The Hidden Economics of Brand Investment.

Most CFOs evaluate marketing investment by asking a key question: how much incremental revenue did that media spend drive? Not awareness or engagement, but hard sales. In the case of brand investment, sometimes a 90-day window is applied to ROI measurement to account for lag. It is a rigorous question, and one marketers still grapple with. But it captures only a fraction of what brand is actually doing, and often budget decisions follow accordingly.

Brand investment doesn’t just drive awareness, consideration or even future sales. It works across the entire growth engine, shaping the efficiency of acquisition and strengthening retention. When that broader contribution isn’t measured, it gets valued at a fraction of what it’s worth. For a CEO or CFO, this becomes a capital allocation question, not just a marketing one.

What if brand investment ROI isn’t the complete picture?

The cleanest version is: brand builds awareness and consideration, performance converts it, CRM and loyalty retain customers. It’s well established framing but the reality is more interconnected.

Brand shapes the quality of demand that performance then captures. It primes consumers before they enter a purchase cycle, which means they arrive with higher intent, convert better, and cost less to acquire. Performance efficiency isn’t only a function of how well the performance team optimises, it’s partly a function of how well brand has done its job upstream.

The same logic applies to retention. CRM and loyalty do important work, but brand plays a defensive role in reinforcing salience and maintaining preference between purchases. Across roles, I’ve seen returning customer rates strengthen as brand investment builds, and run in reverse when brand support is reduced. In the latter case, the decline in repeat often surfaces as a CRM effectiveness issue when it’s really an upstream effect.

What your measurement might be missing

Conventional click-based measurement was a response to limited tools and the channel-by-channel reporting they enabled. Attributing each sale to a channel made sense in its time but thankfully, now there are better ways that focus on incrementality.

When brand, acquisition and retention are evaluated independently, their halo effects don’t show up, and decisions that seem rational on the surface can be expensive when viewed through a wider lens. A common example: when CAC rises, the response is often to lean harder into performance channels. But if brand has been lifting branded search, improving conversion rates and activating existing customers, that move can reduce performance efficiency rather than improve it. What looks like a performance problem is sometimes a brand issue that hasn’t been quantified yet, and the budget decisions that follow can cost more than the original efficiency challenge.

This is where MMM earns its place by making the interdependencies visible across channels, and critically through the lens of incrementality rather than sales that would have happened regardless. We already use it to understand synergistic effects between brand and performance media, as well as scenario model the incrementality of initiatives across departments. The next step I’d prioritise is cutting the data against new versus existing customers: quantifying what brand investment is actually doing to retention, not just acquisition.

The foundations of a healthy system

The same interdependence shows up in organic. A strong organic presence has always been a foundation of a healthy marketing engine, and it’s an area where brand pays off indirectly: the brands people go to for answers, discuss and cite are the ones that surface. That hasn’t changed, but what drives it has. In an AI-driven search environment, visibility is determined by whether your brand appears across a wide, reputable digital footprint. Content that earns citation and discussion drives that presence - offsite brand mentions correlate with AI visibility more so than backlinks, and YouTube has emerged as a strong signal. That kind of visibility won’t just come from keyword and technical SEO, and when organic doesn’t carry its weight, paid media has to make up the difference, which is not sustainable.

And last but certainly not least, brand strategy is broader than advertising. It’s the alignment between proposition, product, pricing, experience and communications, so that a promise can be made consistently across every touchpoint. The strongest brand expressions I’ve seen are built into the product, the experience, and the way things get resolved. If the brand proposition is unclear or the experience doesn’t match the promise, no media budget compensates for it.

—

For leadership, this reframes where brand actually lives. It’s not just a media budget question. It’s a question of whether your entire customer experience and your entire digital presence are working together.

So next time you’re asked  “what did brand spend return?”, pivot the question to “how does brand investment change the effectiveness of the entire growth engine?” And make sure you have the measurement infrastructure to see it. If it doesn’t exist or isn’t working as it should, that’s the first investment worth making.