{"id":16816,"date":"2026-04-14T16:18:30","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T14:18:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/incubeta.com\/?post_type=video-library&p=16816"},"modified":"2026-04-14T17:55:16","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T15:55:16","slug":"the-digital-edge-s2-ep-6-overcoming-the-confidence-paradox-in-marketing-with-paul-ruscoe","status":"publish","type":"video-library","link":"https:\/\/incubeta.com\/it\/video-library\/the-digital-edge-s2-ep-6-overcoming-the-confidence-paradox-in-marketing-with-paul-ruscoe\/","title":{"rendered":"The Digital Edge S2 Ep.6 | Overcoming the Confidence Paradox in Marketing with Paul Ruscoe"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this episode of The Digital Edge<\/em>, host Mark Reed-Edwards chats with Paul Ruscoe, Incubeta\u2019s VP of Marketing Intelligence, about the growing disconnect between how marketers measure performance and how marketing actually drives growth. Together, they unpack the \u201cconfidence paradox\u201d: why many marketing leaders feel confident in their ROI and measurement, while simultaneously acknowledging that a significant portion of their budget is being wasted. Paul explores how an over-reliance on platform dashboards, short-term metrics, and single-touch attribution can create a misleading picture of success, often favoring efficiency over true effectiveness.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read the Full Transcript Here<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: This is The Digital Edge from Incubeta. I’m Mark Reed-Edwards. This podcast is about how you can balance technology and humanity. How, as AI eats the world, you can integrate efficiency with empathy. We’ll talk with leaders from Incubeta and across the industry as we traverse the digital edge into tomorrow’s world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On today’s episode, we’re joined by Paul Ruscoe, Incubeta’s VP of Market Intelligence. Paul and I discussed the forthcoming Incubeta white paper on the “Confidence Paradox,” which looks at why marketing leaders are confident in ROI and measurement yet admit to significant budget waste because their measurement relies heavily on platform dashboards and single-touch attribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s a really interesting subject. Let’s get to it. Paul, welcome to The Digital Edge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Thank you very much, Mark. Appreciate you having me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Can you share a bit about your career journey and your role at Incubeta?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Absolutely. I’ve spent what is starting to feel like a very long 20-plus years in advertising. So my roles largely have focused around media planning and strategy. The last few years are more specifically focusing on measurement. And I’ve worked across a number of agencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also had the good fortune of working brand-side, as well, across a number of different markets. As you can tell from my accent, I’m from the UK originally. But I spent several years in Australia and New Zealand and now the US as well. So yeah, I’m on my latest stint of my global journey.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve had some great brands to work with over the years. Some that will teach you more than any textbook. One of my favorites in particular is Bunnings Warehouse in Australia and New Zealand. They were a retailer that was doing effective marketing before marketing effectiveness really adopted that name. And I talk about them quite a lot. And another one was one of my favorites in the UK, GoCompare, a price comparison website, who reversed their own declines by going back to basics – fundamentals that the industry had convinced itself were outdated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

GoCompare decided to reorient around those very fundamentals and reverse their own declines. So I love stories like that. It’s why I’m still in the industry today. I joined Incubeta about three years ago to lead the marketing intelligence function, which sits at the intersection between media, planning, measurement, creative effectiveness, and really driving commercial outcomes for our clients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So that’s a little bit about what I do today. I like to write and I’m a very active “LinkedIn-er,” if you like. I’m enjoying my time at Incubeta and dealing with the clients and working with the clients on their own growth paths for today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: I’m really looking forward to our discussion because it’s focused on that area – market intelligence – which is fascinating, and marketing leaders are under more pressure than ever. What are the biggest challenges they’re facing today as far as you see?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, it’s a brilliant question, Mark. And I’ve got to tell you, I’m not entirely convinced that marketers are under more pressure today than they ever were. And I’ve not really seen any data to suggest that the level of pressure is meaningfully ascending. I think what’s changed is the visibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was reading something about a month or so ago, which provides a nice little historical parallel, that back in the 1980s when in-store barcode scanners were being introduced, marketers could suddenly see the immediate, highly visible sales boosts that were caused by price promotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The short-term lift you could get from discounting was really easy to measure. And this particular thesis that I was reading illustrated how it overshadowed those harder-to-measure lasting effects of building brands. Which illustrates to you that the things we face today, the problems we face today, have been prevalent for several decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pressure to deliver measurable media outcomes and such – these kinds of pressures have actually been baked into marketing for some time. I guess what’s new is the scale of the tools that really amplify that pressure. So yeah, I’m not entirely convinced there’s more pressure. I think it’s just more observable. And a lot of that is driven from the need to be as efficient as we possibly can. And sometimes that can come at the expense of being more effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: And some things that you couldn’t see, now you can see with all the data that we’re inundated with, but that doesn’t mean that they’re new problems. They’ve been there forever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, absolutely, they’ve been there forever. And even if you look at old marketing literature, things that were written in the fifties and sixties – if you didn’t know when they were written and who they were written by, you can see some of the same observable patterns and the same questions that are asked today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the things that we’ve thrown into the equation in modern communications, in modern advertising, is just a plethora of new acronyms to describe problems that already exist. And that’s actually the second part of your original question: what are the biggest challenges they’re facing?