Total Economic Impact
Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By LiveRamp
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY liveramp, June 2025
Total Economic Impact
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY liveramp, June 2025
Four forces challenge marketers’ audience insight, targeting, and measurement precision today: heightened privacy regulations, walled gardens, consumers’ privacy-protecting behaviors, and browser and operating system restrictions on collecting consumer data.1 Despite these forces of data deprecation, marketers must continue to drive performance. Through technologies like data clean rooms, data collaboration use cases have the potential to enable marketers and advertisers to optimize media planning, campaign performance, and return on ad spend (ROAS) without exposing personal information.
LiveRamp enables brands, publishers, and platforms to deliver unique experiences and drive measurable performance everywhere it matters with its vast data collaboration network. Its core offering is the LiveRamp Data Collaboration Platform, which includes four product portfolios: Live/Access, Live/Identity, Live/Connectivity, and Live/Insights. Built for interoperability across identifiers, platforms, partners, and clouds at scale and powered by its identity resolution technology, the platform enables its customers to build brand and business value by collaborating responsibly with data.
LiveRamp commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying the LiveRamp Data Collaboration Platform.2 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of LiveRamp on their organizations.
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed four decision-makers with experience using LiveRamp. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the experiences of the interviewees and combined the results into a single composite organization, which is a B2C enterprise with $5 billion in annual revenue. The composite has $100 million in annual paid media spend and advertises through several paid media channels (e.g., programmatic, search, social, linear TV, connected TV [CTV]) and retail media networks.
Prior to using LiveRamp, the interviewees explained how their organizations faced challenges across the paid media lifecycle, from planning to activation to measurement. Their organizations struggled to measure channel effectiveness and lacked granular attribution data, which led to inefficient media spending. Additionally, their organizations encountered difficulty in collaborating with media partners at scale and sharing customer data without raising data privacy concerns.
After the investment in LiveRamp, the interviewees’ organizations realized improvements in both media efficiency and effectiveness across paid media channels and retail media networks. Their teams gained operational efficiencies in their media activation activities; improved their data governance workflows; realized brand perception improvements; and strengthened overall relationships with agencies, retailers, and publishers.
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the composite organization include:
Paid media budget efficiency. The composite dedicates 85% of its overall media budget to paid media channels. With LiveRamp, the composite identifies ways to cut waste by improving audience targeting, optimizing campaign frequency, buying higher quality data, and refining ad placements. By Year 3, this equates to a 15% efficiency gain in budget spend. Over three years, this is worth $6.1 million to the composite.
Incremental paid media performance growth. Each year, the composite focuses on measuring a portion of its paid media channels to understand performance growth. The composite measures 30% in Year 1, which increases to 70% by Year 3. As it uses first-, second-, and third-party data within LiveRamp and refines its measurement strategy based on new insights, it increases its overall return per dollar of ad spend by 5% in Year 3. Over three years, this contributes $18 million in incremental revenue and is worth $1.4 million in operating profit to the composite.
Retail media network budget efficiency. The composite dedicates the remaining 15% of its overall media budget to retail media networks. By collaborating with its key retail partners in the LiveRamp Clean Room, the composite matches exposure data with transaction data to identify new areas of budget inefficiency and cut waste. By Year 3, this equates to a 20% efficiency gain in budget spend. Over three years, this is worth $1.2 million to the composite.
Incremental retail media performance growth. Like its paid media channels, the composite measures an increasing percentage of its retail media spend each year, beginning with 30% in Year 1 and increasing to 90% by Year 3. The composite’s return per dollar of ad spend grows 10% by Year 3. Over three years, this contributes $8.8 million in incremental revenue and is worth $710,000 in operating profit to the composite.
Media activation operational efficiency. The composite’s audience operation team accelerates its data integration and distribution workflows with LiveRamp. This team gains additional efficiencies by building audience segments within the platform and federating them to publishers, rather than rebuilding audiences for each publisher as in its prior environment. By Year 3, this equates to 50% time savings for each team member focused on these media activation activities. Over three years, this is worth $215,000 to the composite.
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that provide additional value for the composite organization but are not quantified for this study include:
Improved brand perception. As brands improve segmentation and targeting activities and gain a more accurate understanding of their audiences and their buying journeys, media campaigns resonate better with consumers, boosting brand perception.
Enhanced relationships with agencies, retailers, and publishers. With LiveRamp, data accessibility improves. This allows all key partners — brands, agencies, retailers, and publishers — to spend less time identifying the most accurate set of data and more time on strategic media planning discussions.
