You are on page 1of 4

A Classification and Review of Online Credit Attribution Methods

C. H. W. Jayawardane1, U. Kayande2and S. K. Halgamuge1


cwijenayaka@student.unimelb.edu.au, u.kayande@mbs.edu, saman@unimelb.edu.au
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
2
Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

An increasing number of advertising activities are performed using combinations of online


advertising channels, building upon the research finding that customers engaging in transactions
across multiple channels bring in more value to a firm (Petersen et al. 2009). However, allocating
resources across advertising channels requires measurement of individual channel effectiveness.
Several researchers in information systems and marketing have developed different methods to
measure effectiveness, formally known as Attribution and defined as the matter of assigning
credit to one or more advertising channels for influencing a desirable action (e.g. purchase,
download, or registration) (Shao et al. 2011). In this research, we provide a review and classification
of the numerous methods available to measure attribution.
Attribution methods currently utilized in a commercial context rarely provide logical means to
estimate channel effectiveness. Though several alternative models have been put forth by the
academic community, the industry remains sceptical of their usage. Resistance to their adoption is
mainly led by limitations such as model complexity and low interpretability. Hence, attribution
models that combine logical accuracy with practical applicability are of timely importance and
significant commercial value.
Measures for attribution that stem from the early days of online marketing analytics can be
mainly classified as simplistic and fractional (Forrester Research 2012). Simplistic models disregard
customer journeys and acknowledge a single advertising contact (touch point) as the turning point
for a desired outcome (conversion). Fractional models acknowledge that a conversion is a combined
effort; therefore credit is apportioned between the touch points along a customer journey. Based on
a sophisticated class of techniques proposed recently, fractional models can be further subdivided
as heuristic and algorithmic (Forrester Research 2012).
Simplistic models assign complete conversion credit to a single touch point, overlooking the
influence of all other touch points along a customer journey. Although such methods may be suited
to measure attribution of well-targeted campaigns such as brand awareness and retargeting, they
are the most rudimentary forms of attribution estimation (Lee 2010). However, these methods still
remain the most commonly used methods in practice to evaluate all forms of advertising
campaigns mainly because of their ease of interpretation. Last Touch and First Touch are the most
commonly used forms of simplistic attribution. As evident from their name, complete conversion
credit is assigned either to the first or last touch point along a customer journey.
Heuristic models address the major limitation of simplistic models by defining fixed rules to
apportion credit to all touch points leading to a conversion. However, because the rule set defined
is not derived using data, but is only based on simple intuition, these methods return a generic
outcome when applied. Linear, Position-Based, and Time Decay are few of the commonly used
heuristic methods of attribution. While Linear attribution equally spreads credit among all
advertising touch points, Position-Based attribution assigns more credit to the first and last touch
points and assigns equal credit to the remaining touch points. Time Decay attribution models a
customers power of retention by assigning more credit to touch points closer to a conversion.
Algorithmic models represent a sophisticated class of techniques that use descriptive modelling
to capture the dynamics between advertising channels. In order to determine the value bought in
by each advertising channel, these methods map individual exposures to the outcome. In contrast
to simplistic and heuristic models, algorithmic models have been proven to provide logically sound
measures for attribution. However, these techniques are viewed by practitioners as less
interpretable, which is a deterrent to commercial use. It is intuitive that each touch point can bear
a positive or negative influence towards the final outcome. While both these instances are
considered in algorithmic models, simplistic and heuristic models always consider a touch point

influence to be positive. Further, simplistic and heuristic models are often proposed in a commercial
context, while algorithmic models are generally put forth by the academic community.
Table 1 provides a cross model comparison of the existing algorithmic attribution models based
on seven identifiable model features. They are: (1) Customer Heterogeneity - Consideration of
customer differences, (2) Channel Frequency - Number of repetitive occurrences, (3) Channel
Sequence - Order of occurrence, (4) Channel Interactions - Influence on future touch points, (5)
Channel Decay Effect - Wear out of channel influence, (6) Prior Purchases, and (7) Conversion
Prediction - Probability of conversion for given interactions and changes in probability based on
future interactions (Jayawardane et al. 2015).
Given the influence of prior purchases, shown to be very high by Dalessandro et al. (2012), it is
surprising to see its exclusion in almost all proposed models. Customer segments also exhibit
heterogeneity in advertising channel preference. This has only been examined in two of the
proposed models. Such information is able to provide meaningful interpretations to attribution
estimates. Although the main objective of the proposed models is to derive measures for
attribution, it can be seen from the below table that a higher emphasis has been placed on
prediction of conversion.
Feature
Customer
Heterogene
ity

