Industry Ponders Whether The Current Attribution Model Needs To Be Addressed

The post view impression is a contentious conversion metric in ad land. Most ad networks make their living out of it. And it’s how the majority of agencies justify their DR display spend to advertisers. But questions are being raised about its viability from a number of senior ad execs. Cookie bombing is rife in the display marketplace with ad networks, DSPs et al chasing the last impression. More often than not the wrong vendor is being awarded the conversion – but current attribution models are failing to pick up on it. ExchangeWire asked a number of senior advertising players for their opinion on the current state of attribution in the European display marketplace.
The question posed: does the current attribution model for display and digital need to be addressed – and what do you think the industry will have to do to to fix some of the current failings?

Jon Baron, General Manager, TagMan

“Wherever the current attribution model is last click, then, yes, it needs to be addressed. Last click has driven the industry for 10 years and it has meant that certain channels and types of campaign have gained disproportionate credit and investment. It’s completely and, in our view, unfairly underpinned development in the digital industry.
But, now the tools exist for agencies and advertisers to understand how all channels play a role in delivering customers and to reward them appropriately. Consider digital where, for example, display campaigns that deliver the first touch point are actually awarded a share of the credit and commission of the final sale for doing so. It’s completely transformative.
The key for the rest of the industry is to help drive, not hamper the shift. We’re already seeing that clients are looking for providers that can help them develop better attribution models with strategic, big picture advice and analysis. Those that are still seeking to protect their piece of the pie in conflict with the advertiser’s best interests are being given short shrift.”

Daniel de Sybel, Director of Technology and Operations, Infectious Media

“As alluded to in my recent attribution post on the Infectious Media blog, relying on last-event-wins leads to networks working to game the system and attempt to run campaigns that display ads just before a user was going to convert anyway. Unless this changes, there will always be a lack of trust in the metrics used to measure campaign performance.
Fixing this needn’t be too hard. By first addressing the measurement issue, marketers can begin to have more faith that their online ads are engaging prospective customers.
Understanding this alone would answer many of the critics of post-view conversions since you could tangibly measure whether the ad was actually seen or not.
But we can do better than this. Once you have your augmented impression and click data, you can begin to build a pattern of user behaviour to determine which ads from which channels actually made a difference to a user’s propensity to convert. This forms the basis of your attribution model which would vary depending on advertiser and product.
However, until a repeatable, standard methodology for developing these models can be agreed, marketers will always resort to their old, dependable last-event-wins. At Infectious, we aim to help drive the move towards standardising better attribution models so that all marketers can feel confident in the power of their advertising.”

Paul Silver, Associate Director, Starcom Mediavest Group

“I firmly believe that without a new robust method for measurement, display advertising is dead. No one clicks on ads, but that’s not to say it has no affect or doesn’t work. Current post view methods of measurement are not right either; we’ve created a monster. Everyone operating in this space is competing (to put it mildly) to be attributed the last click or view; it’s not conducive and I’d argue it’s not adding any real value. I am a big fan of likelihood and propensity models and this is something we are exploring right now, something that can be actionable everyday.
More broadly than that, we also now have a new product around cross media attribution modelling called PathFinder. I am a huge advocate of attribution modelling but the approach and model has to be data driven. I am not convinced either that buying some tech and selecting a pre-defined model to re-attribute and re-scale conversions is helping but perhaps its better than nothing?
I hear calls that attribution modelling should be standardised, but maybe it shouldn’t. If every advertiser has a unique way of re-attributing performance, maybe it will ensure we maintain a varied and dynamic use of this channel and the accompanying technology utilised to optimise. But we have to act soon. Staff up. Invest. Start making this happen. It could be the end of display if we don’t.”

Adam Pace, Managing Director, Access

“My view is that the attribution model is set by the agency and the client. This is done in context of the consideration cycle for each product and the price of other media and acquisition channels. The agencies have teams of planners, econometricians and research teams to set the flighting and weights of their media campaigns. We have to remember that it is not just the RTB element of digital campaigns that run as a result of all this work. TV, sponsorship, print ads and poster campaigns are all fighted to maximise consideration and purchase. At Access we simply optimise as briefed by the agency and the client.
In practice the amount of retargetting that goes on means that it can be really hard to show any benefit to display ads earlier in the purchse cycle or higher up the funnel, but isn’t that what TV and posters are for? We can do this in display, but we have to be really clear with the planners how it may affect CPA in the short term. Then it’s up to them how they use this infomation. That’s why it’s really important for us to work closely with the OMG agency planning teams.”