Improved cadence of media planning. Rather than waiting for long periods of time to receive disjointed outputs from various publishers, brands can engage in more frequent, informed campaign planning activities by tapping into historical performance insights stored within LiveRamp.
Improved data governance to avoid potential revenue loss and legal costs. LiveRamp’s focus on embedded identity resolution eliminates the need for brands to send hashed customer data directly to partners. This reduces the likelihood of outsiders intercepting and accessing personally identifiable information (PII) and avoids a potential decline in customer trust and therefore, revenue.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the composite organization include:
LiveRamp fees. The composite’s engagement with LiveRamp scales over three years. The total fee includes onboarding workflows, conversion API (CAPI) for attribution, three clean room instances, and cross-media measurement and attribution across all impressions within the platform. Over three years, the composite pays $1.4 million to LiveRamp.
Implementation and ongoing optimization. The composite dedicates seven resources over three months to initial platform configuration. Beginning in Year 2, the composite sets up its clean rooms with key partners and continues to optimize its media planning, activation, and measurement strategy. Over three years, the composite pays $939,000 for these labor costs.
The financial analysis that is based on the interviews found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $9.6 million over three years versus costs of $2.3 million, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $7.3 million and an ROI of 313%.
Return on investment (ROI)
Benefits PV
Net present value (NPV)
Payback
| Role | Industry | Region | Employees And Operations |
Customer Records In LiveRamp |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Head of media transformation | Financial services | $81B | 239,000 HQ: US |
75M |
| Senior analytics director | Specialty consumer packaged goods (CPG) | $4.5B | 3,500 HQ: US |
10M to 12M |
| VP, data-driven experiences | Personal care & beauty | €43B | 90,000 HQ: Europe |
90M |
| Marketing manager, technology and innovation | Travel | $61B | 100,000 HQ: US |
60M |
Each interviewee’s organization dedicated significant investment to its paid media budgets and advertised across several channels: paid search, paid social, programmatic display, linear TV, CTV, and retail media networks. However, despite this investment, their organizations faced challenges across the media lifecycle, from planning and activation to measurement and attribution. From sending PII directly to partners to inadequate attribution data to inefficient spending, their organizations had difficulty maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of their paid media programs. Interviewees noted how their organizations struggled with common challenges, including:
Lack of cross-channel attribution. Interviewees explained that their organizations could not appropriately attribute conversions across the full marketing funnel. This led to confusion between their media and finance teams, preventing them from fully understanding their customers’ purchase journeys and measuring performance across channels and publishers. The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “Before LiveRamp, from a paid media standpoint, we were only crediting last touches or any conversion that we acquired off a direct click. We weren’t crediting TV at all. We just did it because we knew we should. The areas that were less trackable weren’t given credit.”
Inability to measure channel effectiveness. Interviewees explained that their organizations lacked the ability to understand which channels were effective in reaching their audiences. They did not dedicate much time to planning data-driven campaigns but used ad hoc business decisions to turn investments on and off. The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “Investment was constantly shrinking. It would go up with a full-funnel marketing campaign for a new product launch, and then we’d turn it off after three months when we started to generate some customers because we had no idea if it was effective or not.”
The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “We’ve led a marketing mix program for all the time that I’ve been here. When we first started that, we invested less than $25 million in media. We knew we had a lot of opportunity to grow the business if we could find ways to reprioritize.”
Inefficient media spend. Without cross-channel attribution and a clear understanding of channel performance, interviewees understood their media budgets were not as efficient as they could be. The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “We received exposure and transaction data that revealed that a lot of our spending was grossly inefficient. We were way overspending in terms of reach and frequency.”
This interviewee continued: “A few years ago, we would cut a check for an experiment and close our eyes until we got results. Those days are over.”
Sending PII directly to media partners. Forrester research states, “B2C marketers are stuck between two opposing forces: the desire to market data-driven decisions that improve marketing performance and the requirement to protect consumers’ data privacy.”3 Prior to LiveRamp, interviewees explained that their media teams would hash and send customer records directly to their partners, which raised data privacy concerns. The marketing manager of technology and innovation at a travel organization said, “We wanted to get away from pushing any of our customer PII outside of our walls and control it as much as we could by going through one centralized partner.”
Lack of integrations with media partners. One of the interviewees’ organizations invested in a legacy data onboarding tool prior to LiveRamp. This tool did not integrate with key publishers and retailers at scale. The VP of data-driven experiences at a personal care and beauty organization said, “There were media partner integrations [with our old tool] that were not even on their roadmap.”
The interviewees searched for a solution that could:
Drive their organization’s major media transformation agenda.
