Be the first to like this
In the AMF 2.0, held on January 29, 2009, we explored many of the ideas and discussions that surfaced since the first Forum (on October 28, 2009). Specifically, based upon audience results and feedback from the first Forum, we focused on the following:
> Time Sensitive Attribution. One area in which we established consensus in the first Forum was that over 65% of our audience believes that when three search ads are involved in a conversion, all three ads deserve equal credit for the conversion versus crediting only the first or last ad. In AMF 2.0, we explored this scenario even further by introducing an element of time. For example, three search ads appeared in a conversion over 30 days, is there still a consensus that all ads deserve equal credit for the conversion?
> Product Sensitive Attribution. A widely known industry fact is that over 44% of online purchases that are a result of online advertising are for products not related to the ad(s) that were clicked. In AMF 1.0, we did not pay attention to which product was sold, but only that a conversion occurred. In AMF 2.0, we specifically called attention to the fact the product sold was unrelated to the team of ads that produced the conversion. Does this new data point change the consensus opinion that all ads deserve equal credit?
> Search - Display Interaction. In the first Forum, we saw that when two banner impressions were served to a consumer who then clicked on a corresponding search ad for the company, 88% of our audience believed that the banners deserved some credit for a subsequent conversion, but not as much as the search ad. In AMF 2.0, we reversed the order of this Purchase Path to see if people think that banner impressions that occur after a search ad are still worthy of getting some form of credit.
Please visit www.AttributionManagement.com for more information and to vote on the interactive polling question. Also check the site for more in depth analysis of the results and weekly blog updates.