Home Data-Driven Thinking Lessons In Measurement And Attribution From World War II

Lessons In Measurement And Attribution From World War II

SHARE:

nathanwoodmanData-Driven Thinking” is written by members of the media community and contains fresh ideas on the digital revolution in media.

Today’s column is written by Nathan Woodman, general manager of demand solutions at IPONWEB.

During World War II, Allied bomber planes faced a critical design problem. They were slow, lumbering and constantly shot down. The bombers needed to be reinforced with armor, but covering an entire plane made it too heavy to successfully fly a mission. Reinforcing them only in their most vulnerable areas, however, could solve this challenge.

Naval engineers mapped the location of bullet holes that had struck the returning planes to reinforce areas most often hit. Statistician Abraham Wald noted that this analysis only looked at planes that survived since it was impossible to assess damage on planes that were shot down. Wald concluded that the areas hit by bullets weren’t vulnerable – these were areas where the planes could get hit and still return safely. Instead, they needed to secure areas where returning planes hadn’t been shot since those were more likely to fail if hit.

The naval engineers’ original plan to only reinforce the bullet-ridden areas is called survivorship bias. This sort of flawed thinking leads to false conclusions and misguided decision-making by only looking at people or things that survived some event or process, while overlooking those that did not.

In digital marketing, a similar mistake is being made with attribution. The current state of attribution is flawed because it only looks at completed campaigns to measure conversions and identify top performers. Traditional attribution models, such as last-click, first-click or multitouch, falsely assume that for a conversion to take place, an ad must be shown. This reasoning fails to acknowledge that certain conversions would have taken place regardless of ad exposure, and it causes even the savviest digital marketers to unjustly reward specific media partners and inflate ROAS.

Consider, for example, a campaign that is designed and executed to maximize post-click conversions. A sophisticated media-buying platform powered by machine learning is trained to find and target the lowest-hanging fruit – users most likely to convert – to ensure campaign goals were hit. In this case, the platform gets credit for conversion.

In truth, many of those users would have converted without seeing an ad, perhaps because of seasonality or brand loyalty. But an intelligent system finds and targets these users excessively because it knows they have a high likelihood to convert.

Should marketers spend money to reach those people? Should revenue from those users be taken into account when evaluating ROAS? Or would marketers be better off redirecting those dollars to reach people who truly need to see their ad to convert?

There may even be some cases where users who would normally convert on their own would be less likely to convert after seeing an ad, potentially the result of misaligned creative or overexposure. But because traditional attribution models only measure and reward performance against impressions shown, the related campaign might still be deemed a success so long as it hit its CPA benchmarks.

This is obviously (and thankfully) not the case with every campaign and optimization strategy, or we would all be out of work. But, it does highlight the critical need for brands to rethink what they know about their audiences and how they plan and evaluate digital buys.

I get it: The notion that ad exposure is not always needed to drive business outcomes seems radical, especially for advertisers. Digital-first companies, like Netflix, are already adopting sophisticated technologies that enable them to more efficiently find and target users that drive incremental value, rather those that would convert regardless. And traditional brands like Allen Edmonds are starting to question the real incremental value of their retargeting activities and reallocate those dollars to more efficient channels.

These companies have upended the way they think about digital advertising to gain greater clarity on ROAS and drive greater value for their businesses. They’re reinforcing their planes to ensure future survival.

Follow IPONWEB (@IPONWEB) and AdExchanger (@adexchanger) on Twitter.

Tagged in:

Must Read

Felipe Cuevas for TelevisaUnivision

We Went To Eight Upfronts This Week. Here's What We Learned

Upfront week is officially over. In case you missed any of the dog-and-pony shows — including Chappell Roan belting out “Pink Pony Club” during YouTube’s Broadcast — don’t worry; we’ve got you covered.

Let’s Be Upfront About Performance

During upfronts, publishers flexed their ad performance muscles at media buyers all week long in an effort to appeal to the biggest demands media buyers have during their upfront negotiations: flexibility and results.

Upfronts Day Two: Dancing And Data

TelevisaUnivision and Disney took over Day Two of upfronts week in New York City on Tuesday, and the throughline was data quality.

Privacy! Commerce! Connected TV! Read all about it. Subscribe to AdExchanger Newsletters

Warner Bros. Discovery’s Upfront Was All About Performance

Warner Bros. Discovery used its upfront stage to announce two new ad measurement efforts, including that it’s joining a CAPI-focused initiative led by OpenAP.

Upfronts Day One: Publishers Jostle For Position As Performance Drivers

AdExchanger Senior Editor Alyssa Boyle and Associate Editor Victoria McNally traversed the island of Manhattan on Monday to scope out upfront presentations by NBCUniversal, Fox and Amazon.

Viant Sees A Growth Wave Coming, But First Marketers Must Really Ditch Walled Garden Ad Tech

Viant’s modest growth story took a backseat to a far louder claim: that fed-up advertisers are finally ready to ditch the rigged economics of Big Tech’s walled gardens.