Most UK commercial teams have AI. Fewer than half are measuring any return

Published by Richard Breeden · June 2026 · 5 min read

Our survey of 713 UK mid-market leaders found that GTM and Marketing teams report 44.9% measurable AI ROI, compared to 58.4% for Tech/IT at the same organisations. The 13.5-point gap is not explained by tooling or investment levels. Five structural factors: governance, alignment, ownership, leader fluency, and investment intent predict the difference.

We surveyed 713 UK mid-market business leaders between January and March 2026. Across commercial, technical, operational and people functions.

GTM and Marketing leaders report 44.9% measurable AI ROI. Tech/IT leaders at the same organisations report 58.4%. Same businesses. Same boards. A 13.5-point gap that has nothing to do with which tools each function is using.

It’s not a technology problem

The commercial leaders closing that gap are not doing it by buying better software. They’ve made different structural decisions. These are decisions that come before any tool choice.

In our experience, most commercial AI programmes stall at the same point. The tools are in place. There’s energy in parts of the team. But no one has built the infrastructure to convert that energy into measured returns.

What separates the 44.9% cohort from the organisations sitting above 70% comes down to five factors. None of them are technology decisions. All of them are leadership decisions.

The alignment finding

The finding that gets the strongest reaction from revenue leaders: strategic alignment.

We asked how many of five senior commercial leaders at each organisation would independently describe the same AI priorities. Where all five would — measurable ROI is 79%. Where none would — it’s 30%.

A 49-point range. Created entirely by whether the CRO, CMO, VP RevOps, demand generation lead, and commercial strategy owner are working from one AI direction — or five separate ones.

Only 16% of UK mid-market commercial teams have full alignment across all five functions.

Shadow AI is a signal, not a problem

64% of GTM and Marketing teams use AI tools that haven’t been formally approved. That’s the highest shadow AI rate of any function in the survey.

The instinct is to treat this as a compliance gap. It usually isn’t.

Teams reaching for unsanctioned tools are doing it because the official approval process is slower than the market they’re competing in. The velocity is there. The structure around it hasn’t caught up.

Commercial leaders converting shadow AI into ROI aren’t clamping down. They’re building the sanctioned equivalent fast enough that unofficial tools become unnecessary.

The question that determines the outcome

Why a commercial function invested in AI is one of the strongest predictors of what that investment returned.

Teams that invested because a competitor announced an AI initiative average 15.1% ROI. Teams that invested to solve a specific commercial problem — a slow content pipeline, a leaky marketing-to-sales handoff, a broken bid process — average 60.5%.

The question asked before the budget decision determines most of the outcome. That’s uncomfortable for any commercial leader who got into AI for defensive reasons.

What the full report covers

The full findings set out all five structural predictors, with specific ROI data at every stage. They include how AI ownership structure affects commercial returns, a breakdown of the shadow AI adoption curve, and a five-question diagnostic commercial leaders can use to assess their own position honestly.

Download the full report: AI and the Revenue Gap → Coming Soon

Frequently asked questions

What percentage of UK commercial teams report measurable AI ROI?

44.9% of GTM and Marketing leaders at UK mid-market organisations report measurable AI ROI. Tech/IT leaders at the same organisations report 58.4%. That 13.5-point gap exists inside the same businesses — same boards, same budgets, comparable investment levels.

Why do marketing and commercial teams get lower AI ROI than IT teams?

The gap isn’t explained by tooling or resources. Five structural factors predict it: governance maturity inside the commercial function, whether senior commercial leaders share the same AI priorities, whether there is a single C-suite owner accountable for AI returns, how personally the CRO or CMO uses AI in their own work, and whether the original investment was driven by a specific problem or competitive pressure.

What is the most important predictor of commercial AI ROI?

Governance maturity — not just having a policy, but operationalising it across the commercial function. Organisations with mature, embedded governance report 85.8% measurable ROI. Those with no formal governance report 20.0%. The 65.8-point gap is explained entirely by structure, not technology.

How common is shadow AI in UK marketing teams?

64% of GTM and Marketing teams use AI tools that have not been formally approved. That is the highest shadow AI rate of any function in our survey. The primary driver is speed — teams reaching for faster tools because the official approval process can’t keep pace.

Does alignment across the leadership team affect AI ROI?

Yes. Where five senior commercial leaders would independently describe the same AI priorities, measurable ROI is 79%. Where none would, it is 30%. Only 16% of UK mid-market commercial teams have full alignment across all five functions.

---

Research based on AIBL Media’s survey of 713 UK mid-market business leaders, January–March 2026. All respondents represent organisations with £50m–£499.9m annual revenue.

Richard Breeden Founder, aibl | Richard leads aibl’s research into UK mid-market AI adoption. He has worked with commercial leaders across sales, marketing, and revenue operations on AI strategy and implementation. LinkedIn