Attribution case study presented at Ad:tech NYC in 2012 by Steve Latham, ceo of Encore Media Metrics

1. Attribution Case Study
Impactful Insights
November 2012
Steve Latham Bradley May
Encore Media Metrics KSL Media
@encoremetrics @kslmedia

2. Background
• Agency: KSL Media
• Client: Retail Gasoline Brand
• Display Media (20+ vendors)
– Platforms: PC-Based + Mobile
– Placements: Branding + Direct response
– Formats: Video, Rich Media, Flash
• Paid and Natural Search

3. Objectives
• Campaign Goals
– In-Ad Engagement
• Brand metrics (awareness)
• Take action: Download mobile app, view videos
– On-site Engagement
• Download content and mobile apps
• View video spots
• Find a station
• Register
• Holistic View of Media Performance
– Conversion paths
– Role of each Channel and Platform
– Performance by Publisher and Placement

4. Conversion Path Insights
• Converters utilized numerous channels
• Among Converters who were exposed to ads:
– Served 6.7 ads
– Visited 3.2 times before converting
– Paid + Natural Search accounted for 28% of Visits
Sources of Visits in Conversion Paths =====>
Display Direct Natural Paid
Conversion Paths IMPs Visits Referring
(Web) Nav Search Search
All Visitors 6.7 3.2 1.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.3
Relative Contribution 62.9% 37.1% 31.3% 31.3% 14.0% 13.8% 9.6%
Includes Converters who were exposed to ads, grouped in natural clusters via machine-learning algorithm.
Based on Modeled data (after excluding outliers and excess impressions served):

5. Frequency Analysis
• Optimal frequency was 6.7 Impressions
• Actual frequency was 35
– Publishers: 12
– DSP: 67
Impressions'Served'to'Visitors'by'Frequency'Tier' Number'of'Visitors'per'Frequency'Tier'
350,000"" 9,000""
All"Others" DSP" All"Others" DSP"
300,000"" 8,000""
7,000""
250,000""
6,000""
200,000""
5,000""
150,000""
4,000""
100,000"" 3,000""
50,000"" 2,000""
1,000""
!""""
!""""
"
"
"
5" "
10 o"9"
20 "19"
30 "29"
40 "39"
50 "49"
0" 9"
0" 9"
0" 9"
0" 9"
0" 9"
>1 9"
"
1"
2"
3"
4"
0"
10 "to"5
20 o"19
30 o"29
40 o"39
50 o"49
9
00
"9
"to
"to
"to
"to
t
to
"
"
"
5" "
10 "9"
20 19"
30 29"
40 39"
50 49"
0" 9"
0" 9"
0" 9"
0" 9"
0" 9"
>1 9"
"
t
t
t
t
1"
2"
3"
4"
0"
10 "5
20 "19
30 "29
40 "39
50 "49
9
to
00
"
"
"
"
"9
"to
"to
"to
"to
"to
to
to
to
to
to

6. Channel Performance
• After attributing credit for Assist Imps and Clicks:
– PC Display Ads comprised 18% of Actions (excl. mobile)
• Exceeded Paid + Natural Search
– Display CPA fell by 83% vs. last click
Ac#ons'By'Channel'
120,000
Last Click Attributed
100,000
80,000
60,000 Cost%Per%Ac+on%By%Channel%
$50
Last Click Attributed
40,000 $45
$40
20,000
$35 $30.54&
0 $30
Direct Nav Org Search Referrals Email Paid Search Display Mobile
Display $25
$20
$15
$10
$3.05&
$5 $2.54& $2.77&$2.94& $0.87&$0.86&
$0
Email Paid Search Display Mobile Display

