Marketers must decide between Google and Meta’s open-source marketing mix modeling tools. Each option offers low-cost measurement, but comes with potential conflicts. The choice could impact how campaigns are evaluated.
Marketers evaluating marketing mix modeling (MMM) tools now face a critical decision: whether to adopt solutions from Google or Meta. Both tech giants have released open-source, low-cost MMM platforms designed to help marketers measure campaign effectiveness across channels.
Google has made a significant push with its Meridian solution, incentivizing internal teams when marketers choose its MMM tool. Meta has also invested in its own open-source MMM offering, giving marketers another major option. However, both tools are closely tied to the companies’ core advertising businesses, raising questions about impartiality in measurement.
One ongoing concern is the potential conflict of interest when using a measurement tool from a company that also sells performance-based ads. Marketers have long expressed skepticism that Google and Facebook may attribute conversions to their own platforms, even when those conversions are influenced by other channels like TV or out-of-home campaigns. This dynamic can make it easier for bottom-funnel media to claim credit for results driven by broader marketing efforts.
Despite these concerns, some marketers see value in adopting a low-cost MMM tool, even if it means accepting the risk of platform influence. For many, having some form of measurement is preferable to operating without any data in complex, omnichannel campaigns. The tradeoff between cost, access, and potential bias is now central to the MMM tool selection process.
As marketers weigh their options, the debate over platform-linked measurement tools continues to shape the industry. Relatedly, the integration of AI into campaign audits is also evolving, as seen when Stagwell connected Microsoft Copilot to live ad data to speed up campaign optimization in a recent workflow update.
