---
id: "contrarian-radius-inefficiency"
type: "contrarian-insight"
source_timestamps: ["¶2", "§ A Better Predictor of Ad Effects"]
tags: ["strategy-critique", "industry-norms"]
related: ["concept-absolute-proximity", "claim-relative-proximity-outperforms", "concept-relative-proximity"]
challenges: "The industry-standard default that drawing a circle around a store is the most effective way to capture local demand."
speakers: ["Bowen Luo", "Bhoomija Ranjan"]
sources: ["tail1"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-tail1"
originDay: 1
articleStem: "hbr-tail-115-location-based-advertising"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/03/a-better-strategy-for-location-based-advertising"
sourceTitle: "A Better Strategy for Location-Based Advertising"
---
# Radius targeting is highly inefficient

**Challenges:** The industry-standard default that **drawing a circle around a store is the most effective way to capture local demand**.

**The contrarian claim:** Despite being the default option on almost all major ad platforms ([[entity-google-ads]], [[entity-meta-d115]]), simple **radius targeting is a blunt, outdated tool** (see [[concept-absolute-proximity]]). It ignores competitive geography, leading advertisers to waste millions of dollars targeting people who are technically 'close' but are **actually closer to a competitor**, or people who are **so close they don't need an ad** (the [[concept-billboard-effect]]). The remedy is [[concept-relative-proximity]] / [[claim-relative-proximity-outperforms]].

## Counter-perspective (enrichment)
For some categories — quick-service restaurants, convenience, events — practitioners argue the **closest zone is still the highest-value target** and the billboard effect may be weaker than claimed. Weigh also the **operational complexity** (competitor databases, block-group nearest-store assignment) and whether **non-spatial signals** would deliver more lift per unit of effort.