Solutions

Products

Resources

Compagny

White Paper Data Governance - Why is Data Governance so strategic in 2023 and how can a CDP support your program?

Month: April 2019

Pourquoi le modèle du « last click » perdure ?

Why does the last click model endure?

Despite the customer journey becoming ever-more difficult to follow, due in no small part to our omni-channel world, attribution models remain largely focused on the last click. And this is not for purely technological reasons…

It’s a paradox: while digital advertising seems to be an avid consumer of technological innovation, with programmatic advertising and DCO (Dynamic Creative Optimization) being prime examples, the fundamental question of attribution appears to have been forgotten. And the paradox is even bigger when we consider that it involves identifying the most effective levers in which to invest the €4.094 billion that the French digital marketing market represented in 2017.

Are my adverts really seen? Which channels (search, display, affiliation, etc.) are the most effective? Are my partners paid fairly depending on their contribution? How can I adjust my marketing mix to make best use of my advertising budget? These are the questions that attribution is supposed to answer. By default and largely by old habit, the last click model, whereby the conversion is attributed to the last touchpoint, is the one that rules supreme. However, with the rise of omni-channel, last click attribution is increasingly flawed. Especially for advertisers who invest huge amounts of their budget into mobile.

Omni-channel: a spanner in the works

Even though various omni-channel metrics show that mobile plays a key part in the conversion, the natural instinct is to look at the last click, to the detriment of mobile. And this is a problem for advertisers, whose budget allocation for mobile advertising is on the rise…

Every company grappling with their audience’s omni-channel journey are coming face to face with the limits of their attribution models. Is technology to blame? In part, for sure, due to the complexity: it’s not easy to match a journey that involves web browsing, on desktop and mobile, as well as mobile apps. And that’s without including adblockers and Apple’s Intelligent Tracking Prevention, which make the task a whole more difficult. In such circumstances, how can you work out which channel plays the role of ‘instigator’, ‘influencer’ or ‘scorer’? Algorithmic models (such as Markov chains) help but don’t offer the definitive solution. The tool informs the decision but can’t make the decision itself.

Organisational silos hamper global performance management

How can you make the right decision to, for example, optimise your budget and maintain conversions with less touchpoints? In search of the answer to such questions, businesses have come to realise that the main obstacle to more realistic attribution is not just technological, but also organisational. For one simple reason: teams are organised — and incentivised — by channel (SEO, SEM, Social, Display, etc.), which seriously hampers global performance management.

The consequences of such organisational silos are well known: echo effects are ignored (the fact that multiple views on one channel prepares the conversion on another) while conversions are higher, since several channels are attributed the same conversion. The issue is tackled through deduplication, which in practice involves commissioning partners based on performance, to avoid paying several times for the same conversion. In other words, the contracts are revised but the heart of the matter, the attribution model, still remains disconnected from reality.

And this is the crux of the matter: how can you get back in touch with reality, in order to progressively adjust your attribution model? The first step is an open exchange of information: give everyone, regardless of their assigned channel, a global overview of cross-channel (including the physical world, such as shops) and cross-device performance; share traffic and conversion goals; send out the same warnings to compare theories and precisely locate the causes, etc. With this shared foundation, models can be tested and adjusted to bring the attribution model closer to reality. And the aged practice of last click can finally be put to bed.

Attribution : pourquoi le modèle du « last click » perdure

Attribution: why does the last click model endure

Despite the customer journey becoming ever-more difficult to follow, due in no small part to our omni-channel world, attribution models remain largely focused on the last click. And this is not for purely technological reasons…

It’s a paradox: while digital advertising seems to be an avid consumer of technological innovation, with programmatic advertising and DCO (Dynamic Creative Optimization) being prime examples, the fundamental question of attribution appears to have been forgotten. And the paradox is even bigger when we consider that it involves identifying the most effective levers in which to invest the €4.094 billion that the French digital marketing market represented in 2017.

Are my adverts really seen? Which channels (search, display, affiliation, etc.) are the most effective? Are my partners paid fairly depending on their contribution? How can I adjust my marketing mix to make best use of my advertising budget? These are the questions that attribution is supposed to answer. By default and largely by old habit, the last click model, whereby the conversion is attributed to the last touchpoint, is the one that rules supreme. However, with the rise of omni-channel, last click attribution is increasingly flawed. Especially for advertisers who invest huge amounts of their budget into mobile.

