Executive Summary — FY26 Marketing Investment
Total Revenue (FY26)
$296M
Rs 2,547 Cr · 17 LATAM markets
Regional Mktg Plan
$964K
0.33% of revenue (excl. Brasil Launch)
Actual Execution
$425K
30.0% of total plan · 44.1% of core plan
Distributor Support
$8.9M+
3–5% of revenue via trade incentives
Critical context: The FY26 total plan was $1.41M, but $450K (31.8%) was a one-time Brasil Launch allocation. The core LATAM marketing budget of $964K represents just 0.33% of revenue — and only 44.1% of even that was executed ($425K). Meanwhile, distributor sales incentives ($8.9M+) flow at 10–15x the regional marketing budget, revealing a structural imbalance between trade push and brand pull investment.
Plan vs Execution — Total Budget
Total Plan Rate
$425K of $1.41M
Core Plan Rate
$425K of $964K (excl. Brasil)
Actual Mktg/Revenue
Industry benchmark: 3–8%
Quarterly Execution Pace
Dashed outline = Plan amount (proportional to Q1) · Filled bar = Actual execution
Erratic pacing: Q2 collapse to 16.5% and Q4 at 0% suggest budget approvals and/or vendor activation delays. No steady execution cadence — the spend is reactive, not strategic.
Where the Money Actually Went
Top Categories by Execution ($)
Key takeaway: 55.4% of executed budget went to physical events (Expos + Summit). Digital media — theoretically the most scalable and measurable channel — captured only 12.3% of actual spend. The planned vs executed mix inverted completely: Digital was supposed to be 20% of plan but ended up at 12% of actual, while Events went from 12.7% of plan to 42.8% of actual.
Full Category Plan vs Execution
| Category | Plan ($) | Execution ($) | Exec Rate | % of Plan | % of Actual | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Investment | $192,597 | $52,093 | 27.0% | 13.6% | 12.3% | Underspent |
| AOG (Agency of Growth) | $94,500 | $1,200 | 1.3% | 6.7% | 0.3% | Not Activated |
| Influencers | $120,000 | $5,000 | 4.2% | 8.5% | 1.2% | Not Activated |
| Expos / Fairs / Launch | $180,000 | $181,994 | 101.1% | 12.7% | 42.8% | Overweight |
| Distributor Summit | $65,000 | $53,591 | 82.4% | 4.6% | 12.6% | On Track |
| Sponsorship | $60,000 | $46,674 | 77.8% | 4.2% | 11.0% | On Track |
| Physical Training | $50,000 | $6,303 | 12.6% | 3.5% | 1.5% | Underspent |
| NPS / Market Research | $49,000 | $14,364 | 29.3% | 3.5% | 3.4% | Partial |
| Call Center | $36,000 | $1,494 | 4.2% | 2.5% | 0.4% | Not Activated |
| HubSpot CRM | $35,628 | $14,060 | 39.5% | 2.5% | 3.3% | Partial |
| Content Production | $33,000 | $29,431 | 89.2% | 2.3% | 6.9% | On Track |
| AI Projects | $18,636 | $7,912 | 42.5% | 1.3% | 1.9% | Partial |
| AOG Welcome Kit | $18,000 | $0 | 0% | 1.3% | 0% | Not Activated |
| eTraining & Impl. | $12,000 | $10,845 | 90.4% | 0.8% | 2.6% | On Track |
| Brasil Launch | $450,000 | $0 | 0% | 31.8% | 0% | Deferred |
| GRAND TOTAL | $1,414,361 | $424,962 | 30.0% | 100% | 100% |
Planned Mix vs Actual Mix
Planned Distribution (by type)
Actual Distribution (executed $)
Mix inversion: The plan intended a balanced split across events (25%), digital (22%), and tech (11%). Reality: 68% of actual dollars went to events/activations while digital collapsed to 13% and tech to 5.5%. This is a structural problem — event-heavy execution is high-cost, low-frequency, and hard to measure for ROI attribution.