Erich Wasserman, Co Founder & GM, EMEA, MediaMath

“This is a great question and the short answer is: attribution definitely needs attention.
On a macro level, the obvious client question is: how is the totality of my spend accruing to sales? The answer is that different marketing channels (online, offline) naturally engender different levels of engagement and response. These channels should be utilised in different ways, according to distributed value. Searching for a product, for example, is generally the last thing users do before buying a product. We all know this and do this ourselves. We all also know that users need to be exposed to that product prior to searching for it.
When disparate digital media tracking systems (ad servers, affiliate networks, search providers, premium display, media networks, ad exchanges etc.) provide attributed sales analyses in isolation, the macro story is lost… to all of our detriment. Unfortunately, this is typically the way that media is bought and analysed. It is therefore typically the way that advertising budgets are allocated. Suffice it to say, we have seen, consistently and across clients, that turning on Display advertising (rich media, video, standard banners) increases Search efficiency — in addition to providing masses of new sales from display itself. Channels work together to grow sales for the client. The same goes for TV spend plus display – this even though I’ve yet to successfully click on a TV ad… working on it.
On a micro level and with regards to display, the client sees this channel vying for last-click or last-view attribution. Display typically uses an ad server to determine who clicked or saw an impression last, and on the basis of that last action, determines attribution to ad tag placement. Paired with standard methods of buying inventory, in which individual media properties or networks are given individual ad tags, the result is a war not over effectiveness of advertising nor the right price to pay for more qualified or less qualified users, but about who can get the last ad in front of the user last. The by-product of this dynamic is the need for massive volumes of media, which, to be efficient, must be priced lower and lower. Calling your media partner and getting them to lower your eCPMs becomes the name of the game. And they tell you to please turn off other high reach sources as their efficiency will undoubtedly increase. And on and on. Fun for all!
With the right systems in place, you can get control of attribution – cross channel. But if you don’t have the cross channel mandate, you can always look at the display channel in isolation and show incremental impact as a function of time since ad exposure. Results can be granular (hourly, even) and show the natural effects of ad effectiveness over time.”

Doug Conely, Senior Director for Global Data & Targeting, Tribal Fusion

“Display attribution models do need to make a leap forward but so does adoption of those models, even just of current best practice. Fortunately, there are lots of good things happening and the fact that attribution is now a topic in every conversation is a major step in the right direction that we wholeheartedly support.
We would like to see an end scenario where clients are able to pass us a dynamic feed of information on what events in the user journey have highest weighting in their attribution model and for our algorithms to optimise to those weightings; where every participant in the mix from paid search to social media to display is measured and rewarded accordingly both on client site and, where possible, off site; and where planners and buyers get easily understood, actionable recommendations without manual intervention.
There are major issues to be solved to achieve this around pixel distribution for measurement (unless anyone knows a better way), the cost of developing the product/ infrastructure to support this and standardising the outputs.
As I said at The Data Economy: I’d rather we didn’t leave work on this end scenario to Google. We’re happy to play our part in driving change and have internal projects so that we can contribute to the debate.”

Brian Fitzpatrick, Managing Director, MIG UK

“The best thing about Internet advertising is that you can track everything, on the other hand, the worst thing about internet advertising is that you can track everything.
While there is an enormous amount of data about online campaigns being collected, the current model used for attribution based on last action does not always give us the clearest picture of where the credit should be directed.
Often the media owners with the highest reach are the ones assigned credit rather than, for example, a site where a customer reads a product review and is convinced to buy the item, this lack of insight often results in quality sites being taken off plans.
As a response to the limitations of the current system and the lack of insight it provides agencies and clients, we are seeing the rise of dynamic attribution modeling, looking back at the user journey and dwell time to build a clearer picture for actual contribution, the results can be startling.
The technology we use to track, collect and action information about campaigns has come a long way, the new data companies entering the market should help shed more light on where customers are, however without the correct interpretation and analysis of the data by media planners and clients, budgets will still be directed towards what’s most obvious rather than what’s most effective.”

Ian Dowds, Vice President UK, Specific Media

“Attribution is not a challenge unique to digital. The entire advertising business has long been searching for a method of measuring the individual and cumulative effectiveness of each ad, in each medium, in driving awareness, consideration, engagement, purchase and re-purchase.
The digital channel has been fairly unique (along with direct mail) in delivering campaign measurability, in terms of message delivery, action and acquisition, with the click tending to be central to attribution models. That measurability has understandable appeal to marketers. But hanging everything on the last click fails to recognise that the digital channel works in conjunction with all other channels. No medium works in isolation and no campaign, be it display, video, search, mobile etc., works independently in the marketing funnel.
Technology does exist that enables fairer attribution measurement. The challenge is that not everyone is privy to all the data. Fair and agreed attribution becomes impossible: discrete channels have discrete measures of effectiveness – despite being part of a single campaign.
An agreed holistic approach to measurement is needed. It’s a difficult but not impossible task. Advertisers, agencies and sales organisations must engage with each other to create an integrated system that fairly, if not perfectly, attributes at least some credit where due.”
[smartads]