At A Glance
Brands can scale local marketing without losing brand consistency when they separate fixed brand elements from variable local decisions and automate only where the stakes are low. In this Ask the Expert conversation, Experian and Butler/Till discuss how brands can spot real local signals, decide what to automate, and keep people in the loop on decisions that carry brand risk.Key takeaways
- Manual oversight of local marketing tends to break down at around 100 store locations, according to Butler/Till, since decision latency makes it hard to keep pace with simultaneous market-level calls.
- Butler/Till recommends separating fixed brand elements, like voice and positioning, from variable ones, like media mix, audience targeting, and local partnerships, when scaling marketing across many store locations.
- When comparing a local campaign’s performance against a market baseline, a gap of 20% or more usually signals something real, while a gap of just a few percentage points is more often noise.
- Brands running local campaigns across thousands of store locations can automate budget allocation within clear guardrails, but should keep people in the loop on creative selection and other brand-risk decisions.
In our Ask the Expert series, we interview leaders from our partner organizations who are helping lead their brands to new heights in advertising. Today’s interview is with Ryan Lammela at Butler/Till.
When a national brand says it wants to market locally, what does that usually mean to them, and what does effective local marketing require? Where’s the biggest gap between the two?
Most national brands think “local” marketing means communicating the same message with different prices. They want consistency at scale, without surrendering national control. Effective local marketing requires something more demanding: adapting strategy, not just price, to each market’s competitive intensity, seasonal patterns, media preferences, and regulatory environment, while keeping brand integrity intact.
The biggest gap between national and local marketing is structural. Brands underestimate how different markets actually behave. A media mix that works in Seattle might fail in a small rural town in the Mid-Atlantic. Local audiences respond to different messaging angles. The friction comes from centralized decision-making trying to enforce one strategy across fundamentally different market dynamics.
What we’ve found is that successful brands need a framework that distinguishes fixed elements from variable ones. Brand voice and core positioning? Fixed. Media mix, audience targeting, local partnerships? Variable. Without that clarity, you get either chaotic fragmentation or missed local opportunity.
At what point does scale fundamentally change how you have to operate? What starts to break when you move from 50 or 100 locations to tens of thousands of campaigns?
In our experience, the breaking point tends to show up around 100 physical locations. Below that, marketers can still oversee most decisions. Beyond it, you hit the wall: you can’t have people make thousands of media decisions monthly and stay competitive on timing or cost.
Coordination breaks first. When you’re managing multiple channels across multiple markets, decision latency becomes critical; manual approval chains that worked at 50 locations can’t keep pace with thousands of simultaneous market-level decisions. Execution consistency degrades because there’s no visibility into what’s actually running everywhere.
Then measurement becomes a nightmare. You’re collecting data from dozens of sources: platform dashboards, local partners, point-of-sale systems. The noise drowns out signal. Without a consistent way to tie those sources back to the same person or household, you’re comparing apples to oranges across markets.
What’s a pattern that can come to light when you can compare results across thousands of campaigns, something you wouldn’t have trusted from a single market?
When you run 5,000 campaigns across 4,000 locations, patterns emerge that a single market would never reveal. A media mix that looked like a failure in one market? It works in similar demographic clusters. A creative asset that seemed like an outlier? It’s the winner among underserved audiences nationally.
You also spot seasonality patterns you’d miss regionally. When you compare July performance across 2,000 markets, you learn that summer media preferences shift in ways single-market data would dismiss as noise.
Local markets behave differently. How do you decide which local signals are worth acting on versus which are noise, and what data are you leaning on to tell the difference?
Telling a real local signal from noise starts with a baseline: establish expected performance benchmarks across similar market clusters, then look for deviations that are large relative to a market’s normal swing. A gap of 20% or more usually warrants investigation; something in the low single digits is more often noise.
Layer in market context: competitive intensity, demographics, media consumption patterns, seasonality. When a campaign spikes in one market, ask why. Is the market fundamentally different, or are we optimizing for the wrong thing?
Local signals worth acting on are consistent across similar market types, tied to something measurable (seasonal shift, competitive move, audience behavior change), and actionable without breaking brand consistency.
The data that matters most is comparative data, not absolute performance. When Phoenix outperforms Denver on a tactic, and both are similar sunbelt markets, that’s worth investigating.
With that volume of decisions, where do you let the system decide and where do you still want a person in the loop?
Automate based on decision complexity and consequence, not based on volume.
Budget allocation across channels within a market? The system could handle it. The variables are clear, the data is clean, and wrong decisions are recoverable. We set guardrails—don’t shift more than 15% week-to-week, don’t kill a performing channel below threshold—and let optimization work.
