Attribution Case Study - Ad-Tech Presentation

2,576 views

Published on

This Attribution Case Study was presented at Ad-Tech SF in April 2012 by Steve Latham, ceo of Encore Media Metrics.

Special thanks for Lipman Advertising for participating in this case study.

Feel free to download and use as you wish. Just remember to "Attribute" credit where it's due :-)

Published in: Technology, Design
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,576
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
18
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
54
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Attribution Case Study - Ad-Tech Presentation

  1. 1. Attribution Case Study:Insights You Can UseApril 2012 Steve Latham CEO Encore Media Metrics @stevelatham
  2. 2. Background•  Agency: Lipman Advertising NYC•  Client: Hotel and Resort Operator•  Campaign objectives: –  Create awareness and consideration in a way that is measureable and insightful –  Primary goals: hotel and lodging reservations.•  Channels –  Display (150 million impressions) –  Paid search –  3rd party email
  3. 3. Assignment•  Produce insights that matter –  Useful –  Actionable•  Measure and Interpret KPIs –  Conversion paths –  Engagement cycles –  Impressions required to influence a conversion –  True performance of vendors, placements and keywords (beyond last click)
  4. 4. Key Takeaways•  Display was more impact than previously thought –  Accounted for 26% of attributed conversions –  Exceeded paid search (26%) and natural search (15%) –  Influenced 30% of conversions via natural search, referring and direct navigation•  Performance by media vendor and placement varied significantly… –  Attributed CPAs ranging from $32 to $919 –  Mean was $107 with standard deviation of $67).
  5. 5. Key Insight #1 •  Conversion path analysis showed: –  Converters were engaged via numerous channels –  Among Converters who were exposed to ads: •  Average Converter saw 5.2 ads and visited 4.2 times •  1/3 visited through paid or natural search Display% Natural% Paid%Path%Analysis IMPs Visits Direct%Nav Referring Display% Visits% Clicks Search SearchAll Visitors 5.2 4.2 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.4 55.2% 44.8%Cluster 4 (45%) 1.5 2.8 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 35.2% 64.8%Cluster 6 (21%) 4.7 3.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.6 55.2% 44.8%Cluster 3 (15%) 6.1 4.0 1.5 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.2 60.3% 39.7%Cluster 8 (13%) 3.9 4.8 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.1 1.3 45.1% 54.9%Relative Contribution (all) 54.2% 45.8% 9.1% 6.1% 9.5% 7.6% 13.3%Includes Converters who were exposed to ads, grouped in natural clusters via machine-learning algorithm.InterpretationThere is a broad distribution of conversion paths so we need to look beyond the averages. In aggregate, display ads
  6. 6. Key Insight #2•  Optimal frequency was 5.7 impressions overall –  Ranged from 1.8 to 9.6 among vendors on the plan. Impressions*Required*by*Vendor* 9.6$ 10 Visit$ Conversion$ 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$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.6$ 2 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.1$ 1 0 8 1 9 7 2 1 3 2 5 6 4 r et r r r r r et r r r he he he he he he he he he N N is is is is is is is is is d d bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl bl A A Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu
  7. 7. Key Insight #3 •  After attributing credit for assist impressions and clicks… –  CPA for Display Ads fell by 60% overall •  Range: 20% to 85% among placements –  CPA for Paid Search fell by 15% Ac#onsByChannel CostPerAc#onByChannel1,600 1,520$ $350 $319.96$ Lst Click Last Click1,400 $300 Attributable 1,201$ 1,210$ Attributable1,200 1,086$ 1,013$ 1,026$ $2501,000 $200 800 733$ 609$ $131.98$ $150 600 499$ 435$ 400 $100 200 $50 $22.38$ $18.89$ 0 $0 Direct Nav Org Search Referrals Paid Search Display Paid Search Display
  8. 8. Key Insight #4•  Engagement cycles validate the need for a sustainable, visible presence –  48% converted >30 days after seeing the first ad –  49% converted within 1 day of seeing the last ad. –  Average person visited 4.2 times before converting
  9. 9. Key Insight #5 •  Performance of media vendors varied considerably (based on Attributed CPA). –  Four clear winners had an average CPA of $46 –  Four “on the bubble” with average CPA of $121 –  Three laggards with an average CPA of $521 Actions/ Click/ Assist/ ICE/ ICE/ Actions/ CPA:/Last/ CPA:/Vendor Impressions Spend Rating (Last) Assists Imps. Ratio Assists (Attrib.) Click AttributedPublisher/8 2,046,438 333 75 107 4.7 23 431 $13,971 $41.96 $32.43 WinnerAd/Net/1 3,427,418 63 45 1,672 7.8 214 322 $13,710 $217.61 $42.53 WinnerPublisher/9 1,227,090 8 5 610 1.8 339 352 $15,792 $1973.95 $44.88 WinnerPublisher/5 1,002,757 20 5 939 4.4 213 238 $15,368 $768.39 $64.46 WinnerPublisher/7 307,472 5 0 91 1.8 51 56 $5,863 $1172.56 $105.53 BubblePublisher/2 433,527 14 7 140 9.0 16 37 $3,978 $284.16 $108.83 BubblePublisher/1 1,735,227 11 1 143 2.4 60 72 $9,059 $823.58 $126.56 BubblePublisher/3 1,191,854 18 5 198 3.5 57 80 $11,329 $629.41 $142.38 BubblePublisher/6 238,828 17 6 0 7.0 0 23 $6,207 $365.12 $269.87 LaggardAd/Net/2 7,786,210 13 8 344 9.6 36 57 $21,306 $1638.95 $374.89 LaggardPublisher/4 227,348 2 0 11 1.6 7 9 $8,157 $4078.26 $919.04 LaggardTotals 19,624,169 504 157 4,255 4.2 1,014 1,675 $124,740 $247.50 $74.45
  10. 10. So…What’s The Point?By understanding… –  Conversion Paths and Engagement Cycles –  Optimal Frequency –  Impact of Channel, Vendor and Keyword …the Agency can optimize performanceThe economic opportunity is significant: % 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
  11. 11. What’s Next•  More granular analysis –  Format and creative•  Tracking offline converters –  Via post-purchase site visits•  Excluding non-viewable impressions –  Leveraging MediaMind visibility metrics•  Attribution for Brand Lift studies –  Via partnership with Vizu
  12. 12. Criteria for Choosing a Vendor•  Consultative approach –  Planning, implementation, production, analysis•  Transparent and programmatic approach –  Known algorithms are preferred (vs. proprietary)•  Insightful, actionable and intuitive reports –  Must be useful for media planners, analysts, clients•  Flexibility –  Able to accommodate specific needs•  Level of effort to deploy and manage –  The lower the better!
  13. 13. Questions? Steve@EncoreMetrics.com Encore Media Metrics Steve Latham, CEO @SteveLatham 646.919.1809 @EncoreMetrics http://EncoreMetrics.com http://Attribution101.com

×