Thank you Carilu and Pranav on this excellent article. In addition to measuring how brand spend impacts performance, how would we go about showing that it actually drives a more efficient GTM / lowers overall CAC?
I’m looking to head-off the financial argument of: “sure it increases pipeline, but is this the most efficient way to do that?”
This is an important point you’ve highlighted and perhaps a follow up article is warranted. The core focus of your article is great: how to measure - so important.
In follow up, showing the leverage and reduced CAC that focused and successful brand spend has on lowering CAC would be a welcomed article.
I personally believe it to be true as a former multi-time CRO, I believe that trust is built or broken in the first third of the journey (hence brand spend being so critical).
just grateful you are writing about the things that matter for marketers. and you do so in a clear, concise way that gets everyone to just nod along and get back to work with better tools/strategies
73% of leaders believe brand influences demand, yet only ~28% can connect it to pipeline that's a real measurement crisis not proof brand is magic.
Most B2B "brand" pushes fail to move the needle materially because buyers shortlist early (92% stick to day-1 lists per Wynter/Aonxi). If you're not already mentally available, fancy video/sponsorships rarely fix it without massive, sustained spend few can afford.
Pranav/Carilu are right about incrementality > last-touch, and tools like MMM/geo-tests make brand defensible at scale. That's smart evolution.
Brand isn't the missing link for most; poor product-market fit, weak positioning, or underfunded demand gen is. Chasing "mental availability" without proving incrementality first wastes money.
Measure or die many cry later when pipeline dries despite "brand" budgets.
I think about the time horizon on brand being much longer then a typical sales/pipeline cycle. How long do you run a brand investment before you measure it?
First step - quantifying your sales cycle. Is it 14 days (e.g. 14-day trial) or 30 days or 90 days or what have you.
Second step - given the sales cycle, picking a metric you can experiment with. If your sales cycle is 180 days, you don't have 180 days to see impact of any marketing on the closed won metric. So pick something earlier in the lifecycle - SQO? Meetings? Hopefully that happens faster than 14 or 30 days.
Third step - define your experiment timeframe (based on the above two criteria).
Some times you can simplify and go for increase ICP traffic or "handraisers" or search query volume... IFF you've done the hard work of setting expectations with your leaders about how marketing/brand works.
Thank you Carilu and Pranav on this excellent article. In addition to measuring how brand spend impacts performance, how would we go about showing that it actually drives a more efficient GTM / lowers overall CAC?
I’m looking to head-off the financial argument of: “sure it increases pipeline, but is this the most efficient way to do that?”
The beauty of this type of testing is that you measure the lift in aggregate pipe and therefore have a true sense of CAC/ROI implications.
So you get lift and cost per lifted metric (or ROAS) of whatever you tested.
This is an important point you’ve highlighted and perhaps a follow up article is warranted. The core focus of your article is great: how to measure - so important.
In follow up, showing the leverage and reduced CAC that focused and successful brand spend has on lowering CAC would be a welcomed article.
I personally believe it to be true as a former multi-time CRO, I believe that trust is built or broken in the first third of the journey (hence brand spend being so critical).
just grateful you are writing about the things that matter for marketers. and you do so in a clear, concise way that gets everyone to just nod along and get back to work with better tools/strategies
73% of leaders believe brand influences demand, yet only ~28% can connect it to pipeline that's a real measurement crisis not proof brand is magic.
Most B2B "brand" pushes fail to move the needle materially because buyers shortlist early (92% stick to day-1 lists per Wynter/Aonxi). If you're not already mentally available, fancy video/sponsorships rarely fix it without massive, sustained spend few can afford.
Pranav/Carilu are right about incrementality > last-touch, and tools like MMM/geo-tests make brand defensible at scale. That's smart evolution.
Brand isn't the missing link for most; poor product-market fit, weak positioning, or underfunded demand gen is. Chasing "mental availability" without proving incrementality first wastes money.
Measure or die many cry later when pipeline dries despite "brand" budgets.
What do you think?
I think about the time horizon on brand being much longer then a typical sales/pipeline cycle. How long do you run a brand investment before you measure it?
It may be or it may not be... :)
First step - quantifying your sales cycle. Is it 14 days (e.g. 14-day trial) or 30 days or 90 days or what have you.
Second step - given the sales cycle, picking a metric you can experiment with. If your sales cycle is 180 days, you don't have 180 days to see impact of any marketing on the closed won metric. So pick something earlier in the lifecycle - SQO? Meetings? Hopefully that happens faster than 14 or 30 days.
Third step - define your experiment timeframe (based on the above two criteria).
Some times you can simplify and go for increase ICP traffic or "handraisers" or search query volume... IFF you've done the hard work of setting expectations with your leaders about how marketing/brand works.