Launch budget split across a channel mix with no baseline
A regional plant-hire firm is launching a same-day delivery service for landscapers. Budget is £180,000 for a 14-week campaign. The target is 2,200 new trade accounts, average first-year margin £140 per account. The agency proposes 55% paid search, 25% trade press, 15% social and 5% radio. The firm has 900 existing accounts, a customer email list of 4,100, and no historical campaign data. Paid search currently converts at 2.1% on the firm's website with an average cost per click of £2.40. Trade press costs £9,000 per insertion and the agency claims it will "build credibility". Radio reaches a broad consumer audience. The sales team of six cannot handle more than 300 inbound enquiries per week without service failure.
1. Critique the proposed channel mix against the campaign's commercial target. What would you change and why?
Read the worked answer
Start with the arithmetic of the target. 2,200 accounts at £140 margin = £308,000 contribution. Against £180,000 spend, the campaign needs a contribution-to-spend ratio above 1.7 to be viable on first-year margin alone - achievable, but only if cost per acquisition stays below roughly £82.
Now test the channels:
- Paid search at 55% (£99,000): at £2.40 CPC and 2.1% conversion, cost per lead is about £114. If lead-to-account conversion is 30%, cost per account is roughly £380 - far above the £82 ceiling. Search may still be justified for high-intent terms, but 55% is unsupportable on this evidence.
- Trade press at 25% (£45,000): five insertions at £9,000. Credibility has value in a trade market, but there is no measurement plan and no stated response mechanism. This is the weakest-justified line.
- Social at 15%: plausible for landscaper communities, but targeting trade buyers on consumer platforms needs proof.
- Radio at 5%: reaches consumers, not landscapers. It is off-target and should be cut.
Changes I would make:
- Reallocate radio's budget to the owned email list (4,100 contacts, near-zero cost) and to trade-press insertions with unique response codes.
- Cap search until cost per account is proven, then scale what works.
- Sequence the launch: existing accounts first (cheapest wins), then acquisition.
- Build a measurement frame - unique landing pages, coded phone lines, weekly CPA by channel - because there is no baseline.
With no historical data, the mix should be set as a test-and-learn portfolio, not a fixed 55/25/15/5 split.
2. The sales team can absorb only 300 enquiries a week. How should this constraint shape the campaign plan?
Read the worked answer
This is a capacity constraint that should drive the media plan, not a footnote. Over 14 weeks, 300 enquiries per week is 4,200 total. If the campaign generates more, the firm pays for leads it cannot convert, and service failure damages the trade reputation it is trying to build.
Implications:
- Set an enquiry ceiling per week and throttle spend to stay under it. Paid search can be paused or budget-capped daily; trade press and radio cannot. That argues for front-loading controllable channels and using press insertions sparingly.
- Prioritise quality over volume. If 4,200 enquiries convert at 30%, that is 1,260 accounts - below the 2,200 target. So either conversion must rise or the target is unrealistic. I would test this before committing budget: the target may be arithmetically impossible within the capacity constraint.
- Route existing accounts and email list first, since these generate warmer, higher-converting enquiries that consume less sales time.
- Add self-service qualification - an online account-opening form, credit check and price list - so low-intent enquiries do not consume sales capacity.
- Stagger the launch by region so enquiry flow is spread and the team is not overwhelmed in week one.
I would present the board with a clear trade-off: the 2,200 target and the 300-per-week ceiling are in tension. Either extend the campaign, hire temporary sales support, or reset the target. Committing £180,000 against an unachievable target is the real risk.