Reprioritize their existing media mix program.
Attain better media performance data.
Realize return on scale and performance of targeted audiences.
Integrate with their internal systems and external media partners.
Collaborate using data containing PII in a trusted way.
Offer a global footprint for collaboration across markets.
After an RFP and business case process evaluating multiple vendors, the interviewees’ organizations chose LiveRamp and began deployment in a phased approach:
The VP of data-driven experiences at a personal care and beauty organization said: “It was a build [over time]. We started with data onboarding and paid media use cases, including suppression, direct targeting, etc. We then moved into buying third-party data, and we’ve started to work very closely with our retailer and publisher clean rooms.”
The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “We hadn’t done a new product launch in five or six years, and we did not have a TV footprint in our paid media mix. We had a new head of media who understands data and identity graphs. He said, ‘If we’re going to spend all of this money in linear TV and launch this product, we’re going to do it right and we’re going to make sure that we can measure it.’ That was really the big catalyst. Everyone got hooked on it and is still doing it.”
The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “Our teams were looking for an identity resolution partner and selected LiveRamp given its ability to integrate into other systems as well as its own. The flexibility was the appeal. That happened five years ago. As the identity technology was being stood up, I got involved to discuss clean rooms with a retail partner. … We realized there was an opportunity to expand our partnership with LiveRamp.”
The marketing manager of technology and innovation at a travel and hospitality organization said: “We chose LiveRamp because of the interoperability with the number of demand-side platforms (DSPs) and partners. In a pilot with LiveRamp, we had many media partners we were working with through our agency. We definitely saw an increase in lift. So we went forward with using LiveRamp as the default identity resolution platform for anyone within our media plan for the year. That was the start of things.”
Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the interviewees’ organizations, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:
Description of composite. The global B2C enterprise is worth $5 billion and advertises through many paid media channels, including retail media networks. It onboards 60 million customer data records to LiveRamp.
Deployment characteristics. The composite organization begins using LiveRamp in Year 1 following a three-month initial configuration period. The composite first focuses on data onboarding, data hygiene, and setting up its activation channels. The composite uses RampIDs, LiveRamp’s durable and interoperable identifiers, for connecting its ecosystem for activation. In Year 1, the composite focuses on onboarding workflows and CAPI for attribution. In Year 2, it sets up one clean room. In Year 3, it sets up three clean rooms and performs cross-media measurement and attribution across all impressions. The composite invests in third-party data through LiveRamp’s Data Marketplace over the three years.
$5 billion annual revenue
Enterprise B2C brand
Advertises through paid media channels and retail media networks
60 million customer records onboarded in LiveRamp
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Paid media budget efficiency | $1,264,375 | $2,528,750 | $3,793,125 | $7,586,250 | $6,089,139 |
| Btr | Incremental paid media performance growth | $104,040 | $520,200 | $1,213,800 | $1,838,040 | $1,436,445 |
| Ctr | Retail media network budget efficiency | $318,750 | $478,125 | $637,500 | $1,434,375 | $1,163,881 |
| Dtr | Incremental retail media performance growth | $91,800 | $257,040 | $550,800 | $899,640 | $709,708 |
| Etr | Media activation operational efficiency | $65,813 | $87,750 | $109,688 | $263,251 | $214,760 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $1,844,778 | $3,871,865 | $6,304,913 | $12,021,556 | $9,613,933 |
Evidence and data. Interviewees explained that their organization’s paid media budgets were not fully optimized. LiveRamp enabled them to realize a holistic view of their overall media performance and identify specific areas of waste. By refining ad placements, targeting correct audiences, optimizing reach and frequency, and obtaining higher quality data, these organizations gained efficiencies in their overall budgets.
The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “Looking at frequency … we determined spend could be reduced and we would still hit our acquisition goals. We understood the remaining spend should be optimized toward low frequency, high reach publishers and placements. LiveRamp helps us measure frequency holistically across all of our partners versus looking at it partner by partner. Without LiveRamp, we wouldn’t be able to look at frequency at that level. It would be fragmented across one DSP or another. … When we look at DSPs, we’ve shifted more investment toward DSPs if they’re willing to give us exposure logs on RampIDs.”
The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “Where we’ve really delivered the value is in refining our audiences. We suppress our less productive audiences publisher by publisher, which enables us to generate savings that can extend our reach and improve our frequency.”
Modeling and assumptions. For the financial analysis as applied to the composite organization, Forrester assumes:
The composite’s annual revenue is $5 billion.
The composite dedicates 10% of its annual revenue to its marketing budget.
The composite dedicates 20% of its marketing budget to its paid media budget.
