If you are surprised by the title statement, you are in the majority.  

This is actually a very strong statement and I did not make it lightly. It is saying that micro attribution is an area of data analytics that can be defined and studied with rigorous statistical methodologies. In short, it is more of a science than art or common sense.  Micro attribution problem is more like a response modeling or risk modeling problem than the problem of finding out a fair rule for distributing year-end bonus.  

Does this sound the same as how others describe attribution problem and solutions? 

It is certainly different from those who think the solution to attribution problem is about tracking.  Tracking is important because it provides you the data, but in itself they do not tell you what factors or customer experience have more or less influence on conversion.

It is also different from many who think about “last click”, “first click” etc. when they speak about attribution models.  Those are not data analytics models or statistical models that I was referring to.  One is about intuition-based smart rule; the other is about data-driven behavioral modeling.  The smart rule vs. modeling debate was long over in Direct Marketing, but it is just beginning in web analytics and online, right here in the micro attribution problem.   

It is also different from the many who think this is all about metrics (because of the claim that there is no right solution to attribution .  It is not about averaging the attribution of first-click and last click. It is not about using engagement metrics as a proxy either. 

It is definitely not the same as those who think we need to wisdom-of-the-crowd type of solution.  The percentage of you who think early keywords should get 15% attribution for “assist” maybe right, but it has no bearing to me.  I do not believe that there is an average truth in any of these, for reasons that I do not believe one retailer’s offer-X response model shouldn’t be used for a loyalty campaign of a telecom company.

It is categorically different from those who hold that there is no right answer to the attribution problem. I agree that there is no perfect model that has no model prediction errors, but that is not a refutation for statistical modeling.  Statistics is founded on imprecision in data and never afraid of counter examples.

It is an approach of simplification, not of complication and certainly not a proposal to bring in psychology, media-logy or astrology into the picture.  In that regard, it could be a spoiler for the fun party we had so far.

Still, it is really just a claim at this point.  Please come back to read the next post: (TBD)

What is attribution analytics? I was thinking of quoting a definition from Wikipedia but could not find it. So here’s my version of it:

Attribution analytics is a set of data analytics techniques used to determine the proportional contribution of marketing campaigns to conversions.  

There are two general types of attribution problem:  micro attribution focus on attribution of individual level conversion to marketing campaign touch points; macro attribution focus on attribution of aggregated level sale/conversion to marketing campaigns activities. Both types of attribution are trying to answer the question of how much credit each marketing campaigns should get; the data analytics behind them are in fact very different.

Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM) is one type of macro attribution analytics.  

The data used for macro attribution are commonly time-series data:  sale volume over time and marketing campaign spend data over the same time periods (may also include a few periods prior to that).  MMM is typically statistical/econometric model that use marketing spend data, and others, to predict the sale volume. The estimated relationship will then applied back to the data to figure out the proportional contribution of each marketing campaigns to total sale (or total incremental sale). MMM is a well developed analytics technique that has been around and practiced for decades. Its pros and cons are also well understood.

Macro attribution is mostly used for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of marketing/advertising channels, budget allocation and optimization.

Micro attribution on the other hand, uses individual level event data.  When individual is exposed to multiple marketing events (touch points), which events should get credit and how much? The explosive growth of individual level event data and cross channel matching methodology/technology is perhaps the major factor behind the rapidly growing interest in micro attribution. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding regarding to what the right analytics framework for this, and what are appropriate analytics tools for it. Some think that it is all about coming up with smart business rules and protocols while others believe that more rigorous statistical modeling is needed.

Micro attribution is mainly used for tactical campaign optimization.  However, when multiple channels/media events are involved (such as email, banner, ppc and seo etc..) its implication on macro level budget allocation is inevitable. Hence the organizational complications come with it as well. 

