The Five Levels of Understanding Brand and Performance Marketing

Ritson's Bothism on the future of marketing

Introduction

Marketing has long been divided into two distinct camps: brand-building and performance marketing. Traditionally, brand marketing was associated with long-term growth, fostering emotional connections, and creating memory structures that prime consumers to choose a brand in the future. Performance marketing, in contrast, has been positioned as the short-term driver of immediate sales, using data-driven, targeted campaigns to convert existing demand into transactions.

These two approaches have been treated as separate disciplines for years, often in conflict. Structural realities reinforced this division—brand-building was usually the domain of traditional creative agencies and mass media. At the same time, performance marketing emerged as the realm of digital specialists, search engine marketers, and direct response advertisers. However, recent studies, including WARC’s Multiplier Effect and Les Binet & Peter Field’s foundational research in The Long and the Short of It, reveal that brand and performance marketing are not opposing forces but rather interdependent elements of a truly effective strategy.

Despite the growing evidence supporting this integrated approach, many marketers still struggle to balance these two elements. Mark Ritson has described five levels of understanding for brand and performance marketing, a journey that most marketers are still navigating. This article explores these five levels, demonstrating why trying to do both in a single campaign often fails, how finding the right balance leads to sustainable growth, and why brand-building ultimately fuels performance effectiveness over time.

Level One: The Fundamental Differences Between Brand and Performance Marketing

The first step in developing a mature understanding of brand and performance marketing is recognizing that these two disciplines serve different roles, require different execution strategies, and operate on different timescales.

Brand marketing is about building mental availability, ensuring consumers are predisposed to choose a particular brand when a purchase opportunity arises. This requires emotional storytelling, cultural associations, and broad-reach media such as TV, outdoor advertising, and sponsorships. On the other hand, performance marketing focuses on capturing existing demand and converting it into an immediate sale. It is highly targeted, data-driven, and often executed through digital channels such as paid search, social media ads, and promotions.

Binet and Field’s research introduced the 60:40 rule, which suggests that optimal marketing effectiveness comes from allocating 60% of the budget to brand-building and 40% to activation. This guideline was based on an extensive analysis of successful campaigns, demonstrating that long-term investment in brand-building creates sustained demand. At the same time, short-term activation efforts convert that demand into revenue.

However, their recent work in Effectiveness in Context highlights that this balance is not fixed. The ideal split varies significantly based on industry, category, and business model. For example, in financial services, where consumers make infrequent and high-trust purchases, more significant investment in brand-building is required, often closer to 70:30. In e-commerce, where impulse-driven decisions are more common, a 50:50 balance may be more appropriate.

Despite these clear distinctions, many marketers—especially those under pressure to demonstrate immediate results—focus heavily on short-term sales activation at the expense of brand-building. This prioritization of immediate gains over sustainable growth is the defining characteristic of short-termism. This trend has made many businesses overly reliant on discounting, promotions, and aggressive retargeting to drive sales.

The problem with this approach is that performance marketing alone does not build long-term brand equity. It captures demand rather than creating it, meaning that sales quickly decline once advertising spending is reduced. This is why businesses that over-index on performance marketing often struggle with long-term profitability and pricing power.

Level Two: The Power of “AND” – Not Versus

The second level of understanding is accepting that brand and performance marketing are not competing approaches but complementary. The most important word in The Long and the Short of It is "AND." It is not a choice between brand-building or sales activation—it is about orchestrating both effectively.

WARC’s Multiplier Effect report reinforces this idea, showing that performance marketing is significantly more effective when paired with substantial brand investment. This is because consumers are likelier to click, convert, and complete purchases when they already know and trust the brand.

Nike provides a textbook example of this dual approach. For decades, Nike has invested heavily in brand-building efforts—from the iconic “Just Do It” campaigns to major athlete sponsorships and emotional storytelling that reinforces the brand’s association with elite performance. However, Nike also executes highly sophisticated performance marketing through digital channels, retargeting potential customers with personalized offers and using paid search to capture high-intent purchase queries. Because of its substantial brand equity, Nike’s performance campaigns consistently achieve higher conversion rates, lower acquisition costs, and increased customer lifetime value.

