- Oct 28, 2012
- 411
- 279
- Awards
- 5
- First Name
- Chris K
I’m only interested in better understanding the value of What Brian is selling through multi touch inside of GA.
Multi-Touch, What am I Missing?
- Thread starter Chris Leslie
- Start date
- Feb 11, 2015
- 2,492
- 764
- First Name
- Alex
There's a difference between web traffic attribution and sales attribution. Separate entities and functionality entirely.
What Pasch is showing there, is what many groups already have in place, including below. In fact, he's late to the game.
https://www.clarivoy.com/product/native-google-analytics-integration
What Pasch is showing there, is what many groups already have in place, including below. In fact, he's late to the game.
https://www.clarivoy.com/product/native-google-analytics-integration
- Applies cost data from all digital marketing investments (Cars.com, AutoTrader, Display, Video, Facebook, etc.) within Google Analytics to evaluate performance with each publisher
- Evaluates the true cost per engagement by embedding Clarivoy’s proprietary Multi-Touch Attribution model directly into Google Analytics so you no longer need to rely on Google’s last click attribution
- Fractionalizes credit across all touchpoints using Clarivoy’s proprietary attribution model ensuring all traffic driving sources receive proper credit
- Feb 11, 2015
- 2,492
- 764
- First Name
- Alex
- Default Channels in GA will never include Automotive Channels, without Custom Channel programming. Tools like Clarivoy's will break these down based upon Custom Channel integration, which includes 3PAs like Autotrader, Cars.com and Cargurus. Additionally, it will break down Paid Search (branded) vs. Paid Search (non-brand), Paid and Owned E-mail, Facebook, Paid Social (not FB), etc., etc.
- Last Touch versus Multi-Touch.
- Ability to upload spend into Google Analytics to understand cost per acquisition (goals set up). Spend against goal conversions to calculate the CPA.
Last edited:
- Oct 28, 2012
- 411
- 279
- Awards
- 5
- First Name
- Chris K
Sure there is a difference but you can’t have one without the other. At some point we have to decide what a max cost per acquisition is in relation to the sale through rate of that channel.
You can’t have a “proprietary” attribution model that applies “proper” credit without having all the parties involved agree to the fraction possibility they might be credited. If anyone disagrees with any aspect of the clairvoy modeling it discredits the entire thing.
Not to mention it assumes that it can apply the same modeling to all auto dealers.
- Feb 11, 2015
- 2,492
- 764
- First Name
- Alex
I would agree, obviously, most dealers are interested in sales (attribution), that's really the bread and butter of the various vendors.
The traffic side of things can paint a good picture as well = where your money is being spent against proper / best practice site goals (or custom goals). I mean you can have one without the other (sales attribution is going to expose cost per leads, cost per sale), but the key is they should compliment each other.
As for fractionalization, "multi-touch attribution" modeling has a certain set of %'s. Those are considered standards.
The traffic side of things can paint a good picture as well = where your money is being spent against proper / best practice site goals (or custom goals). I mean you can have one without the other (sales attribution is going to expose cost per leads, cost per sale), but the key is they should compliment each other.
As for fractionalization, "multi-touch attribution" modeling has a certain set of %'s. Those are considered standards.
- Mar 15, 2012
- 248
- 213
- Awards
- 6
- First Name
- Steve
If I'm a dealer, then I'm fine with giving some "value" to my web traffic that "passed through" some digital avenues; but when those digital avenues should also be generating leads and calls (or actual traffic back to my website), I'm a but old fashioned.
That is, they should be focused primarily on generating a lead or a call (or, at the very least, an immediate store visit or a website referral); otherwise, I am lucky if they eventually decided to come into my store and buy.
I'll attribute some value to them, but an "assist" (thinking of how we award an assist in basketball), is a stretch. Generate me an old-fashioned lead or call and then we don't even have to have the attribution discussion, right?
That is, they should be focused primarily on generating a lead or a call (or, at the very least, an immediate store visit or a website referral); otherwise, I am lucky if they eventually decided to come into my store and buy.
I'll attribute some value to them, but an "assist" (thinking of how we award an assist in basketball), is a stretch. Generate me an old-fashioned lead or call and then we don't even have to have the attribution discussion, right?
- Feb 11, 2015
- 2,492
- 764
- First Name
- Alex
- Feb 11, 2015
- 2,492
- 764
- First Name
- Alex
As far as GA (Web Traffic Attribution) goes, the 30/35/35 fractionalized split is based on a study of custom models in the GA solutions gallery.
More typical in a position-based model is 40/20/40 (that is default position-based in AW & GA), but the two reasons I think 30/35/35 makes sense, esp. for attribution tools are:
1. the "middle" bucket (20 or 35) is split amongst all the clicks that are neither first nor last.. So if you have a lot of touch points in the middle (like a long sales cycle) having it only be 20% for all of the points combined can mean a very small fraction for each one.
2. Having 40% as the first touch means you are pretty confident that "first" is actually the first touch, but as we know in long sales cycle that's often not the case, it's just the first we know of on that cookie in GA -- which unlike in many sales attribution models is not subject to any session unification.