Individual event level data is clearly a better source for attribution – even if the interest is only at the aggregate level.  Multichannel marketers have been wrestling with attribution problem for a long time.  Many of the innovation are in the data capturing area, such as custom 1-800 numbers and custom URL etc.. Those are important measurement processes, designed to capture micro event level data to avoid having to do the less precision and less effective macro attribution.  However, in most cases only the last touch point is recorded – because it often happens at the same time as conversion event.  It is a situation that fit neither the micro nor the macro attribution problem above.  From the micro attribution perspective, because it has only one (last) touch point, it is simply a dummy LAST touch point attribution rule.  From the macro attribution perspective, because we know which touch point a sale/conversion was attributed, there is no need for any modeling at all.  Hence the popularity of the use of these types of attribution measurement devices.

The calling for using micro attribution is due to its optimization potential for business operation.  If attribution for the purpose of attribution, i.e. to satisfy political or procedural reporting need, then the last touch point attribution is a perfect solution.  However, it fails mainly because of its inability to capture and understand today’s consumer experience – that is multi-channel, multi-touch in nature.  One touch point analytics paradigm is outdated for understanding today’s consumers. The future is multi-touch, the future is micro attribution.  Hence it is extremely important to understand the right analytics framework for micro attribution.

Please come back to read the next post: micro attribution analytics is conversion modeling.

Is there anyone out there as frustrated as me with the many different terms and concepts around “attribution”?  For those who haven’t thought about this yet, here’s a sample of the terms related to the discussion:  

attribution management, attribution protocol, attribution problem, multiple touch point attribution, online marketing attribution, multiple attribution protocol, attribution modeling, marketing mix modeling, last-touch attribution, equal-attribution, impression attribution, attribution theory, online-offline attribution, attribution rules …

In this and a few follow up posts I will discuss a few topics that I hope will bring some clarity to this.  

Let me be upfront with my main point: attribution problem is a data analytics problem. I know that few people would argue with me on this, but I think few people have taken this seriously all its implications.  

Since it is fundamentally a data analytics problem, we should start with data.  What is the underline business question requiring an attribution analytical solution? What kinds of data we have, or we need to have, to answers attribution question?  How to translate the business questions into a data analytics questions that match the type of data we have.  What questions are not answerable given the limitation of data, or available analytics tools?  How rigorous is the proposed data analytics strategy:  a heuristic, a rule of thumb, a well-specified model? Are we over or under in our use of data?  Are we over design the analytics and making it more complex than necessary? What are all the limitations and disclaimers associated with an approach?

My sense is that we have not taken a serious look of the attribution problem from a data analytics perspective yet. We know the business problems, but most of us are not expert in data analytics methodology. 

Any comment?

Please come back to read my next post on micro and macro attribution.

Why?  there are a few signs:

If web analytics is your profession or your passion, considering these:

    Avinash Kaushik has several posts in recent month:  Measuring Value of “Upper Funnel” Keywords,   Measure Latent Conversions & Visitor Behavior  and this one from almost a year ago: Conversion / ROI Attribution.

    Eric Peterson  has been busy with webinars and presentations, all over attribution problem.  He use a new metric as a foundation for attribution analysis: “Appropriate Attribution Ratio”.  

We all know that all the major web analytics vendors are working hard trying to figure out the right attribution modeling tool to offer.  My recent meeting with a major web analytics vendor also convinced me; it is all about attribution data service and attribution modeling.

Attribution is also the most talked about topic in SEM/SEO today. I can’t think of a search conference does not have sessions focus on attribution; and every SEM tool makers are tooting its solution for atrribution management. 

From ad-servers: Atlas’s Engagement Mapping and DoubleClick’s Exposure to Convertion Report.

Another variation of name is Multiple Attribution Protocol.

Forrester Research, who lead research in perhaps everything online marketing, has three researches on attribution within the last six months: Attribution by Emily Riley, Search and Attribution by Evan Andrews and Multicampaign attribution by John Lovett et al.  

It is a hot topic and an area not short of differing approaches.  Anyone who is seriously interested should also read Barry Parshall’s fighting post on the right and wrong approaches for attribution modeling.      