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s about how to navigate this efficiency trap. Efficiency is really important for advertisers. It always has been since the year people started spending money on advertising. But now we have this appetite to follow what sits in a dashboard – what my cost per acquisition is, what my ROAS looks like, what my ROI looks like – but really there’s far less curiosity about equally important, if not more important questions, like: How do I win a new customer? And that separates the difference between those who are focused on efficiency outcomes only and those who are looking to really drive growth. And yeah, it’s a complex world we live in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Yeah, but at the end of every equation that measures performance is a human being making a decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, absolutely. We need to understand the quite predictable patterns of buying behavior and how we can potentially influence those buying behaviors, not just today, but next month, next quarter, next year even. And that requires us to have a longer view on how the things we do today operate and go back to the subjects of the efficiency measures that I just mentioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We look at those classic acronyms, the CPAs, the ROAS, the ROIs. I guess the question I’m always asking is, in ROI, when did the “I” occur? In ROAS, when did that “AS” occur, the advertising spend? In cost-per-acquisition, when did the cost actually occur?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because when you ask those questions, no one can really give you a correct answer, because if we understand that the effects of advertising are small, but distributed over long periods of time, then the truth is that today’s outcome cannot be a byproduct of yesterday’s investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has to be the byproduct of an investment that had occurred maybe last week, last month, last quarter, last year. And so we have to have this longer view of the inputs and outputs that we extract from our marketing. And until we have that, we are never going to be looking at the full picture. We’re only going to be looking and optimizing against a fraction of the view that we have today. And that in itself is a huge problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Yeah, we often think of those metrics, ROAS or ROI, as one dimensional. They’re one thing, but there are multiple inputs to that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s a classic quote from a British economist called Charles Goodhart. It goes something like: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: And the idea is that we can orient ourselves around these singular metrics because we believe them to be important. But what they do is they mask, to your point, Mark, all those other inputs, other influences, that may have an impact on those outcomes. And actually, we make worse decisions as a result of that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I describe advertising and marketing – not two things that need to be confused – as complex systems. I compare this most commonly in my own narrative to: imagine yourself on New Year’s Eve, walking through Times Square, trying to find a pint of Guinness. But you’re surrounded by millions of other people on the street. Some bars won’t let you in. You are likely to be facing loads of road closures. You have no idea whether you’re going to get that pint of Guinness or not, because there are so many influences that are affecting you navigating your way to that nearest pub.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We actually treat advertising and marketing and other forms of communications as like a vending machine where you literally put a bit of budget in, you select your chosen outcome, and that outcome spits out at the bottom of the machine. A simple system versus a complex system, if you like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reality, marketing works far more like that New Year’s Eve Times Square scenario than it does the vending machine. And there are so many factors that you can’t control. It’s the responsibility of the marketer to understand those factors and really apply them to their objective setting, to their measurement framework, their channel choice. Whatever decision they make, they must understand the complexity of the system that they operate in. It’s probably the first door that one should knock on to overcome these challenges that we face. But often they’re bypassed in favor of shiny, glossy, new tactics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Yeah. Let’s drill down into that line of thinking. There’s a white paper that Incubeta will release soon on the idea of a “confidence paradox.” Can you tell me what that is and why it’s so important?