Most marketing that small businesses run is direct response. You put an ad in front of someone who is already looking for what you sell, they click, they buy, you measure it. Google Search is the purest version of this. Someone types "buy a mattress online", your ad appears, they visit your site. The feedback loop is tight and the measurement is easy.
Brand marketing works completely differently. You're not talking to people who are ready to buy. You're talking to people who might buy one day — building familiarity, preference, and trust over time so that when they do enter the market, they think of you first. The effects are real and well-documented, but they compound slowly and they're hard to measure directly.
The Binet & Field framework
The most rigorous thinking on this comes from Les Binet and Peter Field, whose research for the IPA has shaped how serious marketers think about budget allocation for over a decade. Their central finding: brand building and sales activation work over completely different timescales, and you need both.
Adapted from Les Binet & Peter Field, Media in Focus: Marketing Effectiveness in the Digital Era, IPA (Figure 02)
Sales activation — search ads, promotions, offers — creates sharp spikes in sales that decay quickly when you stop spending. Brand building creates a rising baseline over time. Each burst of brand activity lifts the floor a little higher. The spikes from your activation campaigns start from a higher base. Over two or three years, the compounding effect is significant.
Binet and Field's recommended split is roughly 60% brand, 40% activation for most categories — though this varies considerably by market and business maturity.
The problem for most small businesses
Here's the catch. Brand marketing at the scale required to actually move the needle is expensive. Television, national press, large-scale digital reach campaigns — these require budgets that most SMEs simply don't have. And even if you could afford a burst, measuring whether it worked is genuinely difficult. You can't easily isolate brand effects from everything else happening in your business.
The result is that most small businesses end up doing 100% direct response, 0% brand. They live entirely in the short-term spike, with no rising baseline beneath them. Every time they pause their search campaigns, sales drop back to zero. There's no compounding. No floor being built.
Most small businesses live entirely in the short-term spike. No brand baseline. No compounding. Every time they stop spending, they're back to zero.
We think this is a problem worth trying to solve.
The micro-location idea
The insight we wanted to test: what if you could do brand marketing at a small enough geographic scale that it becomes both affordable and measurable?
If you pick a single postcode area — somewhere where you have low market share and a clear baseline of orders — and run a burst of brand-style video activity in just that area, you should be able to keep the budget realistic, measure order uplift from that postcode against your historical baseline, and compare it to postcodes where you ran nothing.
It's a scaled-down version of the regional TV tests that large brands have used for decades. The question was whether it could work at YouTube scale, with a modest budget, for an SME.
Test one: the results
We ran the first test with an anonymised client in the home furnishings sector. We selected a postcode area where the client had low market share — giving us room to see movement — and ran a burst of YouTube activity targeting that geography only.
At an average order value of £253, the estimated revenue impact was £13,384 against a spend of £3,213 — an ROI of 4.16.
Confidence caveat
Statistical analysis put confidence at 28.3% — meaning there is a 71.7% chance this uplift could have occurred without the campaign. We are not claiming this as proof. We are claiming it as a signal worth investigating further. The direction is right, the methodology is sound, and the ROI — if real — is strong. We'll keep testing until the confidence level earns the conclusion.
What we observed and what comes next
A few things worth noting from the test. There is evidence that creative gets exhausted quickly in a small geographic area — the same people see the same ad repeatedly, and effectiveness drops off. This points toward a bursting strategy: short, sharp periods of activity followed by a rest period, rather than continuous low-level spend. Which, fittingly, is exactly what Binet and Field recommend for brand campaigns.
We are currently preparing Tests 2 and 3 in two further postcode areas. Each test refines the methodology, improves the statistical rigour, and adds to the evidence base. We will publish the results here as they come in.
Why we're doing this
We only run campaigns we can measure. If the numbers don't support continuing, we stop and we tell the client why. That's the commitment behind all of this work — and why we publish the confidence level alongside the ROI, not just the headline number.
But we also think there's a genuine gap in the market for small businesses who want to build a brand, not just chase clicks. If the micro-location approach can be made to work reliably — and we think it can — it would give SMEs access to something that's previously been the preserve of businesses ten times their size.
We'll keep sharing the data as we get it.
Interested in testing this for your business?
We're running a small number of micro-location brand tests with clients. If you'd like to understand whether this could work for your market, get in touch.
Get in touch →