The Marketing Architects

Brands have been doing TV shows? iFIT has. Its reality competition, Trainer Games, is the ultimate long-form bet. And it's one of several the brand is making.

This week, Elena, Angela and Rob are joined by Kirsten Spittel-Sloan, SVP Marketing and Head of International Marketing at iFIT. Kirsten shares why simple messaging wins, how to enter new markets by building trust first and where personalization pays off (and where it jumps from first date to 15th). She also explains how to use media mix models when data is thin and why long-form content works for a brand built on long workouts. Marketers will leave with practical ways to fund the full funnel without chasing every trend. Plus, hear Kirsten's contrarian take on stepping away from measurement and the hosts' picks for the women's athletes they'd sponsor.

Topics covered: 
[01:00] Why the CMO role looks different today 
[03:00] What McKinsey taught Kirsten about simple messaging 
[10:00] How a legacy brand earns credibility in Pilates 
[12:00] Taking a brand global with local partners 
[13:30] Using media mix models without false certainty 
[17:30] Where personalization pays off 
[20:00] Why long-form content works for iFIT 
 

To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. 
 

Resources: 
Adweek Marketing Vanguard Podcast 2025: https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/what-keeps-ifit-ahead-of-the-curve-kirsten-spittel-sloans-personalization-secret/

Kirsten Spittel-Sloan's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kirstenspittelsloan/

iFIT Website: https://www.ifit.com/ 
 

Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Nerd Alert, a series of special episodes bridging the gap between marketing academia and practitioners. We're breaking down highly involved, complex research into plain language and takeaways any marketer can use.

In this episode, Elena and Rob dig into a 21-month Pandora experiment on how many ads listeners will tolerate. Each extra ad per hour cut listening by about 2%, and the damage took a full year to show.

Topics covered: 
[01:40] "Measuring Consumer Sensitivity to Audio Advertising" 
[02:00] Almost 35 million listeners, 21 months, three ad loads 
[04:00] One long break or two short ones? Total ads matter more 
[04:30] Why a one-month test understates the effect by three times 
[05:00] 82% of the drop came from fewer days or quitting 
[06:00] Ads-to-upgrade is costly, and age changes the response 
[07:00] Caveats and what marketers should do next 
 

To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. 
 

Resources: 
Goli, A., Huang, J., Reiley, D., & Riabov, N. M. (2025). Measuring consumer sensitivity to audio advertising: A long-run field experiment on Pandora internet radio. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 23(3), 347-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-025-09294-7  
 

Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

In-N-Out has a 4.03-star rating. Chick-fil-A sits at 3.36. Adjust for company size, and Chick-fil-A jumps to 4.06. 

This week, Elena, Angela and Rob unpack a Journal of Marketing study on why bigger brands get tougher reviews, even when the product is just as good. The researchers credit empathy. People root for small brands. They expect big ones to deliver. Learn how to read a rating that trails a scrappier rival, why word of mouth can't be your whole growth plan and how to match your advertising proof to your size. 

Topics covered: 
[02:00] In-N-Out vs Chick-fil-A: the ratings gap 
[04:00] How personal replies close the gap 
[07:00] Reading a rating that trails a rival 
[10:00] Why word of mouth isn't a growth plan 
[13:00] Matching advertising proof to brand size 
[16:00] Penetration over passionate advocates 
[18:00] Could AI search bake in the size bias? 

To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. 

Resources: 
2026 AMA Article: https://www.ama.org/2026/06/01/why-do-small-brands-get-better-reviews-the-hidden-bias-in-word-of-mouth/

Journal of Marketing Study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222429251320603
 

Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome to Nerd Alert, a series of special episodes bridging the gap between marketing academia and practitioners. We’re breaking down highly involved, complex research into plain language and takeaways any marketer can use. 

In this episode, Elena and Rob dig into what offsite tracking data is actually worth. Across more than 70,000 advertisers, losing it raised the median cost of a new customer 31%. Small brands took the biggest hit. They also cover why 10% of campaigns did better without it, and what to test before privacy rules take more tracking away. 

Topics covered:   
[01:50] "Estimating the Value of Offsite Tracking Data to Advertisers: Evidence from Meta" 

[03:15] 70,000 advertisers, 160 countries and a holdout test 

[03:55] New customers cost 31% more without tracking data 

[04:25] Why small advertisers get hit harder 

[06:10] The 10% of campaigns that did better chasing clicks 

[06:45] Holdout tests and stress-testing for less tracking 

[07:25] Why smaller brands should diversify sooner 

 

To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. 
 

Resources: 
Wernerfelt, N., Tuchman, A., Shapiro, B. T., & Moakler, R. (2025). Estimating the value of offsite tracking data to advertisers: Evidence from Meta. Marketing Science, 44(2), 268–286. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2023.0274 
 

Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Between 60% and 75% of buy-side marketers say their core measurement approach falls short. And no one's measurement fully covers every paid channel.

This week, Elena, Angela and Chief Analytics Officer Matt Hultgren dig into zombie statistics: numbers that get debunked but keep getting repeated. They start with the Rule of Seven, then turn to the scarier ones hiding in dashboards. Hear why CTV is so hard to measure, how attribution windows can mislead and why last-click still lingers. Plus, learn how to talk to your CFO about uncertainty and how multiple models help you replace a metric you've outgrown.

Topics covered: 
[01:00] The Rule of Seven and its murky origins 

[03:00] What the data says about extra exposures 

[05:00] IAB's State of Data 2026 findings 

[08:00] When last-click still makes sense 

[11:00] Why CTV is so hard to measure 

[12:30] How attribution windows skew results 

[14:30] Killing zombie metrics with multiple models 

[15:30] How AI will change measurement 

To learn more, visit marketingarchitects.com/podcast or subscribe to our newsletter at marketingarchitects.com/newsletter. 
 

Resources: 
IAB State of Data 2026 Report: https://www.iab.com/insights/2026-state-of-data-report/
 

Get more research-backed marketing strategies by subscribing to The Marketing Architects on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.