---
id: "framework-four-step-spatial-strategy"
type: "framework"
source_timestamps: ["§ A New Strategy for Location Targeting", "¶18"]
tags: ["implementation", "campaign-management"]
related: ["action-incorporate-competitor-locations", "action-test-distance-bands", "action-vary-spatial-rules", "action-push-platforms"]
steps: ["Incorporate competitor locations into your targeting logic: overlay rival locations onto targeting maps and prioritize areas within your radius where you are the closer option.", "\\\"Test distance bands", "not just radii: run holdout experiments by distance ring to verify whether the innermost zone is actually responsive", "distinguishing 'close' from 'moderate' segments.\\\"", "\\\"Vary spatial rules by campaign: match geofence shapes to the ad mechanism — tighter for promotions", "broader for brand messages.\\\"", "\\\"Push ad platforms for richer targeting: demand infrastructure that supports conditioning on competitor proximity", "distance bands", "and campaign type simultaneously.\\\""]
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"
---
# Four-Step Strategy for Advanced Location Targeting

The authors' operational blueprint for moving executives away from blunt radius targeting. Each step maps to a concrete action note.

## The four steps
1. **Incorporate competitor locations** → overlay rival locations onto targeting maps and prioritize areas within your radius where **you are the closer option**. This is a straightforward data exercise ad-ops teams can run today. Action: [[action-incorporate-competitor-locations]]; concept: [[concept-relative-proximity]].
2. **Test distance bands, not just radii** → run **holdout experiments by distance ring** to discover your brand's specific donut and separate 'close' from 'moderate' segments. Action: [[action-test-distance-bands]]; concept: [[concept-inverted-u-shape]].
3. **Vary spatial rules by campaign** → match geofence shape to the ad mechanism: **tighter for promotions, broader for brand messages**. Action: [[action-vary-spatial-rules]]; concept: [[concept-campaign-spatial-rules]].
4. **Push ad platforms for richer targeting** → demand native support for conditioning on **competitor proximity, distance bands, and campaign type simultaneously**. Action: [[action-push-platforms]]; targets [[entity-google-ads]] and [[entity-meta-d115]].

## Design logic
The framework is deliberately sequenced from **immediate** (a map overlay any ad-ops team can do) → **empirical** (holdout validation of the donut) → **creative integration** (per-campaign geofences) → **systemic** (pressuring platforms to build these capabilities natively). A practitioner counter-consideration from the enrichment: for smaller advertisers the **operational complexity** (competitor databases, block-group nearest-store assignment, platform gaps) may not justify the incremental lift, and **non-spatial signals** (past visits, transaction history) can be stronger predictors — so weigh spatial optimization against improving creative, segmentation, and measurement.