Based on your research you recommend prioritising maximising unique, unduplicated reach, rather than focusing on multiple exposures to the same user (frequency).

Others follow a different approach, aligned with research and best practices from Meta and Google. For example, Meta recommends a frequency of 1–2 impressions per week for awareness campaigns and up to 3 or more per week for conversion-focused efforts. Similarly, Google/YouTube suggests a weekly frequency of 1–3 impressions for video ads to build effective recall and drive brand lift.

This strategy is based on the understanding that a single digital impression often does not guarantee attention or ad recall—particularly in environments like social media, where an impression can be registered within milliseconds and may not result in actual visual engagement. Therefore, multiple exposures help ensure the message is actually seen and remembered by the user during the campaign period.

Our knowledge on balancing the role of reach and frequency for media effectiveness comes from Single Source (SiSo) studies. Initially, there had been claims that an Effective Frequency level of more than one (i.e. 3+) would be necessary in order for advertising to have a sales impact.  However, SiSo studies demonstrated that this was in fact not the case with the Advertising Response Function actually concave in shape. That is, the biggest sales uplifts come from buyers being exposed at all (i.e. reach of 1).  Additional exposures do bring more impact, but this comes with diminishing returns.  For media planning this means that reaching an additional potential buyer will bring more sales impact than delivering an additional exposure to someone who has already been exposed to your ad. In turn, this leads to a recommendation to spread placements as much as possible so that you build maximum cumulative reach.

This report and journal article may be useful to explain this information in a bit more detail:

A Guide to Continuous-Reach Advertising

“Is the multi-platform whole more powerful than its separate parts? Measuring the sales effects of cross-media advertising”

So why do the platforms still advocate for frequency?

Firstly, just to clarify, impressions are a combination of reach and frequency. You can have the same level of impressions, but very different reach and frequency.  Be careful assuming that impressions is a measure of only reach. That said, the question remains.

This is likely a reflection of how the platforms generate reach curves, namely by modelling the relationship between reach/frequency and sales. In contrast to SiSo studies, which allow for the direction of causation to be identified, modelling does not allow for this, and as such audiences who are exposed with greater frequency likely do buy more, recall more, etc, but this doesn’t mean that the exposure frequency caused or drove that behaviour. This is also why we see Meta suggesting more exposures for conversion (than awareness) campaigns, because conversion is more likely to occur among already heavy buyers who also do receive more advertising, particularly if brands are targeting their heaviest buyers.

One alternative to modelling is A/B testing (which we are generally very supportive of), however robust A/B tests are problematic to conduct in the digital space because the very nature of programmatic algorithms ensures that it is impossible to generate a control sample that matches the exposed sample in every way other than in their exposure.

This is not to say that advertising more will not deliver.  The one advantage of having more placements is that you can spread those placements out over time and audience members, thus ensuring that your media planning is more continuous. However, in terms of needing frequency to ensure attention or memories of the message, there is no evidence that seeing an ad multiple times is necessary. In fact this runs directly counter to the evidence from SiSo studies. And so our recommendation to maximise unique, unduplicated reach remains.

E.R.
20 June 2025

What is the optimal investment split based on the Jobs To Be Done (JTBD) for the category and product, to guide prioritisation across Below The Line (BTL) and Above The Line (ATL) activity, and within channels such as television versus social media?

R.K.
6 June 2025

How is segmentation evolving in terms of methodologies and innovation, what types are commonly used today, and what is your point of view on best practice application?

There is evolution in market segmentation offers in the market with likes of Artificial Intelligence and big data leading to suggestions that it is now possible to hyper-personalise marketing in real time/dynamically. Yet just because things like this are possible does not make them evidence-based for growth. Brands win with consistency and scale across the broad market.

It is definitely vital to understand the heterogeneity in your market (in terms of what buyers know, value and do, etc) as well as the broad range of reasons people buy what they do in the category (including their Category Entry Points), what sub-markets / features are growing/declining and who is in the category (buyers and competitors), etc.  The data that is used for segmentation studies can be enormously valuable for understanding the market.

Segmentation in contrast is typically about putting individuals into boxes and saying ‘this group of people will buy for this reason, so we need to build a marketing mix for that group and reason’, when actually over time the same person will buy from the category for many different reasons.

To the extent, that segmentation helps identify and prioritise the things (Category Entry Points) that bring people into the category, it can be useful.  But for growth a better focus on how to be inclusive of as many buyers as possible, and product offers that meet the range of category needs most efficiently and effectively.

Should we continue with our segmentation? And if so, how?

