--- title: "Nail the Brand vs Performance Split in Your Marketing Budget" url: "https://cmotimes.com/qa/nail-the-brand-vs-performance-split-in-your-marketing-budget/" author: "CMO Times" published: "2026-09-22" updated: "2026-09-22" --- # Nail the Brand vs Performance Split in Your Marketing Budget ## Nail the Brand vs Performance Split in Your Marketing Budget Balancing brand building and performance marketing remains one of the most challenging decisions for marketing leaders trying to maximize both immediate results and long-term growth. This guide breaks down 25 practical strategies for allocating budget between brand and performance channels, informed by insights from marketing experts and finance professionals who have tested these approaches across multiple industries. Readers will learn specific tactics for protecting brand investments, measuring marginal returns, and shifting resources based on pipeline quality and customer acquisition costs. ### Protect Brand via Repeat Purchases We use a dumb-simple rule for this and it's held up for years now. Every quarter we ask one question before splitting budget: which dollar, brand or performance, still works if the algorithm changes tomorrow. Performance channels (paid social, search) get funded up to whatever CAC we can prove pays back within a set window. Everything left goes to brand and relationship-building spend that compounds regardless of platform rules, direct mail and personalized touches being our biggest example. The signal that actually protects long-term growth is repeat purchase rate from anything NOT driven by a paid click. If that number is healthy, we know brand investment is doing its job even when it's hard to attribute in a spreadsheet. When performance channels get too much of the quarter's dollars, that repeat number always dips first, months before CAC creeps up. It's not sophisticated but it keeps us from overcorrecting to whatever channel looked good last month. *— [Rick Elmore](https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-elmore), CEO, Simply Noted* --- ### Ring-Fence Authority Spend by Pipeline I fund proven acquisition channels first, then ring-fence roughly 20 to 30 percent of the budget for content and partnerships that build authority over months, not weeks. The signal I use to hold that line is qualified pipeline, not clicks or impressions: if a channel keeps producing leads but sales calls them low quality, I stop feeding it regardless of how the dashboard looks. Holding that split for a Web3 client through two flat quarters is what let organic search become the channel that eventually drove over half their leads, even though it looked weak under last-click attribution the whole time. Fixing the ratio in advance removes the pressure to raid the long-term budget every time a month's short-term numbers dip. *— [Victoria Olsina](https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoriaolsina), Web3 SEO + AI Content Systems, VictoriaOlsina.com* --- ### Cap Media at Marginal CPA Our split rule is uncomfortable to defend but it has held: brand gets whatever performance cannot profitably absorb. That sounds like brand is the leftover. It is closer to the opposite. What it means in practice is that we first find the point where performance spend stops being efficient, we fund performance up to that line and not a dirham past it, and everything remaining in the budget goes to brand. The moment you fund performance beyond its efficient ceiling, you are buying expensive traffic and calling it growth. The signal we use to find the line is marginal cost per acquisition, not blended. Blended CPA hides everything. We look at what the last 10 percent of spend cost, not what the average cost. On a Dubai client last quarter, blended CPA looked fine at about $61 (AED 224). The marginal CPA on the top slice of spend was $148 (AED 543), well above what that account can carry. We cut that slice and moved roughly $9,000 (AED 33,000) into brand work for the quarter. The signal that told us the brand money was working was not a brand lift study. It was branded search volume and direct traffic, measured monthly, and the cost of the performance campaigns themselves. When brand investment lands, performance gets cheaper, because more people arriving in the auction already know who you are. On that same account, branded search queries grew 41 percent over two quarters and the non-brand cost per lead fell about 18 percent without us touching the campaign structure. That relationship is the argument I use when a client wants to cut brand. Brand is not a separate goal competing with performance. It is the thing that decides what performance costs next quarter. If you want to defend the split in a room full of people who want near-term numbers, defend it on next quarter's CPA, not on awareness. *— [RHILLANE Ayoub](https://www.linkedin.com/in/rhillaneayoub), CEO, RHILLANE Marketing Digital* --- ### Gate Expansion With Readiness Scores Budget debates often become political because brand and performance teams are judged by different clocks. One sees recognition, the other sees numbers. The remedy is not a compromise percentage. It is a definition of what must be true before spending can scale, including consistency, conversion capacity, and evidence that customers will advocate without incentive. We make paid expansion conditional on an operational readiness score. It combines response speed, sales feedback, patterns, and the