Digital Investment — Country Plan vs Execution
| Country | Revenue ($M) | Rev Share | Digital Plan | Digital Exec | Exec Rate | Mktg/Rev | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia | $72.5 | 24.5% | $15,917 | $1,568 | 9.9% | 0.002% | Critical |
| Mexico | $44.9 | 15.2% | $15,917 | $9,598 | 60.3% | 0.021% | Underfunded |
| Guatemala | $36.9 | 12.5% | $10,346 | $1,328 | 12.8% | 0.004% | Critical |
| Peru | $18.9 | 6.4% | $10,346 | $3,044 | 29.4% | 0.016% | Low |
| Honduras | $17.8 | 6.0% | $10,346 | $1,259 | 12.2% | 0.007% | Critical |
| Dominican Rep. | $9.4 | 3.2% | $10,346 | $1,894 | 18.3% | 0.020% | Low |
| El Salvador | $6.1 | 2.1% | $10,346 | $4,419 | 42.7% | 0.072% | Moderate |
| Argentina | $5.3 | 1.8% | $15,917 | $2,056 | 12.9% | 0.039% | Underfunded |
| Nicaragua | $5.2 | 1.7% | $10,346 | $475 | 4.6% | 0.009% | Critical |
| Ecuador | $3.2 | 1.1% | $10,346 | $1,241 | 12.0% | 0.039% | Low |
| Bolivia | $2.4 | 0.8% | $10,346 | $4,865 | 47.0% | 0.204% | OK |
| Costa Rica | $1.3 | 0.4% | $10,346 | $4,213 | 40.7% | 0.324% | OK |
| Paraguay | $1.2 | 0.4% | $10,346 | $569 | 5.5% | 0.049% | Low |
| Uruguay | $1.1 | 0.4% | $10,346 | $261 | 2.5% | 0.024% | Negligible |
| Venezuela | $0.9 | 0.3% | $10,346 | $13,916 | 134.5% | 1.69% | Overspend |
| Chile | $0.8 | 0.3% | $10,346 | $801 | 7.7% | 0.105% | Low |
| Panamá | $0.5 | 0.2% | $10,346 | $405 | 3.9% | 0.088% | Low |
Fundamental misalignment: The FY26 plan distributed digital budget near-equally ($10K–$16K per country), ignoring revenue concentration. The top 3 markets (CO + MX + GT) generate 52% of revenue but received the same allocation as Chile ($0.8M revenue). Venezuela — the smallest revenue contributor ($0.9M) — overspent its plan by 34.5%, consuming more digital budget than Colombia.
Revenue vs Marketing Investment Gap
Revenue Share vs Digital Spend Share — The Mismatch
Top mismatch countries shown. Ideal: revenue share ≈ spend share (adjusted for growth priority).
Distributor Sales/Marketing Support (Trade Layer)
Beyond the regional marketing budget, each country has 3–5% of revenue allocated as distributor sales/marketing support. This "hidden" marketing layer dwarfs the centrally managed budget.
| Country | Revenue ($M) | Support Rate | Est. Support ($) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia | $72.5M | 3.5% | $2,538K | 3% by CM, +0.5% with CBH approval |
| Mexico | $44.9M | 3.5% | $1,571K | Only KDM — excl. Mottu volume |
| Guatemala | $36.9M | 3.5% | $1,293K | Standard policy |
| Peru | $18.9M | 5.0% | $945K | New distributor — higher rate |
| Argentina | $5.3M | 3.0% | $159K | Special "Misión 1K" quarterly plan |
| LATAM Total (est.) | $296M | ~3.5% | ~$8,900K | Actual regional mktg: $425K (4.8% of trade layer) |
The two-layer reality: For every $1 spent on centralized brand marketing, $21 flows through distributor trade incentives. The MMM must model both layers — trade push drives short-term sell-out while brand investment builds long-term consideration and pricing power.
Digital Stack — Actual Vendor Spend
Line-item breakdown from the "Digital" sheet (Apr–Aug FY26, 5 months of recorded data):
Total Digital Stack
$61.2K
5 months (Apr–Aug)
Media Ads (Meta)
$49.4K
80.6% of digital stack · 100% Meta
MarTech (HubSpot+AI)
$7.7K
HubSpot $5.2K + AI tools $2.5K
Infrastructure
$4.1K
GCP + Twilio + WPEngine
Monthly Digital Ad Spend (Meta Only)
Media went dark after July. Ad spend dropped 27% from June to July, then appears to have stopped entirely. This means TVS had zero paid digital presence for 8+ months of FY26. Any brand awareness or lead gen from Q1 investment was lost without sustained pressure.
Digital Vendor Stack (Full Detail)
| Vendor | Category | Monthly Range | Total (5mo) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meta | Digital Ads | $9.7K–$13.7K | $49,386 | Facebook + Instagram. Only paid media channel. |
| HubSpot | CRM | $23–$2,794 | $5,244 | License + contact tier upgrades in Jul/Aug. |
| Google Cloud | Servers | $379–$720 | $2,186 | GCP compute. Rising trend (infra scaling). |
| Twilio | Servers | $0.05–$1,242 | $1,713 | WhatsApp API (Dani Ruedas). Jul spike = launch. |
| Dapta AI | AI | $499–$531 | $1,528 | AI platform. May–Aug active. |
| GitHub | AI/Dev | $62–$69 | $267 | Team licenses. |
| WPEngine | Servers | $30 | $150 | WordPress hosting (country sites). |
| HeyGen / Synthesia | AI | $29–$89 | $118 | Generative video. Aug only. |
| Koalify | HubSpot | $23 | $113 | Contact deduplication. |
| Loom | AI | $24 | $48 | Video messaging. Jul–Aug. |
| Bird IG | AI | $23 | $23 | IG automation. Aug only. |
| Google (Core) | Servers | $16–$23 | $77 | Workspace / core accounts. |
| TOTAL DIGITAL STACK | $61,236 | |||
Channel concentration risk: 100% of paid media was Meta (Facebook/Instagram). No Google Ads, no TikTok, no YouTube, no programmatic. For a motorcycle brand targeting young males (18-35) across LATAM, the absence of TikTok and YouTube is a significant missed opportunity — especially given that competitor brands like Bajaj and Yamaha are active on both.