Creative selection or messaging? That stays with people. Those decisions carry cultural and brand risk that algorithms can’t weigh. Same with market-level strategic pivots or major partnerships.
Audience targeting is trickier. There’s a lot of data, patterns aren’t always obvious, and bad targeting ripples through the program. We build algorithmic recommendations, but a strategist validates them against market context. The algorithm says shift audience targeting toward women 35 to 44. The person asks why and either confirms the insight or catches something the algorithm missed.
We also keep humans in the loop for anything that breaks the established playbook. When a market starts behaving unexpectedly, we escalate.
The rule: automate routine, standardized decisions with clear success metrics. Keep people in the loop on decisions that shape strategy or carry brand risk.
What have you learned running local programs at this scale that a brand with 50 or 100 locations could apply on Monday?
Brands running campaigns for 50 or 100 locations should start by building their decision framework before they build their system. Know which decisions are local and which are national before you automate them. We’ve seen brands implement tools that actually slow them down because they skipped this step.
Establish market benchmarks now instead of waiting until you’re at scale. Group your locations by similarity and start comparing performance across similar markets. You’ll spot inefficiency fast and understand what good performance looks like in different market types.
Treat automation as a channel tool, not a thinking replacement. Ask yourself what decisions are slowing you down. What insights are you missing because you don’t have bandwidth? Start there, not with the fanciest tech.
Invest in measurement rigor. When you’re coordinating across multiple locations, measurement becomes competitive advantage. Know which metrics matter locally and which are noise. Build data infrastructure to compare performance across markets without creating reporting chaos.
And here’s what matters most: successful local marketing at scale gives local teams better information and faster decision velocity while maintaining brand guardrails. That balance—autonomy with consistency—is where real leverage lives.
Thanks for the interview. Do you have any recommendations for our readers if they want to learn more?
If your brand is managing multiple locations and feeling friction, the question isn’t “should we automate?” It’s “which decisions are slowing us down, and why?” Start there. Talk to teams running campaigns in the field. They’ll tell you where the friction actually is. Then build systems to solve that friction, not to solve a problem you think you have.
Contact us
Click here to view Experian’s U.S. Consumer Data Privacy Notice.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
About our expert
Ryan Lammela
VP of Channel Activation, Butler/Till
Ryan Lammela is VP of Channel Activation at Butler/Till, an independent media agency. He leads media execution strategy for brands managing distributed marketing across hundreds or thousands of locations, translating integrated strategy into measurable market impact at scale.
FAQs
Butler/Till defines effective local marketing as adapting strategy, not just pricing, to local market conditions like competitive intensity, seasonality, and media preferences, while keeping core brand voice and positioning fixed. Most brands think local marketing means the same message at different prices, which misses the structural differences between markets.
Manual oversight tends to break down around 100 locations, according to Butler/Till. Below that threshold, people can still review most decisions directly; beyond it, decision latency and inconsistent visibility start to undermine execution.
A performance gap of 20% or more against a market baseline usually signals something real, while a gap of just a few percentage points is more often noise. Butler/Till recommends grouping similar markets, setting expected performance benchmarks, and investigating deviations tied to a measurable cause like seasonality or a competitor’s move.
Budget allocation within clear guardrails is well-suited to automation, since the variables are clean and mistakes are recoverable. Creative selection, messaging, and market-level strategic decisions should stay with people, since they carry brand and cultural risk that algorithms aren’t built to weigh.
Experian’s identity resolution and measurement capabilities help brands tie data from disparate local sources, like platform dashboards, local partners and point-of-sale systems, back to the same person or household. That consistent view is what allows comparative analysis across markets to actually hold up, rather than comparing apples to oranges.
