‘The data is telling you something; stop ignoring it'
Let's be real: every marketing channel is following the law of diminishing returns – we know it but won't talk about it.
Above-the-line (ATL) advertising doesn't move organic traffic, as such. Rather, it creates a mirage of sorts because your digital guys are scaling paid to support the brand campaigns to get you non-repeatable visitors. Unless there is a significant change in product features or user experience, you are likely to get nanoseconds of attention from new users.
Influencer marketing has become more about taking a hero, getting a spike in engagement and zero conversions. Die a villain with micro creators featuring data sleuths for code tracking, validations, return windows, fake followers, affiliate frauds and micromanagement.
SEO takes forever. Google's shifting goalposts with constant algorithm updates are disappointing. AI-generated content is everywhere now – helpful, but risky if you're not careful. Competition is wild. So, quality content, strong user experience (UX), and legit backlinks are table stakes – among listicles, Reddit threads, and maybe AI one-boxes that'll wipe your traffic next year anyway. Core web vitals? Mobile-first? Non-negotiable. Lastly, if you're not tracking performance religiously, you're flying blind. SEO is a grind, and it's only getting more complex – adapt or get buried.
CRM and first-party marketing
First-party data validation? Check. Sanitising more than 90-day inactive customers? Also, check. But wait; what if existing customers are not responding to five promos in a row? Boom, Gmail throws you straight into the spam folder.
WhatsApp? Crazy expensive on a cost per thousand impressions (CPM) basis. Performance ads are cheaper, hands down. Building a high-quality first-party (1P) data pipeline is a grind – and no, less than 30 per cent open rates and less than 1 per cent clickthrough rates (CTRs) aren't going to cut it. Measurement? Don't even get me started. Last-click makes zero sense here. People check emails in the morning, ignore them, then see your ad mid-lunch, recall the email, and click that. Ever thought about looking at CRM through the lens of first-click attribution or click-assist ratios in Google Analytics (GA)? You should.
Affiliate marketing? Fraud is everywhere. It's still cannibalising your paid marketing as much as 35 per cent – only disguised. And most people won't care enough to share anyway.
Social media marketing
Somewhere out there, someone's entire job is to make sure that just when you've cracked the latest reel algorithm, it gets nerfed – all in the name of 'a brand handle isn't the same as a creator's handle'.
So, you boost the post, get a tiny lift and a few hours later, it's gone. Rinse, repeat and welcome to the never-ending hunt for the next algorithm hack. The wheel of time continues, and so does the misery of budget allocation. Every channel is now mature. We're living in the post-hype phase of a long-tech cycle. When a marketing strategy works, everyone jumps on it. Then it stops working. Customers tune out. Prices go up. ROI nosedives. It's just supply and demand.
This is the funnel we learnt over the last two decades (Refer to graphic 1 below).
If you are a startup, you can't play the sacred games. Look at the shift. (Refer to graphic 2 below)
What next? Gen AI at scale is your weapon
Customers are numb to the same polished, corporate-sounding noise from big brands. You? You get to show up weird, fresh and unfiltered – and that flash of novelty actually matters.
Tools today make it extremely easy: spin up avatar-led TikTok videos with Symphony, drop your product catalogue into GPT prompts, get that 'too cool to care' vibe using Midjourney or Leonardo, upscale it to look pro with Magnific, toss it into Runway or Videoleap and – boom – you get 100 videos in 100 minutes.
No agency. No brief. Just vibes, speed and attention. Lastly, get your own tracks on suno.ai. No intellectual property (IP) infringements and no Gen Z bashing.
Avoiding the classic 'spray and pray' trap
Balance your budget. On the left of Graphic 3, we've got your typical channel breakdown. Performance Max (PMAX) and Advantage+ (ADV+) are eating up 70 per cent of your budget. But look at their funnel position: lower funnel (LF); their signal strength: poor to very poor; and what you're getting in return: low return on ad spend (ROAS), high cost per order (CPO).
Now peek at the 3D plot. We're mapping three key dimensions here:
– X-axis: Time
– Y-axis: Business profitability or ROAS
– Z-axis: Funnel position.
What this shows is pretty simple: if you're overly reliant on low-funnel, short-term tactics (hello, red dots), you might be profitable right now, but you're likely stuck in a crowded, expensive part of the map. You're not building for the long term. The sweet spot? It's where time, funnel diversification and profitability meet – that nice cluster in the middle. That's where the green squares (combined focus) live. Top of the funnel (TF) or mid funnel (MF) channels such as search or shopping and Reels or Stories have controllable signals. Even though they get less budget love, they punch above their weight over time.