FY26 Gaps → FY27 MMM Implications
1. Data Sufficiency for Marketing Mix Modeling
| MMM Requirement | FY26 Status | Impact on Modeling |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-channel spend data | Single channel (Meta only) | Cannot estimate cross-channel elasticities or substitution effects. |
| Weekly granularity | Monthly only | Monthly data limits adstock/carryover estimation. Need weekly for FY27. |
| Continuous spend periods | 5 months active, 7 dark | Gap periods make it impossible to distinguish decay from zero-spend baseline. |
| Country-level variation | 17 countries, near-equal budgets | No natural experiments — all countries got ~$10K. Cannot isolate country effects. |
| Outcome data (leads/sales) | Available via HubSpot + BQ | Good: lead and sale data exists. Can be matched to spend windows. |
| Competitive spend | Available via Admetricks | SOV/SOI data exists but needs standardization across markets. |
Honest assessment: FY26 data is insufficient for robust MMM calibration. Single-channel, discontinuous spend with flat country allocation provides almost no variance for the model to learn from. FY27 must deliberately create variation — staggered launches, budget experiments, channel diversification — to generate modelable data.
2. The $8.9M Blind Spot — Distributor Trade Layer
The 3–5% distributor support (~$8.9M) is the single largest marketing investment TVS makes in LATAM — yet it sits completely outside the regional marketing plan and likely has no granular tracking.
What we don't know
- How distributors actually spend the 3–5%
- Split between co-op advertising, POS, discounting
- ROI by distributor or by use type
- Overlap or conflict with central digital campaigns
What we should do for FY27
- Require spend reporting from top distributors (CO, MX, GT)
- Include trade support as an MMM variable
- Test co-op digital programs (TVS matches distributor spend)
- Estimate the total marketing investment (trade + central)
3. Budget Allocation — What Should Change for FY27
| Dimension | FY26 Reality | FY27 Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Total budget | $425K executed (0.14% rev) | Target minimum 1% of revenue (~$3M) per Growth scenario in our MMM model |
| Channel mix | 68% Events, 13% Digital, 0% Influencers | 45% Digital, 25% Events, 15% Influencers, 10% Content, 5% Research |
| Media platforms | 100% Meta | Meta 50%, TikTok 20%, Google 20%, YouTube 10% |
| Country allocation | Equal (~$10K/country regardless of revenue) | Revenue-weighted with growth premiums: CO 30%, MX 25%, GT 15%, PE 10%, others 20% |
| Execution cadence | Erratic: Q1 active, Q2–Q4 spotty/dark | Always-on digital + quarterly event peaks. Zero dark periods. |
| Measurement | No attribution framework | Weekly spend × leads × sales by country. Pre/post for events. A/B for digital. |
4. Special Price Requests — Pricing as a Marketing Variable
The budget file reveals active FOB price reduction requests across 8 countries and 20+ SKUs. This is a critical MMM variable — pricing changes directly compete with marketing spend as a growth lever.
| Country | Models Requested | Avg FOB Reduction | Key Model |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peru | 13 models | 4–8% | Raider ($840→$800), RTR 200 ($1,460→$1,350) |
| Colombia | 4 models | 5–10% | Apache 200 ($1,557→$1,407), Sport 100 ($593→$544) |
| Mexico | 2 models | 3–15% | Ronin ($1,770→$1,500), Stryker/Raider ($825→$800) |
| Guatemala | 2 models | 6–7% | Apache 200 ($1,352→$1,252), HLX 150 ($691→$650) |
MMM input: Every pricing change is a natural experiment. If Peru drops Raider FOB by 5% and sales increase 15%, that's a price elasticity data point the model can learn from. Coordinate pricing changes with marketing activation windows to disentangle price vs. marketing effects.
5. Summit Investment — Event ROI Context
The Distributor Summit was the second-largest actual expenditure ($53.6K). Breakdown:
Total: $53,591 · 75.6% of $65K plan executed