Multi-Touch Attribution Campaign Tracking with WebTrends

This article is a follow-up to the webinar

All web analytics platforms have some way of tracking marketing campaign performance usually out-of-the-box or with a little bit of set up. Generally they all do a pretty good job of this and provide key reports to make important business decisions about which campaigns to invest more money in, which to reduce spending on, and which to get rid of altogether. But often these decisions are made without insight into the whole picture. Why? The answer is simply because most campaign reports are set up in the industry standard way of attributing all conversions to the last or most recent campaign clicked. This is and has long been the industry standard, but it is time for a change as this method ignores the fact that people often go through multiple campaigns before converting.

So what other attribution options are there? And why wouldn’t I want to attribute conversion credit to the most recent campaign? – There are typically 3 options for campaign attribution:

  1. Last Touch (Most recent campaign)
  2. First Touch (Original campaign)
  3. Multi-touch (All campaign touches)

Technically there are two options for multi-touch attribution. One option is to give full credit to all campaign touches and the other option is to give partial credit to each touch. For example, if 3 different campaign touches resulted in a sale of $30 you could credit each touch with $10. But for the purposes of this article we will focus on the full credit option. As for the question “why wouldn’t I want to attribute conversion credit to the most recent campaign?” – this is not really the right question to ask. The better question to ask is, “Do I have the best possible insight into the performance of my marketing campaigns?” The answer to that question is almost always “no” if you are only analyzing a single attribution method. So rather than replacing industry standard last touch reports, adding first touch and multi-touch to your arsenal of reports is the best course of action.

Fortunately for WebTrends users, there has been a great method for gaining insight into all campaign touches for quite some time although a little work up front is necessary to gain the full power of this. If you are already doing basic campaign tracking within WebTrends then the visitor history table is already turned on and with minimal effort you can set up two new custom reports which report on the first touch campaign and all campaign touches respectively. To do this you need to make use of two features of the visitor history table and create two new custom dimensions, one based on WT.vr.fc (the fc stands for “first campaign”) and another based on WT.vr.ac (the ac stands for “all campaigns”). Once you have the dimensions set up you create custom reports using those dimensions and whichever metrics you want applied. To make things easier, copy the existing campaign ID report and just change the dimension to base the report on.

The “first touch” report ends up looking nearly identical to the existing campaign ID report but the rows of data will be different since the revenue and other conversion credit is applied to the first campaign that referred the conversion as opposed to the last.

Standard Campaign ID Report Sample
First Touch Campaign ID Sample

The “all touches” report is where you’ll notice more differences. You will see some or many (depending on the date range you have selected) rows of data that have multiple campaign IDs separated by semi colons. To view only the data that contains multiple campaign touches just filter the report by a semi colon.

Multi-Touch Campaign ID Report Sample

So what do you do with this information? What does it all mean?
Spending some time with this new data will likely reveal some patterns you never had insight into before. For example, you may notice certain campaigns appear to perform poorly according to your traditional last touch reports but the same campaign’s performance as a first touch is much better, or vice versa. Since the first touch report is so similar to the out of the box campaign ID report it is fairly straightforward. The only difference is that the first touch gets the credit. The all touch reports are more complicated though. What I find most useful about this report is the ability to determine a campaign’s total reach and compare it to its absolute reach.  Take for example campaign ID 32. In the above screenshots you will notice that this campaign ID has $63,441 attributed to it as a last touch campaign, $35,839 attributed to it as a first touch campaign, and $82,036 attributed to it when you search for it in the all touches report (See fig. 4 below). What this data is telling us in this particular case is that:

  • $63,441 in revenue was most recently referred by campaign 32
  • Only $35,839 in revenue was initially referred by campaign 32
  • But overall campaign 32 at least partially referred $82,036 in revenue

As you can see, there can be very significant differences in campaign performance depending on how you look at the data. Taking the easy way out and looking only at a single attribution method can lead to less than fully-informed decisions being made about your campaigns. What if you were relying solely on first-touch reports in this example? That could lead you to reduce your budget on campaign 32 when in reality it was performing much better than your first-touch report told you.