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, absolutely. The confidence paradox is essentially this: many marketing leaders, for very good reason, express high confidence in their capabilities – not necessarily their own capabilities, but the capabilities of their marketing function, particularly around areas like measurement, creative, and the ROI that they generate from their campaigns and their marketing activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But when you actually look at the behavior or you drill deeper into those areas, there’s often a maturity gap that’s costing them real money. Often what they think they’re doing and what they’re actually doing are two different things. And I can give you some examples if you like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Sure. Yeah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: The first one is around ROI, classic ROI – again, an efficiency measure I don’t particularly like, because unless you understand the timeframes of both the “R” and the “I,” then it can be a misguided measure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Because the idea is that you could invest in something and it pays off five years later. So the timeframe is really important and often you’ll think the most recent thing we did was the reason that return happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, absolutely. You buy a house and you flip the house tomorrow. You are going to make a loss because once you take into account the fact that you’ve got an agent fee – even if the value of that property has increased by 2 or 3% overnight, which these things mature over time – but you’re actually going to make a loss once you take into account all the agent fees and the listing fees that you take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You flip the house sensibly over a 5, 10, 15, or 20-year period where you’ve got the chance for that to compound. But yeah, the timeframe’s really important. But this is where I was going. So I think the report that we have suggests that about 79% of marketing leaders are really confident in how effective their budgets are being deployed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But then at the same time, over half of them acknowledge that at least a portion, and in some cases, a significant portion of their budget is being wasted due to inaccurate measurement or reporting. So eight out of 10 feel good about their spending while over half know they’re effectively setting fire to a portion of their budget.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So that’s one example of the confidence paradox. The other is like measurement precision. So 92%, I think, in the report are confident that their measurement and attribution is relatively precise. But then when we look at what they’re using to measure those outcomes, the number one tool was platform native reporting or single touch attribution, classic last click or first click.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And these things are arguably the most misleading methods available. And the most rigorous approaches – things like econometrics, marketing mix modeling, or controlled experiments – actually rank a little bit further behind in terms of the commonality of their usage. And then brand tracking is long and distant, fifth or sixth in ranking in the order of how marketers understand the efficacy of the things they put into market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So again, another example of this kind of paradox you are seeing. We believe we are measuring as best as we possibly can, but the tools we are using to measure outcomes are actually far weaker than we may perceive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Yeah, and the data in that whitepaper shows nearly half of marketing budgets are lost to inefficiency, yet leaders feel their measurement is precise. That’s a paradox, right? What’s really going on here and where is the disconnect coming from?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, it’s a good question. It is something that many marketers claim to have known for some time and they’re right. But then we still struggle to do anything about it. Go back to this element I mentioned a moment ago about the reliance on platform measures, if you like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Platform measures and metrics are really designed to flatter rather than illuminate. What I mean by that is every ad platform has an economic incentive to make its own contribution look as large as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Of course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: So the platform takes credit for a conversion that might have happened anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And all you’ve already done is you’ve moved $1 from the revenue column to another, except for now you’ve got a media cost taxed to that particular conversion, which is actually reducing your net profit. So there’s one area where we are under this illusion of platform metrics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the second kind, again, goes back to what I was talking about regarding Goodhart’s Law and the short-term metrics that we use, which reinforce that illusion. Because you measure a CPA, you measure ROAS, and then you create this unhealthy bias to look for things that appear efficient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But I can tell you now, you can have a beautiful CPA and your brand can still be shrinking. And a lot of it is down to the fact that you’ve created this bias. You’re optimizing your channel mix based on the things that are likely to show you what appears to be an efficient outcome. You stop reaching category buyers that just aren’t in the market today, but might be in the future, and no one’s measuring what you’ve lost by not speaking to those people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You are focusing on that sliver of people who are actively in a buying moment, neglecting those who aren’t but will be at some stage in the future. And again, let’s think about this clearly: no one’s measuring what you are losing by not speaking to them. You are only measuring what you think you’re gaining by speaking to people who are buying anyway.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that’s a problem. And especially when you look at some research that comes out of the IPA in the UK that shows that anywhere between 60 and 80% of advertising effects are actually invisible in short-term reporting windows, particularly if you’ve got categories that have long buying cycles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So you really have to work hard to find out what’s driving outcomes. And again, we’ve created this dashboard myopia that, if it doesn’t sit in the Google dashboard or in the Meta dashboard or wherever we are looking at that data, then it can’t be true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reality is what sits in the dashboard may not well be true, and it may be masking your ability to make clear decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: And from a brand point of view, a Google ad could influence someone clicking on a Meta ad and you can’t make that connection really.