Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash
NCSolutions' multivariate analysis attributed 49% of sales lift to the creative element, against 11% for targeting, 22% for reach, and 15% for brand factors (IPA Creative Effectiveness research, 2024-2025). Targeting share is now smaller than reach. That alone reorders the spend conversation, but the platform context makes the inversion sharper.
Meta Advantage+ Shopping Campaigns commanded roughly 35% of Q2 2025 US retail ad spend (bir.ch on Meta data, 2025) and reportedly cut CPA by up to 32% in ecommerce. The platform is doing the audience discovery; the marketer is no longer manually selecting it. When targeting is automated, the only controllable input becomes creative, which is exactly the lever NCSolutions' data already pointed at.
The IPA's Binet & Field longitudinal dataset has the harder, more uncomfortable point. Creatively awarded campaigns ran 12x more efficient than non-awarded campaigns in the 12 years ending 2008. That multiplier has fallen to roughly 4x in recent data, and recent samples show awarded campaigns no more effective than non-awarded (IPA Les Binet & Peter Field research, 2024-2025). Creative excellence has not lost its multiplier accidentally; the standards have collapsed because automated channels reward quantity-and-fit over award-bait craft.
The 60:40 framework Binet & Field publish (60% spend on long-term brand-building, 40% on short-term activation) is the natural counterweight to creative-as-targeting interpreted as creative volume only (VXTX summary, 2024-2025). Mark Ritson's column makes the same point: creative quality is a 12x multiplier in theory but pre-empted by strategic fit (Marketing Week, 2024-2025). Producing 5x more creative than three years ago only pays if the brief is 5x more specific to the audience the algorithm is finding for you.