Watch the Forum- Real Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Webcast- Windows Media Audio (16k)

Original Date- May 5, 2009

Length- 55 minutes

This webcast will focus on showing how using advanced statistical models can allow one to build attribution models that can then be tested.
The webcast will be co-hosted by Adam Goldberg, ClearSaleing co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer, and Dr. Purush Papatla, President of Vetra Analytics, which is a high-end statistical consultancy group that is partnered with ClearSaleing.

Mr. Goldberg and Dr. Papatla will show how using high-end statistical models can allow one to build attribution models that specifically address how to account for:

•   Social media

•   Word of Mouth

•   The differences between short Purchase Paths and long Purchase Paths

Like the previous Forums, there will be some interactive elements.  In the first 2 Forums, we had the audience participate by voting on various attribution scenarios. In AMF 3.0, we are going to introduce methods that can be used to solve various attribution scenarios.

Watch the Forum- Real Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Webcast- Windows Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Forum- Real Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Forum- Windows Media Audio (16k)

Original Date- January 29, 2009

Length- 52 minutes

This webcast continues the discussion surrounding how to identify, define and ultimately recommend better ways to measure and value an ad.
We’ll present a series of interactive polling questions and share the results with the audience immediately, so you’ll get some real-time information as to how leading internet marketers value ads.
Any good Internet marketing professional knows that assigning all of the value to the last ad clicked on before the conversion is inherently flawed. However, most Internet advertisers lack:

•   The tracking technology required to determine the actual team of ads and their sequence that lead to the conversion.

•   The valuation methodology to properly assess each ad’s true contribution and value to the conversion.

While a few technologies are now able to effectively track and assemble the purchase path leading to conversion, there is no industry-accepted standard or method for assigning relative value to ads in the path. How do we effectively attribute which ad – or group of ads – ultimately led to the final conversion?
We’ll cover a variety of common issues and scenarios surrounding attribution, such as:

•   How length of time between searches affect how ads are credited

•   Lifetime ad value with use of additional search

•   Best allocation of different advertising scenarios, such as online-offline

Watch the Forum- Real Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Forum- Windows Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Forum- Real Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Forum- Windows Media Audio (16k)

Original Date- October 28, 2008

Length- 63 minutes

This webcast brings together the online marketing and advertising minds to work together as a community to help collectively identify, evaluate, vet and ultimately recommend the best attribution valuation practices and methodologies for online advertisers.

While a few technologies are now able to effectively track and assemble the purchase path leading to conversion, there is no industry-accepted standard or method for assigning relative value to ads in the path. How do we effectively attribute which ad – or group of ads – ultimately led to the final conversion?

This webcast will bring together the online marketing and advertising minds to work together as a community to help collectively identify, evaluate, vet and ultimately recommend the best attribution valuation practices and methodologies.

In this webcast we’ll discuss

•   Various ad attribution classifications (e.g. Introducers/Influencers/Closers)

•   Common issues and scenarios surrounding attribution

•   Best allocation methods for different advertising scenarios

Watch the Forum- Real Media Audio (16k)

Watch the Forum- Windows Media Audio (16k)

The goal of the Attribution Management Forum series is to bring together the leading minds in the online advertising community in order to better identify, define and ultimately recommend better valuation practices and methodologies for measuring an ad’s value.

This clip from the AMF 2.0 discusses how to credit Offline Ads, SEO, and Social media efforts. Some of the other discussions included: time sensitive attribution, product sensitive attribution, and search/display interaction. Make sure to register for the 4^th Forum in the series: Attribution Management Buyer’s Guide: 10 Features of a Good Advertising Analytics Solution, which will take place on July 28, 2009 at 1pm EST.

To continue reading articles and see the videos from previous forums, visit the Scenario and Video sections of the Attribution Management Site.

Getting a new customer is great. Getting a new customer that becomes a repeat customer is even better. When a customer makes a repeat purchase, a marketer needs to consider how to attribute the credit for the future sales back to the marketing that was used to acquire the customer in the first place. Should the original ad(s) that acquired the customer get any credit for future sales? Should the original ad(s) only get credit for the first sale? What if the second product purchased was related to the first product purchased, would that change the attribution model a marketer would use?

During the Attribution Management Forum 2.0 (AMF) on Jan 29th, 2009, we posed that question to an audience of hundreds of senior online marketers and asked them to vote on the attribution model they would use in the following scenario:

In this scenario a consumer clicked on a PPC ad on Monday and the next day purchased peanut butter from that site. A little over a week later they clicked on another PPC ad and the next day purchased jelly from that same site.

We provided the audience with 3 attribution models they could choose from. They were as follows:

If you voted for:

A) You believe the first search should get credit for the sale of the peanut butter and jelly because the 2 products bought are so closely related, the first search should get credit for the sale of the jelly as well.

B) You believe the first search gets credit for the first sale and a percentage of the credit for the next sale as well. The second search also deserves a portion of the credit for the second sale.

C) You do not believe in lifetime ad value (LAV) and think that each search gets credit for only the sale that directly follows it.

In almost all of the groups polled, over 60% chose attribution rule B, which favors giving credit for the sale of jelly to the first and second ads. The exact percentage breakdowns were not chosen in this exercise.

