More bang, less buck: How to make your marketing dollars work harder
Too often, brands fall into the trap of chasing more. More channels, more touchpoints, more everything — in the hope it will cover all bases and drive better results. But more isn’t necessarily better. Sophie Murphy, marketing science partner at Mutinex, explains.
It’s tempting to believe marketing success means being everywhere at once, especially as audiences shift away from more traditional channels like linear TV and consume content across an increasing number of platforms. We know the importance of reaching category buyers and expanding reach across multiple platforms. But just because you can be on every platform doesn’t mean you should.
The fallacy of “more is better”
If you don’t invest enough, your brand fades into the background, making it tough to build mental availability that ensures consumers think of you when it matters. And in a world overloaded with content, attention is money. If you’re not investing to be visible, you could be handing that money to your competitors. Even the most brilliant creative won’t work if no one sees it.
As Byron Sharp states: “If you’re not remembered, you don’t exist.” Cutting through the noise requires sufficient spend not just at a total level, but at a channel level. Spreading budgets too thin will in the majority of cases lead to insufficiencies in both reach and frequency. Gufeng Zhou (Meta’s Marketing Scientist behind Robyn) recently published research on Frequency and Saturation Curves that reinforces this. Too little spend means you’re not building the exposure to actually move the needle.
Insightful