Our textbook has a chapter on the topic:
Kennedy, Rachel, Sharp, Byron, & Danenberg, Nick (2018) “Customer segmentation and targeting” in Marketing: Theory, evidence, practice (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press.

The following report is now a bit old but section 6 does make some useful clarifications about types of segments: Brand User Profiles Seldom Differ

R.K.
16 June 2025

We are needing our teams to better understand Customer Value Proposition (CVP) best practice, specifically the interplay between brand CVP, product/category propositions and then into positioning. Does the Institute have an option on this topic?

A Customer Value Proposition or Brand CVP articulates why customers should choose a specific brand over competitors.  Like a unique selling proposition it typically assumes that a brand can and must deliver “unique” value to address customer needs and to persuade or convince buyers that the brand is the optimal solution/brand for them. It historically links with theory on the importance of brand differentiation.

However, there is much evidence about why customers make the brand choices they do that highlights the importance of distinctiveness over differentiation; and the vital role of brands being mental and physically available (e.g. a key challenge being to get noticed at all and being easy to buy rather than having a rational unique reason to buy). Market-based asset theory of brand competition overviews this perspective (supported by decades of R&D).

Coming back to the question, there are far more important things to be focused on than CVP/propositions/positioning. It is vital that you offer value (e.g. are a great example of your category/the categories where you play), and that everything you/your teams do is consistent in its look and feel (branding matters – direct and indirect) and working towards making the brand being easy to think of and easy to buy/deal with.

Some more reading/details on key constructs:

The market-based assets theory of brand competition
Kotler popularised the Segmentation, Targeting, Positioning (STP) theory of brand competition. This theory still dominates marketing textbooks. In the article, The market-based assets theory of brand competition, we show how the discovery of scientific laws concerning how brands compete, grow, and decline clash with the STP theory. The contradiction between these empirical regularities and STP theory has led to the recent emergence of a new market-based asset view of brand competition. We show how this theory fits the now well-established empirical laws, and we discuss some promising areas for future research.

Differentiation verses Distinctiveness
Conventional marketing wisdom is that differentiation is essential. Yet few of any brand’s buyers (some 10%) see their brand as different.

While differentiation does exist, it’s also usually very obvious (e.g. coffee pods are different from instant coffee, Dior is different from H&M). Perceived differences are rarely caused by advertising/positioning.

• Perceptions of Differentiation? Do users see their brand as different?

Consumers rarely solely associate an image attributes with one brand in the category, and when they do they seldom agree with one another.

• The Uniqueness of Brands
• Distinctiveness & Distinctive Assets
• Distinctive Assets at your service? Understanding Distinctive Brand Assets in Service Categories

Rather than focus on a unique or ideal position (positioning), knowledge on memory supports the vital role of linking the brand to relevant associations to help it come to mind (Category Entry Points – CEPs)

• How Double Jeopardy patterns in CEP Usage help you make smarter CEP choices
• What is the difference between segmentation, targeting, and positioning, and category buyers and category entry points?

R.K.
10 June 2025

How should we balance category core vs Innovation/New Product Development investment and flighting?

It is absolutely vital to prioritise your core.

Innovation then needs a very strong strategic case. Is it helping you secure Physical Availability, fill a gap so you have coverage of the full market (e.g. adding a gluten free offer) or to helping you grow the category (e.g. more premium range). Only launch if you have the budget to support the brand past the expected blip where heavy category and brand buyers give it a trail. Given category and brand buying skew light you need to support the brand into the future.  Rather than with flighting with continuity and with reach.

Here are some sample readings:

• Adding a new product to your brand: How likely is it to survive? 
• The road to innovation is paved with abandoned products – don’t let yours be one of them
• How to expand your brand architecture: strategies for successful brand launches
• Building new brands: addressing some common misconceptions and questions

R.K.
6 June 2025

How does audience impact Return-on-Investment (ROI)? And should be used to inform planning?

Some audiences buy a lot (heavy brand and/or category buyers) and some are responsive (more likely to see and respond to your ads, including your existing buyers). If you advertise to these buyers they will appear to give you a higher ROI. Other audiences may buy less individually and not appear very responsive (most do not buy the category often and advertising is a weak force).

Yet robust evidence demonstrates that all brands have predictable distributions of light, medium and heavy buyers (e.g. nbd distribution being the norm). As a brand grows it gets more buyers but the nbd still fits (most are light). You do not have a choice to focus on the heavier or more responsive buyers. You need them all. You can have more or less buyers but not audiences that are higher / lower ROI.