Tom Hosking | Regional Sales Manager, Massive EMEA

Having been leading the in-game advertising charge across EMEA for the last 3 years I have been introducing this great product to all manner of people – strategic planners, press buyers, TV buyers, radio buyers, out of home buyers, digital media buyers, clients, creative directors. Overwhelmingly all parties love the idea of serving time sensitive, regionally relevant ads into video games. But there is one party that struggles with the concept more than any of the others.

All media is going digital. Although I don’t agree with my Step Father’s thoughts that your computer will be your TV (er, I don’t want my e-mails displayed on my 42” plasma), TV pictures will only be coming across the air from your router or the local WiMax tower before not too long. Radio too. Just like at Heathrow T5, all out of home panels will soon be digital; magazines will all migrate online – check out the continued decline in the once all conquering Loaded magazine’s circulation and the huge increase in its website traffic.

But most of this digitisation will be happening outside of a browser window. And this is the challenge. The wonders, and they are wonders, of digital media have largely focussed on the ability to track and capture data on direct user action – clicks. A whole new economy has been built on this. It used to be said that half an advertising budget was wasted, but if the only way we accredit any value to an ad is whether it’s been clicked then over 95+% is ‘wasted’. This is not a bad thing if what is not wasted is of high value. It works incredibly well for some kinds of advertising and marketing.

The future is digital, and we all need to embrace it. But we need to think about how to better judge media that is made up of 1s and 0s but isn’t within the browser environment. Fundamental to this is a wider acceptance of brand advertising being delivered digitally. Through their Engagement Mapping technology Atlas continue to do fantastic work in proving the effect of online advertising above and beyond a straight click. The challenge is our willingness to buy into this kind of data, and our willingness to sell against it.

So, here’s the thought I’ll leave you with. Have we as an industry relied too much on the quick, direct ROI fix that HTML/Java/Flash etc can provide? In the rush to expand our digital functions are we as well prepared for the digitisation of all media as we should be? Almost all ‘new’ media set TV budgets in their sites, but TV has built itself into the beast that it is without clicks.

By Yi-Wyn Yen

Last month Google’s chief economist Hal Varian discussed the durability of the search giant’s business model during the company’s quarterly earnings call. “During periods of slow economic growth, the last thing an advertiser wants to cut is its spending on search-based advertising,” Varian said.

In other words, display advertising (the flashy and creative side of the business) will take a bigger hit than paid search (the directly-targeted and accountable portion that Google excels at) as marketers tighten their purse strings.

Microsoft (MSFT), however, argues that search ads get too much credit for click-throughs while display ads don’t get enough. The company, which is struggling to build an online ad business to compete with Google (GOOG), is challenging that notion with a new tool that measures the effectiveness of display advertising in an online ad campaign.

Atlas Institute, which is part of Microsoft Advertising’s research division, has released a study that shows that people are more likely to click on ads or buy things online when they are exposed to display ads. In a study called “Illuminating the Alltel Wireless sales funnel,”  those who clicked on search ads for the cell phone maker were 56% more likely to buy a phone or wireless plan from the company when they saw Alltel’s display ads compared to those who only saw Alltel’s search ads.

Search ads typically get the most credit for contributing to a sale because they’re the last ad that is viewed. “When someone is ready to take action by clicking on an ad or buying something, they will go to a search engine and type in what they’re looking for,” explains Morris Martin, an analyst with Atlas Institute who led the study. “The very last ad is the one that gets 100% of the credit. We did this case study to get a better understanding of the synergies between search and display.”

Microsoft’s new measuring tool tracks branded ads that an Internet user comes across before making a purchase. The tracking system, which gathers the wealth of data through the Atlas ad server, then assigns a value for all the ads that contribute to a successful sale. Along with Alltel, Microsoft says 14 other advertisers, including Best Western, Citi Cards and Sprint (S), are testing the product

Google spokeswoman Lynn Tornabene says that its display ad server Doubleclick introduced a similar tracking tool a year ago but would not say how many clients are using the product. She declined to comment on the Microsoft study.

