This was a quick preview. It is wrong in a known direction — every range below is narrower than the truth, so it looks more certain than it is. Run it in full before you quote anything.
The headline, in one sentence
Media produced about $54.9M of your $641.0M — roughly 9 cents in every dollar. Of your six channels, none has yet shown it paid for itself and six genuinely cannot be called yet.
That second half is not a hedge and it is not a fault in the model. Four years of weekly history is simply not enough evidence to separate six channels that mostly ran at the same time. Below, the channels are sorted by how much we actually know about them — not by how good their number looks.
Four years of revenue, and where it came from
Each band is one channel's contribution, stacked on the business you'd have had without any media at all. The white line is what you actually sold.
$641.0M
actually sold
The pale mass underneath is the business you’d have had anyway: $581.3M, 91% of everything.
Not one of your six channels has a range that sits entirely above break-even.
That is a real result, not a missing one: it says your data cannot yet separate what each channel did from what the others did at the same time. Nothing below should be cut on this evidence, and nothing below should be scaled on it either.
What would settle it: one channel deliberately switched off, or moved out of step with the others, for six weeks or more. The evidence tab shows how little each range moved away from what you assumed going in.
What each dollar came back as
Sorted by how much your data actually pinned down. The dotted line is break-even — a band crossing it means we can't tell you whether it won or lost.
$0.93 to $1.72 · best-measured channel you have, and it still straddles break-even
$0.46 to $1.61
$0.47 to $1.62
$0.82 to $2.25
$0.39 to $1.66 · best guess is under break-even, but the range still reaches past it
$0.46 to $2.18 · widest range on the screen relative to its size
“Out of Home loses money.” Its best guess is $0.79, but the range runs to $1.66. The screen is not allowed to convert a median below break-even into a verdict — the same rule that stops it calling the six maybes wins.
Do this first
Don't cut anything on this evidence.
Nothing here has shown it lost money — the ranges simply cross break-even in both directions. A cut made on this page would be a cut made on noise, and next year would look like proof that the cut worked.
Do this next
Run one lift test on a Video — CTV burst. It is worth more than another year of data.
Video — CTV and Paid Social each switch on once across the whole window, and that is all the model has to learn from. One deliberate on/off test would narrow both faster than waiting.
Don't do this
Don't rank the six uncertain channels against each other.
Their ranges overlap almost completely. Any ordering you read off the medians is noise, and it will reverse itself next quarter. If someone asks for a ranking, show them this panel.
Two things would make next quarter’s answer sharper.
Everything the run flagged, in one place and sorted by who actually does the work. Nothing in the first two columns is generic — each item is the engine’s own words about a specific finding in your data. The third column is opinion, and is drawn so you can tell at a glance.
Your media team
changes to how you buy, not to the data
TV — Broadcast is off air most weeks
Out of Home is off air most weeks
Nothing to fix in the data — this is a media plan, not a defect. Expect a wide range on this channel and weight it accordingly; a lift test on a single burst would pin it faster than more history would.
FROM · burst_flighting · TV — Broadcast, Out of Home
Elevated variance inflation
Worth watching rather than fixing. If this channel also shows low contraction on the Evidence tab, treat its individual number as unreliable.
FROM · vif · Paid Search · 6.8 vs 5
Us
nothing for you to do — one click and we rerun
Nobody asked us to stress-test this run, so there is no scorecard to read. Fit it again with checks turned on if you want one.
Nothing to fix in your file
No extreme weeks, no gaps in what you sold, no column that is really an outcome rather than a cause, and a measure of underlying demand is present. Those are the four things that would have landed here, and all four came back clean.
General advice — not from your data
true of most MMMs, not measured on this one
Keep a channel dark somewhere, on purpose
The single cheapest thing you can do for next year's model is leave one region or one fortnight without a channel that normally runs everywhere. Continuous channels are the hardest to measure precisely because they never stop.
Record promotions and price changes weekly
A column of promotion weeks and a column of average price cost nothing to keep, and their absence is the usual reason media ends up with the credit for a price cut. Most uploads arrive without them.
This column is separated on purpose. Everything in the other two is traceable to a finding in your run; nothing in this one is.
Stamped so this can be reproduced
Every fit is written to disk with the data it read and the version that read it, so a number in last quarter’s deck can be traced to the run that produced it — and that run can be produced again. Nothing on these pages is computed when you open them.
- run
- 20260823-065515-d7b6cd
- data
- bd433ddb2822
- engine
- 0.1.0
- holdout
- 13 periods
- dataset
- national_demo
- fitted
- 23 Aug 2026
- took
- 0 min
- name
- unnamed
Past runs
Every fit is kept, with its verdict and its date, so a number in last quarter’s deck can always be traced back to the run that produced it.
national_demo
3 Sept 2026 · a1c7f2
national_demo
9 Aug 2026 · 5a48eb