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
OpenAudience™ will provide marketers the ability to easily plan and buy advertising for every digitally addressable consumer across the open web LOS ANGELES, May 2, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — For the past decade, the most effective way to advertise in digital media has been on Facebook and Google. Marketers in the U.S. now spend two-thirds of all digital ad spend on the “walled gardens”, despite the fact that they receive less than 36 percent of total consumer time spent online. According to eMarketer, addressing this massive asymmetry in advertising – where tens of billions of dollars are over allocated to the walled gardens – is the top concern of marketers in 2019. While programmatic technology has become the primary monetization system for the open web, it has lacked the simplicity and efficacy of walled gardens. Today, OpenX is changing that paradigm by bringing true people-based marketing to the open web for the first time with the introduction of OpenAudience. OpenAudience will provide marketers and publishers with an unprecedented, unified level of knowledge about consumer audiences – through a platform built on privacy by design principles that brings the efficiency and efficacy of walled garden advertising to the open web. OpenAudience is powered by a comprehensive proprietary data asset and supplemented by integrated partnerships with recognized leaders in data and identity like LiveRamp, Tapad, a part of Experian, and more. For marketers, OpenAudience will provide the ability to plan and buy people-based marketing campaigns that combine the impact and ease of use of Facebook advertising with the scale of the open web. OpenAudience is currently in active partner testing with multiple marketers in the U.S., including Fortune 500 financial service and consumer personal care companies, along with one of America’s largest online entertainment outlets, and will be generally available to the broader market in Q3 of 2019. For publishers, OpenAudience will deliver user-based knowledge that empowers them to value and sell advertising with unparalleled precision. With the ability to automatically place consumers into high-value audience segments drawn from the more than 240M U.S. Monthly Active Users OpenX reaches across the open web, OpenAudience allows publishers to maximize revenue like never before. “OpenAudience is a natural evolution of programmatic advertising, combining the unified knowledge of people-based audiences with the transactional power of programmatic to create a planning, buying and advertising experience that is unlike anything else in the market today,” said Todd Parsons, chief product officer at OpenX. “No exchange in the market today has enabled a unified view of publisher audiences,” said Travis Clinger, vice president of strategic initiatives, LiveRamp. “Now, OpenX is democratizing identity across all publishers on the open web, helping marketers to plan and buy audiences the way they do inside walled gardens. We are thrilled to be a key component of OpenAudience.” For more information, or to request a place in the private testing phase of OpenAudience, visit: http://www.openx.com, or contact your OpenX account representative today. About OpenX Nobody understands the open web better than OpenX. As the world’s largest independent advertising exchange, OpenX makes the efficient people-based marketing buying experience of the walled gardens available to all marketers across the open web. OpenX works with more than 30,000 advertisers across every screen and device, reaching nearly one billion consumers – including a quarter billion unique consumers in the US – and processing more than one trillion transactions globally each day. To date, OpenX has helped deliver more than $3 billion in total monetization to publishers. That’s the Power of Open™. Contact us today
Tom Rolph, VP EMEA at Tapad, part of Experian, says that ad-sponsored streaming services can be successful if they can deliver a higher quality viewer experience than other streaming services. Last week, Hulu, the streaming service acquired by Fox and now owned 60 per cent by Disney, announced it will be regularising its ad loads. The streaming service will be bringing ad breaks down to 90 seconds in an effort to deliver a better viewer experience. This is a positive move from Hulu and one which other ad-supported streaming services should follow in order to be successful in a competitive market. Previously ad breaks on Hulu could vary wildly, from 180 seconds to 240 seconds, due to existing deals with its three owners: Disney, Comcast and AT&T. Over in the UK, we haven’t suffered from quite as inconsistent an approach as in the US, but there is still viewer frustration with the ad experience on ITV Hub and All4, where the problem tends to be over exposure of the same ad. Therefore, this move to standardise ad