Marketing spend was 9.65% of revenue in the first half, not...

Marketing spend was 9.65% of revenue in the first half, not 8-9%. If we then take low double digits as meaning 11.5% that is a 1.85% difference. 1.85% of 191m (not 200m) is ~3.5m incremental increase. If we add that back to "adjusted EBITDA" AND we assume reducing marketing spend by 3.5m would have had no impact on sales (unlikely), the margin is still significantly below that achieved in the first half (~5% versus ~7.4%). I think there might be other things that have happened which increased costs, however there was no discussion of margins and costs in the update other than mentioning marketing costs, which clearly isn't the full picture.