The case study details a campaign by Lipman Advertising aimed at increasing awareness and driving hotel reservations through a comprehensive advertising strategy that included search, email, and display ads. Insights revealed that display ads accounted for 26% of attributed conversions, and understanding various engagement metrics allowed for optimization strategies that could lead to a projected monthly increase in revenue of $750k. By reallocating budgets away from underperforming vendors to those yielding better cost-per-action results, the campaign aimed to enhance overall media effectiveness.

1. Case Study and Insights
Updated 4/1/12
Agency: Lipman Advertising NYC
Client: Resort Operator
Campaign objectives: create awareness and consideration for the brand in a way that is
measureable and insightful with the primary goal of driving hotel and lodging reservations. The
campaign utilized search, email and display advertising (150 million imps) over 5 months.
As Lipman’s trusted partner for campaign insights, Encore measured the attributed impact of
each channel, vendor, placement and keyword, providing daily dashboards and
comprehensive monthly reports. Based on our statistical approach to attributing credit (see
below for details) we delivered critical insights across a range of KPIs, including:
• Conversion paths for visitors exposed to media
• Number of impressions required to influence a conversion (by vendor and overall)
• Cost per Action: Last Click vs. Attributed
• Ranking of vendors: winners, laggards and bubbles (middle) based on Attributed CPA
• Engagement cycles: time lag between first impression, last impression, visit and
conversion
• Day-part analysis: illustrating visits, conversions and conversion rates by day and hour
• Relative value and weighting of each Assist impression in the engagement process
• CPA for each keyword, based on last-click vs. attributed (allocating credit for assists)
• Please see charts from most recent campaign report in Exhibit 1
Key Takeaways:
• Display was much more effective than previously believed…
o Accounted for 26% of attributed conversions
o Compared favorable to paid search (26%) and natural search (15%)
o Almost 30% of conversions via natural search, referring and direct navigation
were influenced by display and paid search.
• Performance by media vendor and placement varied significantly…
o Attributed CPAs ranging from $32 to $919
o Mean was $107 with standard deviation of $67).
• By understanding conversion paths, engagement cycles, placement performance and
optimal frequency, Lipman can optimize in a whole new way. The projected value of
optimizing: $750k per month (44% increase).
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006

2. Key Insights:
• Optimal frequency (based on machine learning probability model) was 5.7 impressions
overall, ranging from 1.8 to 9.6 among the vendors on the plan.
• After attributing credit for assist impressions and clicks…
Ÿ CPA for display ads fell by 60% overall, ranging from 20% to 85% among
various media placements.
Ÿ CPA for paid search also fell by 15%.
• Engagement cycles validate the need for a sustainable, visible presence
Ÿ 48% of Converters took action more than 30 days after seeing the first ad.
Ÿ 49% of Converters took action within 1 day of seeing the last ad.
Ÿ The average converter visited 4.2 times before taking the desired action.
• Performance of media vendors varied considerably (based on Attributed CPA).
Ÿ Four clear winners had an average CPA of $46
Ÿ Four “on the bubble” with average CPA of $121
Ÿ Three laggards with an average CPA of $521
Specific Reports are provided below.
Conversion Paths
Display% Natural% Paid%
Path%Analysis IMPs Visits Direct%Nav Referring Display% Visits%
Clicks Search Search
All Visitors 5.2 4.2 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.4 55.2% 44.8%
Cluster 4 (45%) 1.5 2.8 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 35.2% 64.8%
Cluster 6 (21%) 4.7 3.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.6 55.2% 44.8%
Cluster 3 (15%) 6.1 4.0 1.5 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.2 60.3% 39.7%
Cluster 8 (13%) 3.9 4.8 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.1 1.3 45.1% 54.9%
Relative Contribution (all) 54.2% 45.8% 9.1% 6.1% 9.5% 7.6% 13.3%
Includes Converters who were exposed to ads, grouped in natural clusters via machine-learning algorithm.