It dedicates 85% of the paid media budget to all channels except retail media networks.
The composite can optimize 35% of its paid media budget.
With LiveRamp, the paid media budget gains 5% efficiency in Year 1, 10% in Year 2, and 15% in Year 3.
Risks. The value of this benefit may vary among organizations depending on:
Annual revenue.
The percentage of annual revenue dedicated to marketing and paid media budgets.
The mix of channels they advertise through, and whether they include retail channels.
How much an organization can optimize its paid media budget.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $6.1 million.
Paid media budget efficiency improvement by Year 3
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Annual revenue | Composite | $5,000,000,000 | $5,000,000,000 | $5,000,000,000 | |
| A2 | Marketing budget as a percentage of annual revenue | Forrester research | 10% | 10% | 10% | |
| A3 | Paid media as a percentage of the marketing budget | Forrester research | 20% | 20% | 20% | |
| A4 | Annual paid media budget | A1*A2*A3 | $100,000,000 | $100,000,000 | $100,000,000 | |
| A5 | Percentage of paid media budget excluding retail media networks | Composite | 85% | 85% | 85% | |
| A6 | Annual paid media budget excluding retail media networks | A4*A5 | $85,000,000 | $85,000,000 | $85,000,000 | |
| A7 | Percentage of paid media budget that can be optimized | Composite | 35% | 35% | 35% | |
| A8 | Improved budget efficiency with LiveRamp | Interviews | 5% | 10% | 15% | |
| At | Paid media budget efficiency | A6*A7*A8 | $1,487,500 | $2,975,000 | $4,462,500 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Atr | Paid media budget efficiency (risk-adjusted) | $1,264,375 | $2,528,750 | $3,793,125 | ||
| Three-year total: $7,586,250 | Three-year present value: $6,089,139 | |||||
Evidence and data. Forrester research states, “For advertisers trying to understand campaign performance and calculate ROAS, collaborating with a partner enables them to compare their campaign data with the partner’s transaction data and build a closed-loop understanding of marketing performance.”4 In addition to cutting waste, interviewees explained how LiveRamp’s collaboration network and ability to use first-, second-, and third-party data together enabled performance growth across their organization’s paid media channels. Which growth metrics they tracked depended on the tactic and objectives of their media campaign; interviewees discussed new customer acquisition rates, cost per acquisition rates, and match rates.
The marketing manager of technology and innovation at a travel and hospitality organization said: “Through an A/B test, we saw a 30% to 35% increase in booking confirmations that resulted from an increase in scalability with LiveRamp. For this test, we compared the number of RampIDs that we had the ability to track [across key publishers] using the PII versus [sending] our data directly to publishers for the full scale of our audiences [before LiveRamp].”
The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “Since shifting our attribution from last touch to full funnel with LiveRamp, we’ve been able to maintain consistency in our investments in channels that were not measurable before and grow them as well. We went from measuring 1% of our paid media investment to now 98%. … We started growing by looking at display, CTV, paid search, affiliate channels, and our direct mail channels. We built out a custom, multitouch attribution model in the platform, and now we’re shifting it all to their cross-channel clean room and customizing it to add business rules to those attribution models.”
The same interviewee said: “Data collaboration is newer to us. We work with key partners to track the benefit of accessing their data for campaigns to prospects as well. [Based on a test,] we saw our cost per acquisition was 50% lower when we used our partners’ data in combination with our own.”
The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “Some publishers [outside the walled gardens] had frustration because they could see a lot of funding going to the walled gardens due to the illusion of control. It was masking their own performance. A lot of the work we’ve done has revealed [their frustration] to be true, especially with TV publishers that provide a way for us to capture new households. Having the ability to view that directly has really changed our relationship with those publishers.”
Modeling and assumptions. For the financial analysis as applied to the composite organization, Forrester assumes:
The composite’s annual paid media budget is $85 million.
The percentage of paid media budget measured increases annually. In Year 1, it optimizes 30%. In Years 2 and 3, this increases to 50% and 70% respectively.
Prior to implementing LiveRamp, the return per dollar of ad spend for paid media networks was $4.
With LiveRamp, the return per dollar of ad spend increases 1% in Year 1, 3% in Year 2, and 5% in Year 3. This contributes $18 million in incremental revenue by Year 3.
The composite’s operating margin is 12%.
Risks. The value of this benefit may vary among organizations depending on:
The mix of channels the organization advertises through and the corresponding average return per dollar of ad spend.
The percentage of media budget that it measures each year.
Operating margins.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.4 million.
