The Marketing Pinata: A Quick Look At Multi-Touch Attribution

Three children are at a party, waiting to swing at a piñata. The first child takes a swing, causing significant structural damage, but failing to break the shell. A second child takes an equally impressive swing and creates a few cracks in the piñata’s surface, but still no candy. Finally, a third child steps up and swings. Candy spills all over the floor, and he proclaims sole credit for all the treats.

It wouldn’t be right to give all of the candy to the third child in this scenario, right? But marketers have been complacent doing this for marketing attribution, frequently applying the last touch attribution (LTA) model to campaigns.

Marketers are now beginning to realize the implications of the LTA model—fragmented insights, wasted dollars, and in some cases, illegitimate approaches to ‘stealing’ last touch credit—and applying multi-touch attribution (MTA) instead.

MTA assigns credit to any deserving channel in a campaign. It’s as simple as appending a third party tag to the creative, which tracks and records each individual impression and its resulting actions. The MTA partner ingests impression-level data and assigns partial credit to all channels that “touched” a consumer. Clients can adjust the percentages to meet individual campaign needs.

However, MTA lacks standard modeling methodologies. Attribution vendors rely on proprietary processes; there is no standard by which to adhere or an objective third party to hold vendors accountable for accuracy.Fragmented reporting among platforms can result in making optimizations that seem to be in favor of performance from an LTA standpoint, not MTA.

Collective understands that MTA is the future for our industry and therefore has worked to overcome these challenges. We accept MTA tags from any platform our clients use. Clients who manage their entire media buy through our VISTO™ platform benefit from the ability to quickly shift budget between managed platforms as we receive results of MTA reporting and actively optimize their campaigns.

The Flaw Of Averages & Risks Of Non-Transparency

AdExchanger recently published an article discussing the risks of averages and non-transparency within our space. The article uncovers the flaws of complacency within campaign results, where the average KPI of all tactics falls within goal, and yet individual tactics are outside the desired range of performance. The article also lends great advice for Media Planners on how to proactively structure campaigns to ensure transparency into the strategies they propose. While this advice is sound, digital marketing is still in need of a tool to help marketers easily determine where their dollars are being utilized correctly, and where they may be able to trim the fat.

In an industry where testing is common, it is reasonable to assume that at any point, a media plan could include tactics which bring down performance. This is accepted within our space, so long as the end result is a smarter, more efficient campaign. The risk however, is when a partner on a plan isn’t specific – to a delivery level – with the tactics they are running. In these cases, while the average performance of the partner could fall within the KPI goal for a campaign, complacency can lead to less than optimal tactics remaining on the plan for longer periods of time, and thus wasted media dollars.

VISTO™ holds a significant advantage for performance marketers, giving them a clear view into every piece of their campaign, not just an attractive top line stat.

Take for instance the following example:
sibgle
The KPI goal for this campaign is a .3% CTR. In aggregate, all tactics under this campaign strategy have hit the KPI, and the client is happy. More often than not, however, there are multiple tactics that a partner will run in order to test new strategies, segments, or utilize incremental budget. Below is the same media plan report, except with full tactic transparency provided by the VISTO™ platform.

Targeting Tactics

sibgle2
Of the four tactics running, only two are hitting the client KPI goals. With this extra level of insight, it becomes clear why advertisers need a deeper, more transparent view into their media plan. Further, when offering managed services in running a campaign, we provide transparency into all changes made by the optimization team. See below example:

Campaign Optimizations

sibgle3
The transparency level of VISTO™ makes monitoring of the “flaw of averages” a less tedious task. Allowing marketers to be more proactive across their plan holistically is invaluable, and can only lead to more efficiently spent marketing dollars.

To quote the article:

“Just like averages can hide the true picture, failing to have a full view of investment can damage the effectiveness of performance media.”

Read the full article here