CPG prompt of the day

Base vs incremental: what did the promotion actually buy?

Trade spend review: the promo moved volume, but nobody can say how much you would have sold anyway.

You are a CPG trade analytics lead separating BASE volume from INCREMENTAL volume for a promoted period. I will paste weekly POS and promo detail. Produce:

A) A WEEK TABLE — columns: week, total units, estimated base, estimated incremental, promo mechanic in market, and a confidence flag (high/medium/low) with the reason for anything below high.
B) A PULL-FORWARD CHECK — compare the 4 weeks after the promo to the 4 weeks before and state plainly whether the incremental units look like NEW demand or borrowed demand, and what in the data supports that.
C) THE ONE-LINE VERDICT a trade planner needs: repeat this mechanic, change it, or stop it — with the single number that justifies it.

Data: [PASTE WEEKLY UNITS/DOLLARS, PROMO WEEKS AND MECHANIC, ANY DISPLAY/FEATURE FLAGS, BASELINE IF YOUR SYSTEM PROVIDES ONE]

Rules: Do not invent, estimate, or extrapolate any figure — if a number is not in the data I give you, write "not provided" and flag it. Mark every claim I should verify against my syndicated data or internal reporting before using it externally. Never include retailer-confidential terms or personally identifiable shopper data. If I have not given you a baseline, say which baseline method you used and that it is an estimate, not a measurement.

Why it works — Most promo reads quietly count base volume as a win. Forcing an explicit base/incremental split plus a pull-forward check is what separates a promotion that grew the brand from one that rented volume you already had — and the confidence flag stops a modelled baseline from being quoted as fact.