Marketing budget allocation
Marketing Budget Allocation
What is marketing budget allocation?
- Set the total by working backward from goals, not industry ratios
- Marginal efficiency of the next unit, not average efficiency
- An experiment budget of about 10% and quarterly reallocation rules
Marketing budget allocation is not a matter of adding or subtracting a flat 5% to last year’s table. It is the judgment of working backward to the amount needed to hit the goal and dividing that money among channels of differing efficiency. Borrowing an industry-average ratio to set the total is convenient, but growth stage, contract value, and sales cycle differ from company to company, so it’s a weak basis. The starting point for allocation is not someone else’s ratio but your own goals and your own conversion numbers.
The logic of the judgment has three parts. The first is working backward from the goal: multiply the number of leads and sales opportunities needed by each channel’s unit cost to get the required amount. The second is marginal efficiency. Even for a channel with good average efficiency, the cost of each additional result rises as you add budget. The question to ask is not “which channel did best?” but “where will the next KRW 1 million (≈ US$750) get us the most?” The third is an experiment budget. Put most of the money in proven activities, but set aside roughly 10% of the total for testing new channels.
When building the table, it helps to split the budget into three blocks: fixed costs you can’t cut (tool subscriptions, site operations), spending on demand-generating activities, and an experiment budget. Then write down quarterly reallocation rules in advance. For example: if cost per lead exceeds 1.5 times the target for two quarters in a row, move half of that channel’s budget elsewhere. Activities whose results arrive late, such as brand awareness, need their own metric so they are not judged on short-term conversions.
Where practice goes wrong is money flowing to whatever is easy to measure. Growing only channels with instantly visible numbers, like search ads, looks efficient in the short term, but as the pool of people who know the brand dries up, cost per lead rises a year or two later. The opposite problem, repeating last year, is just as common: trade shows and sponsorships whose impact was never examined take the biggest line simply because “we’ve always done them.” Just asking of each item, “Would we approve this if we were applying for the first time this year?” changes the allocation.
John KimInstructor John Kim, author of B2B Marketing Design and CEO of Nanum Consulting
Euijung KimBrand strategist with 30 years in advertising, formerly a division head at Daehong CommunicationsThe concept grew out of corporate budgeting and media-planning practice; it is not a theory with a single founder. As performance measurement became possible for digital channels, shifting budget frequently based on channel-level efficiency became common.
Consider a hypothetical case. Company A sells equipment maintenance software to small and mid-sized manufacturers. It has 90 employees and an annual marketing budget of KRW 600 million (≈ US$448,900). Next year’s budget was frozen while the lead target rose 30%, and 45% of the budget had been tied up in the same two trade shows for three years.
- The marketing manager laid out last year’s spending by channel and calculated the cost per sales opportunity: KRW 850,000 (≈ US$635) for webinars, KRW 1.4 million (≈ US$1,050) for search ads, and KRW 4.1 million (≈ US$3,070) for trade shows.
- When the finance director said, "Then let’s just cut all the trade shows," the manager pulled up records showing that three major customers had started at trade shows, and kept one of the two.
- They didn’t put all of the KRW 130 million (≈ US$97,300) they pulled out into webinars. The pool of attendees is limited, so they judged that doubling the number of sessions would lower the leads per session and moved only KRW 70 million (≈ US$52,400).
- The remaining KRW 60 million (≈ US$44,900) was set aside as an experiment budget, split between an industry association newsletter ad and a customer case video. They added a condition: stop if the unit cost is more than 1.5 times the target at the end of the quarter.
- In the year-end tally, the same KRW 600 million (≈ US$448,900) produced more sales opportunities, up from 210 to 286. Of the two experiments, the newsletter ad was discontinued and the case video was promoted to a regular line item for next year.