Interpretation
There is a broad distribution of conversion paths so we need to look beyond the averages. In aggregate, display ads
accounted for 54% of interactions (range 35-60%) that led to conversions. Natural and paid search combined for 17.1% of
of Interactions that influenced conversions.
The "Average" Converter saw 5.2 display ads and visited 4.2 times. Most common sources: 1.1 Display, 0.8 Natural
Search, 0.5 Paid search, 1.4 referring.
• As shown above, among those exposed to display media, impressions accounted for
54% of interactions that drove conversions. Among this group, paid and natural search
played a role in 17.3% of the engagement paths.
• This indicates that consumers were engaged through many channels before taking
action and that deeper analysis is needed.
Page 2 of 8
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006

3. Channel-Level Attribution
Ac#ons'By'Channel' Lst Click Attributable Cost'Per'Ac#on'By'Channel'
1,600 1,520$ $350 $319.96$
Last Click Attributable
1,400 $300
1,199$ 1,213$
1,200 1,085$ 1,013$
1,026$ $250
1,000
$200
800 732$
609$ $131.60$
$150
600 499$
435$
400 $100
200 $50 $22.38$ $18.91$
0 $0
Direct Nav Org Search Referrals Paid Search Display Paid Search Display
• After attributing partial credit for assist impressions and clicks, display emerged as the
most impactful online channel, accounting for 26% of attributed actions (vs. 15% for
natural search and 26% for paid search). As shown above, Display became the single
biggest contributor to conversions.
• As shown above, cost per action for display fell 60% from $320 last click to $131 per
attributed action.
Media Vendors Performance (Attributed)
Impressions*Required*by*Vendor* Visit$ Conversion$
10 9.6$
9.0$
9
7.8$
8
7.0$ 7.0$
7 6.6$
6.2$
6 5.4$
4.7$
5 4.4$
4 3.5$
3.0$ 3.2$
3 2.4$ 2.4$
1.7$ 1.6$ 1.8$ 1.8$
2 1.3$ 1.3$
1.1$
1
0
Publisher 1 Publisher 2 Publisher 3 Ad Net 1 Publisher 4 Publisher 5 Publisher 6 Publisher 7 Publisher 8 Ad Net 2 Publisher 9
• As shown above, the quality of placement ranged significantly by media vendor. While
the modeled optimal Frequency was 5.7 impressions for a conversion, some
placements demonstrated required a much higher number of impressions to have
impact than others (range was 1.8 to 9.6).
Page 3 of 8
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006

4. Actions/ Click/ Assist/ ICE/ ICE/ Actions/ CPA:/Last/ CPA:/
Vendor Impressions Spend Rating
(Last) Assists Imps. Ratio Assists (Attrib.) Click Attributed
Publisher/8 2,046,438 333 75 107 4.7 23 431
$13,971 $41.96 $32.43 Winner
Ad/Net/1 3,427,418 63 45 1,672 7.8 214 322
$13,710 $217.61 $42.53 Winner
Publisher/9 1,227,090 8 5 610 1.8 339 352
$15,792 $1973.95 $44.88 Winner
Publisher/5 1,002,757 20 5 939 4.4 213 238
$15,368 $768.39 $64.46 Winner
Publisher/7 307,472 5 0 91 1.8 51 56
$5,863 $1172.56 $105.53 Bubble
Publisher/2 433,527 14 7 140 9.0 16 37
$3,978 $284.16 $108.83 Bubble
Publisher/1 1,735,227 11 1 143 2.4 60 72
$9,059 $823.58 $126.56 Bubble
Publisher/3 1,191,854 18 5 198 3.5 57 80
$11,329 $629.41 $142.38 Bubble
Publisher/6 238,828 17 6 0 7.0 0 23
$6,207 $365.12 $269.87 Laggard
Ad/Net/2 7,786,210 13 8 344 9.6 36 57
$21,306 $1638.95 $374.89 Laggard
Publisher/4 227,348 2 0 11 1.6 7 9
$8,157 $4078.26 $919.04 Laggard
Totals 19,624,169 504 157 4,255 4.2 1,014 1,675
$124,740 $247.50 $74.45
Notes: MEAN $106.88
Click3Assists:3Number3of3times3this3vendor's3ads3were3clicked3prior3to3a3subsequent3action3taken3on3the3site. STDEV $69.80
Assist3Impressions:3Number3of3display3impressions3seen3by3visitors3before3taking3an3action3on3the3site.
