Not because European brands are more sophisticated, and not because the platforms work differently. And not because brand building has changed. Instead, it’s because Europe is earlier in the attention lifecycle than the United States.
At VaynerMedia, we believe the best media in the world is buying day-to-day, hands-on keyboard, on the biddable marketplaces of Google, Meta, ByteDance, and so on. That’s a very important setup for what I’m about to explain next.
This is not a “social vs TV” argument. It’s not a dismissal of brand building, and it is not a claim that paid media is broken. This is a regional strategy argument that Europe currently has a structural advantage in the social mid-funnel that most brands are under-exploiting.
Why Smart Marketers Are Hesitating
Everyone agrees social matters, but few agree how. EMEA marketers are caught between:
- Effectiveness science
- Declining trust in digital metrics
- Inflation-era pressure to show short-term results
The skepticism is understandable. Measurement debates around YouTube vs TV reach, platform self-reporting, BARB/Kantar controversies, and attribution models have created distrust. But here’s the key separation: We are typically comparing distribution models, not outcomes.
Views are not attention and attention is not impact.
The debate has drifted from “does this drive growth?” to “can I perfectly reconcile this spreadsheet?” That confusion creates hesitation.
In the UK especially, there’s a vocal contingency sharing critiques:
- Digital and social underperform on brand
- Scale still belongs to broadcast
- Big brands should not behave like startups
This resonates because:
- Measurement distrust is real
- Budget pressure is intense
- No CMO wants to bet brand equity on a platform that feels “small”
There’s also a human factor: Many senior marketers built their careers in the broadcast era. Television was the primary engine of brand building for decades. For some leaders, social still feels unfamiliar, chaotic, or culturally distant. When millions in budget are on the line, it can be easier to default to the channels that built their careers than to fully interrogate a new media reality.
There is a legitimate concern here, but the leap from “measurement is imperfect” to “social is ineffective as a marketing channel” is the misdiagnosis.
The Shift: Mid-Funnel Has Changed
Mid-funnel used to mean retargeting banners and sequential media planning. That is not what it means anymore. Mid-funnel today is about:
- Repeated exposure
- Cultural familiarity
- Borrowed trust
- Context
This is where organic social and creator-led content sit naturally and this is where Europe has whitespace.
The Measurement Problem Is Real, But Misunderstood
Social does something no other channel ever could.
First, social media is underpriced, even still. Social media networks are also aligned with marketers because they’re trying to keep people on their platforms as long as possible. So, they’re trying to show users relevant things, and that is ultimately what marketing is. It was the only platform ever that was aligned on the same mission.
Newspapers, TV, billboards, and direct mail could give a sh*t about what was happening on the other side. In fact, they didn’t even know how to give a sh*t because they couldn’t measure it.
A TV network couldn’t measure if you were watching the commercial or not. A newspaper could not see if you read the ad. Direct mail did not know if you opened the coupon bag. But social can see every action.
Social understands if the person reading this right now on LinkedIn is engaged with this article or not. Did you sit on this post for a minute 45 seconds? Did you like it? Did you comment it? Did you share it? Did you zoom into the picture that I put in with it? Did you watch the video that I brought in to support the article or did you not?
LinkedIn knows that. Meta knows that. ByteDance knows that. Google knows that. Snapchat knows that. Pinterest knows that. Substack knows that, and they’re aligned with us as marketers.
They want to show ads that people actually like so that when you see a bad ad, you don’t jump to one of the other platforms or Netflix or put your phone down and exercise. In hindsight, people realized social media was actually aligned with them as marketers unlike any other platform they gave money to in their careers.
A key insight is not that social reports more data. It is that social allows real-time adaptation, so you can:
- Post organically
- Identify winners
- Put paid behind proven relevance
- Scale what is already working
That loop did not exist in broadcast, and it works particularly well when CPMs are underpriced and feeds are less saturated. Which brings us back to Europe.
