For the past several years, dealership marketing budgets have moved in one direction: toward the measurable. Search engine marketing, third-party listing sites, retargeting, social ads: these are the channels where a click, a lead, or a VDP view can be tied directly to a dollar spent. It’s an understandable shift. In a business built on thin margins and monthly sales targets, it’s far easier to defend a line item that produces a trackable lead than one that builds “awareness” in ways no dashboard can fully capture.
Working across dealership marketing programs, a pattern shows up again and again: the dealers with the most efficient performance channels are rarely the ones spending the most on performance. They’re the ones whose brand is already doing part of the work before a shopper ever clicks a search ad or a listing. Strong local brand equity makes performance marketing cheaper and more effective. It isn’t competing with it for budget. Cut Brand spend too far, and the performance channels don’t get more efficient. They quietly get more expensive.
That’s borne out by more than day-to-day observation. A recent WARC study, The Multiplier Effect, set out to build an evidence base for how brand and performance advertising actually interact across categories. The numbers are worth walking through, because they put hard figures behind a shift that dealership marketers tend to feel more than measure.
It’s worth being precise about terms, since “brand” gets used loosely in dealer marketing conversations.
Brand-equity advertising is the work designed to build associations, trust, and memorability with a broad set of future buyers long before they’re in-market. It tends to use emotional or unconventional creative and is judged on whether it’s memorable and recognizable, not on whether it generated a click this week.
Performance advertising is designed to drive a specific, near-term action (a click, a call, a form fill, a VDP view) from people who are already showing purchase intent. It’s usually more rational and functional in its messaging, and its results are visible almost immediately.
Both are legitimate and necessary. The mistake is assuming that because performance advertising is easier to measure, it’s a substitute for brand-building rather than a complement to it. The two have a multiplier relationship: strong brand equity makes performance advertising more efficient, and performance advertising monetizes the demand that brand equity creates. Pull the budget too far toward one, and the whole system underperforms, even though the channel that got cut still looks “less efficient” on paper.
WARC’s The Multiplier Effect put data behind this principle across a wide set of advertisers. The headline figures:
This isn’t a case against performance marketing. It’s a case for treating the split as a deliberate, evidence-based budgeting decision, rather than a default setting that drifts further toward performance every time a quarter gets tight.
There’s a familiar cycle that shows up when a business leans too hard into performance at brand’s expense. WARC’s research has a name for it: the advertising “doom loop.” Growth slows, so more budget shifts into performance formats to chase quick, measurable wins. Those wins get measured by attribution models that tend to over-credit the channels closest to the point of conversion, since that’s where the click, the call, or the lead-form submission technically happens. As spend concentrates further into the same handful of high-intent channels, returns start to plateau, because there simply aren’t more high-intent shoppers left to capture. That plateau reads as “performance is declining,” which triggers another round of optimization toward performance, deepening the cycle instead of reversing it.
At the core are two compounding risks. One is misleading metrics: attribution routinely overestimates the contribution of channels closest to the point of purchase, obscuring what actually drove the outcome. The other is diminishing returns: brands built on legacy performance tactics tend to hit a “performance plateau” as the easy wins in a category get exhausted, making growth progressively harder without a change in approach.
That’s the real failure mode: optimizing against a metric that was never built to see the full picture, while the underlying brand equity that made those channels effective in the first place quietly erodes.
Dealership marketing has a structural feature that makes this interplay especially relevant: a genuinely long consideration window. Car buyers spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 hours researching, across multiple sessions and multiple sources, before they ever walk into a store or submit a lead. That’s a world away from a single-session, high-intent purchase: an extended, multi-touch decision, and exactly the kind of buying journey where brand equity does the most work, because it shapes which options a shopper even considers before performance channels get a chance to convert them.
At the same time, dealership ad budgets skew heavily toward the bottom of that funnel. The average dealership puts roughly $105,000 a year into search engine marketing and another $109,000 into third-party listing sites. Both of these channels, by design, capture demand that already exists rather than creating new demand. That’s a rational allocation if the sole goal is measurable near-term leads, but it also means a large share of dealership marketing dollars is spent competing for shoppers at the exact moment they’re comparing options, the same moment when the strength of a dealership’s name, reputation, and local recognition heavily influences who wins, especially as the price to reach that moment keeps climbing along with the competition for it.
Put another way: SEM and listing-site performance is, in part, a function of brand strength that was built somewhere else (or maybe wasn’t built at all). A shopper who already recognizes and trusts a dealership’s name is more likely to click its listing, more likely to call instead of comparison-shopping three more tabs, and more likely to accept a smaller discount to buy from a name they already trust. That contribution never shows up as a “brand” line item in a dealership’s reporting. It shows up as a better cost-per-lead, credited entirely to a performance channel that did far less of the actual work.
Two principles tend to separate dealerships that get a genuine multiplier effect from their marketing dollars from those that don’t, and they line up with what WARC describes as “going deep” and “going long.”
Going deep means planning creative as one connected system rather than siloed, channel-by-channel executions, so a dealership’s social content, video, display, and search ads all reinforce the same visual identity and message instead of running a distinctive brand campaign completely independently of a generic, price-only search or retargeting ad. Going long means building brand assets, consistent in look, tone, and idea, that are characteristic enough to be recognized across every platform they appear on, with the effect compounding over months and years rather than resetting with every new campaign.
Performance tactics still have a clear role in this system: promotions and sales events work best when they tie back to a consistent brand idea rather than existing as pure, generic price messaging. From there, measurement needs to expand beyond last-click attribution to capture the effects performance dashboards typically miss, like branded search volume, direct website traffic, and sales lift, all of which persist after a campaign period ends. Those are the indicators that actually reveal whether brand-building spend is working, since none of them show up in a standard cost-per-lead report.
Brand and performance marketing were never competing for the same job. One captures demand; the other creates it. More crucially, brand equity also determines how efficiently that captured demand converts, and what it costs to win in the first place. A dealership that under-invests in brand isn’t saving money so much as deferring the cost: over time, it pays more to compete for the same in-market shoppers through its performance channels, while a competitor with stronger local brand equity converts that same audience for less.
Treat brand and performance as one integrated system instead of two departments competing for the same budget, and the multiplier effect compounds. Treat them as rivals, and the result is the same spend buying a little less every year.
V20 Group LLC
P.O. Box 10066
Raleigh, NC 27605
Join the conversation
Log in to your V20 Group Marketplace account to leave a comment. We'll bring you straight back to this post.