Marketing numbers don't match finance. Can the business rely on them for the next decision?

What each figure is counting

Marketing platforms can report different forms of conversion value and attributed performance. In Google Ads, conversion values may be fixed or transaction-specific, and value rules can adjust them.^{1 2} Google Analytics uses attribution models to assign credit for key events across recorded interactions.³ The meaning of a reported marketing value therefore depends on the measure being presented; it should not automatically be read as recognised revenue.

Finance starts from a different place. Under IFRS 15, revenue is recognised to depict the transfer of goods or services to customers, in an amount reflecting the consideration the business expects to be entitled to. Where that consideration includes a variable amount, it has to be estimated.⁴ Recognised revenue is a figure governed by an accounting standard, about what the business is entitled to and when.

Organisations may also track other commercial measures, such as orders, bookings, pipeline and closed-won value, whose definitions are set internally rather than by that standard. None of these is wrong for being different. Each answers its own question.

When two reports use the same word

Part of the friction is vocabulary. When a marketing report and a finance report both say revenue, a reader can reasonably assume they describe the same thing.

Securities regulators have addressed a related question in their own context. ESMA's guidelines on alternative performance measures cover financial measures that listed issuers present outside those defined by their accounting framework. The guidelines expect such measures to be defined and given labels that reflect their content, and they caution against labels that are the same as, or confusingly similar to, measures the framework defines, among them revenue.⁵

Those guidelines apply to regulated information and prospectuses. They are not requirements for internal marketing reports, and nothing here treats a marketing-attributed figure as an alternative performance measure in ESMA's sense. The broader distinction is relevant here without extending those regulatory requirements to marketing reporting: a figure's label should not obscure what it represents.

A hypothetical board paper

Illustrative figures only. They are not drawn from any client, engagement or dataset.

Suppose a board paper shows £8.4m of marketing-attributed revenue for the year. The management accounts show £6.1m of recognised revenue. The paper proposes a further £2m of marketing investment.

The difference between the first two figures is not, by itself, a shortfall, a loss or an overstatement. It may be fully explained by what each figure includes. Explaining it would not settle the proposal either. The board is being asked to accept something about the future: that additional spend will produce additional business. Attribution describes how credit was assigned across recorded interactions. Whether marketing caused that value, and whether more would follow from more spend, is a question about incremental effect. Controlled experiments can provide evidence about incremental effects. Google, for example, offers Conversion Lift studies for advertising.⁶

A measure is not yet a claim

The more useful distinction for executives is between a measure and a claim. A measure records what was counted, under a definition. A claim is what the business is being asked to accept because of it: that a channel is profitable, that a budget increase will pay back, that a forecast is achievable.

A measure can accurately describe what was counted under its definition without, by itself, establishing every claim later built on it. That is not a failing of marketing or of finance. It's the moment a figure stops being a report and becomes part of a decision, and it can be where the CMO and the CFO find they have been discussing different things while looking at the same slide.

Before a significant commitment, the more productive question is not which number is right. It is what the number is being used to claim, and whether the available evidence supports that claim for this decision.

When an independent view is worth considering

Where a difference is understood inside the business, nothing further may be needed. An independent view becomes worth considering when the claim at stake bears on a consequential investment, budget, revenue or accountability decision, and the people deciding need a view from outside the teams and platforms that produce the figures.

The MICHVI Evidence Assessment is an independent assessment of the evidence relied upon for a defined consequential decision. Its standard scope is one defined consequential decision domain and up to three material evidence journeys. It starts from £5,000 in the UK and €5,000 in the Eurozone, with the final fee confirmed at scoping. No client credentials are required by default. It is standalone: no implementation, retainer or technology purchase is required. MICHVI does not manage media budgets, buy advertising or optimise campaigns.

If a decision of this kind is coming up, you can scope an Evidence Assessment.

Sources

1. Google Ads Help, Set conversion values
2. Google Ads Help, Set up conversion value rules
3. Google Analytics Help, Get started with attribution
4. IFRS Foundation, IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers
5. European Securities and Markets Authority, Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures (ESMA/2015/1415en)
6. Google Ads Help, About Conversion Lift