Attribution Case Study - Ad-Tech Presentation
-
date post
17-Oct-2014 -
Category
Technology
-
view
2.047 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Attribution Case Study - Ad-Tech Presentation
Attribution Case Study: Insights You Can Use April 2012
Steve Latham CEO Encore Media Metrics @stevelatham
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
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)
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 $67).
Path%Analysis IMPs Visits Display%Clicks Direct%Nav Natural%
SearchPaid%
Search Referring Display% Visits%
All Visitors 5.2 4.2 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.4 55.2% 44.8%Cluster 4 (45%) 1.5 2.8 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 35.2% 64.8%Cluster 6 (21%) 4.7 3.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.6 55.2% 44.8%Cluster 3 (15%) 6.1 4.0 1.5 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.2 60.3% 39.7%Cluster 8 (13%) 3.9 4.8 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.1 1.3 45.1% 54.9%Relative Contribution (all) 54.2% 45.8% 9.1% 6.1% 9.5% 7.6% 13.3%Includes Converters who were exposed to ads, grouped in natural clusters via machine-learning algorithm.
InterpretationThere is a broad distribution of conversion paths so we need to look beyond the averages. In aggregate, display ads accounted for 54% of interactions (range 35-60%) that led to conversions. Natural and paid search combined for 17.1% of of Interactions that influenced conversions.The "Average" Converter saw 5.2 display ads and visited 4.2 times. Most common sources: 1.1 Display, 0.8 Natural Search, 0.5 Paid search, 1.4 referring.
Key Insight #1 • Conversion path analysis showed:
– Converters were engaged via numerous channels – Among Converters who were exposed to ads:
• Average Converter saw 5.2 ads and visited 4.2 times • 1/3 visited through paid or natural search
Key Insight #2 • Optimal frequency was 5.7 impressions overall
– Ranged from 1.8 to 9.6 among vendors on the plan.
1.7$
6.2$
2.4$
5.4$
1.1$
3.0$
7.0$
1.3$
3.2$
6.6$
1.3$
4.7$
7.8$
1.8$
4.4$
1.8$
9.0$
2.4$
3.5$
7.0$
9.6$
1.6$
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Publisher
8
Ad Net
1
Publisher
9
Publisher
5
Publisher
7
Publisher
2
Publisher
1
Publisher
3
Publisher
6
Ad Net
2
Publisher
4
Impressions*Required*by*Vendor*
Visit$ Conversion$
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%
609$
1,026$
1,520$
1,013$
499$435$
733$
1,086$1,201$ 1,210$
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Direct Nav Org Search Referrals Paid Search Display
Ac#ons'By'Channel'
Lst Click
Attributable
$22.38$
$319.96$
$18.89$
$131.98$
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Paid Search Display
Cost'Per'Ac#on'By'Channel'
Last Click Attributable
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
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
Vendor Impressions Actions/(Last)
Click/Assists
Assist/Imps.
ICE/Ratio
ICE/Assists
Actions/(Attrib.) Spend CPA:/Last/
ClickCPA:/
Attributed Rating
Publisher/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
So…What’s The Point? By understanding…
– Conversion Paths and Engagement Cycles – Optimal Frequency – Impact of Channel, Vendor and Keyword
…the Agency can optimize performance The economic opportunity is significant:
Group Spend % of Budget Revenue ROS Proforma
% BudgetProforma
ROS Proforma Revenue Impact
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
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
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!
Questions?
Encore Media Metrics Steve Latham, CEO 646.919.1809 http://EncoreMetrics.com
@SteveLatham @EncoreMetrics
http://Attribution101.com