The Marketing Architects

Welcome to Nerd Alert, a series of special episodes bridging the gap between marketing academia and practitioners. We’re breaking down highly involved, complex research into plain language and takeaways any marketer can use. In this episode, Elena and Rob dig into what offsite tracking data is actually worth. Across more than 70,000 advertisers, losing it raised the median cost of a new customer 31%. Small brands took the biggest hit. They also cover why 10% of campaigns did better without it, and what to test before privacy rules take more tracking away. Topics covered: [01:50] "Estimating the Value of Offsite Tracking Data to Advertisers: Evidence from Meta" [03:15] 70,000 advertisers, 160 countries and a holdout test [03:55] New customers cost 31% more without tracking data [04:25] Why small advertisers get hit harder [06:10] The 10% of campaigns that did better chasing clicks [06:45] Holdout tests and stress-testing for less tracking [07:25] Why smaller brands should diversify sooner To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: Wernerfelt, N., Tuchman, A., Shapiro, B. T., & Moakler, R. (2025). Estimating the value of offsite tracking data to advertisers: Evidence from Meta. Marketing Science, 44(2), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2023.0274 Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Nerd Alert, a series of special episodes bridging the gap between marketing academia and practitioners. We're breaking down highly involved, complex research into plain language and takeaways any marketer can use.In this episode, Elena and Rob dig into a two-and-a-half-year experiment with a semiconductor company's ads. Every ad dollar brought back about $12 in revenue, but less than half arrived within three months. They cover why existing customers drove most of the payback and how to match your measurement window to your sales cycle.Topics covered: [01:50] "Long Lags and Large Returns: Experimental Evidence from Advertising to Businesses" [02:30] Why B2B buyers are a tough crowd [03:20] Switching ads on and off across U.S. markets for two and a half years [04:00] A return on ad spend of 12, and the payback lag [05:10] Existing customers returned $34.60 per ad dollar, new ones $1.40 [06:00] The approved vendor list and why paperwork slows new buyers [06:50] What marketers should do about the lag To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: Thomas, M., Goic, M., & Kalyanam, K. (2025). Long lags and large returns: Experimental evidence from advertising to businesses. Management Science. 71(10):8750-8766. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.02661 Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Nerd Alert, a series of special episodes bridging the gap between marketing academia and practitioners. We’re breaking down highly involved, complex research into plain language and takeaways any marketer can use.In this episode, Elena and Rob question whether paying Google to show up for your own brand name creates new sales. They dig into field experiments showing branded search ads mostly take credit for purchases brands would have won anyway.Topics covered: [01:20] "Do Brands Need Search Advertising?" [01:50] Do you click the paid result or the organic one? [02:25] Nine field experiments across eight D2C brands [03:40] Turning off branded ads: zero effect on sales in 20 tests [04:35] The fake mattress brand experiment [05:30] Where to move your search budget instead To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: Beknazarova, I., Cohen, J., Driesener, C., Hartnett, N., & Bellman, S. (2027). Do brands need search advertising? Journal of Business Research, 218, 116485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2026.116485 Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Nerd Alert, a series of special episodes bridging the gap between marketing academia and practitioners. We’re breaking down highly involved, complex research into plain language and takeaways any marketer can use.In this episode, Elena and Rob dig into new research testing whether AI-generated ads can stand in for real production during pretesting. They cover what two studies found about recall, brand attitude, and brand choice, why disclosure didn't move the numbers, and the screening step marketers shouldn't skip.Topics covered: [02:10] "Pretesting with AI-Generated Static and Video Ads" [02:35] Why pretesting matters before you spend production money [03:00] Inside the two studies [04:35] Zero meaningful difference in recall, attitude or brand choice [05:05] Telling people an ad is AI changed nothing [06:30] Where AI pretesting still has limits To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: Bellman, S., Ourradi, S. A., & Varan, D. (2026). Pretesting with AI-generated static and video ads. