For decades, marketers have debated one question:

How much frequency is enough?

But what if the industry has been arguing about two completely different things the entire time?

In Part 2 of this Sharp Cut series, Marc Binkley and Vassilis Douros revisit the reach vs frequency debate after a wave of listener feedback challenged, refined, and strengthened the original episode. What emerges is a far more nuanced framework built around one critical distinction: burst frequency vs drip frequency.

Drawing on work from Byron Sharp, Les Binet, Hermann Ebbinghaus, Stu Carr, Dale Harrison, Paul Hindle, and real-world incrementality testing from industry practitioners, this episode breaks down:

Why frequency is not one thing
The difference between burst and drip frequency
How memory actually works in advertising
Why brands quietly lose effectiveness when they go dark
The hidden risks of streaming frequency caps
Why low frequency can appear more effective than it really is
The three real jobs of frequency: building, refreshing, and activating
Why impressions and average frequency often mislead marketers
How last-click attribution continues to distort decision making
The planning mistakes quietly wasting media budgets today

This episode reframes one of marketing’s oldest debates through the lens of memory, incrementality, and effectiveness.

Because the real question was never reach versus frequency.

It was burst versus drip.

Chapters

00:00 - Introduction to Comfort Blankets in Advertising

03:40 - Understanding Memory in Advertising

08:05 - Building and Refreshing Memory Structures

10:08 - The Impact of Streaming on Frequency

13:50 - The Three Jobs of Advertising

20:38 - Measurement Challenges in Advertising

Original LinkedIn Post: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7453434962604691457/

Special thanks to all those who inspired this follow-up episode:

Stu Carr, Dale Harrison, Paul Hindle and Dennis A.

Resources

Binet, L. (2024, January 17). How advertising REALLY works [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9EDJs3evCI

Binet, L., & Davis, W. (2025, October). Go big or go home [Conference presentation]. IPA Effectiveness Conference, London, UK. https://ipa.co.uk/news/go-big-or-go-home

Binkley, M. (2025, August 7). 4Ps - Promotion: Why your customers say ads don't work on me. WARC. https://www.warc.com/en/article/4ps---promotion

Carr, S. (2026, February 2). Why a frequency of 1 works, and why it isn't nearly enough. Mi3. https://www.mi-3.com.au/02-02-2026/why-frequency-1-works-and-why-it-isnt-nearly-enough

Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Uber das Gedachtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Duncker & Humblot.

Gordon, B. R., Moakler, R., & Zettelmeyer, F. (2026). Predictive incrementality by experimentation (PIE) for ad measurement (NBER Working Paper). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Harrison, D. W. (2022, November). Ad reach and frequency are not independent variables [LinkedIn post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dale-w-harrison

Klepek, M. (2025). Duplication of purchase and double jeopardy in social media markets [Working paper]. Silesian University of Technology.

Krugman, H. E. (1972). Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Advertising Research, 12(6), 11-14.

Ritson, M. (2023, October 16). Consumers don't get tired of ads, only marketers do. Marketing Week. https://www.marketingweek.com/consumers-tired-ads-marketers/

Sharp, B. (2010, September 4). Frequency and frequency: Something to watch out for [Blog post]. Marketing Science. https://byronsharp.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/frequency-and-frequency-something-to-watch-out-for/

Sharp, B., Romaniuk, J., & Kennedy, E. (Eds.). (2021). Marketing: Theory, evidence, practice (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Taylor, J., Kennedy, R., & Sharp, B. (2009). Is once really enough? Making generalizations about advertising's convex sales response function. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 198-200.

Thomaz, F. (2024, October 15). Reach sufficiency and the missing dimension [Conference presentation]. SXSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Reported in Mi3. https://www.mi-3.com.au/15-10-2024/really-mediocre-outcomes