Archive for the ‘Marketing’ Category

The ultimate container tag – all the tags plugged in through TagMan

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Below is the list so far of all the tags that TagMan clients currently have plugged into their websites through TagMan. It’s a long list and helps to demonstrate just how many systems rely on tags to work and why tag management has become a crucial issue for website owners. Remember, every tag you have on a page slows it down and each one reports data that could be even more useful if it was reported in the same place (and using the same rules) as all the rest.

Web Analytics
AT Internet
Coremetrics
Google Analytics
IndexTools
Microsoft
Omniture
Unica
Webtrends

Display advertising/ad servers
Adconian
Advertising.com
Atlas
Blue Lithium
Doubleclick
Eyeblaster
Facilitate
Flashtalking
Mediaplex
Trip Advisor
Unanimis
ValueClick

Retargeting
Criteo
Infectious Media
Invite Media
Mediaplex
Right Media
Specific Media
Struq

PPC
Bing
Click Equations
Double Click
Google AdWords
iCrossing
Kenshoo
Marin
MSN
Yahoo

Affiliate
Adcell
Adconion
Adscale
AdTiger
Affiliate Future
Affiliate Window
Affilinet
Buyat
Commission Junction
Hotels Combined
iProspect
Linkshare
Mediastay
Metanetwork
Peak Point
Quown
Rupiz
TradeDoubler
Webgains
Xtendmedia
Zanox

Email
Cheetahmail
Email reaction
SilverPop

Other
Channel Advisor
Coomunicate
Do-Hop
edigital
eFrontier
Kelkoo
Lynku
Lyris/Clickstream
Nextag
Peerius
PriceGrabber
Qype
Returnity
Shopzilla
Z Mags
TravelSupermarket

New tags are being added all the time but it shows just how complex the world of tagging has become.

Campaign tracking: redirect or container tag?

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Clients often ask us the best way to track how users arrive at the website, and this has developed into a discussion inside TagMan to which we’d welcome the input from any.

There are two ways to track someone arriving from a campaign:

  1. Via a redirect (bouncing the user from the publishing site via a tracking server before getting through to the advertiser’s site)
  2. Via a container tag on the landing page (a TagMan one natch) which either piggy-backs a campaign parameter in the URL, or if there one isn’t already there, is written into the URL which the tracking tag on the landing page can pick up

Both have their pros and cons

The redirect is the most straightforward in setting up at implementation, and will be the most accurate at counting every single click on the link (regardless of how many users actually arrive at the destination page). However, This can’t be used for every campaign, especially natural search traffic as you can’t manipulate the link from the search engine. The other issue is that it may add latency to the user experience in that the tracking link gets in the way of the destination page (even though we have super fast servers on a Content Delivery Network running at 20% capacity to cope with the expected unexpected spikes)

Tracking via the landing page provides best practice in terms of the user experience as nothing gets in the way of the user, however it’s a bit more cumbersome to set up (costing more up front). It will also track less activity due to natural latency of users, i.e. the user clicks on the link but before the landing page and tracking tag loads, they close the window or click elsewhere which means the activity won’t be recorded.

Example

To explain this latency effect with an example, imagine a scenario where I run a campaign, of which 100 people click the link, 90 people arrive fully on the landing page (10 people have clicked elsewhere before the site has managed to load) and 5 people buy the product.

By tracking via a redirect, the site conversion of users from this campaign was 5 in 100 (or 5%). However if tracked via a landing page the site conversion will be 5 in 90 (or 5.6%) – by tracking via a landing page, the ‘site conversion’ of these users will be higher meaning the ‘quality’ of these users are better than the quality of users tracked via a redirect.

Therefore, if a marketer tracks different types of campaign with different methods (e.g. PPC by landing page, display by redirect), they won’t be comparing apples with apples if looking at the ‘quality’ of the traffic these campaigns are providing and may penalise the display ads mistakenly.

Does anyone care?

Will the marketer care about this minor discrepancy? What are the triggers marketers use to cut and increase media buying across different channels?

While this theoretical issue seems like an issue to address, our clients haven’t worried too much about this approach in the past, which leads me to consider that I’ve too much time on my hands to worry about issues that won’t make a difference to the bottom line.