ability of content and partners to substantiate the promise. A low score shifts funds toward process repair, even if acquisition looks attractive. A high score justifies performance investment. This rule prevents growth from outrunning the experience, which protects reputation while allowing the quarterly plan to remain rigorous. *— [Marc Bishop](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dwsmarcbishop), Director, Wytlabs* --- ### Use Payback Windows for Allocation A split in the 60% to 80% range for demand capture and conversion channels is often the safest place to start when near-term revenue targets are lean. That means paid search, remarketing, high-intent paid social, and sales enablement get funded first, while the remaining 20% to 40% goes to brand work such as broad reach media, content, and partnerships that go up future demand. The rule I use is based on payback window by channel, not channel label. If a channel can usually show movement inside the quarter, it sits in the performance pool. If the effect is more likely to appear over two or more quarters, it sits in the brand pool, even if it can also drive leads. Content and partnerships often sit across both, so the split comes from the job they're doing. Partner webinars tied to pipeline targets lean performance. Founder interviews, research reports, and category education lean brand. The signal that helps defend the budget split is branded search trend alongside pipeline efficiency. When branded search impressions and direct traffic are rising but conversion efficiency in paid capture channels is also holding, brand investment is feeding demand without hurting short-term return. I've found that when teams cut brand too hard, paid media often starts carrying more of the load at a higher cost, because you're renting attention instead of building it. *— [Josiah Roche](https://www.linkedin.com/in/josiahroche), Fractional CMO, JRR Marketing* --- ### Shift Surplus After Marginal Returns Fade I would start with the revenue the business must generate this quarter and protect enough proven performance spend to cover that near-term demand. The remainder should not automatically become more paid media: reserve a defined learning budget for content, creative and partnerships that build future demand. A useful rule is to increase performance spend only while the marginal cost of an additional qualified customer remains acceptable, measured after discounts and delivery costs—not just platform-reported conversions. When that marginal return weakens, invest in the brand and content assets that improve conversion and reduce dependence on paid acquisition over time. Review the split monthly using qualified pipeline, repeat purchase and branded-search signals, but do not judge brand work on last-click ROAS alone. *— [Bowen He](https://www.linkedin.com/in/bowen-he-43b58a150), Director, Webzilla Digital Marketing* --- ### Let Conversion Quality Redirect Dollars I founded ForeFront Web in 2001 and have spent 35+ years watching budgets get wasted by treating "brand" and "performance" like enemies. My rule: performance buys demand now; brand, content, and partnerships make that demand cheaper and easier to convert later. The signal I watch is conversion quality, not just lead volume. If paid media is producing clicks but weak forms, bad calls, or low-intent leads, I don't just raise bids--I shift dollars into landing page CRO, objection-handling content, reviews, testimonials, or partner/customer proof. One example: we've used PPC data for Columbus businesses to see which service pages actually convert, then built SEO and content around those profitable areas. Paid gave us the fast signal; content created the longer-term leverage. Partnerships earn budget when trust is the bottleneck. For local/service businesses, a real customer video, referral partner, or credible community relationship can outperform another polished ad because people are deciding whether they trust you before they ever fill out the form. *— [Scott Kasun](https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottkasun), Digital Marketing Executive, ForeFront Web* --- ### Track Branded Searches Before Scale I don't start with percentages. I start with what each channel can actually convert. Then I set a floor for brand and let branded search demand define that baseline. Last quarter, our paid landing pages converted 28% of visits into lead actions — 345 actions from 1,222 sessions. Our blog posts converted 0.4%: 15 actions from 3,929 sessions across 467 posts. Judge those two on cost per lead alone and content looks indefensible. What really influences my choices, though, is the number of people searching for my brand. If I look at the same time frame, I see that the number of times my brand was seen in search results dropped from 6,648 to 4,663 - that's a 30% decrease from one quarter to the next. Meanwhile, the number of clicks on non-branded search terms stayed about the same. At first glance, the short-term numbers seemed okay, but if you dig deeper, you can see that demand was actually slowing down. That's the thing people miss: performance channels capitalize on demand, they don't create it. Lean too hard on them and you eventually run out of demand to capture. I allocate my funds up to the point where I can measure the demand, and then I put the remaining amount into building my brand and forming partnerships. My main focus is on protecting the baseline of my brand