When measurable channels mislead decisions, media neutrality is the answer – but implementing it requires looking past vanity statistics to define the commercial problem first
Ipsos' Marketing Anchors study, which draws on 1,226 marketing practitioners across the UK, US, Canada and Australia, found that only 43% of marketers could correctly identify media neutrality as choosing media channels based on effectiveness data, not personal preference.
In other words, 57% could not define one of the basic principles that should guide an organisation’s media investment. Media neutrality isn’t something marketers arrive at by default – it requires discipline. Otherwise, decisions are shaped by preference, habit, incentives, internal politics, agency structures and the seductive pull of whatever can be measured most easily.
In other words, 57% could not define one of the basic principles that should guide an organisation’s media investment
The consequence clear: when channel decisions are guided by habit or bias rather than evidence, the relationship between advertising spend and market share becomes less predictable. A brand can spend more, report more activity and still fail to create the competitive pressure required for growth. The numbers may look good, but the organisation's financials suffer as a result.
Additional investment and the subsequent ESoV (excess share of voice) – another critical concept that more than half of study participants failed to grasp – only becomes commercially useful when it increases relevant reach, earns attention and supports memorable communication among the people who matter most. Otherwise, the business has not created effective pressure. It has simply bought more media.
For marketing more broadly, this is a capability issue as much as a media issue. If most marketers cannot define media neutrality, too many media decisions will continue to drift away from disciplined evidence. That weakens marketing’s credibility at the decision-making level as businesses continue to demand faster decisions, clearer accountability and stronger commercial impact.
Media neutrality is not about equal treatment
Media neutrality is often misunderstood as spreading budget evenly across channels, yet when implemented correctly, it should produce unequal answers.
Some channels will justify significant investment. Others may deserve a smaller role or no role at all. What's important is that marketers must define the commercial problem first, before choosing the media solution.
marketers must define the commercial problem first, before choosing the media solution
That means understanding the target market, the positioning, the communications objective and the role marketing needs to play before anyone argues for television, radio, search, social media, outdoor, retail media or any other channel.
Measurable does not always mean meaningful
There is another bias marketers need to confront: the assumption that more measurable channels are automatically better channels.
Clicks, views, conversions and cost-per-acquisition figures provide reassurance because they are visible. But visibility is not the same as validity. A channel close to purchase may receive credit for capturing demand that other activity helped create. Meanwhile, media that builds awareness, memory and future consideration can be undervalued because its contribution is harder to attach to an individual conversion.
visibility is not the same as validity
This is where poor media neutrality becomes poor marketing judgement. Marketers must resist the temptation to favour what can be counted quickly, rather than what can create the greatest commercial effect.
Training closes the gap
The findings of the Ipsos study is not just a warning about media neutrality. It is a warning about capability. It found that only 35% of marketers met the benchmark for foundational marketing knowledge – and that formal marketing training was the strongest predictor of capability.
Marketing training gives teams the shared frameworks and language to reduce reliance on 'instinct' or taking whichever looks like the easiest path. Trained marketers understand how to follow the data. That's why the MiniMBA in Marketing follows three core disciplines of effective marketing planning and implementation: diagnosis, strategy and THEN tactics.
Marketing training also helps give teams the tools and language to improve budget advocacy and defend investment decisions under the scrutiny of senior leaders.
The best channel is not the one producing the most statistics. It is the one most capable of doing the job required. Media neutrality keeps that distinction clear. And in a marketing environment defined by speed, pressure and accountability, that clarity is no longer optional.
For more background on the full Ipsos study and what it means for marketing as a whole, read: 65% of marketers fail to meet basic knowledge benchmark, reveals Ipsos study.
Or download the full report here.
Cover: Sroddha / AdobeStock