7. Vendor Performance
• After attributing credit for Assist Imps and Clicks:
– 5 Winners (vs. only 2 using Last Click)
– 4 Challengers
– 4 Laggards Without Attribution, 7 of 9 vendors
would have been cut from the plan
Converters Assist Actions CPA:.Last CPA: Efficiency
Vendor Assist.Clicks Rating
(Last.Click) Impressions (Attrib.) Click Attributed Oppty
Ad#Network#C 6 4 589 ############ 150 $3766.30 $150.42 56% Laggard
DSP 2,593 4,248 23,095 #########9,237 $35.55 $9.98 44% Winner
Publisher#G 241 73 4,460 #########1,002 $69.50 $16.71 n/a Winner
Publisher#H 26 10 2,081 ############ 538 $4715.19 $227.89 55% Laggard
Publisher#J 1 0 614 ############## 44 $9266.41 $211.51 42% Laggard
Publisher#MA 10 2 895 ############ 314 $804.44 $25.58 52% Winner
Ad#Network#ME 19 1 5,117 #########1,922 $2403.05 $23.75 44% Winner
Publisher#MO 16 3 694 ############ 268 $529.79 $31.60 44% Challenger
Publisher#P 139 211 8,225 #########2,318 $343.60 $20.61 73% Winner
Ad#Network#R 32 3 2,217 ############ 594 $802.91 $43.26 30% Challenger
Publisher#TE 63 19 2,495 ############ 542 $387.27 $45.04 36% Challenger
Publisher#TA 12 37 112 ############## 72 $2021.62 $335.54 34% Laggard
Publisher#Y 482 8 2,979 #########1,788 $142.23 $38.33 31% Challenger
Totals 3,646 4,624 53,858 #######18,859 $141.59 $27.37 45%

8. Vendor (Publisher) Performance
• Ranked Vendors based on 3 criteria
• Recommended Actions and Freq. Cap for Each
Cost$Per
On$Site$CPA Cost$Per Action$to
Web$Display Passive
(Attrib) Active$Int. take Recommended(Frequency(
Audio/Video
Ad$Network$C Laggard Challenger Winner Pause Publisher$Y$ 4.6$$
DSP Winner Winner Laggard Increase Publisher$TA$ 9.6$$
Publisher$G Winner Winner Increase Publisher$TE$
Publisher$H Laggard Challenger Pause Ad$Network$R$ 7.9$$
Publisher$P$ 8.4$$
Publisher$J Laggard Pause
Publisher$MO$ 5.6$$
Publisher$MA Winner Winner Increase
Ad$Network$ME$ 5.4$$
Ad$Network$ME Winner Winner Increase Publisher$MA$ 5.9$$
Publisher$MT Challenger Laggard Optimize Publisher$J$
Publisher$P Winner Winner Winner Optimize Publisher$H$ 8.3$$
Ad$Network$R Challenger Laggard Pause Publisher$G$
Publisher$TE Challenger Laggard Pause DSP$
Ad$Network$C$
Publisher$TA Laggard Pause 8.4$$
Publisher$Y Challenger Challenger Optimize 0$ 2$ 4$ 6$ 8$ 10$

9. Key Takeaways
• Start with a Holistic view
– Not all Channels and Placements serve same purpose
– Groups of publishers may have different objectives
• Display Ads are effective in creating awareness
– Accounted for 18% of Attributed Actions (excluding mobile)
– Performance varied dramatically by vendor
– Found significant over-serving to same users
• Search played a Supporting role
• Mobile ads were very efficient for Mobile actions
– App downloads and video views at very low CPA
• Frequency must be monitored closely

10. Additional Insights
• There is no “silver bullet”
– Must look at numerous metrics and factors
• It’s still Art and Science
– Requires oversight and subjective reasoning
• Frequency: too much can hurt performance
– Builds case for fewer, higher quality placements
• Offline promotion can skew on-site results
– Excluded specific Actions when modeling results
• Fragmentation = Obfuscation
– e.g. hard to see how Mobile gets lift from PC display

11. How Insights are Applied
• Evaluate and Segment Media Vendors
– Performance by Platform and Format
– In-ad (branding) vs. On-site (response)
• Optimize Media Plan
– Allocate budget to top performers
– Manage frequency more effectively
– Improve efficiency and buying power
• Improve partnership with Clients and Vendors
– Better accountability and transparency

12. Contact Info
bmay@kslmedia.com
Steve@EncoreMetrics.com
@SteveLatham
@kslmedia
@EncoreMetrics
http://KSLmedia.com
http://EncoreMetrics.com
http://Attribution101.com