Multi-Touch Report Filtered by Campaign ID 32

Ok, so all that is well and good but manually analyzing campaign IDs one at a time is a lot of work! Yes it certainly is using the methods I just provided as examples. But there is a much better way to approach this. Taking things a step further we can export each of these reports and combine them together in Excel using the campaign IDs as our key values. What we want to end up with is something like the following which will allow us to analyze first, last, and multi-touch all within a single interface.

Multi-Touch Reporting in Excel Sample

In part two of this article I’ll show you how to set this all up in WebTrends. But for now, follow the steps discussed in this article to get these super handy reports in place so you’ll be ready for the next part.

Data Darwinism – Capabilities that provide a competitive advantage

In my previous post, I introduced the concept of Data Darwinism, which states that for a company to be the ‘king of the jungle’ (and remain so), they need to have the ability to continually innovate.   Let’s be clear, though.   Innovation must be aligned with the strategic goals and objectives of the company.   The landscape is littered with examples of innovative ideas that didn’t have a market.  

So that begs the question “What are the behaviors and characteristics of companies that are at the top of the food chain?”    The answer to that question can go in many different directions.   With respect to Data Darwinism, the following hierarchy illustrates the categories of capabilities that an organization needs to demonstrate to truly become a dominant force.

Foundational

The impulse will be for an organization to want to immediately jump to implementing capabilities that they think will allow them to be at the top of the pyramid.   And while this is possible to a certain extent, you must put in place certain foundational capabilities to have a sustainable model.     Examples of capabilities at this level include data integration, data standardization, data quality, and basic reporting.

Without clean, integrated, accurate data that is aligned with the intended business goals, the ability to implement the more advanced capabilities is severely limited.    This does not mean that all foundational capabilities must be implemented before moving on to the next level.  Quite the opposite actually.   You must balance the need for the foundational components with the return that the more advanced capabilities will enable.

Transitional

Transitional capabilities are those that allow an organization to move from silo’d, isolated, often duplicative efforts to a more ‘centralized’ platform in which to leverage their data.    Capabilities at this level of the hierarchy start to migrate towards an enterprise view of data and include such things as a more complete, integrated data set, increased collaboration, basic analytics and ‘coordinated governance’.

Again, you don’t need to fully instantiate the capabilities at this level before building capabilities at the next level.   It continues to be a balancing act.

Transformational

Transformational capabilities are those that allow the company to start to truly differentiate themselves from their competition.   It doesn’t fully deliver the innovative capabilities that set them head and shoulders above other companies, but rather sets the stage for such.   This stage can be challenging for organizations as it can require a significant change in mind-set compared to the current way its conducts its operations.   Capabilities at this level of the hierarchy include more advanced analytical capabilities (such as true data mining), targeted access to data by users, and ‘managed governance’.

Innovative

Innovative capabilities are those that truly set a company apart from its competitors.   They allow for innovative product offerings, unique methods of handling the customer experience and new ways in which to conduct business operations.   Amazon is a great example of this.   Their ability to customize the user experience and offer ‘recommendations’ based on a wealth of user buying  trend data has set them apart from most other online retailers.    Capabilities at this level of the hierarchy include predictive analytics, enterprise governance and user self-service access to data.

The bottom line is that moving up the hierarchy requires vision, discipline and a pragmatic approach.   The journey is not always an easy one, but the rewards more than justify the effort.

Check back for the next installment of this series “Data Darwinism – Evolving Your Data Environment.”

Data Darwinism – Are you on the path to extinction?

Most people are familiar with Darwinism.  We’ve all heard the term survival of the fittest.   There is even a humorous take on the subject with the annual Darwin Awards, given to those individuals who have removed themselves from the gene pool through, shall we say, less than intelligent choices.

Businesses go through ups and downs, transformations, up-sizing/down-sizing, centralization/ decentralization, etc.   In other words, they are trying to adapt to the current and future events in order to grow.   Just as in the animal kingdom, some will survive and dominate, some will not fare as well.   In today’s challenging business environment, while many are trying to merely survive, others are prospering, growing and dominating.  