Still, currently, we typically setup redirects for display, affiliates & email and arrange landing page tracking for SEO & PPC, however if enough noise is drummed up by the advertisers, perhaps we should suggest all campaigns are tracked by landing pages (at a slightly increased cost of set up to the marketer.)

Discuss!

How to move to a ‘best-click’ model

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

We know that consumers will engage with a brand several times before purchasing and we’re moving to a point where this journey can be accurately mapped and assumptions made.

While retail clients consistently favour paying on a last-click wins basis – ‘the last argument before purchase must be the most convincing’ – there are many examples of how marketers are more sensitive to their users’ psychology.

Examples of ‘engagement’

Here’s a few examples of where engagement mapping across the standard digital touch points – display (banners on publisher sites, ad networks), affiliates, email marketing, paid & natural search -has been relevant:

1. I went to a presentation a few years ago by a rich media vendor where a study showed the optimum number of times a banner should be seen (to maximise click-to-conversion rate) is three.

2. Another study showed that video ads should be between 10-20 seconds in length to optimise click-through rate.

3. A marketing manager at a mobile phone reseller spent greater budget on display than the click-conversions warranted – he could see data that showed users were more likely to convert if they’d seen banner ads, even though the last touch point before conversion was consistently clicks via PPC or SEO.

4. A gambling client of mine would pay the CPA bounty on a first-click wins basis; they were certain that getting a user to visit their site in the first instance was the hardest part of the sales process given the saturated market (their target market was users who were already a member of 3-5 gambling sites).

So some verticals rely on exploiting their users’ impulse to purchase with timed-limited offers specific to them while others feel they’re racing to reach their target market, and use engaging (sometimes uncomfortably distracting) copy to stand out; interrupting a user’s typical ‘ad blind’ journey. Others contrive for the user to encounter and compare their product in search cycles and user reviews; convinced theirs will win through on merit.

My point is that marketers are responding to their users’ psychology with competitors, buying cycles and the holistic digital journey in mind. It’s apparent that the brain reacts to repetition, unusual stimuli, and that our thought processes before ad engagement can positively or negatively affect that engagement (what was the user doing before we dragged them to our site?).

We are thinking in engagement maps, touch points and ad sequencing; and it’s clear this is having an impact on purchase probability. We’re moving away from dividing budget by sales channel and to spending on the combination and timing of digital media.

So why one commission?

But, why do we still tend to pay 100% of CPA bounty to the significant channel (whether first or last click, for example), instead of paying a significant percentage of CPA bounty to the significant channel? I don’t believe first or last click is how we should attribute credit, pay our acquisition bounties or plan our budgets. Many sales channels are adept at prolific cookie dropping, so that they exist in the majority of conversion paths. Others will even persuade users to delete their cookies so that a specific newly dropped cookie overrides them.

So what I’d recommend is a ‘best click’ model. This is how that might be achieved:

1. Use a first or last-click model as a foundation and rank your engagement points: highest for those you feel are doing the most selling (e.g. affiliates on a one-day click window, perhaps banners on a one-hour click window); lowest for those you feel are the most transactional (i.e. those that are the obvious route to buying a product – and retailer – a customer has already decided on) or are serial cookie droppers (e.g. PPC on brand terms, maybe one-day view windows on reach ad networks).

2. Arrange for the correct conversion tag to be written into the conversion page based on rank and timing, using them to award higher proportions of commission (and overall credit) to those high-rank channels where they appear in the conversion path.

Dynamic awarding & attribution: proportionate commissions

Dynamic awarding & attribution: proportionate commissions

Dynamic awarding & attribution: PPC given higher priority

Dynamic awarding & attribution: PPC given higher priority

Our charts show how – by giving one channel a higher priority (because you rank it as being a better driver of ‘unique’ sales) – you can also give it a higher proportion of credit and commission. In the second chart, PPC is ranked as highest priority so – even when it appears as the second to last click – it gets the most credit.

This is a complex process but one that requires a useful exercise – to really think through which channels you believe in as drivers of sales you wouldn’t otherwise have, rather than those that deliver customers who were already committed to you and your product. Once in place, the way you rank channels and executions (like keywords) and attribute commission can be constantly refined.