Growth in return per dollar of ad spend with LiveRamp by Year 3
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Annual paid media budget | A6 | $85,000,000 | $85,000,000 | $85,000,000 | |
| B2 | Percentage of paid media budget measured | Composite | 30% | 50% | 70% | |
| B3 | Return per dollar of ad spend for paid media networks | Composite | $4 | $4 | $4 | |
| B4 | Growth in return per dollar of ad spend with LiveRamp | Interviews | 1% | 3% | 5% | |
| B5 | Return per dollar of ad spend with LiveRamp | B3+(B3*B4) | $4.04 | $4.12 | $4.20 | |
| B6 | Subtotal: Incremental paid media revenue growth | B1*B2*(B5-B3) | $1,020,000 | $5,100,000 | $11,900,000 | |
| B7 | Operating margin | Composite | 12% | 12% | 12% | |
| Bt | Incremental paid media performance growth | B6*B7 | $122,400 | $612,000 | $1,428,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Btr | Incremental paid media performance growth (risk-adjusted) | $104,040 | $520,200 | $1,213,800 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,838,040 | Three-year present value: $1,436,445 | |||||
Evidence and data. In addition to paid media channels, interviewees explained the importance of identifying and eliminating inefficiencies in their organizations’ retail media budgets. This was especially important for brands with sizable direct-to-consumer businesses. Through relationships with key retailers via a LiveRamp Clean Room, the interviewees explained how LiveRamp enabled their organizations to match exposure data with transaction data to drive attribution and efficiency.
The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “Bringing in our own media exposure data and pushing the retailers to bring their own in is really where the magic has happened. We’ve identified a lot of efficiencies. It’s also where we’ve learned a lot about media execution and how to coordinate between us.”
The same interviewee said: “We go into discussions knowing what we think the value of each customer segment is and what the cost is both for our media but also for their media. Then we plan accordingly. That’s really changed the dynamic from where retail media was for us a few years ago, which was, ‘I want you to spend $20 million with us. Where’s your checkbook?’”
Modeling and assumptions. For the financial analysis as applied to the composite organization, Forrester assumes:
The composite dedicates 15% of its annual paid media budget to retail media networks.
The composite can optimize 25% of its retail media budget.
With LiveRamp, the retail media network budget gains 10% efficiency in Year 1, 15% in Year 2, and 20% in Year 3.
Risks. The value of this benefit may vary among organizations depending on:
Whether the organization advertises through retail media networks, and how much of the annual paid media budget it dedicates to retail media.
How much of the retail media network budget it can optimize.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.2 million.
Retail media network budget efficiency improvement by Year 3
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Annual paid media budget | A4 | $100,000,000 | $100,000,000 | $100,000,000 | |
| C2 | Percentage of annual paid media budget dedicated to retail media networks | 1-A5 | 15% | 15% | 15% | |
| C3 | Annual retail media network budget | C1*C2 | $15,000,000 | $15,000,000 | $15,000,000 | |
| C4 | Percentage of retail media network budget that can be optimized | Composite | 25% | 25% | 25% | |
| C5 | Improved efficiency with LiveRamp | Interviews | 10% | 15% | 20% | |
| Ct | Retail media network budget efficiency | C3*C4*C5 | $375,000 | $562,500 | $750,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Ctr | Retail media network budget efficiency (risk-adjusted) | $318,750 | $478,125 | $637,500 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,434,375 | Three-year present value: $1,163,881 | |||||
Evidence and data. Forrester research states, “Brands hunger for retail media networks’ troves of unique signals, sticky value exchanges with consumers, and highly efficient, measurable advertising.”5 Interviewees shared the following examples of how LiveRamp fostered transparency in their relationships with retailers, which drove new insights and growth in overall media performance. Additionally, LiveRamp’s powerful data collaboration network served as an entry point for potential new retail partnerships.
The VP of data-driven experiences at a personal care and beauty organization said: “LiveRamp has been a strategic partner in helping us unlock and enable our strategy with some of our retailers. They are also helping us connect the dots with the right teams at other retailers that we were not doing data collaboration with yet.”
The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “We now look at each of our retailers on a total of households. We try and associate cost and benefit, cost of acquisition, and the revenues associated with them. That’s really been transformational in terms of how we think and how we plan our retail media with our retail partners. We can think of this in terms of value proposition.”
This same interviewee said: “When you’ve measured experiments using their media exposures, their customers, and their transactions versus yours, it’s very hard to have some kind of bluffing game about how big your ROAS is. It’s brought a lot of transparency. It means that we waste a lot less time posturing.”
Modeling and assumptions. For the financial analysis as applied to the composite organization, Forrester assumes:
The composite’s retail media network budget is $15 million.