So what makes the difference between being the king of the jungle or being prey?   The ability to make the right decisions in the face of uncertainty.     This is often easier said than done.   However, at the core of making the best decisions is making sure you have the right data.   That brings us back to the topic at hand:  Data Darwinism.   Data Darwinism can be defined as:

“The practice of using an organization’s data to survive, adapt, compete and innovate in a constantly changing and increasingly competitive business environment.”

When asked to assess where they are on the Data Darwinism continuum, many companies will say that they are at the top of the food chain, that they are very fast at getting data to make decisions, that they don’t see data as a problem, etc.   However, when truly asked to objectively evaluate their situation, they often come up with a very different, and often frightening, picture. 

  It’s as simple as looking at your behavior when dealing with data:

If you find yourself exhibiting more of the behaviors on the left side of the picture above, you might be a candidate for the next Data Darwin Awards.

Check back for the next installment of this series “Data Darwinism – Capabilities that Provide a Competitive Advantage.”

Are your KPIs creating a no-win situation?

Businesses that start implementing KPIs at a departmental level, without an enterprise wide effort to define a balanced set of key performance indicators, can unwittingly push their businesses into a no-win situation, as in these real-world scenarios:

  • Customer Call Centers (often ahead of the curve as far as setting metrics) are tracking and incentivizing their call center agents to keep their call times short. Call center agents, in an effort to shave seconds off of each call, omit the crucial step of searching for a customer before entering a new one while logging interactions. Result: Duplicate customer records, which  may even be pushed to other systems, creating pain throughout multiple departments.
  • In the push to meet monthly sales quotas, hyper-discounting  behavior becomes the norm among the sales team.  If the pricebook is complex and no one can get a true read on profitability, inappropriate discounting may be approved when management doesn’t have access to the right information to make an informed approval decision.
  • Some businesses steer only by financial performance measures, but these are lagging indicators, and can seldom, in and of themselves, provide the required agility to succeed in rapidly changing situations.

The key, of course, is to strive for balance when implementing KPIs:

  • Balance between leading (forward-looking) and lagging (backward-looking) indicators.
  • Balance across stakeholder perspectives. The Balanced Scorecard as a starting point works well to achieve balance across core stakeholder viewpoints of financial, customer, process, and learning/growth.
  • Balance across levels in your business hierarchy. Kaplan and Norton expanded on the balanced scorecard approach to help businesses drive metrics down through their organizations via strategy maps.
  • Balancing speed metrics with quality metrics
james_kirk2c_2266

Image courtesy of memory-alpha.org

The alternative to a balanced approach at the outset is usually a technology desparation move, such as manually cobbling together some key reports, manually trying to scrub out duplicate data, implementing undesirable or even temporary customizations to packaged programs. There’s usually at least one person in the IT department who’s enough of a Star Trek fan to want to reprogram that no-win scenario, just like the young James Kirk did with the Kobayashi Maru.

Budgeting from the trenches

Have you ever noticed how text books understate the budgeting process? They tend to gloss over the topic as four steps:

  1. Determine revenues
  2. Forecast expenses
  3. Adjust
  4. Communicate

Some text books suggest that that the process has iterations. This general outline of the process rings true, but its oversimplification makes the budgeting process sections meaningless when it comes time to map one out. I have found that undertaking the budgeting challenge is different between organizations. The process design is similar to perhaps how Generals draw up battle plans.tactics_image The available personnel, supplies and equipment are assessed and the desired outcome is clear. However, the details of the approach are dependent on the specific terrain and rely on the latest tools and information. For this reason, organizations tend to see its budgeting strategy as unique.

Strategy is a fair term to use in budgeting as its outcome has a great deal at stake. Every staff member submitting input for calculations or making a request for funds has credibility on the line. Without complete information the profitability of a product, service, region or division is at jeopardy. And, day-to-day performance of the organization can be besieged from the pressure and time consumption when gathering intelligence from the field.