break lengths for streaming platforms is one that should be embraced on both sides of the pond. An important shift in this space will be to limit the number of ads during each show, but have better ad targeting to minimise repetitive advertising and increase the ROI of ad spend. All of which can be accomplished by investing in identity resolution products that can support CTV devices. Last year Ofcom found that in the UK subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon and NOW TV have risen above those to traditional pay TV services. With Netflix and Amazon both ad-free and NOW TV only a limited ad funded model, it’s clear that there is a growing appetite for ad-free viewing models. A fact that is only further supported when you consider the role of the BBC and BBC iPlayer. But the picture isn’t entirely negative for ad-funded models. There is demand for great content on ad-funded services in the UK, with ITV Hub boasting over 1bn requests and 540m hours of TV watched. The ITV Hub mobile app has also been downloaded on over 27m devices across the country – with over 22m people now registered to ITV Hub database, including more than half of Britain’s 16-24 year olds. However, to continue to attract and retain younger viewers, the experience will have to improve. There are several areas where ad-supported streaming providers need to improve in order to remain top players in this space: Ad experienceAs explored above, both volume and repetition of ads can be a turn off for viewers, but with Brits already spending a total of £303.16m every month on TV streaming services, according to Finder.com, there is potential for free, ad-funded models to flourish as people hit a limit on what they are willing to spend. There are already signs of improvement with the ad experience, with ITV just signing a deal with Amobee to allow for addressable ads on ITV Hub, while Sky’s AdSmart technology remains best in class and has now crossed over the pond to be used by Comcast stablemate NBC. Server reliabilityA cursory search finds little evidence of ongoing reliability problems with Netflix, but much evidence of problems with ITV Hub and All4, which are both prone to crashing. To compete with bigger players with massive server farms, server capacity needs to be tackled. This is especially true when it comes to live events, where many people will recall ITV Hub’s famous fails during the World Cup. While even some of the larger players have had similar streaming issues (for example, Amazon’s move into live sports streaming when they had to pull UK streaming of the US Open Tennis due to user complaints), viewing experience should be prioritised as the space gets increasingly competitive. Getting the content rightAmazon and Netflix have huge content budgets, but UK broadcasters remain strong in this regard, Channel 4 has enjoyed viewing figures of 7.5m for the Great British Bake Off, while ITV pulled in 13.7m for I’m A Celebrity. By building on UK-specific content that speaks to UK audiences, ad-supported streaming services can continue to pull in more viewers. Mobile accessMore and more Brits are choosing to watch TV content on their smartphone or tablet, according to UKOM-approved comScore data. In fact, 6.5m adults visited the BBC iPlayer app to watch video on either a smartphone or tablet, edging out Netflix which attracted 5.8m Getting the experience right on mobile, with the option to download content so it can be viewed in areas of low or no signal, is key.If UK ad-supported TV stations can crack these key areas for their Connected TV offering then they will be set up to succeed and offer a true home-grown alternative to the US streaming giants. Full article here. Contact us today
Tapad’s, part of Experian, SVP of Identity shows us how marketers might communicate seamlessly through emerging channels like voice, the smart home, and, yes, podcasts.In his relatively new role as senior vice president of identity at Tapad, a part of Experian, Ajit Thupil keeps a close eye on the evolution of marketing as it becomes more intent on using data and identity technology to track ROI. Here he sits with Chris Wood at Tapad’s New York offices to discuss the future of identity. (To capture the inventive atmosphere at this location, the room they chatted in was named after Leonardo da Vinci.) For Thupil, it all comes back to the customer, whether it’s a brand client or a consumer. Brands want measurability and customers demand a seamless experience across the many devices they use in a day. While consumers are understandably reticent about giving up personally identifiable information (PII), current identity solutions use anonymous data profiles to connect the dots at the individual or household level. Given the frequency that users switch devices, along with their tendency to share bigger screens like TVs, there’s no dearth of challenges for this “head of problem solving” to solve. Contact us today