Marketing mix audit: investigate gaps, do not hand out scores.
Answer:
A useful audit turns every finding into a verifiable chain: the decision reviewed, the evidence used, the measured gap, the economic risk and the permitted action. The overall score remains secondary: excellent communication does not offset a negative margin, chronic unavailability or unidentifiable measurement.
Decision:
Determine which gaps require an immediate correction, further investigation or simple monitoring, without allowing averages to hide a blocking risk.
Principles:
Traceable findings refer to a source, period, definition and calculation rule; graded evidence distinguishes claimed, observed, compared and causal results; compliance, delivery capacity, unit contribution and minimum data quality are gates, not points in an average.
Method:
List the active decisions; test product–price, price–channel, channel–service, message–evidence and budget–capacity interfaces; qualify every finding by source, freshness, comparability, identification and uncertainty; prioritise by potential impact, probability, verification cost and reversibility.
Worked example:
An offer scores 90 for attractiveness, 82 for communication, 78 for distribution, 74 for data quality and 56 for contribution: weighted average 76. Contribution has a non-compensable threshold of 65. After discounts and service cost, margin is −€3.20 in a channel accounting for 38% of sales. The correct outcome is a red price–channel status, acquisition frozen in the loss-making scope and discount analysis before a growth recommendation.
Limits:
An audit locates and prioritises; it does not automatically prove a cause. Thresholds must fit the organisation’s economics and risk. An overlong framework creates an illusion of completeness and weakens critical checks.