by keeping an eye on the trends in branded searches, rather than worrying about the cost per lead of each individual channel. If I see that the demand for my brand is increasing, I'll invest more in performance-based marketing. But if the demand is stagnant or decreasing, I'll prioritize my brand budget - regardless of how good the cost per lead was last month. This approach helps me strike a balance between driving sales and building a strong brand presence. Ivan Vislavskiy CEO and Co-founder of Comrade Digital Marketing Agency *— [Ivan Vislavskiy](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivan-vislavskiy-53bb559), CEO, Comrade Digital Marketing Agency* --- ### Fund Qualified Opportunities Before Future Assets I've been doing this for home service contractors since 2008, so I'm usually balancing this against real booked-job pressure, not "awareness" in the abstract. My rule: protect the channels that can prove qualified lead flow this quarter, then invest the remaining dollars into assets that lower future dependency on paid clicks. The signal I use is not cost per lead by itself; it's cost per qualified booked opportunity. If paid media is producing more calls but worse jobs, I'll defend moving dollars into SEO/content, landing page improvement, remarketing, or partner/referral campaigns instead of just increasing ad spend. A practical split I like: PPC for high-intent service pages, SEO/content for informational searches and authority, partnerships for borrowed credibility with adjacent businesses. For example, a restoration contractor may use paid search for immediate water damage leads, while content and referral relationships support mold, rebuild, and insurance-related demand over time. The easiest budget defense is showing the time horizon. PPC should help you hit the quarter; content, SEO, GEO, and partnerships should make the next quarter less expensive to win. *— [Brian Childers](https://www.linkedin.com/in/briankchilders), CEO, Foxxr Digital Marketing* --- ### Map Assisted Journeys to Demand Creation As a Fractional CMO/GTM strategist across mortgage, fintech, legal, medical, and service businesses, I've had to defend this split when leadership wanted pipeline now but also needed trust to compound. My rule: paid media captures demand, content and partnerships create demand. If paid is only winning at the bottom of the funnel, I won't keep feeding it without also funding the assets that make people trust us before they click. The signal I use is assisted journey quality, not last-click ROAS. I look at which articles, podcast appearances, partner placements, and thought-leadership pieces show up before demos, consults, or applications. Example: in legal content, I'd rather fund intent-based pages like "what to do after a car accident" or "how long to file a claim" than only bid on "lawyer near me." Paid can test the language fast, then content turns the winning message into an asset that keeps working. *— [Brandie Young](https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandieyoung), Co-Founder, RankWriters* --- ### Preserve Fixed Content and PR Share The rule I use is that content and digital PR keep a fixed share of the quarter even when performance channels are ahead of target. Hitting near-term numbers by emptying the brand line is how you slow next quarter. The signal that helps me defend the split is whether we still have a first-party study or case note shipping that quarter. If the answer is no, performance is borrowing from the future. AI tool spend alone averaged 6.4 percent of marketing budgets, which is a reminder that loud near-term lines expand unless something is ring-fenced. Paid media, content and partnerships each need a named owner and a line that cannot be zeroed mid-flight without a written exception. *— [Christopher Coussons](https://www.linkedin.com/in/chriscoussons), Director, Visionary Marketing* --- ### Align Ratios With Sales Cycles We stopped splitting by channel and started splitting by what the money buys back, a rule we tested with 40 clients. Brand spend buys the ability to be chosen later, performance spend buys a transaction now, so the ratio should follow how long the sales cycle actually is rather than a fixed percentage. The signal we defend the split with is not attribution, it is branded search volume: when it stops growing, the brand side is underfunded no matter what last-click says. We found teams reporting raw impressions lose the brand budget at the next review, and teams reporting cost per qualified outcome keep it, which is a reporting choice rather than a strategy one. *— [Kartik Chugh](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kartikchugh123), Cofounder, FORKOFF* --- ### Watch Harvesting CPA for Demand Gaps Twelve-odd years of this. What I tag each budget line with is whether it's working demand that already exists or demand we have to make. Paid search is nearly all the first kind. A publisher deal is mostly the second. Content goes either way and I've guessed wrong about which more than once. Brand versus performance never survived contact with a real budget for me. Half the lines sit in both columns. The number I watch when defending a ratio is CPA in the harvesting channels while spend is flat. When that creeps up it usually means we've been thin on creation for two or three quarters and we're bidding harder over a pool that stopped refilling. Took me a while to read it that way rather than as an auction