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Absolutely. The clearest way to describe this for me, Mark, is the one thing that no dashboard or cookie can track sits in your head, that fleshy lump of gray matter that sits just behind your eyes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s actually difficult for us to tap into that. We don’t understand that you might be exposed to an ad and a memory structure might be encoded. And now somewhere in your subconscious, that particular brand has been seeded in that potential shortlist of brands you might consider in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And then you see another exposure over time, another exposure over time, and that little bit of neurological real estate slowly but surely gets a little bit bigger. But because you’ve never had an interaction with that brand yet, or you’ve never had an interaction with an online ad, that effect is totally lost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet actually, that effect could be the single most impactful effect that drives a future outcome. And so the challenge for the marketer is how can I find proxies to understand whether or not a durable memory is being created, whether or not the things that I’m doing today are creating that little bit of neurological real estate in that soppy wet lump of gray matter just behind the user’s eyes. It’s a challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: You’re up for the challenge, it appears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: I’ve seen this film a few times, Mark, I’ve got to tell you. One of the things I enjoy about my career today is the ability to have these types of conversations with clients. On a day-to-day basis, you have clients that, with the best intent, invest significant portions of their money in the pursuit of short-term outcomes. But what those short-term outcomes have made them lose sight of is the lasting effects of classic advertising, if you like, or how we build that memory and the impact that has on purchase decisions, not just in the future but now, today. Because if you look at most categories, most markets, they’re relatively stable. Market shares don’t really move rapidly. And that’s the biggest lesson you can learn, right? What triggers can I pull that’s going to drive me massive short-term returns?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question I’m asking is: What is actually influencing those short-term returns? Is it just movements in the category or am I actually genuinely winning against my competitors? If that was true, then markets would be way more volatile. But they’re not. You know, I kind of look at a lot of short-term tactics as really playing just this defensive role, making sure you can protect sales that would’ve happened anyway from defecting to other advertisers. The real pathway to winning is to build the neurological real estate so people come to you first. Because it’s a lot cheaper if people come to you than it is for you to try and hijack them late in the journey and go chasing them when they may already have a predetermined decision of the brand they’re willing to choose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s a complex world to think about, but these questions aren’t necessarily asked. I enjoy being the person to ask them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: And it really underscores how important the brand is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. The strength of your brand effectively sets the upper ceiling on what you can feasibly achieve, right? If you’ve got a relatively modest market share, truth be told, it’s unlikely that you’re going to shift that modest market share in the immediate term. If you have a stronger brand, it’s far easier to retain customers because people default to you. You still can’t necessarily move share very quickly. But ultimately you know that if you’ve got a 40% market share, four out of every 10 decisions are going to land in your favor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And that’s a great platform to start with. Then you can start looking at other things. You can start looking at how I can make those conversions more efficient. How I can use my customer comms to increase the probability they’ll continue to choose me. But for smaller brands, you’ve got to get someone to choose you first before you can start making those decisions around how sticky you can be. So, yes, the bigger the brand, of course, it’s the biggest multiplier on advertising effects. And it means that brands really have to make sure there’s a concerted effort in maintaining their own brand health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because it’s a critical component to survival.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: It would be irresponsible of me if I didn’t bring up the two most important letters in the alphabet: AI. We’ve talked a lot about it on The Digital Edge, but research suggests that there’s a major credibility gap. Is this a tech problem or is it a people problem?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: I think it’s neither to be honest, Mark. I think it’s a maturity problem and there are lots of history lessons that lead me to that judgment. I was a history graduate before I fell into advertising. So I’m a big reader, a big fan of learning my history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And look, I think there’s something to be said about reading into historical technological disruptions that have occurred and learning from those. Let’s be honest, AI in marketing today is still in its infancy, certainly in its current form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And we’re still learning about it, and I think we do well to remember that rather than treating it as a settled revolution, if you like. The report that we talked about, where we showed the confidence paradox, suggests that nearly 80% of the market leaders in that survey think that AI is effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only about half are confident in how they’re actually deploying it. And still, about 15% aren’t using it at all. So there’s a gap between being enthused about the capability and actually the capability itself, which is normal for any new technology. But here’s where I would challenge some of the prevailing narrative: a lot of the appetite right now appears to be like, “Oh, how can we hand over tasks, things like media buying, to