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.

Between 60% and 75% of buy-side marketers say their core measurement approach falls short. And no one's measurement fully covers every paid channel.

This week, Elena, Angela and Chief Analytics Officer Matt Hultgren dig into zombie statistics: numbers that get debunked but keep getting repeated. They start with the Rule of Seven, then turn to the scarier ones hiding in dashboards. Hear why CTV is so hard to measure, how attribution windows can mislead and why last-click still lingers. Plus, learn how to talk to your CFO about uncertainty and how multiple models help you replace a metric you've outgrown.

Topics covered: 
[01:00] The Rule of Seven and its murky origins 

[03:00] What the data says about extra exposures 

[05:00] IAB's State of Data 2026 findings 

[08:00] When last-click still makes sense 

[11:00] Why CTV is so hard to measure 

[12:30] How attribution windows skew results 

[14:30] Killing zombie metrics with multiple models 

[15:30] How AI will change measurement 

To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. 
 

Resources: 
IAB State of Data 2026 Report: https://www.iab.com/insights/2026-state-of-data-report/
 

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.

Political ad spend is projected to hit $11.07 billion this election cycle, according to eMarketer. That's a 21.4% jump over the last midterm. And broadcast TV alone will claim more than half of it.
 
This week, Elena, Angela, and Rob break down where that political money is flowing, from Senate races to swing states like Michigan. They cover how rising demand for TV inventory could squeeze nonpolitical advertisers this fall. Rob also traces the history of political advertising, from Eisenhower's first TV jingles to today's AI-generated attack ads.  

Topics covered: 
[00:00] Political ad spend breaks midterm records this cycle 

[01:00] CTV becomes political ads' fastest-growing channel 

[02:00] Senate, House, and local races drive the surge 

[05:00] Rob's history lesson on political advertising 

[09:00] AI-generated ads take over the 2026 campaign trail 

[10:00] What Berkeley research reveals about ad effectiveness 

[13:00] Why TV wins on emotion and credibility 

 

To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. 
 

Resources: 
2026 Campaigns & Elections Article: https://campaignsandelections.com/voices/the-2026-midterms-are-where-ai-meets-the-tv-ad/  
 
2026 NPR Report: https://www.npr.org/2026/09/16/nx-s1-5953990/ai-political-ads-2026-midterms  
 

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.