Everyone in Your Marketing Meeting Thinks Their Project Is a Must-Have. Here's How to Prove What Actually Is.

You have probably been in that meeting.

Someone presents a list of twelve marketing initiatives. All of them are "priorities." The discussion goes in circles. Everybody defends their project. Nobody wants to cut anything. You leave with a longer list than you arrived with, a vague sense that everything is equally urgent, and zero clarity on what to actually do next Monday.

This is not a people problem. It is a prioritisation problem. And most marketing teams do not have a system that resolves it — so they default to the highest-paid opinion in the room, the most recently launched competitor campaign, or whichever initiative is backed by the most persistent advocate.

There is a better way. Two of them, actually. One has been around since the 1990s. The other makes it evidence-based.

A Tool Most Marketers Know but Few Use Properly

The MoSCoW method is a prioritisation framework originally developed for software project management, adapted by Bill Hartman for creative and marketing contexts. The name is an acronym for four categories:

• M — Must Have

• S — Should Have

• C — Could Have

• W — Won't Have (this time)

The point of using MoSCoW over a simple "high / medium / low" rating is that each category has a specific definition — it describes the consequence of not delivering that initiative, not just how much you want it.

Here is what each category actually means in practice.

Must Have is anything without which the plan fails. Not "it would be better with this." Not "this is important." If this initiative is not delivered, you cannot achieve your goal. The question to test it: "What happens if we skip this entirely?" If the answer is "we cancel the project," it is a Must Have. If there is a workaround — even a painful one — it probably is not.

Should Have is important but not critical. The plan works without it, but it works worse. There may be extra effort, manual workarounds, or reduced effectiveness. A useful test: "How much pain does leaving this out cause, and to how many people?" The more pain, the closer to Must Have.

Could Have is wanted but lower-impact. Nice to do if time and budget allow. If it gets cut, the plan still delivers well. These are the initiatives that get sacrificed first when reality hits.

Won't Have this time is not a rejection — it is a documented decision. Writing something down as Won't Have protects it from being reintroduced through the back door three months later. It manages expectations while keeping the idea alive for a future cycle.

The reason MoSCoW works better than a simple priority ranking is that it forces you to think about consequences, not just preferences. "High priority" means nothing without a definition. "Must Have or the project fails" means something specific.

The Problem MoSCoW Still Has

MoSCoW is a significant improvement over ad hoc prioritisation. But it has one structural weakness that shows up every time you try to use it in a real marketing team.

The Must Have category inflates.

Everyone thinks their project is a Must Have. Marketing thinks the brand campaign is non-negotiable. Product thinks the feature launch is critical. Sales thinks the lead generation programme cannot wait. Digital thinks the website redesign has been delayed long enough. By the time you have gone around the room, half the list is Must Have and nothing has been cut.

This happens because MoSCoW is intuition-based. The categories are defined clearly, but the assignments are still made by opinion. And when opinions conflict, the discussion becomes political rather than analytical.

The Marketing Canvas Method — a 6-step strategic framework built around 24 strategic dimensions — solves this by replacing opinion with evidence.

How MCM Makes Prioritisation Evidence-Based

In the MCM framework, Step 4 (the Strategic Action Engine) is where initiatives are selected and prioritised. But before Step 4 starts, Step 3 has already done something that most teams skip entirely: it has scored the company's strategic dimensions against evidence.

The scoring scale runs from −3 to +3, with no zero permitted. You cannot choose the safe middle. You have to take a position based on actual evidence — customer data, NPS scores, churn rates, competitive analysis, sales conversion rates, whatever is available. The score reflects reality, not aspiration.

Each dimension gets a role in the framework depending on which archetype — which specific strategic position — your company is in. The eight most critical dimensions for your archetype form what the MCM calls the Vital 8. Within those eight, the roles are:

• Fatal Brakes — if these score below target, your strategy cannot work. Fix them first, before anything else.

• Primary Accelerators — once Fatal Brakes are resolved, these drive the majority of your growth.

• Secondary Brakes — friction points that slow progress. Important but not critical.

• Secondary Accelerators — amplifiers that can boost results once the foundations are solid.

Now notice what this produces for prioritisation.

Fatal Brakes scoring below target = Must Have. Not because someone in the room decided it was important — because the evidence says that without fixing this dimension, the strategy cannot achieve its goal. The score makes the decision. The discussion is over.

Primary Accelerators below target = Should Have. Important, strategic, and sequenced — but only after Fatal Brakes are resolved. You do not accelerate on a broken foundation.

Secondary Accelerators below target = Could Have. Valuable when resources permit. Not urgent. Not blocking.

Everything outside the Vital 8 for this cycle = Won't Have this time. Not because it is unimportant — because the MCM's design deliberately limits the scope of each cycle. You score 24 dimensions but act on the 8 that matter most for your current archetype and goal. The other 16 are documented and deferred.

What This Looks Like in the Meeting That Actually Matters

Imagine you are in that planning meeting. Instead of asking the room "what are our priorities?", you start by sharing three scores from a recent Step 3 audit:

• Dimension 420 (Experience) — the quality of what customers feel at every touchpoint — scored −1. It is a Fatal Brake for your archetype. Below target.

• Dimension 110 (Segments/JTBD) — how clearly you understand what your customers are actually trying to achieve — scored +1. Below the +2 target. A Primary Accelerator.

• Dimension 520 (Stories) — your content strategy — scored +2. At target. Protected, not a priority this cycle.

The meeting now has a different structure. Instead of debating which project is most important, you are asking: "Which of our proposed initiatives addresses the −1 on Experience?" That question has a clear, evaluable answer. The projects that address it are Must Have. The projects that do not are in a different category — even if someone in the room is very enthusiastic about them.

The Frankenstein problem — a mix of everything, most probably ugly and not answering to the core needs of the customer — is exactly what happens when every initiative is treated as equal. The MCM prevents this not by asking people to be more disciplined (they will not be), but by giving them a system that makes the right priority obvious from the evidence.

Three Habits to Start This Week

You do not need to run a full MCM process to start applying this thinking.

1. In your next prioritisation discussion, ask for the consequence test. For every initiative presented as "must have" or "high priority," ask: "What happens if we skip this entirely?" If the answer is "we find a workaround," it is not a Must Have. This single question, applied consistently, will cut your priority list in half.

2. Separate what you want from what the data shows. The next time your team debates a priority, try asking: "What evidence do we have that this is the most urgent thing?" Not intuition, not competitor benchmarking, not the boss's preference. What does the NPS data say? What do the churn patterns show? What did the last customer research reveal? The answer — or the absence of one — tells you whether this is a real priority or a preferred project.

3. Start using "Won't Have this time" as a legitimate category. Most teams either cut initiatives entirely or leave them on the list as vague aspirations. Write a Won't Have list. Give it the same documentation as the Must Have list. This protects the discarded ideas from reappearing two months later and makes it easier to say no in the moment without closing the door permanently.

The Upgrade in One Sentence

MoSCoW gives you better language for priorities. The Marketing Canvas Method gives you evidence to back them up.

If you want to see how your company's initiatives map to a scored priority framework — and which of your dimensions are below target — the Quick Assessment at laurentbouty.com/quick-assessment runs the logic in ten minutes. It will not tell you what to prioritise. It will give you the evidence to decide.

The Marketing Canvas Method is a 6-step strategic marketing framework built for entrepreneurs and marketing leaders who need to turn strategy into action. Learn more at laurentbouty.com.