Wizaly Offers a New Option for Algorithmic Attribution

Wizaly is a relatively new entrant in the field of algorithmic revenue attribution – a function that will be essential for guiding artificial-intelligence-driven marketing of the future. Let’s take a look at what they do.

First a bit of background: Wizaly is a spin-off of Paris-based performance marketing agency ESV Digital (formerly eSearchVision). The agency’s performance-based perspective meant it needed to optimize spend across the entire customer journey, not simply use first- or last-click attribution approaches which ignore intermediate steps on the path to purchase. Wizaly grew out of this need.

Wizaly’s basic approach to attribution is to assemble a history of all messages seen by each customer, classify customers based on the channels they saw, compare results of customers whose experience differs by just one channel, and attribute any difference in results to that channel   For example, one group of customers might have seen messages in paid search, organic search, and social; another might have seen messages in those channels plus display retargeting. Any difference in performance would be attributed to display retargeting.

This is a simplified description; Wizaly is also aware of other attributes such as the profiles of different customers, traffic sources, Web site engagement, location, browser type, etc. It apparently factors some or all of these into its analysis to ensure it is comparing performance of otherwise-similar customers. It definitely lets users analyze results based on these variables so they can form their own judgements.

Wizaly gets its data primarily from pixels it places on ads and Web pages. These drop cookies to track customers over time and can track ads that are seen, even if they’re not clicked, as well as detailed Web site behaviors. The system can incorporate television through an integration with Realytics, which correlates Web traffic with when TV ads are shown. It can import ad costs and ingest offline purchases to use in measuring results. The system can stitch together customer identities using known identifiers. It can also do some probabilistic matching based on behaviors and connection data and will supplement this with data from third-party cross device matching specialists.

Reports include detailed traffic analysis, based on the various attributes the system collects; estimates of the importance and effectiveness of each channel; and recommended media allocations to maximize the value from ad spending.  The system doesn't analyze the impact of message or channel sequence, compare the effectiveness of different messages, or estimate the impact of messages on long-term customer outcomes. As previously mentioned, it has a partial blindspot for mobile – a major concern, given how important mobile has become – and other gaps for offline channels and results. These are problems for most algorithmic attribution products, not just Wizaly.

One definite advantage of Wizaly is price: at $5,000 to $15,000 per month, it is generally cheaper than better-known competitors. Pricing is based on traffic monitored and data stored. The company was spun off from ESV Digital in 2016 and currently has close to 50 clients worldwide.

Marketing Performance Measurement: No Answers to the Really Tough Questions

I recently ran a pair of two-day workshops on marketing performance measurement. My students had a variety of goals, but the two major ones they mentioned were the toughest issues in marketing: how to allocate resources across different channels and how to measure the impact of marketing on brand value.

Both questions have standard answers. Channel allocation is handled by marketing mix models, which analyze historical data to determine the relative impact of different types of spending. Brand value is measured by assessing the important customer attitudes in a given market and how a particular brand matches those attitudes.

Yet, despite my typically eloquent and detailed explanations, my students found these answers unsatisfactory. Cost was one obstacle for most of them; lack of data was another. They really wanted something simpler.

I’d love to report I gave it to them, but I couldn't. I had researched these topics thoroughly as preparation for the workshops and hadn’t found any alternatives to the standard approaches; further research since then still hasn’t turned up anything else of substance. Channel allocation and brand value are inherently complex and there just are no simple ways to measure them.

The best I could suggest was to use proxy data when a thorough analysis is not possible due to cost or data constraints. For channel allocation, the proxy might be incremental return on investment by channel: switching funds from low ROI to high ROI channels doesn’t really measure the impact of the change in marketing mix, but it should lead to an improvement in the average level of performance. Similarly, surveys to measure changes in customer attitudes toward a brand don’t yield a financial measure of brand value, but do show whether it is improving or getting worse. Some compromise is unavoidable here: companies not willing or able to invest in a rigorous solution must accept that their answers will be imprecise.

This round of answers was little better received than the first. Even ROI and customer attitudes are not always available, and they are particularly hard to measure in multi-channel environments where the result of a particular marketing effort cannot easily be isolated. You can try still simpler measures, such as spending or responses for channel performance or market share for brand value. But these are so far removed from the original question that it’s difficult to present them as meaningful answers.