an algorithm?” And I’d be very cautious about that because we’ve made this mistake before. And we spent a decade doing exactly the things we’ve just been speaking about: letting platforms optimize our media buying towards short-term activations that have led us deeper into some of the traps we’ve spoken about regarding the efficiency trap, if you like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So my perspective on this is that before we rush in to put AI in charge of more decisions, we should really try and get an understanding of what we want to motivate the algorithm with. Because it can’t be where we were before. If we feed the AI the same short-term efficiency objectives that got us into this mess in the first place, all we might do is make bad decisions faster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so I think we’ve got a lot of learning to do. And for me, the organizations that are going to get the most from the AI revolution, if you like, are the ones that are being pragmatic, not absolutists. But being pragmatic, experimenting, more learning – less about “AI will solve everything” and more about “let’s figure out where it actually does add value versus where it reinforces our existing biases.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I think that’s my prevailing view on it. We are in this kind of stage whereby the technology is still maturing and how we’re utilizing it is still maturing. And I’m a big believer in a healthy dose of pragmatism as we embrace it today and into the near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: It’s like a gold rush, right? It’s like everybody heading to California in the 1800s to find gold. And there’s been an almost irrational rush in some ways for people to say AI can solve every problem I have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Yeah, absolutely. The worst outcome would be to hand the keys over to automation that’s optimizing for metrics that we’ve already established are fundamentally incomplete. You mentioned, Mark, in the conversation about the “R” and the “I” in ROI – so time is the most important thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How’s time being applied? Because actually, if we are learning our own recent past, we know we’ve got that wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Yeah. Yeah.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: We need to train the algorithms to optimize for the things that really matter. And often they are multiplicative and varied in their outputs, inputs, and outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And we don’t want to train things that are ultimately fundamentally incomplete. We will go wrong otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: So if a pragmatic CMO is listening to this and wants to start addressing all these issues, say, tomorrow, what’s the first most important step they should take?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: I would say that the most important step – and this might seem slightly reductive – is just to understand your market. That’s it. That’s it. Before you touch the measurement stack, before you audit your AI tools, before you do any of that, understand the market you’re operating in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the reason why I say this is because we see this all the time, certainly over our sort of 20-plus year careers: brands set a growth target of 30 or 40%. You ask the question: What’s the current growth rate in your category? And it’s about 3%. And so when you miss the growth target, which you will, everyone will want to point at the marketing team. The CFO and the CEO will say, “Hold on a minute, what’s going on with marketing? The creative wasn’t right. The plan was wrong, the agency underperformed.” But actually, none of it was a marketing problem. It was a problem that was set with the objectives. An upstream failure that will effectively condemn every downstream action before it even begins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So for me, the first step is understanding what your category will actually allow. How many people are ever in a buy moment in a given moment in time? What’s the realistic ceiling that category will allow? What are your competitors doing? What’s your current share of voice relative to share of market?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you can’t answer those questions, then quite frankly, no tactic – whether it be an AI solution, a measurement platform, or a creative testing tool – is going to save you because you’re building on quicksand. So really, that’s my number one thing: understand the market reality. And only then can you really start asking the harder questions, measuring what matters as opposed to just what’s convenient. And really, I think the brands that outperform are the ones that understand that the most. They evaluate the market; they don’t optimize for a metric. Everything else follows on from that evaluation of the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: I think that’s great wisdom to end with. Paul, thanks for joining me on The Digital Edge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Ruscoe<\/strong>: Oh, no, thank you for having me. It’s been a wonderful chat. You’re very welcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mark Reed-Edwards<\/strong>: Paul’s last comments really stay with me. Measure what matters, not what’s convenient. Evaluate the market, don’t optimize for a metric. Great thoughts from Paul Ruscoe. Thanks for being here today. I’m Mark Reed-Edwards. Join me on The Digital Edge next time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speakers:<\/strong>\u00a0Host: Mark Reed-Edwards; Guest: Paul Ruscoe<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":16817,"template":"","class_list":["post-16816","video-library","type-video-library","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/incubeta.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/video-library\/16816","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/incubeta.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/video-library"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/incubeta.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/video-library"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/incubeta.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/16817"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/incubeta.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}