The percentage of retail media budget measured increases annually. In Year 1, it measures 30%. In Years 2 and 3, this increases to 60% and 90% respectively.
Prior to implementing LiveRamp, the return per dollar of ad spend for retail media networks was $4.
With LiveRamp the return per dollar of ad spend increases 5% in Year 1, 7% in Year 2, and 10% in Year 3. This contributes $8.8 million in incremental revenue by Year 3.
The composite’s operating margin is 12%.
Risks. The value of this benefit may vary among organizations depending on
The mix of retail channels the organization advertises through, and the corresponding average return per dollar of ad spend.
The percentage of retail media network budget that it measures each year.
Operating margins.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $710,000.
Growth in return per dollar of retail media network ad spend by Year 3
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Annual retail media network budget | C3 | $15,000,000 | $15,000,000 | $15,000,000 | |
| D2 | Percentage of paid media budget measured | Composite | 30% | 60% | 90% | |
| D3 | Return per dollar of ad spend for retail media networks | Composite | $4 | $4 | $4 | |
| D4 | Growth in return per dollar of ad spend with LiveRamp | Interviews | 5% | 7% | 10% | |
| D5 | Return per dollar of ad spend with LiveRamp | D3+(D3*D4) | $4.20 | $4.28 | $4.40 | |
| D6 | Subtotal: Incremental paid media revenue growth | D1*D2*(D5-D3) | $900,000 | $2,520,000 | $5,400,000 | |
| D7 | Operating margin | TEI standard | 12% | 12% | 12% | |
| Dt | Incremental retail media performance growth | D6*D7 | $108,000 | $302,400 | $648,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Dtr | Incremental retail media performance growth (risk-adjusted) | $91,800 | $257,040 | $550,800 | ||
| Three-year total: 899,640 | Three-year present value: $709,708 | |||||
Evidence and data. In addition to media budget efficiency and effectiveness, the interviewees shared examples of how their organization’s media teams accelerated certain workflows within LiveRamp. These workflows centered around data integration, data activation, and data governance activities. Additionally, the interviewees shared how their media teams spent less time rebuilding audiences by building set segments within the platform.
The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “[LiveRamp’s] platform definitely reduces timelines. If you don’t have LiveRamp, then you have to manually upload hashed emails to a partner. We used to do addressable TV buys that were insanely long and manual, taking three or four weeks just to get the data in-platform and mapped. Now, for CTV, we can get the data to the partner in three days instead of four weeks.”
The marketing manager of technology and innovation at a travel organization said: “The ease of pushing the information out to new destinations is pretty significant. LiveRamp has been really phenomenal in working with us on migrating our existing data feeds that are coming from somewhat of a manual process … they’ve helped us understand how to better organize the data and utilize it within their system. LiveRamp tends to be trusted within our organization through privacy and IT a lot more than other platforms.”
The VP of data-driven experiences at a personal care and beauty organization said: “We validated the operational pipeline that we needed, and we created an always-on brand that my team doesn’t need to build. We’re around a 70/30 split of always on versus ad hoc or test-and-learn audiences. This has created significant operational efficiency. We can be more strategic with the test and learn around incrementality.”
Modeling and assumptions. For the financial analysis as applied to the composite organization, Forrester assumes:
Five audience operation managers dedicate 75% of their time to data integration and activation activities.
With LiveRamp, the audience operation managers gain 30% efficiency in Year 1, 40% in Year 2, and 50% in Year 3.
The average fully burdened annual salary of an audience operation manager is $130,000.
Forrester assumes that they recapture 50% of their work in productive activities.
Risks. The value of this benefit may vary among organizations depending on:
The size and skill set of the data integration and activation team.
Annual salaries.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $215,000.
Efficiency gain for data integration and activation activities by Year 3
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Audience operation manager FTEs | Composite | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| E2 | Percentage of time dedicated to data integration and activation | Composite | 75% | 75% | 75% | |
| E3 | Efficiency gain with LiveRamp | Interviews | 30% | 40% | 50% | |
| E4 | Fully burdened annual salary for an audience operations FTE | Composite | $130,000 | $130,000 | $130,000 | |
| E5 | Productivity recapture | TEI methodology | 50% | 50% | 50% | |
| Et | Media activation operational efficiency | E1*E2*E3*E4*E5 | $73,125 | $97,500 | $121,875 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Etr | Media activation operational efficiency (risk-adjusted) | $65,813 | $87,750 | $109,688 | ||
| Three-year total: $263,251 | Three-year present value: $214,760 | |||||
Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:
Improved brand perception. Through improved segmentation and targeting, more informed audience insights, and better reach and frequency management, media campaigns resonate better with their intended audience. The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “The perception of our brand to our customers is much higher when ads are relevant to them; they’re seeing ads the right number of times, and they’re not seeing ads for products they already have. I was looking at data today, and we are driving a positive impact toward our customers’ perception of us.”