problem. Works fine as evidence after the fact. I've never found a version that warns you in advance. *— [Fahad Khan](https://www.linkedin.com/in/mefahadkhan), Digital Marketing Manager, Ubuy Peru* --- ### Use Query Volume as Early Warning Branded search volume became our early warning system for brand spend Deciding how much to spend on brand versus performance channels always comes down to one tension, performance shows results fast, brand takes months to prove itself, so brand budget is usually the first thing cut when someone wants quicker numbers. The signal that helped us defend it properly was tracking branded search volume every month, watching whether people were searching the company name directly, since that number quietly reflects brand health long before sales figures do. We used this with a client in the home appliance space, where quarterly pressure kept pushing towards cutting content and partnership spend in favour of more paid search, since paid search showed immediate return while content and partnerships felt harder to defend with hard numbers on demand. Rather than argue this in the abstract, we tracked branded search volume alongside performance spend for two full quarters. When content and partnership activity dropped one quarter to free up performance budget, branded search fell by around 20% over the following months, and performance campaigns quietly became more expensive too, since fewer people already recognised the brand before clicking an ad. That gave us something concrete to point to, not opinion, actual proof that content and partnerships were doing more than they looked like on paper, they were keeping performance costs lower by building recognition underneath them. We set a simple rule from that point, content and partnership spend could never drop below a fixed floor, protected specifically because branded search had proven its link to performance efficiency, regardless of short-term pressure to move that money elsewhere. Over the following year, performance costs stayed noticeably more stable, and branded search recovered and grew steadily, because nobody was tempted to quietly starve the activity working quietly in the background to support everything else. *— [Swanand Patwardhan](https://www.linkedin.com/in/swanand-p), Digital Marketing Manager, The Super 30* --- ### Keep Awareness Reserves Untouched My rule is that performance gets whatever I can trace to pipeline, and brand gets a floor that nobody is allowed to raid when the quarter looks tight. That floor is the part most teams cut first and regret two quarters later, because the damage shows up long after the decision. The signal I watch is what happens to acquisition cost when nothing else changes. If the same creative, the same audiences and the same offer start costing more per conversion, that usually means the top of the funnel is underfed and paid is doing work that awareness should be doing for free. Branded search volume and the share of deals arriving direct are the two numbers I use to defend the split internally. The argument that actually wins the meeting is sequencing, not percentages. With one client we built the organic and AI search side underneath an existing paid campaign rather than instead of it, and the paid side got cheaper as a result. Google ROAS settled at 6.5x, and the content keeps working on months when we spend nothing. *— [Melody Brooks](https://www.linkedin.com/in/melodysb), Founder, Stride Agency ApS* --- ### Move Incremental Funds as CAC Climbs Our starting point is that brand and performance aren't actually competing for the same budget line, they're answering different questions, performance is buying immediate pipeline, brand is buying future pipeline that costs less to convert later. Once we frame it that way, the split becomes less about a fixed percentage and more about how much near-term pipeline pressure we're actually under that quarter. The rule that's helped us set and defend the split is looking at CAC trend over the past two or three quarters, not just the current number. If cost per qualified lead on performance channels has been climbing steadily even after fixing obvious issues like broken attribution or stale creative, that's usually a signal that the channel is hitting a ceiling and more spend there will just buy diminishing returns. That's when we shift incremental budget toward brand and content instead of pushing more into paid, because at that point performance is optimizing efficiently, it's just running out of room to scale efficiently on its own. One example where this paid off, we noticed CAC on paid search had been rising for two straight quarters despite our targeting and creative already being clean. Instead of pushing more budget into the same channels hoping for a different result, we shifted a meaningful chunk toward content and case studies aimed at building organic authority in our niche. It took longer to show up, but within a couple of quarters, inbound leads sourced from organic and referral traffic started coming in at a noticeably lower cost per qualified lead than paid channels were producing at that point, which gave us room to defend that reallocation with actual numbers rather than just an instinct that "brand matters too." *— [Ankita Pathak](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankita-pathak-648208192), Founder, OneMetrik* --- ### Shift Toward Lender Support Messages With over 26 years managing operations at