ICE3Ratio:3ImpressionNtoNClick3Equivalent3=3#3of3Assist3Impressions3required3to3drive3a3visit.3
ICE3Assists:3Number3of3Click3Assists3allocated3to3each3Vendor3based3on3number3of3Impression3Assists3(based3on3Weightings3assigned3above).
Engagements3(Clicks+Assists):3Includes3all3visits,3assist3clicks3and3assist3impressions3that3drove3Actions3for3this3time3period.
CPA3Attributed:3Cost3Per3Action3based3on3the3Attributed3number3of3actions3for3each3vendor.
Rating:3Based3on3each3vendor's3relative3CPA3Below3the3mean3=3Winner,3Within3+13Standard3Deviation3=3Bubble,3>13Stand.3Dev3=3Laggard
• While the overall mean CPA was $107 (standard deviation of $70), placements
(vendors) range from $32 to $919.
• While many vendors drove cost-effective visitors, not all were successful in driving
conversions. Case in point: Ad Network 2 was in the top 50% of vendors based on
CPV, but fell to the bottom 20% for Cost Per Action.
• By allocating budget to the top performers (away from the laggards) Lipman has been
able to optimize spend throughout the campaign. Vendor-specific performance is
illustrated below.
Cost%Per%Ac+on%by%Vendor% Last Click Attributable
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200 $1,173$
$1,000 $919$
$824$
$768$
$800
$629$
$600
$365$ $375$
$400
$284$ $270$
$218$ $142$
$200 $106$ $109$ $127$
$42$ $45$ $64$
$32$ $43$
$0
Publisher 8 Ad Net 1 Publisher 9 Publisher 5 Publisher 7 Publisher 2 Publisher 1 Publisher 3 Publisher 6 Ad Net 2 Publisher 4
Page 4 of 8
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006

5. Predictive Analysis
% of Proforma Proforma Proforma
Group Spend Revenue ROS Impact
Budget % Budget ROS Revenue
Winners $58,841 37% $1,343,423 $22.83 59% $22.83 $2,157,823 $814,401
Bubble $65,148 41% $267,262 $4.10 41% $4.51 $293,988 $26,726
Laggards $35,670 22% $88,708 $2.49 0% n/a $0 ($88,708)
Total $159,659 100% $1,699,393 $10.64 100% $15.36 $2,451,811 $752,418
Relative Improvement 44%
Incremental Revenue $752,418
Takeaway: by moving budget from Laggards to Winners and improving performance of
Bubbles by 10% is worth a 44% improvement in revenue
• As shown above, predictive analysis indicates an opportunity to increase revenue and
ROS by 44% or $750k. By re-allocating budgets to the top performers and optimizing
frequency, significant efficiencies can be gained.
Encore’s measurement and reporting capabilities are critical to our
media optimization strategy. Their cross-channel, full-funnel views,
and actionable insights enable us to maximize performance while
saving valuable time and energy.
- Lauren Wexler, Media Director, LIPMAN Advertising
About Encore Media Metrics
Encore Media Metrics helps marketers optimize performance through better analytics. As a
pioneer in Attribution, Encore helps clients measure performance across channels and beyond
the last click, producing actionable insights while reducing the cost and complexity of media
measurement. For more information, visit http://EncoreMetrics.com or Encore’s Attribution
Blog at http://Attribution101.com
About LIPMAN Advertising
LIPMAN is in the business of building iconic brands. Founded in 1927, we have quietly built an
impeccable and enviable reputation of excellence in branding, holistic marketing and creative
work on iconic brands, like Burberry, Lord & Taylor, Smartwater, Diane Von Furstenburg, David
Yurman, Town & Country (the agency is setting the new creative direction for the magazine),
Bacara Resorts, Talisker Resorts, The Limited, Georg Jensen, Hudson Jeans, Evolution Juice,
Mercedes Benz, DeBeers, Oscar de La Renta, St. John, Tumi, Ermenegildo Zegna, Godiva and
Equinox. Additionally, the company has a celebrity branding division that includes Jennifer
Aniston, Justin Timberlake, Andre Benjamin (Andre 3000) and the pro golfer, Michelle Wie.