Omni-channel: a spanner in the works

Anne Browaeys, Chief Digital Marketing Officer at Club Med, explained in a conversation with Petit Web that “Attribution was a key challenge in 2017. And it still a thorn in our side in 2019. We have attribution models (…), Various omni-channel metrics show that mobile plays a big part in the conversion. Nevertheless, when we run our daily campaigns and use tools to optimise keyword bidding, the natural instinct is to look at the last click, to the detriment of mobile.” A serious problem for an advertiser whose budget allocation for mobile advertising has grown from 16% to 64%…

Unsurprisingly, Club Med is far from being an isolated case. Every company grappling with their audience’s omni-channel journey are coming face to face with the limits of their attribution models. Is technology to blame? In part, for sure, due to the complexity: it’s not easy to match a journey that involves web browsing, on desktop and mobile, as well as mobile apps. And that’s without including adblockers and Apple’s Intelligent Tracking Prevention, which make the task a whole more difficult. In such circumstances, how can you work out which channel plays the role of ‘instigator’, ‘influencer’ or ‘scorer’? Algorithmic models (such as Markov chains) help but don’t offer the definitive solution. The tool informs the decision but can’t make the decision itself.

Organisational silos hampers global performance management

How can you make the right decision to, for example, optimise your budget and maintain conversions with less touchpoints? In search of the answer to such questions, businesses have come to realise that the main obstacle to more realistic attribution is not just technological, but also organisational. For one simple reason: teams are organised — and incentivised — by channel (SEO, SEM, Social, Display, etc.), which seriously hampers global performance management.

The consequences of such organisational silos are well known: echo effects are ignored (the fact that multiple views on one channel prepares the conversion on another) while conversions are higher, since several channels are attributed the same conversion. The issue is tackled through deduplication, which in practice involves commissioning partners based on performance, to avoid paying several times for the same conversion. In other words, the contracts are revised but the heart of the matter, the attribution model, still remains disconnected from reality.

And this is the crux of the matter: how can you get back in touch with reality, in order to progressively adjust your attribution model? The first step is an open exchange of information: give everyone, regardless of their assigned channel, a global overview of cross-channel (including the physical world, such as shops) and cross-device performance; share traffic and conversion goals; send out the same warnings to compare theories and precisely locate the causes. With this shared foundation, models can be tested and adjusted to bring the attribution model closer to reality. And the aged practice of last click can finally be put to bed.

Commanders Act dans le top 3 mondial des solutions de « enterprise tag management »

Commanders Act in the world’s top 3 “enterprise tag management” solutions

In the latest Gartner study, Commanders Act is the only European and French vendor to feature in the market’s top  3 with its TagCommander solution

Paris, 4th April 2019 – Commanders Act, a SaaS vendor specialising in Tag & Data Management, is proud to announce that its TagCommander solution has this year been recognised by Gartner as one of the best positioned in the tag management industry. In its Improve Efficiency and Digital Marketing Data Governance with Tag Management report, TagCommander features among the top 3 Enterprise solutions that stand out for the uniqueness of their positioning and their ability to work agnostically, with any Martech or Adtech solution available on the market.

Tag management recognised as a fundamental pillar of digital marketing

 Tag Management Systems (TMS) really came to the forefront at the end of the 2000s, providing a solution to the challenges created by the exponential growth of digital marketing. Designed to help companies leverage their customers’ data and thus to offer value-added products and services, tag management has gradually cemented itself as a major component of digital marketing.

In its Improve Efficiency and Digital Marketing Data Governance with Tag Management report, Gartner underlined the importance of tag management in the collection, management and modelling of customer data. An assertation that Commanders Act has always upheld.

Tag management has been one of the key changes in the digital market in the last decade,” explains Michael Froment, CEO and co-founder of Commanders Act. “Nowadays, companies and their digital teams work differently. They have had to adopt solutions that provide efficient governance of tags but also of data, which has become even more essential given the legal ramifications of the GDPR.”