Of course, even this model is flawed; any model that tries to pinpoint the significant engagement event among many is inconsistent with our users’ psychologies and prone to abuse. Still, attributing credit across multiple touch points, from both a reporting and awarding point of view helps to alleviate the distortion created by the sales channels currently fighting for that first or last click.

Progressive attribution

CPA sales channels should be incentivised for finding the right users and speaking to their psychology, and discouraged from just putting themselves at the right point of the conversion path to claim the final click. We can now pass a weighted proportion of the CPA bounty to an affiliate, or that can load a conversion tag for a weighted proportion of the time; all according to the attribution model selected. You may know this method as dynamic awarding or applied attribution.

Despite the flaws in drawing accurate conclusions from user journeys, I feel the marketing community intuitively builds a critical mass of engagement. I’ve lost count of the marketers I know that can’t prove why display contributes to post-view conversions, but are convinced it does (there’s a fair few that can prove it too!). Ad saturation here or under-exposure there can reverse the build-up of pressure – the critical sales point must be capitalised on before the pressure fades or is directed away by a competitor. Modelling this critical mass of engagement with correct statistical treatment (which is what the digital marketplace is acclaimed for), will obviously yield dividends.

Smart tags, smarter marketing

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Just a heads up and a few words on our new ‘brand’. We’ve not changed much, just the tagline but that was difficult enough.

The challenge was to come up with something that summed up what TagMan is and does. The problem was that ‘what it is’ is known as many things: a universal tag, container tag, Floodlight tag, universal action tag, tag management system etc. etc.

Second, it does lots of things: campaign tracking, path to conversion analysis, attribution modelling, deduplication, tag management etc. etc.

Then there’s ‘actually’ what it allows you to do: be independent from technology providers, regain control of your data, save time and energy in the tagging process, save money on duplicate commission/CPA payments, plan your online advertising spend much more effectively (by seeing the whole user journey), and join up your site analytics and online advertising data.

So, given all these things, how could we come up with something that explained all that AND was punchy and memorable?

Well, by discussing it for ages. In the end, we plumped for a dual-action tagline, the first bit to explain what TagMan is and the second to explain what it does for you. So ‘Smart tags, smarter marketing’ was our answer. We wonder what yours might have been?

Complete our CPA survey and earn £5 for Shelter

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

We appreciate you are busy so if you can spare us a few minutes of your time to complete our survey on CPA payments then we will donate £5 to Shelter*. CPA Duplication and attribution are going to be a big issues this year and we would appreciate your time to tell us what you think. As an incentive we’re donating £5 to shelter for the first 50 completed surveys so you’d be helping a great cause at the same time

Are you paying over the odds for affiliate referrals? Could you use some deduplication?

Wednesday, July 16th, 2008

I would guess that most clients are paying far too much in commission payments to multiple marketing partners and vendors for a single lead or sale and that this is the norm rather than the exception.

I was in a meeting today with a large media agency (modesty forbids etc.) talking about de-duplication, and they were outraged that affiliates could tag both links on an affiliate network and redirect through these to claim double commissions. They also conservatively (small “c”) estimated that they were overpaying affiliates by 30%. As digital marketing budgets rise even in the current economic climate, that means more and more revenue is being wasted.

Whether the norm or not, for those clients that are, saving money by reducing over-payments on duplicate solution commissions is critical, and an easy win for increasing ROI of marketing spend.  That can only be a good thing.

So what’s the answer? Well I reckon one way is to serve conditional tags onto a page based on who the referrer or owner of the “lead” is. This means that only relevant tags are served when and where needed, reducing the over-delivery of marketing tags that aren’t. So – only the correct referrer gets counted for the lead. And it’s only them that get’s paid! And there you go: de-duplication and the elimination of duplicate affiliate comissions in one nice, neat, easy solution. BTW – a nice by-product of this is that you also get extra data protection, because only the referrer gets to track and count the tag.

De-duplication of media and the delivery of any market tracking tag are key features of TagMan. They can directly save clients money and make the whole online marketing ecosystem more accountable.