The Competitive Gap
In Europe, you’re not competing with the same level of venture capital–based startups as the U.S. that understand this and build their entire brands through this model, as well as influencers who also understand buying media against their best performing assets.
You don’t have that same level of competition, but you have the same level, if not in certain parts of the world more consumption of social, thus rendering the media buy to be wildly underpriced, even in comparison to the US where it’s wildly underpriced. The end.
If I’m paying 9 cents in Europe for the same attention I pay 16 cents in America for—because I have to pay 16 cents because I’m BMW and I’m competing against Mercedes both in America and Europe—but in America I got pesky GaryVee and MrBeast and Feastables and MaryRuth’s Organics and all this other stuff that I’m competing with because the feed is just the feed is just the feed.
So the two scary things for big brands are humans—the individual empire—and startup brands that are well funded, that are direct to consumer, soon to be omni-channel.
This is not about influencer marketing as a tactic. It’s about organic social as a distribution system. The U.S. feed is filled with:
- VC-funded DTC brands
- Founder-led content
- Creator brands buying against organic winners
- A content volume arms race
Europe has:
- Fewer venture-backed disruptors
- Less optimized noise
- More whitespace in attention
CPMs are materially lower, competition density is lower, and consumption levels are similar, which makes it a structural opportunity.
Why the U.S. Is Different
Multiple reasons. There’s just more influencer talent and more sophisticated influencer talent in the US. People that pop in Europe tend to move to Los Angeles.
And there’s a much bigger financial and regulatory system in the US that’s pro–venture capital than there is in the rest of the world.
In other words: The U.S. is later in the attention lifecycle, Europe is earlier. But that window will not stay open forever.
What European CMOs Will Regret
European CMOs will regret not allocating more marketing money to social media production. That investment can allow them to make enough creative to post organically across seven (or more) social channels, and multiple handles per channel.
They’ll regret not investing more in organic social because doing so allows them to see their organic winners. Once they do, then they can put working media money behind their best organic assets.
The number one issue for European and American and global brands in the Fortune 500 is they grossly, and I mean grossly, grossly, grossly, grossly, grossly, grossly underinvest in social media creative production to be distributed in organic channels to take advantage of the AI algorithms that are written for relevance to keep people on these platforms.
Relevance is the starting point to sales. It goes relevance, consideration, transaction. That is tried and true. Nothing has changed, and that is the great mistake of the European CMO.
Now, to be clear, this is not anti-paid, because paid is fuel. But organic and creator-led content are the engine that identifies what deserves fuel. When budgets are tight, that engine matters more.
Where Brands Overspend Instead
Brands overspend on working media that is historically valuable (in their reports) but not real.
That’s typically things like programmatic digital banner ads. Pre-rolls. Television creative production. Making £400,000 videos that are distributed through that bad media. Creative agencies, too: Paying an agency millions, even £5 million, in fee to come up with ideas and decks.
This is not a call to eliminate those channels. It’s more of a call to rebalance. In Europe, that rebalance currently carries more upside than it does in the U.S., because the competitive intensity is lower.
Thanks for reading Underpriced Actions! Subscribe for free to receive new posts:
Empathy for the System
This shift is uncomfortable, so we must have empathy for people. My points here challenge procurement structures, agency models, creative hierarchies, and measurement dashboards.
But discomfort does not mean the opportunity is not real.
The Window Won’t Stay Open
Europe will eventually look more like the U.S.
- More VC capital
- More founder brands
- More creator brands
- More feed saturation
- Higher CPMs
When that happens, the arbitrage closes. The opportunity belongs to brands that move before consensus forms. The question is no longer: “Is social fundamental to marketing effectiveness?”
The better question is: Where is attention underpriced? Where is trust compounding?
Today, in much of Europe, the answer is clearer than many marketers are willing to admit, and that clarity will not last forever.
Tags: Europe VaynerMedia LinkedIn
