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
The result of epic shifts from traditional cable to streaming television, the CTV ecosystem is experiencing compounded fragmentation, making it challenging for marketers to leverage in the most effective way for both activation and measurement. Heralded as the hot new household level device for highly engaged viewers, CTV brings massive opportunities for brands to move users down the funnel and incorporate CTV into their attribution modeling post-campaign. Leveraging CTV IDs within a cross-device identity resolution strategy can yield big benefits if you know how to do it right. Check out our breakdown of today’s CTV landscape to help you better understand how and what you can leverage for activation and measurement in the streaming-verse today. Addressability and attribution Not all CTV devices and IDs are addressable; or have ad slots for biddable inventory for advertisers. For example, Apple TV devices and Apple TV + are not ad supported, but could still appear within an identity graph for measurement purposes; helping understand customer behavior and habits, which can inform marketing strategies. Having a household to individual view that’s as inclusive as possible can provide valuable insights. CTV identity strategy Whether or not CTV devices or apps are addressable for advertisers, they can bring immense value when leveraged as part of a holistic identity resolution strategy. As a household level device with user authentication it can provide marketers a top-down view; unlocking household:individual targeting opportunities and unification of IDs at both levels for frequency management and customer journey mapping Get started with us Tapad, part of Experian, offers CTV ID onboarding and extension to our CTV ID Universe as a part of The Tapad Graph suite of products.
CPG companies often base marketing decisions on custom market positioning studies, surveys and generic consumer personas. There’s a better way…
Study reveals that brands with more mature identity programs were significantly more likely to be successful in achieving their key objectives Tapad, a part of Experian, a global leader in cross-device digital identity resolution and a part of Experian, has commissioned Forrester Consulting, part of a leading research and advisory firm, to conduct a new study that evaluates the current state of customer data-driven marketing and explores how marketers can use identity solutions to deliver privacy safe and engaging experiences, in an evolving data landscape. The study highlights the changing ground rules for digital marketing and the threat that poses to marketers’ ability to deliver against long standing KPIs and campaign goals. Nearly two-thirds (62%) of respondents said that the forces of data deprecation will have a significant (40%) or critical (21%) impact on their marketing strategies over the next two years. Among those surveyed, identity resolution strategies have surfaced as an opportunity to create more powerful customer experiences, with 66% aiming to have it help improve customer trust and implement more ethical data collection and use practices, while nearly 60% believe it will point the way to more effective personalization and data management practices. Although organizations are eager to implement identity resolution strategies, a complex web of solutions and partners makes execution a challenge. For example, respondents report using at least eight identity solutions on average, across nearly six vendor partners, and they expect that fragmentation to persist in the ‘cookieless’ future. Additionally, brands’ identity resolution technologies typically represent a patchwork of homegrown and commercial solutions. Eighty-one percent of respondents use both in-house and commercial identity resolution tools today, and 47% use a near-equal blend of the two. Despite the challenges, many brands have the foundation for a strong identity resolution strategy in place, and they are thriving as a result. Specifically, more mature brands were 79% more successful at improving privacy safeguards to reduce regulatory and compliance risk, 247% more successful at improving marketing ROI, and over four times more effective at improving customer trust compared to their low-maturity peers. Additional insights include: Marketers Are Increasingly Playing a Key Strategic Role Within the Organization, But There is a Mandate to Demonstrate Value. Nearly three-quarters of respondents in our study agree the marketing function is more strategically important to their organization than it used to be, while almost two-thirds agree there’s more pressure than ever to prove the ROI or business performance of their activities. Consumers Expect Brands to Deliver Engaging Experiences Across Highly Fragmented Journeys: Tapad, a part of Experian found that 72% of respondents agree that customers demand more relevant, personalized experiences at the time and place of their choosing. At the same time, 67% of respondents recognize that customer purchase journeys take place over more touchpoints and channels than ever, and 59% of respondents agree that those journeys are less predictable and linear than they once were. Marketing Runs on Data, But the Rules Governing Customer Data Usage are Ever-Evolving: According to the study, 70% of decision-makers agree that consumer data is the lifeblood of their marketing strategies – fueling the personalized, omnichannel experiences customers demand. At the same time, 69% of respondents recognize that customers are increasingly aware of how their data is being used. At least two-thirds agree that data deprecation, including tighter restrictions on data use (66%), as well as operating system and browser changes impacting third-party cookies (68%) means that legacy marketing strategies are unlikely to remain viable in the long-term.“ Our latest survey findings give us a better understanding of how our customers and other companies around the world are trying to master the relationship between people, their data and their devices,” said Mark Connon, General Manager at Tapad, a part of Experian. “This research shows why it’s fundamental for the industry to continuously work to develop solutions that are agnostic. Tapad, a part of Experian has worked tirelessly to deliver on this with our Tapad Graph, and by introducing solutions like Switchboard to help the evolving ecosystem and in turn helping customers reap the benefits of better identity in both short and long-term.” The study is founded on an online survey of over 300 decision-makers at global brands and agencies, which was fielded from March to April, 2021. Data deprecation and identity are fast-developing, moving targets, so this study delivers targeted insights and recommendations for how to prepare for coming shifts in customer data strategies – whether they manifest tomorrow or a year from now. Get in touch