A figure doing the rounds claims UK businesses spent 7.8% of revenue on marketing in 2026, only slightly up on 2025 and well down on 2018, though nobody seems able to say who actually did the counting. This includes practices like yours, if you've ever compared your own spend to a number you can't quite trace back to anything.
Practices that benchmark their own marketing spend against industry averages should know this particular average has no visible working out.
| Original Research | A claim that UK marketing budgets sit at 7.8% of revenue in 2026, credited to Gartner but with no report, link, or methodology attached. |
|---|---|
| Source | https://www.money.co.uk/business/business-statistics/small-business-statistics |
| Overview | The page rounds up general small business statistics and cites this marketing spend figure in passing, without naming a specific Gartner study or date. |
| Year | 2026 (as stated on the page; not independently verified) |
| Publisher | Brand, money.co.uk (citing "Gartner" without a traceable source) |
| Relevance to Wellbeing | The figure describes UK businesses generally, not wellbeing practices specifically, and can't currently be checked against a real report. |
| Our Verdict | Too early to tell a number worth knowing exists, but not one to build a marketing decision on. |
| Our Summary |
|
| Our Geo View | Presented as a UK-only figure; treat it as UK-specific even before you get to the sourcing problem. |
A comparison website's small business statistics page mentions a marketing spend figure and attributes it to Gartner, without linking to a report, naming a study, or giving a date beyond the number itself.
money.co.uk, page currently live, no publish date given for the specific claim. The Gartner attribution is secondary and unconfirmed; no primary report has been located.
Credibility flags: no methodology disclosed, sample size not given, publisher is a commercial comparison brand rather than the named research source.
A relevance score out of 100, built from three things: how well it fits the six practice types, how recent it is, and how solid the methodology behind it is.
Marked down heavily on how solid the method is, since there's no attribution to check, though it scores reasonably on how current the claimed figure is; practice fit is modest, as this describes UK businesses broadly rather than wellbeing practices.
| Practice type | Relevance | Recommended action |
|---|---|---|
| Coaching | Low | Ignore the figure, track your own spend against bookings instead. |
| Therapy | Low | Don't let this influence how much you commit to marketing. |
| Training | Low | Use it only as a prompt to find real sector benchmarks. |
| Alternative Healing | Low | Treat as background noise, not a planning figure. |
| Clinical | Medium | Worth flagging internally that "industry average" claims need checking before use in reports. |
| Retreat/Centre | Medium | If quoting benchmarks to stakeholders, source something verifiable instead. |
Best before: revisit only if a named, linkable Gartner or equivalent report surfaces; until then this stays unverified. See money.co.uk for the current version of the claim.
That nagging feeling that everyone else has cracked marketing spend and you haven't is, on this evidence, based on a number nobody can actually stand behind.
A good sign. We have an ecosystem, a visual river and a story garden that have been waiting for a practice like yours. Come and find out what we mean - the coffee's hot and the discovery call goes properly both ways.