I can only assume from this post that you are not yourself an experienced marketer. >"The smallest ad here and there start at 100k each" This is flat out a fa

I can only assume from this post that you are not yourself an experienced marketer. >"The smallest ad here and there start at 100k each" This is flat out a false statement. The smallest ad you can run is whatever the minimum spend is in whatever publisher you're buying from which is often a few bucks. You won't get visible returns with this (in a statistical sense at least), but it is doable. >"lack of (visible) returns" Any marketer, especially ones doing an ad buy over some period of time approaching the $100k level who doesn't use analytics and/or incrementality tests to prove their results should not be touching that budget. >"Besides, the more they spend the better for their resume so marketing is really enticed to go big." I've reviewed many resumes and hired marketers and media professionals of all levels. If someone had big budgets listed on their resume, but couldn't back that up with details around the results and outcomes, and their role in delivering those, it would be a very short conversation. Likewise, I've been very impressed with some of the creative and impactful things people have done with smaller budgets that forced them to be scrappy. So bigger is not always better.