Breaking the ‘Sea of Sameness’: Why Marketers Must Rethink Media Mix, Measurement and Trust

Marketers say they believe in omnichannel strategies, attention, and trust, yet their media plans often default to the same narrow performance channels. This article explores why that gap exists, what the data actually shows about effectiveness, and how brands can rebalance their approach to drive real results.

The evidence Is clear but behaviour hasn’t caught up

There is no shortage of studies proving that omnichannel strategies outperform single-channel approaches. When mainstream media works alongside lower-funnel digital activity, the correlation effects are clear, campaigns perform better, and outcomes improve. Yet, despite this growing body of evidence, many marketers and agencies continue to optimise within a limited set of channels.

The industry remains overly reliant on last-click conversion and narrow definitions of causality, often ignoring the broader contribution of upper- and mid-funnel media. This creates a disconnect, we know what works, but we don’t plan like we believe it.

The trap of last-click thinking

The obsession with last-click attribution has led to a one-sided view of performance. By focusing only on what is easiest to measure, marketers risk undervaluing channels that build demand, shape perception, and influence decisions earlier in the journey. Upper and middle funnel plays a critical role of brand discovery and engagement, and by re-enforcing the message across formats it captures attention. But because it doesn’t “close” the conversion, it gets side-lined. The result is overinvestment in lower-funnel channels that capture demand, but do little to create it.

Why we default to the “sea of sameness”

In a recent study by WARC, data showed that we need a minimum of 6 channels for campaign effectiveness. Even when the data is so clear, why do marketers keep making the same decisions? Part of the answer lies in comfort and familiarity. Agencies and marketers gravitate toward what feels safe, measurable, and proven in isolation. Over time, this creates a “sea of sameness” where media plans look increasingly identical. There is also an implicit bias toward what we can easily quantify. If something is harder to measure, it is often dismissed, even if it is more effective. This is not a data problem, it is a decision-making problem.

As an industry, its important to not only trust our marketing instincts and experience on the effectiveness of full funnel marketing, but also encourage our own teams to push harder to elevate the industry standards in measuring its impact.  Avoiding it or dismissing it simply due to current measurement limitations comes with an opportunity cost to advertisers.

When optimisation hits a ceiling

There are, however, signs of change. Some brands are beginning to realise the limits of over-optimisation within a narrow channel mix. One example is a client in the Retail Food industry who repeatedly invested in a small set of high-performing media, refining and optimising until they hit diminishing returns and could no longer meet their targets. At that point, the solution was not further optimisation, it was expansion. By moving back up the funnel and embracing a multi-touch approach, they unlocked new growth opportunities. And ever since then, they’ve continued to embrace diversity in their media mix. This shift, from optimisation to orchestration, is where real progress begins.

Reducing risk through better measurement

For this shift to scale, publishers have a role to play. Marketers are not wrong to demand accountability. If we want them to invest more broadly, we must reduce perceived risk. That means investing in better data, clearer measurement frameworks, and stronger links between media exposure and business outcomes. It is not enough to argue that omnichannel works, we have to prove it in ways that align with how decisions are made. At Mediacorp, we’ve made investments in all of these areas and continue to place importance on Accountability and Measurement.

Attention is rising but action Is lagging

Attention has become one of the most talked-about metrics in media. News platforms have an enviable ATS (Average Time spent) of over 3minutes per story per user, and that’s worth its weight in gold compared to Social platforms where each post on a newsfeed sees less than 1.5 secs of attention. Yet, there is still hesitation when it comes to acting on it. If we already know that low-attention environments lead to wasted impressions, why do we wait for absolute certainty before reallocating spend? At some point, the burden of proof becomes an excuse for inaction.

Marketers should apply a tougher lens to their plans. If a channel consistently delivers low attention, budgets should shift. Defaulting to familiar platforms, despite evidence of inefficiency, is no longer defensible.

The overlooked power of trust

One of the most under-discussed factors in media planning is trust. Consumers consistently report higher trust in news and premium editorial environments. In Reuter’s Media Trust Survey in 2025, Mediacorp news channels were placed at the top of the chart. Yet, this trust is not reflected in how budgets are allocated for global brands. There is a contradiction at play. We claim to trust certain environments more, but invest in others that we may not even personally engage with.

This raises a fundamental question, how did we end up trusting platforms we don’t consume? Rebalancing media plans is not just about performance, it is also about aligning investment with trust.