Rather than ROI, think about what will maximise your total returns and what is needed for maintenance and growth. Then the default answer is category buyers.  In any choice aim to be inclusive of as many of them as possible.

On life stage it is useful to understand the heterogeneity of what different buyers notice and buy and if this is linked to life stage may have some implications. For media this can be particularly important if different groups use different media.

Some relevant publications, reports and Q&A:

• “Quantifying the target market for advertisers” 
• “Ageism Kills Brands”
• Are Younger Consumers Easier to Win?
• How do we spend media budget to maximise reach and achieve a mix of older and younger audiences?
• Has the Institute conducted research on variations in brand engagement (in terms of loyalty, media consumption, buying behaviour) across different life stages?

R.K.
6 June 2025

We have multiple categories under our master brand, is there halo we should consider in planning media weeks on air and flighting strategy between categories?

Halo effects can exist – depending on what viewers know/notice and mostly if an exposure to one refreshes their memories (increases the depth/breath of associations) across the portfolio or not. You could measure how the Mental Availability metrics move in response to exposure to advertising for each of your brands and see if it moves Mental Availability for the others (necessary for it to have a chance of nudging other brand purchases) / or if single source data is available look at exposure on actual sales halos (but this does require large samples sizes).

It is likely that different copy/combinations of brands will have stronger/weaker halo effects. If you are accounting for a halo, vital to check you have one first.

Buying media across your brands is sensible to get efficiencies. Scheduling is different. Each brand that you want to maintain or grow needs reach and continuity, especially if competitors are advertising. So spread your exposures across people and time as much as possible (vs flighting one brand then the other).

Rather than thinking about creative being seamlessly cohesive across brands, it is most vital that you are consistent in using the relevant Distinctive Asset for the relevant brand (creative vs media issue). Looking at how consistent the Distinctive Assets are across your range could be a useful first step to see if there are more likely to be halo effects possible. The following commentary may be of interest, How to expand your brand architecture: strategies for successful brand launches.

R.K.
6 June 2025

What is the ideal weekly reach we should be planning towards?

As much as you can afford, assuming you are also getting good continuity (e.g. weeks on).

Ideally we recommending looking at how much you should be spending over the year (subject to level of category ad intensity, your brand size, goals, how much money you will make with decisions on which brands in portfolio to prioritise etc).

Then step 2 is how to spend the budget.

Assuming you have a fixed budget then it is about how to maximise your scheduling to deliver on the metrics that matter. These are reach and continuity. It is a mathematical question (and scenario planning across media combinations can be useful) to determine what delivers best total reach and continuity. Looking at metrics like Av monthly and Av quarterly reach can help. Typically spreading the investment over more weeks improves total reach.

R.K.
6 June 2025

We plan to 1+ reach, but research shows other metrics are becoming more important; such as attention. We know that if an ad isn’t seen, it’s impossible to drive business affects. Social drives the most ROI but is the lowest ‘view’ and ‘attentive seconds’ – is it because it’s so cheap that it makes up for the low attentive seconds or?

You do not have a growth strategy without reach, so this metric is still important but not all reach is equal (nor is all reach measurement equal). More frequency is better than less but again not all frequency is equal. Far better to look at how the frequency is spread across time so you are capturing measures of continuity. This is also a key media metric for brand growth (to maximise reach, recency and memory effects).

We agree that if an ad isn’t seen/heard that it can’t work (so you need to invest in quality media) but attentive seconds are problematic. Elderly and those who have consumed lots of alcohol are found to give higher attentive score (via eye tracking). The challenge is to get as many potential buyers in media where they will give the ads enough attention for the job (to mostly refresh and occasionally build relevant memories). Quality media does this better than alternatives. Good hygiene metrics are an important starting point e.g. that your ads are viewable and seen by real people, that you are paying a fair price.

Clearly you want to maximise your total returns. Typically Return-on-Investment (ROI) measurement in media is however, also problematic. In the short term to maximise ROI, you are driven to do things that are counter to what is needed for growth. For example only delivering media to heavier buyers will improve your ROI numbers but maximising reach with 1+ delivers what is needed for profitable sustainable growth.

The following report may also be of interest on the topic of attention:

• What is known about attention (to advertising)

R.K.
6 June 2025

Are there digital KPI or benchmarks that are aligned with the Laws of Growth in the wider landscape?

The changes in the landscape should actually not affect how you measure metrics that are aligned with the Laws of Growth. It is the confidence that we have seen the same patterns across periods, regions, and product categories that turn these patterns into ‘laws’. So, I would encourage you to read our reports (despite some of them being released less recently), and see how they can be applied in the current environment.