Latest posts
NEW YORK, Sept. 28, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Tapad, the leader in cross-device marketing technology, today announced a new metric for cross-device marketers, Viewable Exposure Time (VET). Viewable Exposure Time measures across screens and ad formats, identifying the optimal amount of time a consumer spends with an ad before they take action. The announcement coincides with Unify Tech ’16, Tapad’s third-annual cross-device summit during Advertising Week NY. Frequency caps are currently used to ensure that dollars aren’t wasted on redundant ads. Viewable Exposure Time evolves the frequency capping approach to include accelerating a consumer’s ad exposure rate up to the optimal time spent with the brand. VET is used in affinity, digital transaction and offline purchase models as a key indicator of marketing budget well-spent. Beta users of VET span every vertical, though interest is especially high from CPG, Automotive, Telecommunications and Retail. Viewable Exposure Time unifies and upgrades marketers’ predictors of advertising success by leveraging cross-screen engagement across digital and television, with vendor-agnostic viewability scores for video, rich media and display. “Today’s current measurement options, like click-through rate (CTR) and TV gross ratings points (GRP) tell an incomplete story,” said Tapad GM of Media Kate O’Loughlin. “Tapad is focused on measuring what really matters to marketers – building an efficient connection with a customer. Innovation in metrics was long overdue.” More than just a measurement tool, Tapad also provides clients with VET activation. Factoring in time spent with ads in viewable seconds and minutes, these analytics inform marketers about which audiences are underexposed, enabling them to adjust campaigns and deliver according to optimal viewable exposure time. This effectively increases conversion rates at the lowest cost. Contact us today
Strong Revenue Performance and Thriving Culture Contribute to Industry Recognition NEW YORK, Sept. 15, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Tapad, the leader in cross-device marketing technology and now a part of Experian, was named a top company on Inc. Magazine’s list of the 5000 fastest-growing private companies in the U.S. In addition, Tapad won the TMCnet 2016 Tech Culture Award. The exclusive Inc. 5000 ranking highlights the fastest-growing privately-held* companies in America. These distinguished companies have achieved success in strategy, service and innovation. TMCnet recognizes talented tech professionals who are committed to building a culture that prioritizes employee growth, collaboration and engagement. Tapad continues to broaden their presence into new markets, having launched in APAC earlier this year, as well as continuing their European expansion. Tapad’s proprietary technology, The Device Graph™ is leveraged by more marketers and brands to understand digital engagement across devices. The company’s rapidly expanding client base includes numerous Fortune 500 company brands as well as all four major advertising holding companies in the U.S. “We have an exceptional team of innovative people who are all working very hard to achieve the kind of results these publications are recognizing,” said Tapad CEO and Founder, Are Traasdahl. “Given that, we have an even greater responsibility to our talent to create an environment that fosters innovation and nurtures open communication. Ultimately, this is how we will continue to reach our very ambitious goals of becoming the world’s leading unified marketing technology provider.” Tapad’s award-winning work culture is defined by its gold-standard benefits which include a six-month parental leave policy, unlimited vacation time, company-sponsored meals and office space designed to facilitate collaboration and open communication. Tapad’s highly talented team has also received multiple customer service awards in 2016. These awards include the iMedia ASPY awards for Best Customer Service and Best Mobile Partner as well as recognition from The Communicator Awards of Excellence in Interactive Media. *Prior to Tapad’s acquisition by Telenor in February 2016. Contact us today
The Tapad Device GraphTM Had Twice the Precision and Three Times the Scale as Next Competitor New York, September 14, 2016 – Just-released findings of a Hotels.com® study revealed that Tapad’s (part of Experian) cross-screen marketing technology achieved the highest levels of precision and scale among competitors. According to the leading online accommodation booking website, after a rigorous, three-and-a-half month vendor analysis, Tapad achieved twice the precision of the next highest-scoring cross-screen offering and three times greater scale. The two other companies evaluated were not named. Said Helene Cameron-Heslop, Senior Manager of Analytics of the Hotels.com brand, “Our team implemented an extremely rigorous vetting of open, cross-screen technology vendors. At the outset, we assumed we would have to compromise on either scale or accuracy – particularly given the importance to our brand of operating in a privacy-safe setting. We were surprised to find a complete package, but Tapad’s Device Graph won out on scale, accuracy and privacy; making our choice of partners very clear.” In another metric critical to the Hotels.com brand, The Tapad Device GraphTM was eight times more “unique” than the next closest offering, meaning Tapad’s graph was found to have a much greater number of connections not seen in any of the other graphs. In addition to precision, uniqueness and scale, the Tapad Device GraphTM was found to have: ● 100% higher recall● 47% more incremental matches● 53% higher North American market coverage● 101% higher F-Score* “A valuable cross-device solution should enable partners to get everything they’re looking for from a single vendor,” said Tapad Founder and CEO, Are Traasdahl. “We are deeply impressed with how thorough Hotels.com was in their vetting, and we confidently tackle the complex challenges of the martech industry thanks to our superior technology. Everyone loves a bake-off, and Tapad is no exception – delivering best-in-class results in areas that really count.” *F-score is a statistical measurement that takes precision and recall together. The calculation is 2*(precision*recall)/precision + recall). It gives you one number instead of two numbers to look at and judge performance. Contact us today