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
Discover how Experian pairs DASH data with Experian Marketing Data to help marketers develop better TV audience buying strategies.
Advertisers continue to increase their spending across addressable TV, connected TV (CTV), and digital. According to IAB’s “2021 Video Ad Spend and 2022 Outlook” report, digital video ad spending is expected to increase by 26% to $49.2 billion in 2022. Understanding who consumers are and how to best reach them in their preferred channel is becoming more complex. Damian Amitin and Colleen Dawe discuss how a seamless identity strategy can address the complexity of the emerging TV space. The evolution of identity resolution Around ten years ago, the idea of digital “identity resolution” or “Device Graphs” was born. This idea connected cookies and MAIDs to understand when many IDs were the same person or household. In more recent years, our industry began to connect that initial understanding to the CTV ecosystem. But, a large part of the TV ecosystem existed in silos, like first and third-party audience data, and the growing advanced TV market. The goal of identity resolution has always been to understand the consumer better. To achieve more accurate targeting and measurement in the CTV ecosystem, we must incorporate the following: What we know about the household and consumer from an ID perspective Who the consumer is as it relates to audience data, as well as the wealth of first-party data in the advanced TV space We know the cookie is a flawed way to collect data. While Google delayed the deprecation of third-party cookies, there are other challenges that we face right now. Such as the glaring gap in Safari traffic and the Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) turning to “opt-in.” Understanding consumer behavior across devices and platforms continues to challenge marketers and publishers. These challenges are creating the need to find more stable identifiers. Though the cookie remains valuable, it has an uncertain future. This has led advertisers to place bigger bets on the combination of addressable and CTV. The overlap in addressable and CTV data leads to fragmentation Personally identifiable information (PII) makes up the majority of addressable TV households’ data. Part of the attraction to CTV is that their IDs remain universal, persistent, and stable. Analysts project that CTV ad spending will hit $23B in 2023. Consumers now have an average of 4.7 streaming subscriptions per household. It’s no surprise then, that Disney+, HBO, and Netflix released or announced ad-supported tiers. Addressable TV and CTV are often thought of as distinct markets across the industry. But, in the context of identity, we should look at them through the same lens. Millions of households still consume TV and video content via a set-top box or through apps on CTVs. This is in addition to what they consume on their laptops, tablets, and phones. Of the top 11 cable and satellite providers, 65 million U.S. households still have a box in their homes. On the other hand, approximately 96 million U.S. households have at least one or more Smart TVs and streaming services. With about 126 million total U.S. TV households, that’s a lot of overlap. There are still significant numbers of both addressable and CTV homes. How can we address fragmented TV consumption? Through a holistic and comprehensive approach to identity. An approach that captures addressable TV, CTV, and digital identifiers. An approach that captures all audience attributes inside of a single identity graph. This is the ideal approach for publishers, AdTech vendors, and brands. Discover how to unlock holistic identity How can we achieve a holistic identity? Through a three-pillared approach: First-party data onboarding Digital identifiers Consumer data First-party data onboarding Bringing offline data from a brand’s consumers is very valuable due to the quality of the data. Because the data is being collected right from the source, you know it’s accurate. It provides the foundation you can build your identity strategy from. Digital identifiers Once you create a foundation with first-party data, you need to connect it. Either with an internal or licensed digital ID graph. Then you can understand the connections between all devices within the household. Consumer data After you know which devices tie to a single consumer, you’ll want to act on that knowledge. The next step is to partner with a data provider that can help you understand your consumers. Establishing this partnership will help improve targeting, measurement, and the customer experience. To achieve a well-rounded customer view tomorrow, we need to start today The three-pillared approach bridges the gap between the offline and online worlds. This provides a well-rounded view of customers and audiences. However, the ability to tie these aspects of identity together still presents several challenges. To achieve the three-pillared approach today, you need to use many vendors and fragmented data sources. Often with conflicting data. As we look forward, the tools to do this are becoming more advanced and unified. The players in our ecosystem should adopt a seamless identity strategy. One that provides a privacy-safe yet full-picture solution. That means capturing and unifying all devices within a household. While also understanding the consumer behaviors and profiles behind those devices. Keep up with your customers and their data Once we create an informed identity strategy, we can begin to understand the makeup of each household and the individuals within. In this new world, personalizing the experience for an audience is key. Where do they prefer to spend their time? What type of content are they most engaged in? Only then can we as an industry provide an optimal experience for each consumer. All while driving greater ROI for advertisers and publishers. Are you ready to know more about your customers than ever before? Let’s get to work together to achieve your marketing goals. Contact us to learn how we can connect the complex dots of identity resolution. About our experts Damian Amitin, VP of Enterprise Partnerships, Experian Marketing Services Damian Amitin is the VP of Enterprise Partnerships and joined Experian during the Tapad acquisition in November 2020. Damian is a senior sales and partnerships executive, specializing in the identity resolution and marketing data ecosystem. Damian helps brands, publishers, and technology vendors enable enhanced ID resolution through The Experian/Tapad platform to attain a 360 view of the customer across targeting analytics, attribution, and personalization. Colleen Dawe, Senior Account Executive, Experian Marketing Services Colleen Dawe is a Senior Account Executive on the Advanced TV Team within Experian Marketing Services. With 15 years of experience working within the television ecosystem, Colleen works with clients to bring the value and expertise of Experian to support their objectives in the areas of data, identity, activation, and measurement. Get in touch
Brands can leverage non-clinical factors, like the social determinants of health, to gain a holistic view of their patients and increase access to care.