When looking at this scenario there are a few other factors that one should consider. One factor is the type of search ad that was clicked on prior to the sale of jelly. For example, if it was a branded term, I believe more people would have opted to give full credit for the sale of jelly back to the first ad. The logic for doing this is that this customer chose search as their preferred method to navigate back to the site that they originally bought peanut butter from vs. using the address bar, an organic result, or a bookmark.

Another factor that might change the way people voted is if they knew the second search was for “jelly”, which is a general search term. The use of a general search might be an indicator that the consumer was not thinking of the company they purchased peanut butter from at all. Therefore, if they did not have that company in mind when they did the search for jelly, perhaps all of the credit for the second sale should go to the second ad.

In AMF 1.0, we presented a similar scenario but did not show the type of products that were sold. In that forum, the majority of the audience still chose to attribute some credit for the second sale back to the original ad. I would have thought knowing the sale of the second product was complimentary to the sale of the first product would have made more people opt to give all of the credit to the first ad.

These types of scenarios and rules are why we continue to strive to generate some consensus around Attribution Management. If you would like to learn more about these scenarios or the scenarios from the previous Forum, please visit www.AttributionManagement.com. Additionally, we love to hear from our audience, so please fill us in on what your thoughts about this scenario may be.

In this Purchase Path a consumer sees a Tweet on Twitter promoting a discount on Nike Shox at Finish Line that is valid until midnight. The consumer clicks on the Twitter URL, but does not buy at that point. They go to the address bar and type in the URL for the Finish Line and proceed to the site. Again, they complete the purchase before midnight and thus receive the advertised discount.

1. In Attribution Rule A, credit is split evenly between Twitter and the address bar.
2. In Attribution Rule B, Twitter is given all of the credit, either because it is seen as a valuable advertising source and therefore fully responsible, or because you don’t choose to credit the address bar.
3. In Attribution Rule C, Twitter does not get credit. The use of the address bar implies that it should be counted as a direct visit and a direct sale. Twitter is excluded from receiving credit for the sale, and the address bar get 100%.

See how other Forum attendees voted

In this Purchase Path a consumer sees a Tweet on Twitter promoting a discount on Nike Shox at Finish Line that is valid until midnight. Then the consumer clicks on the Twitter URL, but does not buy at that point. Then they do a search for “Woman’s Nike Shox”, and click on the Finish Line sponsored link. They complete the purchase before midnight and therefore receive the advertised discount.

1. In Attribution Rule A, Twitter is treated like an ad source and therefore deserves credit for the sale the same way an advisement would. The search also led them to the purchase, so the credit is split evenly between the 2 sources.
2. In Attribution Rule B, Twitter introduced the consumer to the product and informed them of the discount. Twitter did all the work, while the search was merely for navigational purposes; therefore Twitter deserves 100% of the credit.
3. In Attribution Rule C, the last action before the purchase was a paid click, so all the credit goes to the search. Twitter is not viewed as an ad source and gets no credit for the sale.

See how other Forum attendees voted

In this Purchase Path, someone does a search for “running shoes”, clicks on the sponsored link, but does not make a purchase. They refine their search to “Woman’s Nike Shox” and this time click the organic listing for Finish Line. No purchase occurs. Then they search for “Nike Shox Turbo VII” and click on a paid link. Again, no purchase occurs. Finally, they type in “Finish Line” in the search box, click on the organic link, and complete the sale. How should the mix of SEO and PPC be attributed?

1. In Attribution Rule A, all the ads and SEO efforts are considered equally important. It took 4 touch points on the website for the consumer to buy, so the credit is divided equally among the 4 all efforts and they are each given 25% of the credit for the sale.
2. In Attribution Rule B, credit is only attributed to the ads, giving each 50%, while the SEO does not receive any credit for the purchase.
3. In Attribution Rule C, all the touch points deserve credit. The reason they typed “Finish Line” in and clicked on the organic link was simply to navigate back to the site. At this point, the consumer already made up their mind to buy and the last SEO effort should be excluded from receiving credit for the sale.

See how other Forum attendees voted

In this Purchase Path the advertiser sends something direct mail (such as a catalog or flyer). The consumer then goes online and does a search for the branded term (Finish Line), clicks on the ad, and makes a purchase. It is known that the catalog was received within 7 days of them making the online purchase.

1. In Attribution Rule A, the credit is distributed evenly between the catalog and the search.
2. In Attribution Rule B, both sources deserve credit, however the breakdown between the 2 is not known. The catalog and the branded search each deserve a portion of credit for the sale, but it is undecided which is greater.
3. In Attribution Rule C, the catalog is given 100% of the credit for the search. It introduced the consumer to the product they purchased and going to the website was simply the easiest way for them to place the order.
4. In Attribution Rule D, the branded search is the easiest to track and therefore gets all the credit for the sale. It is also the action that lead most directly to the purchase.

See how other Forum attendees voted

In this Purchase Path, a consumer did a search on a Monday and bought some peanut butter. Then a week later, they did another search and bought a complimentary product, jelly. Which search gets credit for the sales?

1. In Attribution Rule A, you believe the first search should get credit for the sale of the peanut butter. However because the 2 products bought are so closely related, the first search should get credit for the sale of the jelly also.
2. In Attribution Rule B, the first search gets credit for the first sale and a percentage of the credit for the next sale as well. The second search also deserves a portion of the credit, but not as much as the first.
3. In Attribution Rule C, you do not believe in lifetime ad value and think that each search gets credit for only the sale that directly follows it.

See how other Forum attendees voted