Book a call

Daniel & Friends / Blog / Marketing science

Binet and Field: the 60/40 rule that outlived its critics

Few pieces of marketing science have aged this well. The Long and the Short of It came out in 2013; since then some have buried it and others turned it into a mantra. The truth is more interesting than either position.

Daniel Votruba · 6 July 2026 · 4 min read

What Binet and Field actually found

Les Binet and Peter Field went through hundreds of case studies from the UK IPA databank, meaning campaigns with documented business results rather than vanity metrics. Through that lens they saw two distinct mechanisms. Sales activation works fast and precisely: it reaches people ready to buy and produces a response that is easy to measure and fades within weeks. Brand building works slowly and broadly: it creates emotional associations and memory structures that lift the base level of demand, reduce price sensitivity and compound over time.

The most effective campaigns did both. And the optimal split in the data came out around 60% brand, 40% activation. Hence the rule, which the authors themselves always presented as an empirical average optimum, not a law of nature.

Why short-term optimisation cannibalises the future

Activation has one insidious quality: it looks superb in a report. Last click, attribution, immediate ROAS. Everything argues for it. But performance channels mostly harvest demand that something else created. When a company under quarterly pressure escalates spend into activation and cuts brand, the numbers look good at first. Then cost per conversion starts rising, branded search stalls, and dependence on discounting arrives. You are harvesting a field nobody is sowing any more.

The data confirms this mechanism a decade later too. The UK study Profit Ability 2 (Thinkbox with Ebiquity, EssenceMediacom, Gain Theory, Mindshare and Wavemaker, 2024) ran an econometric meta-analysis of 141 brands and 1.8 billion pounds of media investment: short-term return on advertising averaged 1.87 pounds per pound, but 4.11 pounds once sustained effects were counted. In other words, close to 60% of the profit from advertising arrives after the first few weeks. Measure only immediate response and you systematically undervalue advertising by roughly half.

Critics and revisions: what changed since 2013

The loudest critic is Byron Sharp of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, for whom the brand/activation dichotomy is artificial. All advertising, he argues, builds and refreshes memory structures, and what matters is continuous reach of the category. It is a legitimate objection to a dogmatic reading. It does not overturn the core finding, though: campaigns optimised purely for immediate response lose over the long run.

The authors themselves refined the ratio over time. Effectiveness in Context (IPA, 2018) showed the optimum moves with category, brand size and purchase frequency. And an analysis with the LinkedIn B2B Institute (2019) landed on roughly 46:54 for B2B markets, slightly favouring activation. Longer buying cycles and tighter targeting give activation more room. Even there, brands that squeeze brand below a critical level lose the ability to grow.

How to set the ratio for yourself

  • Start at 60/40 and adjust. A small brand in an established category needs more brand; a large brand with high penetration can activate more.
  • B2B and long cycles: work in the 45 to 55% band for brand, not zero. Remember the 95:5 rule: the vast majority of the market is not buying right now.
  • Measure with both sets of metrics. Activation through conversions, brand through branded search, share of search, price elasticity and econometrics. One attribution window is not enough.
  • Change the ratio gradually, by 5 to 10 percentage points a year, with evaluation. Flipping the budget in one step is a gamble, not a strategy.

The 60/40 rule outlived its critics because it was never about the numbers. It is about the fact that demand has to be created before it can be harvested. If you want the ratio set on your own data, this is how we do it, or just write to us.

Key takeaways (TL;DR)

  • Brand building and sales activation are two distinct mechanisms. Brand slowly accumulates demand and lowers price sensitivity; activation harvests it fast and then fades.
  • The empirical optimum from the IPA databank came out around 60% brand and 40% activation; for B2B the authors moved it to roughly 46:54, but never squeeze brand to zero.
  • Profit Ability 2 (2024, 141 brands): close to 60% of advertising profit arrives after the first few weeks. Measure only immediate response and you undervalue advertising by about half.
  • Start at 60/40, adjust for category and brand size, shift the ratio gradually by 5 to 10 points a year, and measure brand through share of search and econometrics, not last click.

FAQ

What does the 60/40 rule say?

Analysing hundreds of campaigns from the IPA databank (The Long and the Short of It, 2013), Binet and Field found the most effective brands invest roughly 60% of budget in long-term brand building and 40% in sales activation. Brand creates future demand; activation harvests it.

Does 60/40 apply to B2B and e-commerce?

As a starting point yes, as dogma no. The LinkedIn B2B Institute with Binet and Field (2019) arrived at roughly 46:54 in favour of activation for B2B. The ratio shifts with category, brand size and purchase frequency, but squeezing brand to zero never paid off anywhere.

How do I know I have tipped too far into activation?

Rising cost per conversion, dependence on discounts, stalling branded search and falling direct traffic. Performance channels harvest an ever smaller crop because nobody is sowing. The fix: raise brand investment gradually and measure over a longer window than last click.

Sources: Les Binet & Peter Field, The Long and the Short of It (IPA, 2013) and Effectiveness in Context (IPA, 2018) · Thinkbox et al., Profit Ability 2: The New Business Case for Advertising (2024) · LinkedIn B2B Institute, The 5 Principles of Growth in B2B Marketing (2019) · Ehrenberg-Bass Institute (B. Sharp's critique).