Many have suggested marketing should be at the heart of organisational decision making whilst, coincidentally, lamenting its continued failure to earn strategic sway. Blame is frequently applied to the organisation itself, implying that marketers are unfairly marginalised. For marketing to succeed, however, it must appear both credible and contemporary, yet there is substantive research suggesting, 1) marketing's reputation is far from ideal and, 2) that practitioners remain tethered to traditional means of endeavour, often counter-productive in the context of newer, customer-focused, manifestos. Analysis of both marketing and psychology literatures reveals a lack of tools for determining marketer attitudes toward marketing orientation (MO) or post-MO concerns and, consequently, the commitment of the agent most critical to marketing's aspirations is rarely tested. This paper makes a case for rectifying such discrepancy and, via critical reflection on recent measurement debates, suggests an inaugural perspective on how evaluation might be achieved. An agenda for further research is offered, too.