Fundamentally marketers know it’s not all about search ads. It’s just that Google knows how to be at the right place at the right moment. “Google is so close to the point of sale,”  says Jeffrey Lindsay, an Internet analyst with Bernstein. “When people type in those keywords, they are at an extreme point of sale. That’s well understood. Everyone knows Google gets a whole heck of a lot more credit for searches than what is attributable.”

Marketers say they welcome tools to get better gauge the impact of display ads.  “I don’t think media buyers are making decisions based on [these tracking systems] yet,” says David Cooperstein, the chief marketing officer for Burst Media, an online ad agency. “But they are asking about it a lot more than they were six months ago. As this media matures, brand advertisers will start to look for more response the way direct marketers do.”

Atlas Advertiser Suite

I am incredibly excited to discuss the first in a series of posts about the topic of the next generation of online media analytics.

Why is there a resounding silence and echo when I say that? Why is the industry not jumping at the opportunity to apply a more sophisticated model to our efforts?

Folks – this is the future standard!

I’m excited! This is one of the biggest improvements in online advertising since the release of centralized post click/post impression tracking 10 years ago!

Bringing More Precision to DR Accountability
I have recently had the pleasure of receiving a demo on Atlas  Engagement Mapping, which is essentially their application of the “multiple attribution protocol” – essentially providing partial credit for each ad exposed or engaged with prior to a conversion event. For direct response marketers this is the panacea that further fulfills the the promise of accountability that digital media has promised for such a long time.

I have been yearning to apply this type of methodology to the tracking of client campaigns for many years. I sat on a Doubleclick advisory board for about 5 years or so and have always wished to have the ability to easily mine Doubleclick log files to apply multiple attribution to each conversion. It can be done – by using a third party like Theorem or Blackfoot, but it’s not an easy, turnkey or affordable process.

Particularly as search became the lion’s share of online ad spending over the last several years, marketers have been seeking better analytics on the inter-relationship between search and display ads., while agencies have been in desperate need of a deeper ability to generate insight that led to more intelligent optimization. The industry data just scratches the surface on that one…until now!

Atlas beat Doubleclick to the punch and has set the ball in motion, and all I can say is – “thank you for forcing the industry to progress”!

According to Atlas research, due to the “last-click standard” we have been using to-date, we have been ignoring 94% of the “engagement touch points” (influence) before each online conversion, and that 66% of converters are exposed to ads on multiple sites before the conversion occurs. Up until now we have only been giving credit to the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, if you will.

Engagement Mapping Visualizer

Atlas Engagement Mapping allows the agency to apply weighting to criteria such as recency, ad format, and ad size, and you can change weighting for active (engagement) versus passive (exposure) variables. All of this adds up to a conversion credit %.

So why has Doubleclick not formally released a similar product? I know this has been on their radar for a number of years now. I wonder what the potential hit to search marketing credit and potential revenue for [parent] Google would be.  In fact, in the case study released by Atlas, search took a 60% hit in conversion credit compared to  the current last-click standard.  However, Doubleclick will not sit idly by as this evolution creates a big value difference between the analytics provided by DART versus Atlas. At any point in time either of these two leading ad serving and analytics systems offer one or two features that the other doesn’t, and it’s normally not a “make or break” feature. However, this new development is a game changer, and I look forward to seeing the far reaching ramifications.

Note: I did reach out to Doubleclick but have yet to be provided with the official position on where they stand with their application of the Multiple Application Protocol, but I will update the blog with that info as soon as I have a chance to chat with my friends at Doubleclick.

Not A Perfect World, But More Perfect Than Before
Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect closed loop tracking system.  Will MAP be the solution to all of our problems? No, of course not. The attribution of a subjective percentage of post-impression conversions  as it relates to the isolation of online media from other media has been questioned, for years and this argument will re-emerge and take new shape. But multiple attribution tracking brings us a lot closer to the complete picture than we have been up until now, at least within the confines of the digital ecosystem.

