Nearly 9 in 10 marketers are pouring more money into AI next year. Fewer than half can prove it’s working. That gap — between confidence and proof — is the real story behind the latest AI ROI numbers from TransUnion, and it should worry anyone signing off on a martech budget.
The data lands with a thud because it confirms what a lot of CMOs already suspected but couldn’t quite say out loud in the budget meeting: AI adoption has outrun AI measurement. Everyone bought the tools. Almost nobody built the framework to know if the tools are paying off.
The Numbers Behind the Disconnect
TransUnion’s latest marketing analysis found that 89% of marketers plan to increase AI spend over the next year, while only 53% say they’re seeing meaningful, measurable ROI from the AI investments they’ve already made. That’s not a small gap. That’s more than a third of the market spending on faith.
Sit with that for a second. Roughly half of marketing leaders are asking their CFOs for more AI budget without a solid answer to the obvious follow-up question: “What did the last round of spend actually return?” In most other categories of enterprise spend, that would trigger a hard stop. In AI, it barely slows anyone down.
Only 53% of marketers report meaningful AI ROI, yet 89% are increasing spend — a signal that budget momentum is outpacing measurement maturity across the industry.
Why does this keep happening? Partly because AI has become table stakes. Nobody wants to be the brand not experimenting with generative creative, predictive audience modeling, or AI-assisted media buying. Fear of falling behind is a powerful budget justification, even when the results ledger is thin. It’s the same dynamic that drove early programmatic spend a decade ago, minus the excuse of it being genuinely new technology.
Where the Measurement Actually Breaks Down
The ROI gap isn’t really an AI problem. It’s an attribution problem wearing an AI costume. Marketers have spent the last few years watching traditional click-based measurement erode as platforms restrict data sharing and consumers shift toward zero-click discovery. Layer AI tools on top of an already-shaky measurement stack, and of course the numbers get murky.
Three specific failure points show up again and again in how brands try to measure AI performance:
- Attribution windows don’t match AI’s influence pattern. AI-driven personalization and recommendation engines often shape a purchase decision weeks before a converting click happens. Last-touch models miss that entirely.
- Tool sprawl fragments the data. The average marketing team now runs AI features across five or more platforms — ad platforms, CRM, content generation, analytics — none of which talk to each other cleanly.
- Success metrics were never defined upfront. A lot of AI pilots launched in the “let’s just try it” phase without a baseline. You can’t prove lift against a number you never captured.
This lines up with what we’ve covered before around identity resolution’s role in stitching together fragmented customer data. If your identity graph is broken, your AI attribution will be too, no matter how good the model is. And as recent shifts toward warehouse-native data show, the plumbing behind your stack matters more than the shiny tool sitting on top of it.
Budget Momentum vs. Proof: Why the Gap Persists
Here’s the uncomfortable part. Budget owners aren’t waiting for proof because the alternative feels riskier. CMO tenure is already down to roughly 4.1 years on average, and nobody wants to be the executive who paused AI spend right before a competitor’s AI-driven campaign broke through. That pressure alone explains a lot of the disconnect between confidence and evidence covered in TransUnion’s findings.
There’s also a simpler explanation: soft metrics feel like proof when hard metrics are hard to get. Efficiency gains, faster content production, quicker campaign iteration — these are real, but they’re not revenue. A marketing team that ships 40% more creative variants per month using generative AI tools might genuinely feel like AI is “working,” even if nobody has tied that output to incremental sales.
That’s the trap. Output isn’t outcome. Speed isn’t ROI. And “meaningful ROI” as TransUnion defines it requires marketers to connect AI activity to a business result — pipeline, revenue, retention — not just internal efficiency.
What “Meaningful ROI” Actually Requires
Brands that do report meaningful returns share a few habits that the other 47% mostly skip.
First, they instrument before they activate. Instead of turning on an AI feature and hoping the dashboard tells a good story later, they define the specific KPI the tool is supposed to move, capture a clean baseline, and set a measurement window before spend goes out the door.
Second, they treat AI tools as inputs to a broader measurement system, not standalone success stories. This is where marketing mix modeling has quietly become the adult in the room. MMM doesn’t care which platform gets credit for a conversion. It measures aggregate lift across channels, which is exactly the kind of clean, privacy-resilient signal that AI-fragmented attribution needs right now.
Third, they audit vendor overlap constantly. It’s shockingly common for a brand to be paying for AI-driven personalization inside three different platforms simultaneously — the ad network, the CRM, and a standalone martech point solution — with zero visibility into which one is actually driving the result they’re crediting to “AI.” We’ve written before about how vendor consolidation forces exactly this kind of reckoning, usually at renewal time when finance starts asking pointed questions.
The Creator and Content Angle Nobody’s Measuring Well Either
This measurement gap isn’t isolated to media buying or personalization engines. It shows up just as hard in influencer and content programs, where brands are layering AI tools into creator selection, content scoring, and campaign forecasting without a clean way to prove the AI layer specifically improved outcomes versus what a skilled human strategist would have picked anyway.
It echoes a pattern we’ve flagged before: most CMOs still fail basic creator economics tests when asked to show real ROI math on influencer spend. Bolt an AI recommendation engine onto a measurement foundation that was already shaky, and the confusion just compounds. Brands running multi-cycle creator testing tend to fare better here, because they already have structured before/after comparisons baked into their process — the same discipline that AI ROI measurement desperately needs.