Capital Home Mortgage, I focus our budget on the in-house processing and underwriting that lets us control every step from application to funding. My rule is simple: performance channels get priority when we need immediate volume on products like purchase or VA loans, while brand spend protects the long-term perception of our direct-lender model. One clear signal is the volume of refinance inquiries we receive; when that pipeline fills quickly, I defend shifting more dollars into brand messages about dedicated loan-officer support so future quarters stay strong. We once leaned harder into partnerships with local builders for construction loans, which kept performance spend efficient while the brand work on full-service offerings reduced later marketing needs. *— [Dale Gremillion](https://www.linkedin.com/in/dale-gremillion-56a384218), Manager, Capital Home Mortgage* --- ### Establish Positioning Before Paid Launch As founder of Honorable Marketing, I've helped solo and small law firms build AI-powered systems that combine SEO, content, and authority work with paid channels. That work shows me how the split between brand and performance must protect the foundation that actually compounds. My rule is to anchor the quarterly budget in the strategic differentiation step of our client process. We run discovery interviews first, then commit enough to content and brand until the firm's positioning and messaging are clear enough to make performance spend convert qualified clients instead of volume. One example came from a firm where we held back on paid until we produced personalized long-form pieces and local SEO assets. Once those were in place, the performance budget drove better cases because the site already positioned them as the community authority. The signal I use to defend the split is when their community engagement data starts showing repeated views on authority content before any paid push. That tells us the long-term layer is ready, so we can safely increase performance without losing the growth that builds over quarters. *— [Paul Mackiewicz](https://www.linkedin.com/in/honorableentrepreneur), Founder & CEO, Honorable Marketing* --- ### Fix Brand Foundations Before Ad Scale Running a design agency for 16 years means I've watched clients blow budgets chasing quick wins and kill the brand equity that would have made those wins sustainable. Here's what I actually use: \*\*the foundation test\*\*. Before I split any budget, I ask whether the brand can hold up under scrutiny. If someone clicks your ad and lands on a vague, generic experience, your performance spend is just paying to expose a weakness. The signal I defend budget decisions with is conversion quality, not just volume. When we rebuilt PhotoShelter's website, form conversions doubled immediately -- not because they spent more on ads, but because the brand foundation finally matched the promise. That result let their team build a reliable mathematical model for the entire funnel. Performance spend only compounded after the brand did its job first. My rough framing: if your performance channels are underperforming, throwing more money at them is usually a brand problem, not a media problem. Fix the story, then scale the spend. Brand isn't a soft long-term bet -- it's what makes every dollar in your performance channels work harder right now. *— [Ben Visser](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-visser-sdh), Founder, Social Design House* --- ### Retain Content When Subscriptions Rise At Buffalo Games I lead DTC marketing and monitor web traffic plus sales data every week to spot when brand work keeps visitors returning while performance channels fill the cart. The rule I follow is to watch subscription signups as the signal. When brand content on puzzle themes or benefits lifts recurring signups without extra ad spend, I keep that portion of the budget intact. This split got us to seven figures in revenue after attracting over ten million visitors. Content tied to our monthly delivery service and U.S.-made quality sustained traffic long after performance campaigns ended for the quarter. *— [Juan Carlos Martinez](https://www.linkedin.com/in/juancarlosmartineznyc), Marketing Director, Buffalo Games* --- ### Teach Hair Needs Beyond Discount Ads Near-term targets get performance spend on people who already have a wash day. Long-term growth keeps education creative in the mix so discount ads do not become the brand. The signal I defend is simple. If the last three ads could not name a curl type or a porosity band, the split has drifted. In The UK Hair Porosity Report 2026, 61% of 1,000 UK women had never tested porosity. Paid media, content, and a supplier evening all have to speak to that, or the quarter hits revenue while the shop gets stupider. I cut partnerships that only want a logo before I cut the journal. *— [Emma Rusby](https://www.linkedin.com/in/emma-rusby), Director, Zenvy Beauty* --- ### Audit Owned Assets First With over 24 years building e-commerce visibility systems, I start every quarterly budget by running a full content audit that reveals which owned assets already drive qualified traffic before allocating a single dollar. My rule is to let strategy set the brand foundation first, then route performance spend only to channels that reinforce the same positioning and audience segments already identified in research. One reliable signal comes from watching how existing pages perform on search intent--if