explicitgraph.png

RCE Attribution Setting Example 2: Explicit, Implicit, Hybrid

Brian_Law_MKTO
Marketo Employee
Marketo Employee

The first example is using the Explicit Setting (Credit is given to a program if the contact reaches success and has an opportunity role/primary):

Seminar in Anaheim

  • One of the two new names is in Marketo only and the other is only a lead in SFDC.
  • The two records who reached success are both contacts in SFDC. The two contacts are from different accounts. One contact is associated to an opportunity in the amount of $16,500. This contact was not acquired by the program and thus the program only receives success attribution credit (MT).

Workout Today Whitepaper

  • One of the two new names is a lead and the other is a contact.
  • The two contacts which reached success are from the same account. Only one is associated to an opportunity in the amount of $11,500. This contact was not acquired by the program and thus the program only receives success attribution credit (MT).

Fitness Whitepaper

  • The three records who reached success are all contacts in SFDC but are from different accounts.
  • One of the contacts is associated to an opportunity in the amount of $6,222.
  • The other contact is associated to a different opportunity in the amount of $8,333.
  • Thus, the program receives both acquisition attribution (FT) and success attribution credit (MT).

explicitgraph.png

Here is the same example with the Implicit Setting (Credit is given to a program if a contact in the program reaches success and there are any opportunities associated to the account. The contact in the program doesn’t need to be associated to the opportunity):

Seminar in Anaheim

  • The one contact associated to an opportunity still gives the program 1.0 oppty credit in the amount of $16,500. This contact was not acquired by the program.
  • Since the other contact is from a different account and there is an opportunity associated with the account in the amount of $11,500 the program gets partial credit since there are three contacts with the account who have reached success in five programs ($11,500/5 = $2,300 & 0.2 Oppty per program).

Workout Today Whitepaper

  • Since one of the contacts was acquired by the program and is from the same account with the $11,500 opportunity the program splits acquisition attribution (FT) credit with the Running Whitepaper program ($11,5000/2 = $5,750 & 0.5 Oppty per program).
  • Since there are two contacts from the same account who reached success in the program, success attribution is split ($11,500/5 = $2,300 x 2 = $4,600 & 0.4 Oppty)

Fitness Whitepaper

  • Acquisition attribution result stays the same as Explicit setting.
  • Success attribution (FT) increases by $2,300 compared to the Explicit setting since one of the contacts who reached success is from the account with the $11,500 opportunity which is being split by the three contacts in five programs ($11,500/5 = $2,300 & 0.2 Oppty).

Running Whitepaper

  • As mentioned above the acquisition attribution (FT) credit is being split with the Workout Today Whitepaper program.
  • Success attribution (FT) is being split by the three contacts in five programs ($11,500/5 = $2,300 & 0.2 Oppty).

implicitgraph.png

Here are the results using the Hybrid Setting:

  • You will notice that the results are exactly the same as the Explicit due to the way I set up this example.

hybridgraph.png

When you compare all three results side by side you can see that the Implicit setting may give or reduce credit to a program. The Explicit setting may do the opposite of the implicit setting and not give credit to a program which did influence an opportunity. The Hybrid setting may sometimes but not always help account for opportunities not associated to contacts but it may not give credit to all the programs which influenced the opportunity.  

Link back to first example.

421
0