Download to read offline
Uploaded byMezzo Labs
Attribution or Misattribution? How to make digital measurement less awful - Nic Pietersma
The document discusses the challenges of digital attribution in marketing and suggests using validation methods like geotesting and econometrics to improve ROI measurement. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the limitations of attribution frameworks and highlights the need for clean data and cross-departmental knowledge sharing. The document advocates for a tailored approach to attribution based on business needs, encouraging broader team involvement in understanding ROI calculations.
More Related Content
Similar to Attribution or Misattribution? How to make digital measurement less awful - Nic Pietersma
Attribution or Misattribution? How to make digital measurement less awful - Nic Pietersma
- 1.
- 2. 2 Attribution or Misattribution? Howto make digital measurement less awful
- 3. INTRODUCTION TO EBIQUITY 3 Independentconsultancy helping clients make better Media and Marketing investment decisions
- 4. IN THE ROOMTODAY 4 Ebiquity Effectiveness: Our expertise lies in measuring and improving ROI. We are commercial first! Not an attribution specialist Nic Pietersma Business Director
- 5. 5 1. VALIDATE ANDVERIFY
- 6. VALIDATE AND VERIFY 6 Weneed one version of the truth The most harmful words…
- 7. GEOTESTING 7 Every attribution managershould consider geotesting to validate the results coming out of their system
- 8. Ratings/Adspend RegionalQuotes(Indexed) Ratings/Adspend Media Upweight Regions(Test Index) Media Downweight Regions (Control Index) GEOTESTING 8 This is what a successful geotest looks like; the size of the gap can be quantified to calculate an ROI Testing PeriodIndexing Period Re-Indexing Period Quantify Incremental BenefitEstablish Regional “Match” Establish “Tail”
- 9. Ratings/Adspend RegionalQuotes(Indexed) Ratings/Adspend Media Upweight Regions(Test Index) Media Downweight Regions (Control Index) GEOTESTING 9 If you have anchored your ROI expectations exclusively on digital attribution, you may be in for a surprise… Testing PeriodIndexing Period Re-Indexing Period Quantify Incremental BenefitEstablish Regional “Match” Establish “Tail”
- 10. VALIDATION RESULTS 10 In ourexperience, some media lines (e.g. digital display) consistently look worse from a geotesting perspective First Touch Last Touch Machine Learning Geo Test Conversions By Measurement Method Machine Learning Geo Test Zooming In…
- 11. PLACEBO TESTING /WHITE SPACE TESTING / AD SWAP TESTING 11 Placebo testing is a way of validating the tracking framework by tagging “as if” advertising is your product We have seen placebo tests in the past where the client creative works no better than the placebo!
- 12. Verification Tools • Geotesting •Econometrics • Matchback Analysis • Placebo Testing • Etc. Remedies • Change attribution window • Only feed viewable impressions into ML • Use a multiplier ( x 0.2) to calibrate • Only use attribution for “within channel” budget decisions We do not need to blindly trust attribution technology, there are many tools that can help us verify the numbers VALIDATION OPTIONS 12
- 13. 13 2. OPTIMISE THERIGHT THING
- 14. OPTIMISATION KPI 14 Sales Revenueby Channel In Store E-commerce Realtime machine learning optimisation sounds great… but is it right for a business that mostly sells offline? This business might be better off buying campaigns on the basis of cost effective reach rather than optimising to conversion
- 15. OPTIMISATION BUDGET 15 Media Budget Onlinein Attribution Online Not In Attribtion Offline Attribution may also ‘see’ less of your marketing budget than you think (esp. if you factor in platforms that do not allow tagging) An attribution framework only helps measure a small share of this client’s marketing budget
- 16. 16 3. DO THEMATHS
- 17. DO THE MATHS 17 £12.52 £1.14 DigitalRadio Regular Radio Cost Per Thousand Attribution ROI needs to be sense checked against media costs; how plausible is your ROI estimate in light of big cost premiums? £29 £6 VOD TV x 10x 4.9
- 18. DO THE MATHS 18 53% 73% 88% 94%97% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 14% 25% 41% 53% 67% 80% 89% 95% 98% 100% <= 1 <= 2 <= 5 <= 10 <= 20 <= 40 <= 80 <= 160 <= 320 <= 3285 %ofDevices/Impressions Cumulative Devices Cumulative Impressions VOD: Your realtime optimised campaign might not look great from a reach and frequency perspective! THE PROMISE: “The complexity of our optimisation methodology… has thousands of possible attributes with literally billions of potential combinations from multiple data partners”
- 19. DO THE MATHS 19 If90% of your volume has a single touchpoint, you may want to reconsider what role attribution plays in your decision making! We often find that media lines such as PPC and Affiliates have only one touchpoint (90%+)
- 20.
- 21. DATA HYGIENE 21 Attribution &media platforms often don’t talk to the IT environment that runs the rest of the rest of the business COMMERCIAL & OPERATIONAL WORLD Transaction ID Transaction Value Basket Details / SKUs Conversion Rate Customer ID Customer Age Customer Gender Customer Purchase History Delivery Address DIGITAL MEDIA WORLD Affiliate Reference ID First Touch Source Last Touch Source Campaign ID Checkout Page ID
- 22. Campaigns that arenot tagged in the first place cannot feed into any useful analytics, let alone cutting-edge attribution DATA HYGIENE 22 Someone failed… TIME SERIES TAGGING DATA
- 23. DATA HYGIENE 23 Is theproduct classification & hierarchy used in the media tagging sensible? DISPLAY ADVERT FOR CORDLESS DRILL SALE OF THIS FINE GARDEN SHED
- 24. 24 5. SOCIALISE THEKNOWLEDGE
- 25. SOCIALISE THE KNOWLEDGE 25 Thewhole marketing team should understand how Attribution framework is set up and how ROI is calculated In practice, we often find only 1 or 2 people know how their attribution framework works!
- 26.
- 27. Our Total ViewAttribution is based on the idea that businesses have different needs and should use the right tool for the job Digital Online Shareofsales Share of media Econometrics + Digital Attribution Digital attribution Digital attribution (indirectly) Econometrics 27
- 28. EBIQUITY Head Office Citypoint, OneRopemaker Street LONDON, EC2Y 9AW tel. +44 (0) 20 7650 9600 Disclaimer This document is confidential to INSERT CLIENT NAME. Disclosure or circulation of this document, or any part of it, may only be made to INSERT CLIENT NAME, its employees who need to have knowledge of this matter and to its nominated agency. Unauthorised copying, disclosure or circulation of this document (by any company or individual) represents a breach of copyright and confidentiality. By accepting disclosure of this document you agree to these terms and to indemnify Ebiquity if you breach any of these terms. The results contained in this document are primarily derived from a comparison of INSERT CLIENT NAME’s performance with the performances of Ebiquity’s other clients, whose results are contained in Ebiquity’s databases. These databases contain the mean performance results achieved by Ebiquity’s clients for a given format in a given period. The results contained in these databases change over time, as new data is added to the databases. We undertake no duty to notify or inform our clients as these databases change over time nor to update any work previously performed by us in light of such revisions to our databases. 30
Editor's Notes
- #19 1.5m