The Most Expensive Thing in Marketing Is Being Unknown

(Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here.)

There's a budget meeting happening somewhere right now where a CMO is defending brand spend with the same argument that's been failing for 20 years.

"Brand is a long-term investment." "You can't measure it in quarters." "It builds equity over time."

The CFO nods politely. Then cuts the budget.

The CMO isn't wrong. But they're losing anyway. "Trust me, it works eventually" isn't a business case. It's a request for patience from someone whose job is to not be patient.

The argument has changed. And the CMOs who haven't updated their pitch are leaving money on the table.

Brand makes performance cheaper

This isn't a philosophy anymore. It's arithmetic.

Gartner's 2025 CMO Spend Survey found that the highest-performing marketing organizations invest proportionally more in brand. The mechanism is straightforward: strong brands convert at significantly higher rates than unknown competitors running the same performance playbook. Same targeting. Same bidding. Same creative format. Completely different results.

Analysis of McKinsey's State of Marketing 2026 data reinforces what practitioners already see in their accounts: brands that invest in awareness see materially lower cost per acquisition across paid channels. Not over a brand-building cycle. In the next campaign.

The reason is obvious once you see it: a performance ad from a brand you recognize is a prompt to act. A performance ad from a brand you've never heard of is an interruption.

Your brand awareness isn't a separate line item from your performance budget. It's the discount rate on everything else you spend.

The empty chair problem

Pull up any marketing budget and you'll see brand and performance as separate categories. Separate teams. Separate KPIs. Separate budget owners fighting for the same dollars.

Now look at who fights for each one.

Performance has the sales team backing it. They want leads, they want pipeline, and they will show up to every budget meeting to make sure the money flows. Product marketing has the product team backing it. They want launches supported, features promoted, and competitive positioning in market.

Brand has the customer.

And the customer isn't in the budget meeting.

Jeff Bezos famously kept an empty chair in Amazon meetings to represent the customer. Most companies don't. And that absence is why brand spend is always the first line item to get cut. Not because the CFO doesn't believe in brand. Because nobody inside the building fights for it except the CMO, who's already fighting for everything else.

Performance spend has an internal constituency. Brand spend doesn't. That's the structural problem no dashboard will solve.

The subsidy nobody accounts for

When brand awareness is high, every channel performs better. Paid search converts at higher rates because people are searching for you by name. Social ads get higher engagement because the audience recognizes the brand in the feed. Even email open rates track with brand salience.

When brand awareness is low, performance marketing has to do two jobs: introduce the brand and drive the conversion. That's why unknown brands pay more per click, more per lead, and more per acquisition. They're asking a single touchpoint to do the work of an entire funnel.

The industry is calling this the "brand-to-performance flywheel." I'd call it simpler: brand is the subsidy that makes your performance budget work. Cut it and you don't save money. You make everything else more expensive.

Why the old argument lost

The traditional case for brand was built on faith. Long time horizons. Soft metrics. "Share of voice" and "brand health trackers" that updated quarterly and never connected to revenue.

CFOs didn't reject brand because they're short-sighted. They rejected it because marketers presented it as an act of belief rather than an act of investment.

The new argument works because it's denominated in the CFO's language. Not impressions. Not awareness lift. Cost per acquisition. Conversion rate. Revenue per visitor. The same metrics your performance team reports every week.

When you can show the CFO that a $2M brand campaign reduced your blended CPA by 28% across paid channels, that's not a brand argument. That's a finance argument. And it wins.

The test most brands are failing

A quick diagnostic.

Open your paid search account. Look at the ratio of branded to non-branded spend. If you're spending heavily on non-branded terms with CPAs that keep climbing, your brand isn't doing its job. You're paying Google to introduce you to people who should already know who you are.

Now look at your social ads. Compare conversion rates for cold audiences versus retargeting. If the gap is enormous, you have a brand awareness problem masquerading as a targeting problem. No amount of lookalike optimization fixes the fundamental issue of being unknown.

75% of marketers say measurement is broken. Part of the reason is that they're measuring brand and performance as if they're unrelated. They're not. They're the same system. And the input on the brand side determines the efficiency on the performance side.

The pitch that works

Next time you're in that budget meeting, skip the "long-term investment" speech. Try this instead:

"Every dollar we spend on performance is more expensive when brand awareness is low. Here's the data from our own account. Branded search converts at 4x the rate of non-branded. Returning visitors convert at 3x the rate of new. Our CPA has increased 22% year-over-year as we've shifted budget away from brand. We're not asking for brand budget. We're asking to reduce the cost of everything else we're spending on."

That's not a marketing argument. That's a P&L argument. And the CFO who rejects it is the one who needs to explain why they prefer paying more for every customer.

But also: stop being the only person in the room who fights for this. Make brand the customer's line item. Give the customer a chair. Make sales see that their cost per lead drops when brand is funded. Make the CFO see that CAC compression is a brand output.

Brand was never the soft side of marketing. It was always the subsidy. The only thing that changed is now we can prove it. The only thing left is making sure someone besides the CMO is willing to say so.