Page 5 of 8
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006

6. Company Overview
Encore is the first to address the needs of both advertisers and media vendors with
programmatic, attribution-based solutions for measuring online media.
Attribution solves the "last-click" problem by allocating partial credit to each impression, click
and interaction that influence conversions. Through Encore's statistically validated attribution
model, marketers can see the true performance of each channel, vendor, placement and
keyword. Encore also measures the optimal frequency for converters while quantifying
opportunities to expand reach and increase ad efficiency. Armed with these insights,
marketers can optimize campaigns effectively and efficiently while gleaning a deeper
understanding of customer engagement cycles.
For advertisers, Encore provides advanced measurement, integrated reporting and full-funnel
attribution as an outsourced, on-demand solution. Specific reports include: a) attributable CPV
and CPA, b) path to conversion, c) impression frequency and d) impression recency.
For media vendors, Encore measures the performance and profitability of each media segment
(audience, contextual, behavioral, etc.), giving vendors insightful reports and clear, directional
signals for optimizing campaigns. Encore also enables vendors to illustrate the value of their
media to advertisers via objective, 3rd party attribution-based views of performance.
Developed in partnership with leading media companies, Encore’s patent-pending approach to
supply side measurement addresses a significant unmet need for vendors and advertisers.
Encore’s solution is intuitive, efficient and most importantly, useful. Encore’s hands-on,
consultative approach provides deeper insights into performance of paid, owned and earned
media while reducing the level of effort required on behalf of the agency and/or advertiser.
Attribution Methodology
Encore’s approach to Attribution starts with aggregating and syncing impression data with site
visitor data to create a comprehensive record of served impressions, visits, actions and page
views for every visitor (paid and organic). This user-based data is then analyzed to produce
actionable insights into campaign performance. Analyses include:
1. Conversion Path Analysis: Encore aggregates and groups media conversion paths into
natural clusters using statistical models that quantify the contribution of each channel in
the engagement process.
2. Vendor Analysis: Encore uses cluster sequencing algorithms and Markov probability
analyses to measure performance of each vendor and placement. We attributed credit
for each vendor based on it’s statistically derived contributions (assist impressions,
assist clicks and last clicks) and compute an Attributed CPA for each vendor and
placement. We then rank vendors as a “Winner,” “Laggard” or “Bubble” based on their
performance relative to other vendors.
Page 6 of 8
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006

7. 3. Sequence-Based Impression Weighting: We calculate the relative value of each
impression based on sequence and time (in reverse chronological order) to help
advertisers understand how recency and sequence impacts performance.
4. Lastly, we quantify wasted spend by calculating how many impressions are inefficiently
served. We use the statistical modeling above to calculate how many impressions were
required to drive a visit and a conversion (for each vendor and for the channel), then
calculate how much budget the Advertiser could have redeployed by reducing
frequency and increasing reach.
Differentiators
When compared to other vendors, we believe it’s safe to say that most can provide statistically
validated insights into cross-channel / full-funnel performance of online media. So we’ll avoid
the “our math is better than your math” argument and point out our other key differentiators:
1. Programmatic Modeling: Encore delivers programmatic, statistical modeling to
analyze and data and allocate credit to each touch-point in the engagement path.
Clients are not required to come up with their own weighting schemes – we provide a
statistically validated set of recommendations for each client. And rather than relying on
proprietary algorithms that offer little visibility, Encore uses a well-known statistical
model (Markov algorithm) that provides predictable and consistent results.
