California, New York and Massachusetts Top the Best States for Marketing Managers

Across the top 10 states, LaborCove’s data shows distinct trade‑offs between higher salaries, larger employment counts, and overall Geography Scores. California leads the ranking with the highest Geography Score and the largest reported state employment for marketing managers, and its median salary sits above the national median. New York ranks second with a slightly lower Geography Score and a similar employment count, while Massachusetts demonstrates that a higher salary does not automatically translate into the highest Geography Score or rank. Nationally, marketing managers have a reported median salary of $166,790 and employment of 395,240, with a projected national employment growth rate of 6.6%. Several of the top‑ranked states report median salaries above this national benchmark, while others in the top 10 fall below it but rank well on other dimensions such as employment or Geography Score. These differences underscore why it is useful to consider multiple metrics rather than relying on salary alone.

Before comparing states, it helps to understand the national picture for marketing managers. Nationally, marketing managers have a reported median annual salary of $166,790 and employment of 395,240. The occupation also carries a projected national employment growth rate of 6.6%, which describes how employment for marketing managers is expected to change across the United States as a whole. This national benchmark provides useful context for interpreting state‑level numbers. In the top 10 LaborCove states, some median salaries sit above the national figure, while others fall below it, and employment counts vary widely among the states where this metric is supplied. The national growth projection remains a backdrop for the occupation overall rather than a state‑specific forecast.

California ranks #1 among states in LaborCove’s results for marketing managers, with a Geography Score of 81.79. It reports the largest employment count among the top geographies at 54,660 marketing manager roles and a median annual salary of $193,620, which is higher than the national median of $166,790. New York ranks #2 with a Geography Score of 76.52. Its employment count of 54,000 is slightly smaller than California’s 54,660, and its median salary of $181,200 is also below California’s $193,620 while remaining above the national median. These two states illustrate how high Geography Scores can align with relatively large employment counts and salaries above the national median, while still being differentiated from each other on both pay and overall score.

Massachusetts ranks #3 with a Geography Score of 64.24, a reported employment count of 14,270, and a median annual salary of $212,020. This median salary is higher than both California’s $193,620 and the national median of $166,790. New Jersey ranks #5 with a Geography Score of 52.64, employment of 13,510, and a median salary of $180,040. That salary is higher than the national median of $166,790 but lower than Massachusetts’ $212,020. Together, these states show that higher salaries do not automatically translate into the highest Geography Scores or ranks. Massachusetts has the highest median salary among the top 10 states but trails California and New York in the overall LaborCove ranking, and New Jersey’s salary advantage over the national median is accompanied by a lower Geography Score than all three top‑ranked states.

Three of LaborCove’s top 10 states for marketing managers report median salaries below the national median of $166,790. Texas, ranked #4 with a Geography Score of 59.18, has a median salary of $147,880. Illinois, ranked #9 with a Geography Score of 48.09, reports a median salary of $162,860. Montana, ranked #6 with a Geography Score of 49.69, lists a median salary of $165,580. Among these three, Texas has the lowest reported median salary at $147,880 and the largest supplied employment count, with 44,680 marketing manager roles. Illinois has a smaller employment figure of 21,140 and a higher median salary than Texas but still below the national benchmark. Montana’s salary is above both Texas and Illinois yet remains below the national median, and its employment count is not supplied. These comparisons highlight that a state can rank in LaborCove’s top 10 based on its composite Geography Score even when its median salary is under the national figure, and that employment counts, where provided, vary significantly within this subset of states.

Virginia, Colorado, and Washington all report median salaries above the national median of $166,790 while occupying mid‑to‑lower positions within the top‑10 ranking. Virginia ranks #7 with a Geography Score of 49.62, employment of 6,890, and a median salary of $187,820. Colorado ranks #8 with a Geography Score of 48.91, employment of 6,010, and a median salary of $182,730. Washington ranks #10 with a Geography Score of 47.36, employment of 8,880, and a median salary of $172,270. Within this group, Virginia reports the highest salary at $187,820, followed by Colorado at $182,730 and Washington at $172,270. Washington has the largest supplied employment count among the three at 8,880, while Colorado reports the smallest count at 6,010. These states demonstrate how salaries above the national median can coexist with moderate employment counts and Geography Scores that fall below the top tier.

LaborCove’s state rankings for marketing managers (occupation code 11-2021) are based on authoritative labor‑market data and the proprietary LaborCove Geography Score, which combines factors such as median annual salary, employment counts where available, and other geography‑level indicators. For this article, national occupational data include a median annual salary of $166,790, employment of 395,240, and a projected national employment growth rate of 6.6%. The national growth rate is a U.S.‑wide projection for the occupation and is not a forecast for any individual state or metro area. State‑level evidence for the top 10 geographies includes LaborCove rank, Geography Score, median annual salary, and employment where supplied. Geographic projected growth rates are not provided and are not inferred. OEWS‑based salary and employment figures reflect observations as of May 2025; the cited 2026 report year refers to the product and reporting cycle, not the underlying observation date. Because LaborCove’s Geography Score is a composite measure, this article does not attribute a state’s ranking to any single factor unless explicitly supported by the data. Instead, it highlights observable differences in salaries, employment counts, and scores so readers can weigh those metrics against their own career priorities.