The other approach I suggested was testing. The goal here is to manufacture data where none exists, thereby creating something to measure. This turned out to be a key concept throughout the performance measurement discussions. Testing also shows that marketers are at least doing something rigorous, thereby helping satisfy critics who feel marketing investments are totally arbitrary. Of course, this is a political rather than analytical approach, but politics are important. The final benefit of testing is it gives a platform for continuous improvement: even though you may not know the absolute value of any particular marketing effort, a test tells whether one option or another is relatively superior. Over time, this allows a measurable gain in results compared with the original levels. Eventually it may provide benchmarks to compare different marketing efforts against each other, helping with both channel allocation and brand value as well.

Even testing isn’t always possible, as my students were quick to point out. My answer at that point was simply that you have to seek situations where you can test: for example, Web efforts are often more measurable than conventional channels. Web results may not mirror results in other channels, because Web customers may themselves be very different from the rest of the world. But this again gets back to the issue of doing the best with the resources at hand: some information is better than none, so long as you keep in mind the limits of what you’re working with.

I also suggested that testing is more possible than marketers sometimes think, if they really make testing a priority. This means selecting channels in part on the basis of whether testing is possible; designing programs so testing is built in; and investing more heavily in test activities themselves (such as incentives for survey participants). This approach may ultimately lead to a bias in favor of testable channels—something that seems excessive at first: you wouldn’t want to discard an effective channel simply because you couldn’t test it. But it makes some sense if you realize that testable channels can be improved continuously, while results in untestable channels are likely to stagnate. Given this dynamic, testable channels will sooner or later become more productive than untestable channels. This holds even if the testable channels are less efficient at the start.

I offered all these considerations to my students, and may have seen a few lightbulbs switch on. It was hard to tell: by the time we had gotten this far into the discussion, everyone was fairly tired. But I think it’s ultimately the best advice I could have given them: focus on testing and measuring what you can, and make the best use possible of the resulting knowledge. It may not directly answer your immediate questions, but you will learn how to make the most effective use of your marketing resources, and that’s the goal you are ultimately pursuing.

Marketing Performance: Plan, Simulate, Measure

Let’s dig a bit deeper into the relationships I mentioned yesterday among systems for marketing performance measurement, marketing planning, and marketing simulation (e.g., marketing mix models, lifetime value models). You can think of marketing performance measures as falling into three broad categories:

- measures that show how marketing investments impact business value, such as profits or stock price

- measures that show how marketing investments align with business strategy

- measures that show how efficiently marketing is doing its job (both in terms of internal operations and of cost per unit – impression, response, revenue, etc.)

We can put aside the middle category, which is really a special case related to Balanced Scorecard concepts. Measures in this are traditional Balanced Scorecard measures of business results and performance drivers. By design, the Balanced Scorecard focuses on just a few of these measures, so it is not concerned with the details captured in the marketing planning system. (Balanced Scorecard proponents recognize the importance of such plans; they just want to manage them elsewhere). Also, as I’ve previously commented, Balanced Scorecard systems don’t attempt to precisely correlate performance drivers to results, even though they do use strategy maps to identify general causal relationships between them. So Balanced Scorecard systems also don’t need marketing simulation systems, which do attempt to define those correlations.

This leaves the high-level measures of business value and the low-level measures of efficiency. Clearly the low-level measures rely on detailed plans, since you can only measure efficiency by looking at performance of individual projects and then the project mix. (For example: measuring cost per order makes no sense unless you specify the product, channel, offer and other specifics. Only then can you determine whether results for a particular campaign were too high or too low, by comparing them with similar campaigns.)

But it turns out that even the high-level measures need to work from detailed plans. The problem here is that aggregate measures of marketing activity are too broad to correlate meaningfully with aggregate business results. Different marketing activities affect different customer segments, different business measures (revenue, margins, service costs, satisfaction, attrition), and different time periods (some have immediate effects, others are long-term investments). Past marketing investments also affect current period results. So a simple correlation of this period marketing costs vs. this period business results makes no sense. Instead, you need to look at the details of specific marketing efforts, past and present, to estimate how they each contribute to current business results. (And you need to be reasonably humble in recognizing that you’ll never really account for results precisely—which is why marketing mix models start with a base level of revenue that would occur even if you did nothing.) The logical place to capture those detailed marketing effort is the marketing planning system.

The role of simulation systems in high-level performance reporting is to convert these detailed marketing plans into estimates of business impact from each program. The program results can then be aggregated to show the impact of marketing as a whole.