Enhanced relationships across agencies, retailers, and publishers. With improved data accessibility, all stakeholders come to the table with an agreed upon, accurate set of media data for planning and activation. This eliminates the need for haggling over data access and agreements and allows for more time to focus on strategic discussions. The senior director of analytics at a specialty CPG organization said: “This whole process has added a lot of transparency, both on our side and on the agency side. Our ways of working have transformed. It’s much more cooperative and positive. We’re working together to set targets, design the experiments, and investigate new platforms. We vigorously go after new opportunities.”
Improved media planning cadence. With better access to media performance data that enables more accurate measurement and attribution, brands can engage and continually plan media to foster efficiency and effectiveness goals throughout the year. The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “Our consideration sets for our media plans are built off of the performance we’re seeing out of LiveRamp. One of our most important criteria is what the LiveRamp platform says about the historical performance of that partner.”
The senior analytics director at a specialty CPG organization said: “[Media planning] is night and day. Pre-LiveRamp, the only tool we were able to provide to the agency was marketing mix model outputs. We did our best to provide as frequent an update as we could, but even then, it was always a six- or eight-week retrospective at best. All we could do was give insight around publishers rather than campaigns and audiences. Having the [LiveRamp Clean Room] has transformed our media execution 100%. I meet with the media team on a monthly basis; [previously,] we would spend time quarterly and biannually doing the planning. Now we’re now joined at the hip, and there are roles that we’ve specifically put into the teams to provide overlap between media planning and analytics in terms of working efficiencies.”
Improved data governance to avoid potential revenue loss and legal costs. LiveRamp’s embedded identity resolution technology eliminates the need to send hashed customer PII directly to media partners. Brands can collaborate with their key partners’ data without exposing the data or leaving the platform, avoiding the potential for others to intercept and access it, which could negatively impact the company’s brand reputation and significantly decrease its revenue and profit.
The value of flexibility is unique to each brand. There are multiple scenarios in which a brand might implement LiveRamp and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
Expanding data collaboration use cases. The interviewees recognized their organizations were at the beginning of their data collaboration journeys and will continue to explore new use cases with existing and new partners. The head of media transformation at a financial services organization said: “I want to build out this huge social media clean room infrastructure and social media roadmap to mimic the benefits we’ve seen in other channels.”
Continue to refine measurement strategies. Interviewees explained the continuous need to assess and refine their organization’s media measurement strategy as their media relationships and strategy evolve alongside their brand’s needs.
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Total Economic Impact Approach).
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ftr | LiveRamp investment | $0 | $157,500 | $315,000 | $1,312,500 | $1,785,000 | $1,389,613 |
| Gtr | Implementation and ongoing optimization | $250,242 | $143,000 | $286,000 | $429,000 | $1,108,242 | $938,920 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $250,242 | $300,500 | $601,000 | $1,741,500 | $2,893,242 | $2,328,533 |
Evidence and data. Interviewees explained that LiveRamp customized pricing based on their evolving engagement. In general, the license fee included a combination of the number of customer records onboarded, third-party data fees, measurement workflows/services provided, and whether their organization implemented any clean rooms. Pricing may vary. Contact LiveRamp for additional details.
Modeling and assumptions. For the financial analysis as applied to the composite organization, Forrester assumes:
The composite pays $150,000 in Year 1, $300,000 in Year 2, and $1,250,000 in Year 3. This pricing assumes:
Risks. The cost may vary depending on:
The size and scope of the engagement with LiveRamp.
The number of customer records onboarded.
Any negotiated discounts.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.4 million.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | LiveRamp fees | LiveRamp | $0 | $150,000 | $300,000 | $1,250,000 |
| Ft | LiveRamp investment | F1 | $0 | $150,000 | $300,000 | $1,250,000 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑5% | |||||
| Ftr | LiveRamp investment (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $157,500 | $315,000 | $1,312,500 | |
| Three-year total: $1,785,000 | Three-year present value: $1,389,613 | |||||
Evidence and data. Interviewees explained how their organizations maintained a close relationship with LiveRamp during and after implementation. Although each organization configured the platform to its unique business needs, initial implementation generally involved onboarding customer data from systems such as a CDP, configuring identity resolution rules, and building activation workflows for key destinations.
