Each channel wants to take credit for these conversions.
Have you ever dug around channel performance reports only to feel like the numbers didn’t add up? You’re not alone.
This is something we hear a lot from marketers who simply want an honest & comprehensive view of their cross-channel performance. The fact is, when reviewing performance in silos, double-counting is pretty common. Though these numbers aren’t necessarily “wrong”, the ways they are reported often skew the truth in favor of the platform doing the talking.
Let me know if this scenario sounds familiar. We looked at Facebook and Google’s performance reports for one of our customers’ Memorial Day promotions - and we found some inconsistencies.
According to Facebook, $205,446.32 of the revenue generated during this time is attributed to Facebook ads.
And according to Google, $334,066.53 of the revenue generated during this time was a result of Google advertisements.
Which would mean that this customer generated a total of $461,687.03. Right?
During the 10 day window, this customer actually generated $329,019.60.
How is this the case?
As self-inflating as these platforms may seem, they’re not entirely to blame. This phenomenon happens in pretty much all marketing channels where you can evaluate performance.
This is because these sources of truth only have visibility into what happened on their properties (or where they have tracking pixels - where they're actively keeping score). They have no visibility into the marketing touches that took place in another channel - even if those touches had greater influence on the conversion. All they know is that something happened on their property and then a conversion occurred.
It’s easy to take a little bit of credit when you know you did something - but quantifying that something is a different story.
There are ways to limit these inconsistencies, however, such as ensuring your analytics solutions always compare apples to apples - establishing rules for assigning credit that are consistent with your marketing philosophy.
For example, how much do you value an impression? Facebook might say it’s worth a lot. Other marketers might not. These marketers might instead decide that, for the sake of consistency, Facebook ads should only get credit when they bring a visitor to your website. In which case, your web analytics tools can capture the referring source’s influence on the path to purchase.
In these cases, channel-agnostic analytics providers, like DemandJump can offer a holistic view of your marketing performance instead of favoring a platform with limited visibility.
By pulling all your data into one place, you can see the path to purchase holistically, and get an unbiased perspective at what really influenced that conversion.
Because DemandJump integrates with both your eCommerce platform and the ad networks used to run your campaigns, it's able to assign cross-channel credit consistently. It even leverages algorithmic attribution to accurately identify the most influential touches along the way.
If you'd like to see what your marketing data looks like from a channel-agnostic perspective, reach out to DemandJump and let's chat.