A big question I have been asking myself relates to frequency. We have learned as an industry up until now that high frequencies are not necessary to drive response, conversion nor branding effectiveness. This fact has been an indication of digital media’s role in an integrated media mix, as well as the need for relevancy within the context of digital media being intent-driven. But it also begs the following thought…

Based on the last ad standard, we have been able to report on aggregate frequency’s impact on DR and branding metrics for years, and lower frquencies have been more efficient and effective (prior to hitting a reach saturation point), and regardless of attribution, the whole is still the sum of its parts. Even at an optimal frequency of 2 or 3, multiple attribution testing will have a huge impact on conversion credit reporting. So therefore, although powerful for display ads alone, as I mentioned earlier – the mac daddy application here, if you will, is providing insight into the manner in which search and display work cooperatively and the resulting attribution shifts.

Next Stop, Brandville
When this type of systematic approach to multiple attribution credit is overlaid onto branding effectiveness data such as Dynamic Logic, we will see another seismic shift in our ability to hone in on what works best for any particular client. Imagine partial attribution of increased awareness, brand favorability and purchase intent, a dynamic that nobody denies.

A Widening Digital Divide Among Marketers?
If you’re working in media planning, buying & management, I would definitely advise you to check out the demo of the new Atlas Engagement Mapping visualizer. If you’re an Atlas client already, give your rep a call and try it out. If you’re a Doubleclick client we’ll have more news for you soon, but you can always inquire yourself. If you are not using either system you may be out of luck for now, but eventually this will have to become the standard for everyone or the industry will continue to polarize the “data haves” and the “data have nots”, which is not not a pretty picture. The press has used the term “digital divide” to describe consumers with or without access to the internet. There is a greater digital divide between the small to mid sized bsuiness and the larger businesses who can afford the tools and data to glean insights that make running a business that much more efficient and profitable.  The reality is that data storage and bandwidth costs have  dropped significantly, and there is no reason why these tools cannot one day become affordable for all marketers. Sure certain features will be set aside for the “data-elite” who can afford them, but ultimately it is important that most marketers have access to these sophisticated tools.

Stay tuned for more on this topic!

]]> http://mytechbox.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/online-advertising-reality/ Thu, 29 May 2008 07:47:21 +0000 Rakesh Raman http://mytechbox.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/online-advertising-reality/

Five Bitter Truths about Online Ads
What Microsofts, Yahoos, and Googles are doing from forced bids to clean buyouts simply to grab a larger chunk of the Internet ads business, seems to be a story fit for some action-packed Hollywood thriller.

But there’s a distinct gap between the fact and the fiction. If you thought Internet advertising is a big business, if you thought these ads are doing some good to the consumers or advertisers, and if you think they’re poised to pull off some kind of wonder in the cyber space, here are five simple truths that you’d like to know.

1. Undefined: No empirical web measurement methodology exists to measure a site’s popularity or impact of an ad campaign. As click-based assessment is not considered valid, researchers like Nielsen/NetRatings and comScore are suggesting time spent by a surfer on the site as an important parameter. Microsoft with Engagement Mapping for studying consumer behaviour and Yahoo with AMP ad management system are trying to bring some discipline to the Internet ad world, and expect to do something on this front during this year. Other similar efforts are also afoot. Keep your fingers crossed.
2. Cheating: Media companies artificially inflate the number of clicks to impress the advertisers. Termed as click frauds, this is done by using automated programs, and the practice is rampant.
3. Intrusive: With jogs and jumps, ad pop-ups keep irritating the Internet users when they try to focus on the real content on a webpage.
4. Layered: Unlike print or TV ads, which you can see with just a single glance, Net ads are layered. You have to first click on a banner or some text to go somewhere else to see what the advertiser actually wants to say. Who has that kind of patience?
5. Paltry: Hence, with 6% of the global ad revenues estimated to be over $450 billion last year, online ads get just a tiny sliver of the total business.

So is the hype and hoopla being built around the interactive ads business for real or is it going to be an action replay of the tragic dotcom burst? You decide.

Now, My Techbox asks:
Can online media be a threat to the traditional print or TV ad business?