Channe
l
Freque
ncy

Chann
el
Seque
nce

Channel
Interacti
ons

Channel
Decay
Effect

Prior
Purchas
es

Shao et al. (2011)


Dalessandro et
(2012)
Abhishek
et
(2012)

Convers
ion
Predicti
on

al.
al.

Anderl et al. (2013)

Zhang et al. (2014)


Sinha et al. (2014)

Li et al. (2014)

Table 1

Summary of Current Work

A comparison of estimated attribution values across the different models cannot be undertaken
because the assessment of attribution estimates falls under the domain of descriptive modelling.
Therefore, similar to other real world applications, attribution models are devoid of an objective
truth or evaluation set to measure any type of accuracy. An alternative is to evaluate the variance
of the estimated channel contribution values (Shao et al. 2011), yet they still remain subjective to
the eyes of the beholder, given the incapability to judge the level of good attribution
(Dalessandro et al. 2012). An empirical analysis could be used to validate attribution estimates;
given the resource requirement such a validation has only been attempted by Li et al. (2013).
However, it should be noted that estimates obtained by each algorithmic model for the same
advertising channel follow similar trends.
Notwithstanding the compelling benefits of attribution methods, a survey conducted by
Forrester Research reveals a bare majority of 56% marketers engaging in any form of attribution.
This signals a lack of clear processes to address commonly cited obstacles (logical accuracy and
practical applicability) in assigning credit for marketing efforts (Jayawardane et al. 2015). While the
inclusion of the above features ensures the logical accuracy of a model, interpretability will ensure
its practical applicability for practitioners.
References
Abhishek, V., Fader, P., & Hosanagar, K. (2012). Media Exposure through the Funnel: A Model of Multi-Stage Attribution. Social
Science Research Network Electronic Journal, 145.

Anderl, E., Becker, I., Wangenheim, F. V., & Schumann, J. H. (2014). Mapping the Customer Journey: A Graph-Based
Framework for Online Attribution Modeling. Social Science Research Network Electronic Journal, 136.
Dalessandro, B., Perlich, C., Stitelman, O., & Provost, F. (2012). Causally Motivated Attribution for Online Advertising. In
Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Data Mining for Online Advertising and Internet Economy (pp. 19).
ACM.
Forrester Research Inc. (2012). Digital attribution comes of age. Accessed: 28th May 2015. Available:
http://www.iab.net/media/file/DigitalAttributionComesOfAge.pdf.
Jayawardane, C. H. W., Halgamuge, S. K., Kayande, U., (2015). Attributing Conversion Credit in an Online Environment: An
Analysis and Classification. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lee, G. (2010). Death of last click wins: Media attribution and the expanding use of media data. Journal of Direct Data and
Digital Marketing Practice, 12(1), 1626.
Li, H. (Alice), & Kannan, P. K. (2013). Attributing Conversions in a Multichannel Online Marketing Environment: An Empirical
Model and a Field Experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(1), 4056.
Petersen, J. A., McAlister, L., Reibstein, D. J., Winer, R. S., Kumar, V., & Atkinson, G. (2009). Choosing the Right Metrics to
Maximize Profitability and Shareholder Value. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 95111.
Shao, X., & Li, L. (2011). Data-driven Multi-touch Attribution Models. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM SIGKDD
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 258264). ACM.
Sinha, R., Saini, S., & Anadhavelu, N. (2014). Estimating the Incremental Effects of Interactions for Marketing Attribution. In
Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Behavioural, Economic, and Social Computing (BESC) (pp. 16).
IEEE.
Zhang, Y., Wei, Y., & Ren, J. (2014). Multi-touch Attribution in Online Advertising with Survival Theory. In Proceedings of the
2014 International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) (pp. 687696). IEEE.

You might also like