On an ongoing basis, interviewees managed their database, set up measurement and attribution workflows, purchased third-party data, and set up clean room instances. The interviewees’ organizations included a mix of dedicated resources, such as data scientists, engineers, marketing and media experts, analysts, and project specialists. Each of their organizations also employed agency resources to support various project work.
The marketing manager of technology and innovation at a travel organization said: “We connect with LiveRamp on changes, roadmap items, updates, and general conversations to maximize the value of the platform. Their technical services team is very engaged, and we work well together.”
The senior director of analytics at a specialty CPG organization said: “LiveRamp is embedded in my team. We have daily contact, monthly project governance sessions, quarterly reviews of results, and two annual planning sessions.”
Sharing how team dynamics have evolved, the same interviewee said: “I now have media execution analysts working within my [analytics] team. We now have people on the media team who are focused on implementing results from clean rooms.”
Modeling and assumptions. For the financial analysis as applied to the composite organization, Forrester assumes:
Seven resources at the composite dedicate three months to initial platform configuration.
For ongoing optimization and expansion, including additional clean room implementations, the composite dedicates one resource in Year 1, two in Year 2, and three in Year 3.
The average fully burdened annual salary for an implementation and ongoing optimization resource is $130,000 ($10,833 monthly).
Risks. The cost of this benefit may vary among organizations depending on:
The scope of the LiveRamp engagement.
Skill sets across media team resources.
The extent to which an organization needs agency resources.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $939,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Months for initial configuration | Composite | 3 | |||
| G2 | Resources dedicated to initial implementation | Composite | 7 | |||
| G3 | Fully burdened monthly salary for an initial implementation resource | E4/12 | $10,833 | |||
| G4 | Resources dedicated to ongoing optimization | Composite | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| G5 | Fully burdened annual salary for an implementation and ongoing optimization resource | E4 | $130,000 | $130,000 | $130,000 | |
| Gt | Implementation and ongoing optimization | (G1*G2*G3) + G4*G5) | $227,493 | $130,000 | $260,000 | $390,000 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Gtr | Implementation and ongoing optimization (risk-adjusted) | $250,242 | $143,000 | $286,000 | $429,000 | |
| Three-year total: $1,108,242 | Three-year present value: $938,920 | |||||
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($250,242) | ($300,500) | ($601,000) | ($1,741,500) | ($2,893,242) | ($2,328,533) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $1,844,778 | $3,871,865 | $6,304,913 | $12,021,556 | $9,613,933 |
| Net benefits | ($250,242) | $1,544,278 | $3,270,865 | $4,563,413 | $9,128,314 | $7,285,400 |
| ROI | 313% | |||||
| Payback | <6 months |
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in the LiveRamp Data Collaboration Platform.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that LiveRamp can have on an organization.
Interviewed LiveRamp stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to LiveRamp Data Collaboration Platform.
Interviewed four decision-makers at organizations using the LiveRamp Data Collaboration Platform to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.
Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Benefits represent the value the solution delivers to the business. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and costs, allowing for a full examination of the solution’s effect on the entire organization.
Costs comprise all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the solution. The methodology captures implementation and ongoing costs associated with the solution.
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. The ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PV of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.
The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made unless other projects have higher NPVs.
A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.
The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.
The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Related Forrester Research
How To Use Privacy Technology To Improve Ad Performance Measurement, Forrester Research Inc., May 2, 2024.
Digital Media’s Performance Paradox, Forrester Research, Inc., July 3, 2024.
1 Source: The State of Data Clean Rooms, 2023, Forrester Research, Inc., October 13, 2023.
2 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
3 Source: The Data Clean Room Solutions Landscape, Q4 2024, Forrester Research., December 18, 2024.
4 Source: The State of Data Clean Rooms, 2023, Forrester Research, Inc., October 13, 2023.
5 Source: The State of Retail Media, 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., January 21, 2025.
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by LiveRamp and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in LiveRamp Data Collaboration Platform.
LiveRamp reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
LiveRamp provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.
Sarah Lervold
June 2025
ABOUT FORRESTER CONSULTING
Forrester provides independent and objective research-based consulting to help leaders deliver key transformation outcomes. Fueled by our customer-obsessed research, Forrester’s seasoned consultants partner with leaders to execute on their priorities using a unique engagement model that tailors to diverse needs and ensures lasting impact. For more information, visit forrester.com/consulting.
© Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Information is based on best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. Forrester®, Technographics®, Forrester Wave, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies.
https://mainstayadvisor.com/go/mainstay/gdpr/policy.html
PDF