Re: 🗣️ [Mentor Alex Phi] 🌟 Adobe Marketo Engage Community Mentorship Program 2024 🌟

alludoalex

Fixed! Thank you!

nmillar

@alludoalex do you have any tips and tricks for handling the long case study questions? I find myself getting too caught up on the case study itself vs the actual question!

nmillar

I also struggle with the questions that have 3 correct answers. I find myself second guessing myself a lot and if I get one wrong, there goes the whole question!

nmillar

I took the practice test and score an 80% but am having some difficulty with these questions. Can someone please explain the reasoning behind some of these please?

#1 - Why would the answer be a bounce management strategy over excluding invalid and suspended people from the smart list? I understand a bounce management directory is important as well but wondering why you wouldn't want to suppress invalids/suspended people first.

#2 - For some reason I am struggling with this one and cannot comprehend it. It is wordy and very confusing to me.

Thank you!

alludoalex

1 - The short answer is that Invalid and Marketing suspended records are considered un-mailable by Marketo for non-operational sends. However, bounces CAN lead to Marketo marking them as Invalid, but it's surprisingly conditional.

Hard Bounces fall into Two categories, 1 - marked as spam (which can potentially be emailed again), and 2- invalid, which are marked as Invalid. Category 1 would have a big impact. So mitigation is important.

It is recommended to have a Bounce Management Program to help with deliverability, so that would probably explain why those two options are reversed.

More on Hard & Soft Bounces
More on Marketo's Email Sending Logic

2 - This one is really tough! I also partially missed it on my last practice test.

I believe the reason it would be "Create an executable smart campaign to set the UTM parameters in the Program Member Custom Fields" rather than the other option you selected, is that the flow step action would be "Change Program Member Data", rather than "Change Data Value".

On top of this, executable smart campaigns can "Use Parent Campaign Token Context" which pass on the inherited tokens of the triggering smart campaign to the executable campaign being called. Also - this is more accurate in describing how to "avoid race conditions". A request campaign step alone doesn't avoid race conditions, but an executable campaign does by way of waiting for the executable campaign to finish before proceeding to the next flow step.

Now, as for why "Configure program tokens for UTM parameters that have been inherited from a parent folder" is a better option than "Configure local program tokens to set UTM parameters"...This would technically allow default UTMs to be set at the parent folder level (unless over-ridden by the program) for efficiency and scalability.

PMCF's are a pretty new feature in Marketo and I'm not sure I got all the angles of this one. I'd love to hear more thoughts around this!

alludoalex

The first time I see a case study, I do a quick scroll to the bottom of the case study to understand length, index where information is, general stuff. Maybe 20-30 seconds.

Then for each question, I carefully read the question first to get context of what relevant information I'm looking for in the case study and can usually find my answers to knowledge gaps or special considerations to pick an answer.

Anytime I don't feel 100% confident on an answer, I flag it for review at the end of that section / end of the test.

After revisiting the case study after each question, I will sometimes pick up some context I didn't digest previously and make adjustments, but that helps balance out the time spent on each question.

I'd strongly recommend flagging any questions. It really helps me organize time and go back to make adjustments.

derelict_wombat

great advice.

alludoalex

Final Quiz Time!

>>>>>

1. An organization has added a Welcome Series Engagement program for both B2B and B2C trial downloads of a promising new product. The first email in the Engagement Program has poorer deliverability than expected as compared to the rest of the series.

What solution of those listed below would have the greatest impact on deliverability and the best outcome for the organization?

A: Implement a bounce management to proactively suspend records who bounce multiple times.

B: Connect a 3rd party email validation service to the trial download forms to run pre-submission.

C: Enable Global Form Validation Rules with Marketo's pre-loaded "Consumer Email Domain Blocklist", disabling the Global Form Validation Rules on forms where the rules should allow all addresses.

D : Scrub the email database using a reputable email validation service, prioritizing the newest email addresses in the database based off creation date.

>>>>>
2. Your organization has requested more stringent data rentention around consent history based on opt-ins and unsubscribes. They've created a "Consent History" Text Area field to assist with this goal.

Which method would be functional, and have the most robust and efficient data retention for analysis within Marketo?

For the sake of brevity, assume "Consent Given/Withdrawn" accounts for the respective steps or choices.

A: Change Data Value flow step for "Consent History" to "Consent Given/Withdrawn {{system.dateTime}}, {{lead.Consent History}}"
B: Interesting Moment flow step for "Consent Given/Withdrawn {{system.dateTime}}"
C: Change Data Value flow step for "Consent History" to "Consent Given/Withdrawn {{system.dateTime}}"
D : Change Data Value flow step for "Consent History" to "Consent Given/Withdrawn {{system.dateTime}}" followed by Interesting Moment flow step for "{{lead.Consent History}}"

Oops, had to adjust the D's because they were automatically changed to 😧 faces

derelict_wombat

Quiz answers

1) B - Connect a 3rd party email validation service to the trial download forms to run pre-submission.

There could be a few strategies around this one that aren't covered such as making sure a good CAPTCHA process is setup for the form or even setting up validation rules to rule out known "suspect" domains.

2) A - Change Data Value flow step for "Consent History" to "Consent Given/Withdrawn {{system.dateTime}}, {{lead.Consent History}}"

I feel like #2 is can be tricky but this makes the most sense assuming this is appending any updates to the search history field. I do like the idea of adding it to interesting moments for the sales team to be able to see when these actions happen via MSI, but due to data retention policy of 25 months this isn't something you want to base your compliance rules on.

nmillar