There is a point where this analogy between a battle plan and a budgeting process falls apart: That is, a battle will end and budgeting does not. A budget plan will play itself over and over. This exposes a point of vulnerability in the budgeting process as it was designed for a set of conditions that most likely has changed. It may no longer be sufficient to budget annually. Reporting requirements may change. Consolidations in the industry confuse the financial results. Or, new competitors, products, clients, regions and staff render the plan obsolete. When there is such a difference between the framework and reality, the budgeting framework cannot be trusted for strategic forecasting.

In the wake of the global financial crisis as organizations seek to maximize cash reserves, evaluate expenses and eliminate risk; the budget process surfaces as a key strategy. Those giving strategic input and making decisions have unprecedented pressures to assure accuracy and agility in cost cutting. Those who need to find opportunities for revenue are at a loss for validating an option’s viability. An organization is likely to forgo an opportunity without the ability to articulate its profitability, avoiding the risk of catastrophe.

Today’s battlefield is dynamic and most participants are deep in the trenches. We know that this gloomy economy will end and we intend to abandon the trench to take new ground. Our challenge is timing and selecting the method to move forward. While we are trenched, let’s review the budgeting tools and design a system giving us the agility to adapt to the changing markets, locate opportunities and operate effectively.

The Fog Has Engulfed Us Captain! What Do We Do?

Sailing in fogThe current business environment reminds me of being socked in a fog bank in minutes, after being on a pleasant summer sail.  The entire episode puts the pucker factor meter in the red zone.  One minute clear sun and nice breeze, the next you can’t see your hand in front of your face.  Your other senses become more acute  — suddenly you hear the splash of the waves on the rocks you cannot see (funny I didn’t hear that a minute ago).  The engines of power boats are closer, seeming to come at your every quarter (PT109 how bad can it be?).

As you sit in the cockpit with your canned air fog horn and US Coast Guard approved paddle, you think that the portable marine radio you bought will not save your sorry carcass (at least you can get the Coast Guard to retrieve your drowned body as you go down).  You kick yourself for not buying that radar instead of the case of wine as a boating accessory (in fact, you think of downing some of that right now to ease your passing).  What you would not give for just a little visibility.

That’s what running a business feels like right now (makes you want to puke doesn’t it, what fun).  My Kingdom for some Visibility!  Sure, you can see what the others are doing; cut a few heads there, shut a facility there.  Is that the right thing to do?  Are you killing your future seed corn or bailing the water which will sink the company?  Ugh!  In this case, you really wish your company’s reporting could be that radar to tell where and where not to go (sure wish I got that CPM Package rather than that Sales meeting in Napa Valley).  With dashboards, planning and budgeting, consolidation, and operational BI, I would have a much better sense of what to feed and what to kill to take advantage of my competitors coming out of this economic fog (Aye Captain! in the Bay of the Blind the One Eyed Man is Admiral!).  Wishing and regrets won’t get you much, and capital investment at this point seems to be a dirty word (Yep, there it is on George Carlin’s list).

In the case of my sailing experience, the way I dug out of the fog and fear was to dig out the depth finder the former owner left behind and the charts I bought because it seemed like a good idea at the time.  I then proceeded to steer the sailboat in circles matching the readings on the depth finder with the depth readings on the chart based on my dead reckoning of my location (you reckon wrong, you’re dead).  Needless to say it worked, the fog cleared, and I was within a quarter mile of where I should have been (Cool!).  Just straightening out existing corporate reports and cleaning existing data is the equivalent of using the depth finder and charts already on hand (Yes! I know the difference between capital and expense).  In fact, that effort usually saves money by eliminating old unused reports (Oh, I feel so green!).

In any case, take a solid first step by getting those state-of-the-art visibility tools of BI/CPM/EPM when the current problems clear or things become so dire as to require dry dock repairs.  That way, the pucker meter won’t be buried in the red the next time this happens, and it will.

Image courtesy of Herbert Knosowski, AP