Force-fed video metrics compound the problem too. If your baseline engagement numbers are already inflated or misleading — a pattern covered in depth previously — layering an AI optimization tool on top just means you’re optimizing toward a lie faster.
What to Do Before the Next Budget Cycle
If you’re heading into a renewal or a new fiscal year planning cycle and you’re not in the 53%, here’s the practical fix, not the theoretical one.
- Pick one AI use case and fully instrument it. Not five. One. Define the metric, the baseline, the test window, and the control group before you spend another dollar.
- Separate efficiency claims from revenue claims. Both matter, but they belong in different rows on the budget justification sheet. Don’t let “we produce content faster” quietly substitute for “we made more money.”
- Run an audit on tool overlap. Chances are you’re paying for the same AI capability twice across your stack. Consolidation isn’t just a cost play, it’s a measurement clarity play.
- Bring MMM back into the conversation, especially for AI-driven media spend where platform-reported attribution is self-interested by design.
- Set a hard rule: no scale-up without a baseline. If a tool launched without one, that’s this quarter’s project, not next year’s.
None of this is exotic. It’s the same discipline marketing has always needed for any new channel or tool, applied to AI instead of being waived because AI feels different. It isn’t different. It just moves faster and hides behind more vendor dashboards.
For more context on how attribution itself is shifting industry-wide, Meta’s advertising resources and eMarketer’s ongoing research are worth tracking alongside TransUnion’s data, as are benchmarking studies from Statista and measurement guidance from HubSpot.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs
Why do so few marketers see measurable AI ROI despite heavy investment?
Most AI tools were deployed faster than measurement frameworks could be built around them. Without a defined baseline, KPI, and attribution model set up before launch, teams end up with activity data instead of outcome data — which makes proving ROI nearly impossible after the fact.
Is the 89% spending increase a sign that AI is working regardless of ROI proof?
Not necessarily. Increased spend often reflects competitive pressure and fear of falling behind rather than confirmed returns. TransUnion’s data shows a clear split between budget confidence and measurement confidence, and the two aren’t moving together.
What’s the difference between AI efficiency gains and AI ROI?
Efficiency gains — faster content production, quicker campaign turnaround — are real but internal. ROI requires connecting AI activity to an external business outcome like revenue, pipeline, or retention. Brands often mistake the former for the latter.
How does marketing mix modeling help fix AI attribution gaps?
MMM measures aggregate channel lift without relying on platform-reported, self-attributed data, which makes it more resilient to the fragmentation and walled-garden restrictions that make AI-tool attribution unreliable.
What’s the first step for a brand that isn’t currently measuring AI ROI well?
Pick a single AI use case, define its success metric and baseline before scaling further spend, and run it as a controlled test rather than an always-on initiative. Clarity on one use case beats vague optimism across ten.
The brands that close this gap won’t be the ones with the biggest AI budgets next year. They’ll be the ones who can walk into a board meeting and show exactly which dollar of AI spend produced which dollar of return — and cut the rest without hesitation.
Top Influencer Marketing Agencies
The leading agencies shaping influencer marketing in 2026
Agencies ranked by campaign performance, client diversity, platform expertise, proven ROI, industry recognition, and client satisfaction. Assessed through verified case studies, reviews, and industry consultations.
Moburst
-
2
The Shelf
Boutique Beauty & Lifestyle Influencer AgencyA data-driven boutique agency specializing exclusively in beauty, wellness, and lifestyle influencer campaigns on Instagram and TikTok. Best for brands already focused on the beauty/personal care space that need curated, aesthetic-driven content.Clients: Pepsi, The Honest Company, Hims, Elf Cosmetics, Pure LeafVisit The Shelf → -
3
Audiencly
Niche Gaming & Esports Influencer AgencyA specialized agency focused exclusively on gaming and esports creators on YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok. Ideal if your campaign is 100% gaming-focused — from game launches to hardware and esports events.Clients: Epic Games, NordVPN, Ubisoft, Wargaming, Tencent GamesVisit Audiencly → -
4
Viral Nation
Global Influencer Marketing & Talent AgencyA dual talent management and marketing agency with proprietary brand safety tools and a global creator network spanning nano-influencers to celebrities across all major platforms.Clients: Meta, Activision Blizzard, Energizer, Aston Martin, WalmartVisit Viral Nation → -
5
The Influencer Marketing Factory
TikTok, Instagram & YouTube CampaignsA full-service agency with strong TikTok expertise, offering end-to-end campaign management from influencer discovery through performance reporting with a focus on platform-native content.Clients: Google, Snapchat, Universal Music, Bumble, YelpVisit TIMF → -
6
NeoReach
Enterprise Analytics & Influencer CampaignsAn enterprise-focused agency combining managed campaigns with a powerful self-service data platform for influencer search, audience analytics, and attribution modeling.Clients: Amazon, Airbnb, Netflix, Honda, The New York TimesVisit NeoReach → -
7
Ubiquitous
Creator-First Marketing PlatformA tech-driven platform combining self-service tools with managed campaign options, emphasizing speed and scalability for brands managing multiple influencer relationships.Clients: Lyft, Disney, Target, American Eagle, NetflixVisit Ubiquitous → -
8
Obviously
Scalable Enterprise Influencer CampaignsA tech-enabled agency built for high-volume campaigns, coordinating hundreds of creators simultaneously with end-to-end logistics, content rights management, and product seeding.Clients: Google, Ulta Beauty, Converse, AmazonVisit Obviously →