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-67219-0 Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Nerd Alert, a series of special episodes bridging the gap between marketing academia and practitioners. We’re breaking down highly involved, complex research into plain language and takeaways any marketer can use.In this episode, Elena and Rob dig into why five analysts can hand you five different ROI numbers for the same campaign. They explain why averaging those numbers hides the truth, and how to match your measurement method to the size of the decision in front of you.Topics covered: [01:40] "Making Effectiveness Work" [02:20] Three ways to measure ad effectiveness [02:40] Why triangulation is a trap [04:10] Test and learn can more than double returns [05:15] Long-term ROI was 2.2 times the 12-week read [05:45] The case against last click attribution To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: Duckworth, S., Charles, N., & Stoddard, D. (2024). Making effectiveness work. Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. https://ipa.co.uk/knowledge/effectiveness/ipa-effectiveness-conference-2024/making-effectiveness-work Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Buy a brand, and it shows up on your balance sheet. Build one, and it doesn't. Wharton professor Dave Reibstein thinks that's backwards.This week, Elena, Angela, and Rob are joined by Dave Reibstein, the William S. Woodside Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School and co-author of Marketing Metrics. Dave explains how to put an actual number on brand value, whether you take it in price premium, volume, or some mix of both. He shares 10 years of research on how country branding shapes trade, tourism, and investment, plus why "Made in Italy" still sells shoes. Plus, hear the team pitch which country they'd take over as CMO.Topics covered: [03:00] Research on customer capital and talent risk [06:00] Why marketing metrics need standard definitions [07:30] What brand value looks like as a number [09:30] Balancing promotions against long-term brand building [12:00] The management behavior that moves results most [13:30] Why every country should manage its brand [19:30] Dave's case for brand value on the balance sheet To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: 2021 Journal of Finance Study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3187850Dave Reibstein’s LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-reibstein-34269/ Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Marketers assume the moment consumers spot a sales pitch, their guard goes up and the message dies. New research says that's only half the story. Sometimes recognizing persuasion makes people trust a brand more, not less.This week, Elena, Angela, and Rob are joined by Kellogg School of Management professor Kent Grayson, who has spent decades studying trust, deception and authenticity. He explains the three building blocks every brand draws on to earn trust, plus how to diagnose which one you're actually missing. The team also digs into whether TV itself works as a trust signal, and why AI could erode the founder story the same way paid deals eroded influencers.Topics covered: [03:30] What the persuasion knowledge model really says [07:30] Why people distrust "advertising" but trust the ads they watch [10:30] Trust's three buckets: competence, honesty and benevolence [15:30] Character-based trust vs assurance-based trust [19:00] Can a media channel be a trust signal? [21:30] How AI threatens the founder story [26:00] Trustworthy creative starts with a trustworthy strategy To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: 2017 KelloggInsight Research: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/how-to-make-ads-that-even-savvy-customers-trustKent Grayson’s LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kent-grayson-3a0894126/ Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

83% of ad executives now use AI in the creative process, up from 60% two years ago. But only 45% of young consumers feel positive about AI-made ads. Advertisers guess that number is 82%.This week, Elena and Angela are joined by Chief Creative Officer Steve Babcock to dig into that gap. Cost efficiency is now the top reason marketers reach for AI. It ranked fifth two years ago. Steve explains where AI slop really comes from, why TV punishes cut corners far more than social does, and what still has to stay human. Plus, why cutting production costs means improving the smallest line item on the page. Topics covered: [01:40] Why cost efficiency became AI's top-cited benefit [04:00] Where AI slop comes from and the uncanny valley [11:50] Should brands disclose when an ad was made with AI? [15:00] How AI shows up in briefs, idea generation and pretesting [22:15] Why TV is the least forgiving channel for AI creative [27:30] The case for raising the creative ceiling, not lowering the price floor [30:30] Steve's contrarian take on creating with AI To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. Resources: 2026 IAB and Sonata Insights Study: https://www.iab.com/insights/the-ai-gap-widens/ Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.