Consumer brands like P&G and Unilever have used media mix modeling (MMM) for decades to steer billions in spend. It’s natural for business-to-business (B2B) marketers to want the same tools. Yet when B2B teams roll out MMM, they often find unusably wide uncertainty intervals, volatile recommendations after each refresh, and weak forecast accuracy.

Why? The root cause isn’t poor implementation. It’s simply that B2B operates under different statistical conditions than business-to-consumer (B2C) brands.

Where MMM Works Well

MMMs are econometric tools that use historical patterns to estimate the causal impact of marketing on key business outcomes like revenue, leads, or new customers. They perform best when four conditions hold:

• High transaction volume

provides statistical power. With thousands of daily orders, the model can learn from fine-grained variation.

• Consistent offers and values

keep metrics stable. If most purchases fall in a predictable range (say $200–$800), averages like CPA and ROAS are meaningful. Extreme values make average measures less useful.

• Short purchase cycles

tighten the link between ad exposure and conversion. Direct-response behaviors make cause and effect clearer.

• Direct purchase paths

make causality clearer. Each additional step between ad exposure and an ultimate conversion introduces confounders that complicate measurement.

These conditions are common in CPG, ecommerce, and similar environments. A B2C sunglasses brand, for example, may have thousands of weekly orders, basket sizes averaging $150, decisions within days, and no sales team.

Why MMM Struggles in B2B

B2B tends to introduce properties that are challenging for econometric models:

• Low volume.

An enterprise software firm might close ten deals per quarter. With sparse data, distinguishing real signal from noise is hard.

• Extreme value variation.

Deal sizes can span orders of magnitude. If one contract represents 40% of the quarter’s revenue, “average” metrics have little use.

• Long cycles.

Twelve to twenty-four months from awareness to signature blurs the tie between any specific marketing activity and the eventual close.

• Complex buying processes.

Multiple stakeholders, procurement, technical evaluations, and legal issues inject variation unrelated to marketing.

These aren’t mere technical hurdles. They’re mathematical limitations. If you combine sparse data, high variance, long lags, and complex conversion paths, traditional models will struggle to find reliable patterns. The same approach that confidently measures a CPG campaign can become unreliable in enterprise B2B. No amount of sophistication can conjure signal from insufficient data.

Additional Complications

• Sales variability.

After marketing hands off a lead, outcomes depend heavily on sales reps. Top performers might close 5× more than the median, so salesperson quality can be much more important than marketing effects.

• Account complexity.

The person most influenced by marketing may not be the decision-maker. Wins and losses can reflect internal politics or product fit rather than media.

Where MMM Can Work in B2B

B2B isn’t monolithic. MMM can be viable where B2B resembles B2C:

• Product-led growth or high-volume SMB.

Payments or SaaS serving thousands of small customers can generate enough frequency.

• Self-service SaaS.

Monthly subscriptions without sales involvement create repeatable purchase events.

• SMB-focused contracts.

$1k–$10k ACVs with shorter cycles provide statistical power.

• Hybrid models.

Use MMM for the self-serve segment, but employ different methods (e.g., account analytics) for enterprise.

Marketing Technology News: MarTech Interview with Omri Shtayer, Vice President of Data Products and DaaS at Similarweb

The Validation Imperative

A critical point with any media mix modeling project is that if you can’t validate the model, you’re making million-dollar bets on assumptions. Yet common validation methods are likewise tougher in B2B:

• Holdout forecasting.

Train on history and predict the future. With 18-month cycles, you might wait years to judge accuracy. By then the market may change.

• Incrementality tests.

Geo-lift or controlled experiments offer ground truth, but low deal counts make effects hard to detect without very long tests.

• Forecast tracking.

Comparing predicted vs. actual outcomes creates a feedback loop, but long cycles slow learning to a crawl.

Unless you can validate a model, you shouldn’t use it for decision-making. The temptation is to fill gaps with assumptions (uniform close rates, constant rep quality, tidy decay curves). Each may seem harmless. Added up, though, they can produce outputs that are way off the mark and precision without accuracy is worse than acknowledged uncertainty.

Navigating the Trade-offs

No method is perfect. There are trade-offs among precision, accuracy, timeliness, and cost. If you opt to pursue MMM in B2B:

• Document every assumption, and share it.
• Present uncertainty ranges honestly, even when they’re wide.
• Set realistic expectations about what your model can and cannot estimate.
• Align internally on limitations before Many firms discover too late that their results were too uncertain to drive decisions.

Also consider alternatives that are better suited to enterprise sales:

• Account-level analysis and cohort views for complex deals.
• Channel-specific experiments where volume allows.
• Mix models for self-serve only, paired with relationship mapping and qualitative signals for enterprise.
• Attribution hybrids (lightweight rules & experiments) to inform near-term optimization while acknowledging long-cycle uncertainty.

The B2B teams that succeed at measurement don’t force inappropriate tools onto their realities. They assess context honestly, pick methods that match, and validate ruthlessly. They know B2B is not B2C, and that admitting what you simply cannot know is the first step to discovering what you can.

Before adopting any method, MMM or otherwise, ask:

1. Do we generate enough data for this approach?
2. Can we validate outputs in a reasonable timeframe?
3. Are we relying on assumptions that paper over fundamental limitations?

If you can’t answer Yes, Yes, and No, you’re better off choosing another measurement approach.