Of course, if the simulation system is really evaluating individual projects, it can also provide measures for the low-level marketing efficiency reports. In fact, having those sorts of measures is the only way the low-level system can get beyond comparing programs only against other similar programs, to allow comparisons across different program types. This is absolutely essential if marketers are going to shift resources from low- to high-yield activities and therefore make sure they are optimizing return on the marketing budget as a whole. (Concretely: if I want to compare direct mail to email, then looking at response rate won’t do. But if I add a simulation system that calculates the lifetime value acquired from investments in both, I can decide which one to choose.)

So it turns out that planning and simulation systems are both necessary for both high-level and low-level marketing performance measurement. The obvious corollary is that the planning system must capture the data needed for the simulation system to work. This would include tags to identify the segments, time periods and outcomes the each program is intended to affect. Some of these will be part of the planning system already, but other items will be introduced only to make simulation work.

Why Balanced Scorecards Haven't Succeeded at Marketing Measurement

All this thinking about the overwhelming number of business metrics has naturally led me consider balanced scorecards as a way to organize metrics effectively. I think it’s fair to say that balanced scorecards have had only modest success in the business world: the concept is widely understood, but far from universally employed.

Balanced scorecards make an immense amount of sense. A disciplined scorecard process begins with strategy definition followed by a strategy map, which identifies the measures most important to a business and how they are relate to each other and final results. Once the top-level scorecard is built, subsidiary scorecards report on components that contribute to the top-level measures, providing more focused information and targets for lower-level managers.

That’s all great. But my problem with scorecards, and I suspect the reason they haven’t been used more widely, is they don’t make a quantifiable link between scorecard measures and business results. Yes, something like on-time arrivals may be a critical success factor for an airline, and thus appear on its scorecard. That scorecard will even give a target value to compare with actual performance. But it won’t show the financial impact of missing the target—for example, every 1% shortfall vs. the target on-time arrival rate translates into $10 million in lost future value. Proponents would argue (a) this value is impossible to calculate because there are so many intervening factors and (b) so long as managers are rewarded for meeting targets (or punished for not meeting them), that’s incentive enough. But I believe senior managers are rightfully uncomfortable setting those sorts of targets and reward systems unless the relationships between the targets and financial results are known. Otherwise, they risk disproportionately rewarding the selected behaviors, thereby distorting management priorities and ultimately harming business results.

Loyal readers of this blog might expect me to propose lifetime value as a better alternative. It probably is, but the lukewarm response it elicits from most managers has left me cautious. Whether managers don’t trust LTV calculations because they’re too speculative, or (more likely) are simply focused on short-term results, it’s pretty clear that LTV will not be the primary measurement tool in most organizations. I haven’t quite given up hope that LTV will ultimately receive its due, but for now feel it makes more sense to work with other measures that managers find more compelling.

So Many Measures, So Little Time

I’ve been collating lists of marketing performance metrics from different sources, which is exactly as much fun as it sounds. One result that struck me was how little overlap I found: on two big lists of just over 100 metrics each, there were only 24 in common. These were fundamental concepts like market share, customer lifetime value, gross rating points, and clickthrough rate. Oddly enough, some metrics that I consider very basic were totally absent, such as number of campaigns and average campaign size. (These are used to measure staff productivity and degree of targeting.) I think the lesson here is that there is an infinite number of possible metrics, and what’s important is finding or inventing the right ones for each situation. A related lesson is that there is no agreed-upon standard set of metrics to start from.

I also found I could divide the metrics into three fundamental groups. Two were pretty much expected: corporate metrics related to financial results, customers and market position (i.e., brand value); and execution metrics related to advertising, retail, salesforce, Internet, dealers, etc. The third group, which took me a while to recognize, was product metrics: development cost, customer needs, number of SKUs, repair cost, revenue per unit, and so on. Most discussions of the topic don’t treat product metrics as a distinct category, but it’s clearly different from the other two. Of course, many product attributes are not controlled by marketing, particularly in the short term. But it’s still important to know about them since they can have a major impact on marketing results.

Incidentally, this brings up another dimension that I’ve found missing in most discussions, which often classify metrics in a sequence of increasing sophistication, such as activity measures, results measures and leading indicators. Such schemes have no place for metrics based on external factors such as competitor behavior, customer needs, or economic conditions--even though such metrics are present in the metrics lists. Such items are by definition beyond the control of the marketers being measured, so in a sense it’s wrong to consider them as marketing performance metrics. But they definitely impact marketing results, so, like product attributes, they are needed as explanatory factors in any analysis.