“I’m proud of our teams’ work; they have patiently built the reputation that we enjoy today. Commanders Act is now the only European solution, a member of FrenchTech, to be amongst the best in the market,” adds Michael Froment.

Commanders Act seals its position as the European leader in data management

 Commanders Act continues to provide its clients with unique expertise in digital data governance, through a suite of natively integrated solutions that make digital data a calculated, mature and transparent affair.

This global and customer-centric approach, which promotes a more intelligent and effective use of data, has enabled Commanders Act to build a portfolio of over 450 clients across Europe and the world, including international leaders in the online travel market.

This growth is now supported by a innovation-focused strategy, notably through the application of predictive marketing and machine learning to customer data.

Consentements sur mobile et apps : 4 challenges

Consent on mobile and apps: 4 challenges

While every website and app publisher dreams of cross-device consent management, the reality is easier said than done…here’s why.

While ‘mobile first’ has become a very hot buzzword, in practice, mobiles and apps still find themselves too often second best to the web. And nowhere is this better seen than with consent management. In the wake of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), attention and energy towards consent has been focused on websites, despite mobile apps being just as affected by the regulation. And what’s more, they present a bigger technical difficulty due to the pure nature of mobiles. Let’s look at 4 key challenges.

1) Dealing with an intermittent network connection

The main difficulty for mobile is designing a way to collect consent with no guarantee of a continuous internet connection for communication between the client and server. If an app can be used in offline mode, there is only option: take advantage of one of the main benefits of a mobile app…it’s ability to save data locally.

This means that, if the smartphone is offline, all the actions performed on the app must be saved. Once the connection is re-established, the consent choice (accept all, accept some or reject all) will determine whether the all or part of the data is sent to the CMP (Consent Management Platform), or if it is completely deleted. Whatever the case, the mobile app must include this buffer storage mechanism for offline data.

2) Design the consent request for the device UX

Correctly managing consent on mobile and apps is not just a technical matter. You also must ensure that you don’t compromise the user experience. Reusing the same desktop pop-ins is out of the question, even if you make them responsive. When we consider the varying extents to which obstructing the screen is tolerated on mobile and desktop (how much the pop-in covers the content), and the different methods for collecting consent, there is more than enough justification for a tailor-made UX. Even just the design of the accept and refuse buttons is worth a different approach on both formats.

When it comes to an app, you often need an entire screen dedicated to collecting consent. But when should this screen be shown? The answer is different for each publisher, because it depends entirely on the nature of the app. Who is the audience? Does the app require instructions? For example, it might not be wise to display this screen before giving the practical information needed to actually use the app. A/B testing could be put to good use to identify the scheme that best retains the user.

3) Collect specific consent

Obviously, every website and app publisher dreams of deploying a cross-device consent mechanism. The aim is pretty clear: to communicate the consent choice given on a desktop to an app, thus avoiding having to repeatedly ask the user. A praiseworthy intention, which is unfortunately beyond the limits of technical possibility for the time being. Even on the same device, ‘breaks’ in consent are inevitable: a user who gives their consent on a smartphone browser when viewing a publisher’s website will be forced to give it again if they use an app from the same publisher on the same phone.

But what if the user logs in on both ends (on the website and the app)? Yes, in this case, the consent is linked to a logged-in account, and so can be ‘retrieved’ between the app and the website. But, on one condition, which for once isn’t technical: the consent given on the website is only valid for the app if the services activated on both are the same…

Remember that the GDPR stipulates that for consent to be lawful and honest, it must be specific. In practice, the services used on an app and website — and thus the data sent to partners — are different. Adservers, for example, are rarely the same between mobile and desktop. The same goes for A/B testing solutions.

In short, for technical and legal reasons, consent must — for now — be collected separately for each device (desktop, mobile) and environment (website, app).

4) Archive consent

Another key principle of the GDPR to bear in mind is accountability. Simply put, each publisher of a website or app must not only be able to collect consent in compliance with the GDPR, but also be able to prove it. Hence the importance of archiving consent choices and the subsequent activation for all devices and environments. Incidentally, this is one of the key features of Commanders Act’s CMP: archiving consent across all devices.

To not miss any of the latest news from Commanders Act, subscribe to our newsletter!  

© Commanders Act. All rights reserved 
Powered by CREAATION.