They do not measure decision quality or business performance.

Reported. WFA argues that the biggest medium-term risk is not access to technology but the ability to upskill existing talent fast enough: 52% put it among their top two talent risks for the next three years.

Reported. WFA describes a disconnect between the skills the industry says it needs and the behaviours it rewards. Its example: agencies are incentivised to execute the brief, not to challenge it. Respondents rate current incentive models 2.6 out of 5.

Unknown / limitation. The full report is available to WFA members only; this brief is based on the public release, so question wording and response options are not visible. The sample is not representative of the profession, and the research partner is a marketing consultancy. Nothing here shows which practice actually improves strategic thinking.

Why this matters for marketing

The obvious response to an AI skills gap is training on tools. This research says the scarcer capability sits elsewhere — and that buying it in is not the answer either. The release explicitly favours developing existing staff over hiring.

That makes it a question of how judgment is developed inside a team. Strategic thinking has always been learned the same way: by taking real decisions, then reviewing them with someone more experienced — what we knew, what we chose, what we rejected, what happened.

The incentive finding sharpens the problem. If teams and agencies are rewarded for executing the brief, strategic thinking is not only scarce; it is discouraged. Challenging a brief is work that rarely leaves a trace.

The operating implication

Treat strategic thinking as something a team develops on its own decisions, not only in training.

For the decisions that are expensive, hard to reverse or likely to be revisited, keep a short record: the decision question, the evidence used, the alternatives rejected, the owner and what would change the call. Then review a few of them each quarter.

This is not documentation for its own sake. It is the raw material that makes judgment teachable — and it makes the challenge to a brief visible work instead of friction.

The Olymuse lens

This sits under Judgment & Governance, and continues an argument we made in AI Made Marketing Output Abundant. Better Marketing Work Is Still Scarce.: when drafts are cheap, the scarce work is everything around them.

What the WFA research adds is the organisational side. Respondents do not ask for different tools; they doubt they can develop judgment fast enough, and they say incentives reward executing a brief more than questioning it.

Our point of view: a team cannot develop judgment it cannot see. As options get cheaper, the quality of judgment matters more, not less — and only judgment that left a record can be reviewed, discussed and taught.

Nothing in this survey, or in this piece, shows which practice makes judgment better. That is the evidence we are watching for below.

What we would watch next

First, whether the full report or follow-up research separates AI fluency from actual decision quality, instead of treating both as "skills".

Second, whether companies start assessing judgment through observed decisions and their outcomes, not only self-reported gaps.

Third, whether incentive models change — for agencies and in-house teams — so that challenging a brief is rewarded rather than tolerated.

We will look again when WFA publishes more of the report's findings, or its next capability survey.

Read next: AI Made Marketing Output Abundant. Better Marketing Work Is Still Scarce. · Olymuse is in founder-assisted private alpha. Apply for the Private Alpha →