Budget vs. Expense by SBU
FY budget vs. Q1 actual (BDT Crore, log scale) — ACCL dominates the envelope
Marketing Mix — Budget
FY budget by campaign type (Trade = dealer/retail commissions & programs)
SBU Roster
Budget, actual, utilization and pacing status for all tracked SBUs
Cash Out the Door — Q1
Where the 40.8 Cr of Q1 marketing spend actually landed (net, GL 4210001)
Reading the numbers: Total marketing budget is 282.91 Cr. Trade marketing (ACCL 150.21 Cr + AEL 11.5 Cr + AAFL 0.16 Cr = 161.87 Cr) is 57.2% of the envelope and is largely variable commission tied to sales volume, not discretionary brand spend. Q1 actual marketing cash-out is ≈40.8 Cr (net) — 39.1 Cr against the budget envelope and a further 2.6 Cr of ungoverned spend in SBUs that never submitted a marketing budget.
Trade Marketing — Budget vs Actual
ACCL Trade 150.21 Cr + AEL Trade 11.5 Cr vs Q1 commission & discount actual (DWH)
Trade vs Brand Split
Composition of the 282.91 Cr marketing envelope
ACCL Trade Budget — Composition
Decomposition of ACCL's 150.21 Cr trade budget into commission, program, channel-support and incentive lines (source: ACCL Trade Budget V-1)
ACCL Trade — Actual Spend (Jul + Aug 2026)
Posted trade actuals from ACCL Trade Expense tracker — 24.38 Cr across Jul (11.89) + Aug (12.49), by category
Trade Investment Concentration
Where trade-marketing budget sits (by SBU) vs where trade actuals are posting
Trade-marketing efficiency caveat: ACCL trade tracker actual (Jul+Aug) is 24.38 Cr vs its 150.21 Cr FY budget (16.2% run-rate, roughly on pace for 2 elapsed months). DWH GL 4210001 captures commission & discount only (≈24.1 Cr Q1) — trade programs / channel incentives post under separate GLs, so measured trade utilization is likely understated. Trade spend still lacks activity-level visibility (dealer vs retail vs POSM vs promotion) — the single largest blind-spot in marketing ROI measurement.