TL;DR: don't dump your budget into black-box lower-funnel automation just because it looks efficient today. Spread it out. Mix short-term wins with long-term bets. Invest in channels where you control the levers – and plot your way to sustainable ROI instead of short-lived spikes. The data's telling you something. Stop ignoring it. Finally, yes, your product actually has to be good. Even the best marketing won't save you if your product leaks users. Think of marketing as a multiplier. Multiply zero, and you still get zero. But if your product is strong, a little bit of smart, scrappy marketing can go a long way. In summary, most marketing is awful, but that's just a sign that we need to get creative again. New products need new tactics. Stop copying the incumbents. Big channels are for big companies. You need to be faster, weirder and scrappier.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Web Release
a day ago
- Web Release
M2M: The NEW Search Mantra
Marketers have spent the past decade obsessing over Google rankings and social algorithms, and yes, those things have been important in how brands tell their story, find customers, and build loyalty. Here is the gamechanger. You are not just marketing to humans anymore. For the entirety of your lifetime, you have only seen people sell to humans (B2C) or to businesses run by humans (B2B). Artificial Intelligence is creating new rules of marketing. AI is not a passing tsunami. It is a permanent tectonic shift in the way we do business. AI is the new front door to your business for millions of consumers. Google's recently rolled out two new features that are changing how search works: AI Mode and AI Overviews. AI Overviews are those AI-generated summaries that appear at the top of search results. About 30% of searches now trigger these, and they're particularly common for longer questions. Instead of clicking through to websites, people are getting their answers directly from Google. AI Mode is even more dramatic – it's a separate tab that turns search into a conversation. Instead of the usual list of blue links, you get a ChatGPT-style interface that can handle complex questions and follow-ups. You either get mentioned in the AI response, or you're invisible. According to Sharad Agarwal, CEO of Cyber Gear, 'You're not just competing for attention; you're competing for algorithmic favor. Your content needs to be optimized for engagement metrics that train prediction engines, not just humans.' AI platforms and AI agents, the digital assistants that browse and actually do things powered by models like GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.5 Pro are increasingly becoming the gatekeepers between your business and potential customers. AI agents are helping consumers all over the world find and interact with brands in new ways. AI agents don't have eyeballs and brains and hearts. They have parsers and models and system prompts. When an AI agent visits your site, it needs information. It's looking for clean, accessible, structured data it can easily digest and present back to users. It's looking for clear, organized content that they can gobble up and synthesize back to that human user. The visual bells and whistles will be completely wasted on an AI. These agents scrape, summarize, and synthesize the web to guide users to decisions. If your product information, docs, and CTAs aren't structured, visible, and machine-readable, you'll get leapfrogged by a competitor that is. Become AI-visible. Now. Contact Cyber Gear at to be found!
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Germany plans to tax Google, Facebook
Germany's Culture Ministry is planning to bring a law to tax the American online giants like Alphabet of Google and Meta of Facebook. The rate of taxation is to be 10 per cent. The grounds on which taxation is to be imposed are interesting and even new. German Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer told the magazine, Stern, 'These corporations do billions in business in Germany with extremely high profit margins and benefit enormously from the country's media and cultural output as well as its infrastructure – but they pay hardly any taxes, invest too little, and give far too little back to the country.' There is more than an element of truth in Weimer's statement. Google and Facebook thrive much from the media content that populates their platforms, which is one of the reasons that millions of Net users throng them, to get the news in a jiffy as it were. Both Google and Facebook do not create an iota of their own content. They thrive on what they take from others, either directly or through their own users. Australia overcame the problem by giving in to the demand of newspapers and other old media, that Google should pay them for using their content. Weimer is stating the fact that the online platforms are using cultural output of the country – whether it be music, films, art – and they do not do anything to sustain the cultural events. Similarly, the Internet penetration in the country and the infrastructure that sustains it is what enables millions of Germans to use Google and Facebook, and it is on the large number of users that these online companies earn their revenues. It is but reasonable that the online companies should be made to pay taxes of some kind. Weimer has even suggested voluntary contribution on the part of Google and Facebook. But this may be impracticable. No company will be willing to make voluntary contribution in lieu of taxes. The American online platforms have an advantage over national players because they have worldwide footprint because of the investments they made in the search engines reaching the ends of the globe as it were. They are indeed reaping benefits from it. But do they have an obligation to the regions and countries in which they operate? Google and Facebook can argue that they have built the cyber bridges to connect the different places, and they are allowing a free use of it. The owners of these platforms would not let these sites remain free if they were not earning enough revenue in billions of dollars. If they did not make money, they would have imposed some user-charges from the thousands of millions who use them around the globe. They can say that they have boosted other businesses through the space they have opened up for other businesses. These arguments do not however discredit the demand for tax payments from national governments. That these online payers use national airwaves is a fact. It can be argued that it is the telecom companies in these countries which have the right to charge these companies. But the search engines with enormous Cloud or memory power which sustain these platforms do cost enough money, but the revenue generated by advertisers outstrips the investment and costs of maintenance. National governments have a legitimate right to demand tax from the online platforms because they operate within the sovereign territory of a country. Facebook and the Google do not have the solidity of an iPhone, but they are at the same time cyber-products. They can be treated as taxable products or services. The rate of taxation should remain flexible enough so that the thriving business of connecting people is not affected or dampened.