evaluation-stage comparisons or case studies convert steadily, I hold back broad brand campaigns and shift more toward targeted paid media that amplifies those assets instead. *— [Cassie Egli](https://www.linkedin.com/in/cassie-egli), AI Visibility Strategist, Straight4Ward Consulting & Marketing* --- ### Repair Local Presence Before Traffic Push I run DockSyde Creative in Traverse City, and most of our work is for local service businesses where budget has to create calls now and search equity later. I don't start with a "brand vs performance" debate; I start with the current bottleneck. My rule: if the website, Google Business Profile, and review base are weak, more paid media usually just exposes the weakness faster. Fix the asset first, then use paid to accelerate demand instead of compensating for a leaky system. The signal I use to defend the split is a one-page view of outcome metrics: map-pack position, GBP calls/actions, website conversions, and recent review growth. If those are improving, I'll defend content, local SEO, reviews, and local partnerships even if paid could create a quicker bump. For Bill Smith Roofing, the first priority was a clearer service structure, faster mobile experience, and SEO-ready pages before pushing harder on traffic. For partnerships, I like local links from real community sources because they support brand credibility and SEO at the same time. *— [Joseph Roberts](https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephlroberts), Founder, DockSyde Creative* --- ### Compare Channels Across Six Months My rule: don't defend a budget split with impressions or clicks, defend it with a long enough purchase-attribution window to see which channels actually produce revenue, and never let quarterly performance pressure crowd out the content/organic line, because it's usually your best-performing channel and nobody fights for it in budget season since there's no media invoice attached to it. At LinkBuildingHQ we used to make quarterly calls off a 30-day view, and it kept giving us a misleading read, a channel would look cheap and promising in a short window and then never turn into real revenue. Once we widened to a 6-month first-touch attribution view, the picture flipped: total tracked paid spend was about $46,700 over six months, and only one channel, "Paid Search" was clearly profitable, at 3.27x ROAS (about $26,400 spent, $86,400 in attributed purchases). Two channels we'd been comfortably running, a set of Demand Gen "Shorts Promotion" campaigns and paid video, had real spend and real traffic but zero attributed purchases across the entire window. No near-term case for them, and no long-term brand case either, since the traffic wasn't converting or compounding into anything. Meanwhile organic content produced roughly $150,000 in attributed purchases over the same six months, more than every paid channel combined, without a media budget behind it. That comparison is the signal I now use to defend the split: any time the instinct is to pull budget from content or earned-media/partnership work to fund another performance-channel test, that channel has to beat what content is already doing for free, measured on the same window, not get funded on a shorter one that flatters it. *— [Ahsan Mustafa](https://www.linkedin.com/in/ahsan-mustafa-11841522), CEO, LinkBuildingHQ* --- ### Protect Demand Creation From Quarterly Goals I do not start with a fixed brand-versus-performance percentage. I start by separating demand capture from demand creation and asking where the current constraint sits. If qualified demand already exists but conversion is weak, more brand spending may not fix it; the quarter may need better offers, landing paths, sales alignment or retargeting. If performance channels are getting more expensive, incremental response is flattening, or branded search and direct demand are softening, the business may be harvesting demand faster than it replenishes it. My rule is: never let this quarter's target consume the system that creates next quarter's demand. Protect a minimum brand and content floor, fund performance to the point where the next dollar still produces an acceptable business return, and reserve a smaller test budget for partnerships or new channels. Paid media should answer what can be captured now; content should build proof and reduce decision friction; partnerships should add trusted access or authority that the brand cannot simply buy. To defend the split, I would not show channel metrics alone. I would connect spending to the decision journey: qualified pipeline or revenue, marginal acquisition cost, conversion quality, branded and direct demand, sales-cycle movement, and whether reusable content or partnership assets continue working after the media spending stops. The percentage can change each quarter; the logic should not. *— [Jennifer Neeley](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jenniferneeley), Independent Strategic Advisor & Fractional CMO* --- ### Related Articles - [Set the Right Spend Split Between Brand and Performance Marketing](https://cmotimes.com/qa/set-the-right-spend-split-between-brand-and-performance-marketing) - [Make Your Marketing Budget Work: Balancing Brand and Performance Spend](https://cmotimes.com/qa/make-your-marketing-budget-work-balancing-brand-and-performance-spend) - [Balance Brand and Direct Response in Media Budgets](https://cmotimes.com/qa/balance-brand-and-direct-response-in-media-budgets)