What dashboards don't see

When everything is green... but something is wrong

Dashboards have never been so sophisticated: controlled CPA, stable ROAS, optimised conversion rates. In many organisations, 80 to 90% of marketing decisions are now based on these indicators. On paper, everything looks fine. Yet many CMOs and marketing departments are beginning to feel a vague sense of unease: performance is holding steady, but it is becoming increasingly expensive.

It is not a sudden drop in results. It is not a visible decline. It is a gradual erosion. A few weak signals, often observed in parallel:

• a CPA increase of +15% to +30% on a like-for-like basis,

• campaigns that require more media pressure to achieve the same results,

• a decline in advertising recall rates,

• a brand preference that is stagnating or declining despite constant investment

This is not a performance crisis. It is a deterioration in marginal efficiency.

Indicators show what is happening, not what is being lost

A dashboard is an indispensable tool. It allows you to manage, compare and arbitrate. But it has one major structural limitation:

👉 it only measures what is already observable and actionable in the short term.

However, what weakens brands today often lies upstream of the click — and therefore off the radar. Studies converge on several points:

• Over 60% of consumers say they are tired of repetitive advertising.

• Nearly 1 in 2 consumers say they no longer trust brand messages without external proof.

• advertising recall has declined by 20 to 30 per cent over the past ten years in many sectors,

• The share of investments devoted to the bottom of the funnel now exceeds 70% for some brands... while long-term growth is slowing down.

These phenomena do not trigger any alerts in a dashboard. Doubt is not displayed. Distrust is not segmented. Loss of desirability is not optimised in real time.

And yet, these signs are accumulating.

The paradox: everything is measured, except the essential

The paradox is there, right before the eyes of many marketing teams.

In the short term, everything seems to be working

Les dashboards sont rassurants :

• the indicators remain green,

• the campaigns deliver on their objectives,

• budgetary decisions are justified by clear figures.

A marketing director may legitimately say, ‘The results are there. Let's keep going.’ And he is right.

According to Nielsen, over 70% of media optimisation decisions are now made based on short-term performance indicators (CPA, ROAS, direct conversions).

In this area, the figures are often good. And yet.

In the short term: the machine is running

Let us take a simple example.

An e-commerce brand strengthens its activation measures (retargeting, paid search, social ads). The results are clear:

• CPA is under control (stable or slightly decreasing)

• ROAS is increasing slightly, in line with targets

• Volumes are on track.

On the dashboard, everything is green. The campaign is renewed. Then amplified. But what the dashboard doesn't show is where these sales are actually coming from:

• mainly customers who are already convinced,

• often exposed to the same message several times,

• in a context of increasing advertising pressure.

The performance is real. But it is based on exploiting existing trust, not on creating it.

In the medium term: performance becomes more costly

A few months later, the signals begin to change. Nothing spectacular. Nothing alarming. But:

• The CPA increases by 15 to 20 per cent,

• targets must be broadened to maintain volumes,

• messages become more promotional, more insistent, more repetitive.

Creative teams are adapting. Media teams are compensating by working harder. Dashboards remain usable... but less convenient. In meetings, one phrase comes up often: ‘The market is more difficult.’ This is partially true.

Consumers are less recognisable of the brand: they compare more and hesitate longer. This shift is not clearly reflected in the figures. However, it automatically translates into a decline in marginal efficiency.

IPA/Les Binet & Peter Field studies show that brands that overinvest in the short term :

• see their acquisition costs increase by 15 to 30% in the medium term,

• must intensify media pressure to maintain the same volumes,

• and suffer a gradual decline in their differentiation indicators.

At the same time, Kantar BrandZ observes that brands whose differentiation is stagnating or declining are seeing their pricing power diminish, even when brand awareness remains high.

In practice, this means:

• more promotional messages,

• increased creative repetition,

• growing difficulty in standing out without overdoing it.

None of this appears as a clear warning in the dashboards. But overall efficiency is becoming more fragile. What is happening above all is that differentiation is eroding.

In the long term: the brand becomes interchangeable

Over a longer period, the phenomenon becomes established. The brand:

• Always sell,

• always communicate,

• always invest.

But it sells best when it's pushing. As soon as the media pressure drops:

• volumes plummet,

• preference does not take over,

• the brand disappears from consumers' mental radar.

At this stage, the brand has become:

• highly dependent on activation,

• vulnerable to budgetary trade-offs,

• easily replaceable by a more aggressive or better positioned competitor.

In a management committee, it becomes an adjustable cost line. Not because it is inefficient, but because it no longer creates sufficient autonomous value.

The IPA's work shows that:

• Brands that are primarily focused on the short term generate immediate sales,

• but create up to 50% less value over a period of several years compared to those that invest in brand building.

For his part, Nielsen points out that brands with low brand equity become:

• more dependent on promotions,

• more vulnerable to budgetary trade-offs,

• and more easily replaceable in competitive environments.

In other words, when advertising pressure decreases, the brand does not ‘take over’. It disappears.

What dashboards don't see

What dashboards do not measure — or measure very poorly — are the invisible assets that nevertheless determine all sustainable performance.

• Trust: the ease with which a message is believed, without over-explanation. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer, nearly 60% of consumers say they do not trust advertising messages without external validation.

• Credibility: the perceived legitimacy of a brand to deliver on its promises. Kantar shows that a brand's perceived credibility is one of the primary factors explaining long-term advertising recall and effectiveness.

• Preference: the ability to be chosen without being the cheapest or most visible. Brands with strong preference generate more sales without immediate advertising exposure, automatically reducing their dependence on activation.

• The ability to sell without pressure, i.e. to generate sales even when advertising pressure decreases. This is one of the key indicators of a brand's strength: its ability to perform even when media pressure decreases.

These assets do not disappear suddenly. They wear out. They directly influence future performance. And it is precisely because their deterioration is slow, silent and non-linear that it escapes conventional management tools.

In summary

KPI tracking tables are essential, but they tell an incomplete story. They measure immediate effectiveness, what is performing well today, not what will make performance possible tomorrow: the solidity of what makes it possible.

And it is precisely in this blind spot — between short-term indicators and invisible assets — that the fragility or resilience of brands now plays out.