NMPi’s inaugural Big Debate kicked off at Google King’s Cross, with marketers and thought leaders from across the industry coming together to discuss some of the biggest challenges we are facing today.The inspiration behind The Big Debate was to provide different perspectives in our industry and challenge many of our enshrined perceptions about the way we work.

The first half of the afternoon was focused on how data is changing the world, with presentations on topics such as uses of data, the death of digital marketing, and preparing for the unknown.

NMPi’s Head of Analytics talked about how marketers can swim when they’re drowning in data. Sarah Ward of Pitney Bowes spoke about the difference between known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Nicola Hollow from Practicology gave advice on how the digital marketer can survive the death of digital, while Freeview’s Owen Jenkinson turned his attention to utilising small data. The four then sat for a panel debate, answering burning questions from our audience.

With all of this information, it was time for a break, during which attendees were able to play around with some of the latest tech. Our charity partners for this event, MSF, were able to provide us with VR headsets, giving attendees a “doctor’s eye view” of life in a crisis area. We also had AR posters, which would play some of MSF’s videos when scanned with the Zappar app. There were also chances to donate to our fundraising efforts, and buy tickets for our charity prize draw.

After the break came the event’s namesake: The Big Debate. Featuring two heavyweights of the digital world, Damien Bennett and Lewis Lenssen, the slightly controversial topic of attribution was pulled apart in a fiery debate, before Google’s Rich Morris, UK Head of GA360 Sales, weighed in. The seminar was wrapped up by our phenomenal keynote: Javid Abdelmoneim, UK President of MSF. His speech on the way MSF uses technology and comms was a highlight for many, proving an inspiring lift after a day of discussing data and attribution.

All in all, The Big Debate was an overwhelming success. The high turnout saw a spectacular fundraising effort of nearly £1000, which will of course by matched by NMPi.

Damien Bennett, Director of Business Strategy at NMPi and Lewis Lenssen, Digital Advisor and Consultant

The question of attribution is one which plagues marketers, and so for our headline act; the debate this event was named for, we put two marketing heavyweights up against each other to decide: is attribution really worth it?

AGAINST

The challenger, Lewis Lenssen, was first up. Arguing that while attribution is the most logical tool in the marketer’s kit, it is also the most flawed. There are so many different ways to cut up the data about which touchpoints have proved valuable, that none will actually have any impact on your business.

Lewis gives the example of his time selling attribution for DC Storm. Most of the time, the motivation of the buyer was not to find hidden gems in their data or to transform their digital marketing. What they really wanted to do was prove what they were doing now was right, or that someone else in the business was wrong. So long as the initial numbers fitted the narrative, the buyer was happy. If they didn’t, then it was time to tune the attribution model so they did. This is where the problem lies: you can cheat in order to make the model work for you.

Lewis also asks what the theory behind attribution is; The classic reasoning is that 50% of advertising spend is wasted, but advertisers don’t know which 50%. That, Lewis argues, has nothing to do with attribution. The theory behind attribution is that every sale is driven in some way by marketing, and attribution tells us which of our channels should be given credit. However in a daring move, Lewis gives us the example of his wife, and how she frequently buys clothes from Net-a-Porter. How likely is it that she is purchasing based on the PPC ad she clicked on, or the social media post she saw? Is that what is actually driving her sales? Or is it more likely that Mrs. Lenssen is just very brand loyal? Is it that Net-A-Porter have a fantastic delivery policy, a flexible returns policy, and perfect curation on the website itself, based on a history of past purchases and searches? It seems bizarre to claim that these real, tangible drivers to purchase mean nothing, and that marketing is the only thing to push a sale.

So what should be the real way to go? Well, you still need to collect the data in one place, with technology that allows you to analyse and make sense of it. The big difference is that you have to apply your customer segmentation to every sale. You have to know whether the sale was to a regular customer, a “Gold” customer who spends thousands every week, a new customer, a sales shopper, or a present buyer. You need to make sense of all your data within this context, and make hypotheses about what is actually making people in those different groups buy.

It’s the most logical tool, claims Lewis, but sadly it is incredibly flawed. And with that, we pass over to Damien.

FOR

In a ballsy move from the defender, Damien kicks off with audience participation. Does better measurement lead to better marketing decision-making? Roughly 99% of our audience believes so. But when asked if they used an attribution model, and also if that model was used by their CEO, the number dwindled to zero. It is interesting to see that if the debate was reframed to ask “does better measurement lead to better decision-making/media planning?” the answer would be unanimous. Most advertisers in the UK however (70%), use a last-click- wins model as their main method of reporting. But everybody knows that’s flawed!  

We know that the customer journey involves a number of touchpoints of different types of media, and we know that customers interact with this media in a number of ways which aren’t clicks. We also know that the last interaction that someone has with your advertising often isn’t the most valuable. So why do so few people use attribution? Damien believes that many find attribution too complex and costly to be worth it

However, if better measurement leads to better decision-making, the attribution is exactly the right solution. For starters, it solves many of the problems of last-click-wins measurement. It allows you to look at media that involved multiple touchpoints. It fractionally allocates so you aren’t just looking at the last click, and you can even look at more than just clicks. Most importantly: it’s not that complex any more. If you have the standard version of Google Analytics, it comes with a model comparison tool that allows you to see attributed data. This also makes it less costly.

Damien’s message today is that we should stop this debate in our industry, and just accept that there are better and more cost effective ways of measuring performance, and that the best way we have available is attribution.  

To hear the questions posed to our debaters and Google’s Head of GA360 Sales, check out this Q&A session now.