This insight extends beyond consumer brands. In B2B marketing, research consistently shows that companies that invest in long-term brand-building campaigns benefit from greater trust, consideration, and pricing power. Salesforce, for instance, is widely known for its corporate storytelling and thought leadership content, reinforcing its credibility in cloud computing. At the same time, the company runs aggressive performance-driven campaigns that capture demand through targeted advertising and direct outreach.

For marketers at this level, the key realization is that performance marketing works best when the brand is already strong. Performance-driven brands that fail to invest in brand-building eventually experience diminishing returns as they struggle with rising customer acquisition costs and declining organic demand.

Level Three: Why Trying to Do Both in One Ad Doesn’t Work

At this stage, marketers recognize that while brand and performance marketing must work together, they should not be forced into the same execution.

Mark Ritson illustrates this with a humorous anecdote about painting his kitchen island. His wife wanted green; he wanted pink. Their daughter, tired of the debate, mixed both colors—resulting in an unappealing shade of brown. This is a perfect analogy for what happens when marketers attempt to blend brand-building and performance messaging within a single ad—the result is often weaker than the sum of its parts.

Research from Effectiveness in Context supports this argument, showing that campaigns that attempt to combine brand-building and activation messaging in one execution consistently underperform. This is because brand-building requires emotional storytelling and broad appeal, while performance marketing demands direct, rational messaging with clear calls to action.

A common mistake is running TV ads attempting to tell an emotional brand story while pushing a limited-time offer. These executions often feel disjointed and fail to achieve either objective effectively. Instead, the most successful brands create distinct campaigns for brand-building and sales activation, ensuring that each execution is optimized for its specific role.

Level Four: Finding the Right Balance

Once marketers accept that brand and performance marketing must be executed separately, the next challenge is determining the right balance. The 60:40 rule provides a valuable benchmark, but as Effectiveness in Context illustrates, the ideal mix varies depending on the category, competitive landscape, and business model.

Industries with longer purchase cycles and higher trust requirements—such as insurance, automotive, and financial services—typically require better brand investment. Conversely, impulse-driven categories like fast food and online retail benefit from a higher proportion of activation spending.

The challenge for marketers is allocating the budget correctly and ensuring that brand and performance efforts are strategically aligned. When done effectively, brand-building efforts create sustained demand, while performance marketing efficiently captures and converts that demand.

Level Five: Brand Drives Performance, But Not Vice Versa

The final realization is that strong brands drive short-term and long-term results, but performance marketing alone does not build brand equity.

Binet and Field’s research consistently shows that campaigns focused on brand-building lead to long-term growth and improve short-term performance. Brands that invest in emotional storytelling experience higher click-through rates, stronger organic demand, and reduced reliance on discounting.

For marketers at this level, the lesson is clear: brand-building is not optional; it is the foundation of sustainable growth.

Conclusion: The Real Takeaway for Marketers

The ongoing debate between brand-building and performance marketing is ultimately unnecessary. Both are essential, but they must be executed separately and strategically balanced. Mark Ritson's five levels of understanding highlight the journey marketers take to realize this fundamental truth.

At the most basic level, marketers recognize that brand and performance marketing serve different purposes. Brand-building creates emotional connections and long-term demand, while performance marketing captures and converts that demand in the short term. As marketers advance in their understanding, they realize that brand and performance marketing are not opposing forces but complementary elements of a well-structured strategy.

However, combining both objectives in a single execution typically weakens both. The best-performing campaigns separate brand-building from activation, ensuring each is optimized for its intended purpose. Finding the right balance is crucial, and while the 60:40 rule is a helpful starting point, it should be adjusted based on industry, brand maturity, and market dynamics.

The final level of understanding is recognizing that strong brands drive long-term growth and short-term effectiveness. Performance marketing alone is insufficient—without consistent investment in brand-building, customer acquisition costs rise, price sensitivity increases, and long-term differentiation weakens.

The evidence from WARC, Binet & Field, and industry leaders is clear: prioritizing brand-building enhances performance marketing results while neglecting brand investment leads to diminishing returns over time. The most successful marketers embrace Bothism, balancing the long and the short to build enduring brands that capture and create demand.