2. Actionable insights. Beyond conversion paths, Encore delivers actionable insights that
make it easy to optimize campaigns. Attribution-based views show the true
performance at a channel, vendor, placement and keyword level, as well as optimal
frequency, engagement cycles, ad recency and day-parts. Encore also delivers KPIs for
search, display, affiliate, email, social and other media. Armed with intuitive charts and
data, clients can focus on analyzing results vs. exporting and producing reports.
Chart 1: Channel CPA: Last Click vs. Attributed
!
Page 7 of 8
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006

8. Table 2: Vendor CPA: Last Click vs. Attributed
Assist0
Clicks0 Click0 Engageme CPV:0Last= CPV:0
Vendor Impressions Impressio ICE0Ratio ICE0Assists Spend Rating
(Last) Assists nts Click Attributed
ns
AccuWeather 662,220 346 19 1,142 2.0 571 936 $3,755 $10.85 $4.01 Winner
Family=Getaway* 423,396 402 30 3,184 6.5 493 925 $6,590 $16.39 $7.12 Winner
LA0Times 594,107 206 4 501 2.0 251 461 $4,497 $21.83 $9.77 Bubble
Luxury0Link 526,583 478 78 4,869 5.0 974 1,530 $21,911 $45.84 $14.32 Bubble
Media6 1,687,161 361 77 24,104 6.6 3,675 4,113 $7,592 $21.03 $1.85 Winner
New0York0Times* 190,035 719 30 221 3.1 71 820 $17,517 $24.36 $21.35 Laggard
NY0magazine 1,245,994 288 20 1,987 2.0 994 1,302 $28,845 $100.16 $22.16 Laggard
On0The0Snow 144,676 123 14 2,000 10.8 184 321 $1,804 $14.67 $5.61 Winner
Travel0Leisure 815,242 445 18 5,463 4.2 1,308 1,771 $31,611 $71.04 $17.85 Laggard
Travel0Zoo 365,746 917 83 1,210 2.0 605 1,605 $10,550 $11.51 $6.57 Winner
Tribal0Fusion 1,317,093 361 56 7,588 5.6 1,353 1,770 $3,846 $10.65 $2.17 Winner
Trip0Advisor 695,017 779 43 7,348 2.0 3,674 4,496 $15,146 $19.44 $3.37 Winner
Totals 8,674,626 5430 472 59,728 4.2 14,171 20,073 $153,751 $28.32 $7.66
*/includes/email/drop MEAN $000000009.22
STDEV $000000007.28
3. Flexibility: Our solution is very flexible and adaptable across a broad range of clients
and needs. Specific examples include:
• Attribution for visits and visitors; not just conversions
• Attribution at numerous levels: channel, vendor, keyword, format and segment
• Able to measure a range of objectives: primary goals (leads, sales, etc.) and
secondary goals (goal page views, email signups, etc.)
• User-friendly attribution model that clients can modify to do sensitivity analysis
4. Lower Level of Effort. To address the needs of resource-constrained agencies, Encore
was designed to reduce the level of complexity and effort required to produce insights.
Moreover, Encore provides consultative, hands-on approach to helping clients plan,
implement, manage and maximize deployments.
5. Trusted by Market Leaders: Encore is relied upon by leading brands and agencies
around the world. In early 2012, Encore was selected by MediaMind (#2 global ad
server) as its partner for integration attribution. In the US and Japan, Encore serves
some of the world’s leading advertisers and agencies. Encore is also the ONLY vendor
to provide attribution-based reporting for leading media vendors (including m6d,
Clearspring and Yahoo). Most notably, Encore was recently chosen by MediaMind’s to
be its strategic partner for integrated Attribution (announced early 2012). Encore is
working with MediaMind to introduce the industry’s most robust, integrated solution for
advanced analytics while lowering the level of effort for agencies and advertisers.
Page 8 of 8
- May not be shared without permission © Encore Media Metrics 2012 -
For information: info@encoremetrics.com | 646.820.1006