The National
2 days ago
- The National
Google antitrust case: AI takes centre stage in closing arguments
During closing arguments in the penalty portion of the Google antitrust trial on Friday, the judge asked a question about the fast-moving tech world that will likely give pause to legal and business experts. Federal Judge Amit Mehta, who last year found Alphabet-owned Google liable for maintaining a monopoly and exploiting its search sector dominance, wanted to know how search will evolve as he decides the "remedies", or punishment, for Google. 'Does the government believe there's a market for a new search engine to emerge as we think of it today, even with the remedies in place?' he said, interrupting Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer David Dahlquist's closing arguments. Mr Mehta was referring to artificial intelligence. He implied that as he decides how to correct Google's monopoly, he needs to consider how quickly the tech landscape is shifting. The DOJ's antitrust case against Google is testing the limits of capitalism, profit and competition. It comes as artificial intelligence threatens to upend the internet search business models that allowed Google to dominate for decades. Almost all witnesses who spoke at the remedy portion of the trial seemed to acknowledge the speed of change in the tech world. The potency, promise and problems of AI in the context of existing business models surfaced several weeks ago when Apple executive Eddy Cue made comments from the witness box that briefly sent Google's stock careening. Mr Cue was responding to a question about user habits and the effect that AI is starting to have on search engine companies like Google. Eventually, his comments segued into a reflection of how technology businesses often struggle to adjust. 'People still are going to need toothpaste 20 years from now, 40 years from now. You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now. As crazy as that sounds,' Mr Cue, the senior vice president of services at Apple, told a lawyer representing Alphabet, owner of Google. 'You have to earn it. You have to develop,' he added, explaining that Apple's metrics showed that for the first time ever, overall searches done through Google seemed to have made a slight dip. Those comments reverberated throughout tech and legal communities, with some wondering if a remedy sought by the DOJ might be rendered moot by AI. How people search is changing, as AI swallows up website content and siphons off traffic. Mr Mehta last month sided with the DOJ and ruled that Google's search dominance harmed consumers with less choice. The Justice Department wants Mr Mehta to enact far-reaching penalties that would serve as a warning at other companies. In court on Friday, Mr Dahlquist, the government lawyer, reiterated the DOJ's desire that Google be prohibited from entering into default search agreements with hardware and device makers. He also pushed for strong requirements for Google to share search data and analytics with competitors, Perhaps most consequentially, he said Mr Mehta should require that Google divest Chrome, one of the world's most popular web browsers. 'We're here to make sure this cause and the remedies we propose are able to pry open the competition of this market,' Mr Dahlquist argued. 'We understood the assignment, but rather than provide this court with remedies to promote competition, Google provided milquetoast remedies that maintain status quo,' he continued, adding that Google was acting in bad faith to try to maintain its monopoly. 'Despite Google's efforts to avoid facts, those facts, as they've discovered, are stubborn things,' he added, taking a shot at the one of the world's most powerful tech companies and its phalanx of lawyers, sitting nearby. Google's lawyer, John Schmidtlein, didn't mince words in his response. 'Look at how incredibly invasive and broad they are,' he said, referring to the DOJ's remedies that Google believes 'lack causal connection' to its original motives for bringing the company to court. 'What's the amount of data that a company might need to be able to compete?' he rhetorically asked, criticising one of the DOJ's proposed remedies that Google share search data with potential competitors. Mr Mehta pushed back, saying that ample witnesses told the court that data would help increase their ability to compete, adding that it would be a 'difficult exercise' to try to address Google's criticism of the search data remedy proposal. He also asked the DOJ if AI platforms ChatGPT or Perplexity might be eligible to receive data. 'Not today, but it could eventually,' a DOJ lawyer responded. 'They eventually plan to compete with search companies and search indexes.' Just before the court broke for lunch on Friday, a senior Justice Department official told reporters that the DOJ was pleased with how the process was unfolding, even amid all the scrutiny from Google. 'Look this is a market that's been frozen in place for the better part of two decades," the official said. 'It's going to take a long time to restore competition in the search market.' That senior official also spoke to how the DOJ was trying to factor in fast-changing tech developments going forward as well as the current industry landscape. 'We don't know in the year 2035 what that's going to look like, the judge doesn't know and frankly not even Google knows,' the official explained, pivoting to issue of search data. 'So the game is, how, from a remedial standpoint how do we ensure effective remedies and that's very much about access to search data today and going forward.' Google's own proposed remedies are far lighter than those sought by the DOJ, including a solution that would give users the ability to change their default search provider at least every 12 months. The tech giant has also sought to maintain its ability to have contracts with device manufacturers. 'Browser companies like Apple and Mozilla should continue to have the freedom to do deals with whatever search engine they think is best for their users,' Google said. In late April, Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai made similar arguments to the court, calling proposed remedies 'too broad', and suggesting that fast-pace AI developments would blunt the DOJ's proposals. 'It would be trivial to reverse engineer and effectively build Google search from the outside,' Mr Pichai added. Closing arguments were expected to last throughout the day before Mr Mehta deliberates on a potential remedy.