Related Articles:
Web Frauds
Slow Web Ad Market
Social Commerce Issues
Ghost clicks at the e-banquet

Five Bitter Truths about Online Ads
What Microsofts, Yahoos, and Googles are doing from forced bids to clean buyouts simply to grab a larger chunk of the Internet ads business, seems to be a story fit for some action-packed Hollywood thriller.

But there’s a distinct gap between the fact and the fiction. If you thought Internet advertising is a big business, if you thought these ads are doing some good to the consumers or advertisers, and if you think they’re poised to pull off some kind of wonder in the cyber space, here are five simple truths that you’d like to know.

1. Undefined: No empirical web measurement methodology exists to measure a site’s popularity or impact of an ad campaign. As click-based assessment is not considered valid, researchers like Nielsen/NetRatings and comScore are suggesting time spent by a surfer on the site as an important parameter. Microsoft with  Engagement Mapping for studying consumer behaviour and Yahoo with AMP ad management system are trying to bring some discipline to the Internet ad world, and expect to do something on this front during this year. Other similar efforts are also afoot. Keep your fingers crossed.
2. Cheating: Media companies artificially inflate the number of clicks to impress the advertisers. Termed as click frauds, this is done by using automated programs, and the practice is rampant.
3. Intrusive: With jogs and jumps, ad pop-ups keep irritating the Internet users when they try to focus on the real content on a webpage.
4. Layered: Unlike print or TV ads, which you can see with just a single glance, Net ads are layered. You have to first click on a banner or some text to go somewhere else to see what the advertiser actually wants to say. Who has that kind of patience?
5. Paltry: Hence, with 6% of the global ad revenues estimated to be over $450 billion last year, online ads get just a tiny sliver of the total business.

So is the hype and hoopla being built around the interactive ads business for real or is it going to be an action replay of the tragic dotcom burst? You decide.

Now, My Techbox asks:
Can online media be a threat to the traditional print or TV ad business?

Yahoo Cries ‘Bugaboo’, as Microsoft Scares it
This is about Microsoft’s attempt to grab Yahoo. As Yahoo has been dillydallying for a couple of months, Microsoft has decided to show its true colors; turns hostile. Its latest diktat to Yahoo: Accept $31 per share (Microsoft will shell out about $44 billion for the deal, making it the biggest tech takeover) or face a forced bid. While Yahoo has just three weeks to say “Yes”, Microsoft will directly approach shareholders of Yahoo in case the latter shows any reluctance.

The software major has also cautioned Yahoo that it’ll lower its offer after the deadline (April 26), as the stock prices of Internet firms have constantly been plummeting.

Both, Microsoft and Yahoo, have been struggling to secure their place in the interactive ad business with new initiatives. On March 1, Microsoft introduced Engagement Mapping, a new approach to measure the effectiveness of online ad campaigns. And Yahoo has planned something called AMP, an ad management platform – which will be available later this year – for online ad trading.

Now, My Techbox asks:
If Microsoft knows that the online ad market is showing symptoms of weakness, why is it interested in Yahoo?

Related Article: Ghost clicks at the e-banquet

Initially I read the Microsoft engagement mapping announcement thinking this would be a remarkable innovation. They are claiming that EM will track a consumers interaction with advertising all the way to the point of sale which if done accurately would be a watershed in advertising accountability.

We’ve noted in many posts before how poorly advertisers track offline and even online advertising effectiveness, usually resorting to opportunisic reporting and explanations by their advertising agencies or reporting firms that stay in business because they support the agency advertising spends using questionable metrics.

Enter Engagement Mapping. Microsoft says:

“The ‘last ad clicked’ is an outdated and flawed approach because it essentially ignores all prior interactions the consumer has with a marketer’s message,” said Brian McAndrews, senior vice president of the Advertiser & Publisher Solutions (APS) Division at Microsoft. “Our Engagement Mapping approach conveys how each ad exposure — whether display, rich media or search, seen multiple times on multiple sites and across many channels — influenced an eventual purchase. We believe it represents a quantum leap for advertisers and publishers who are seeking to maximize their online spends.” (bolding mine)

Read the bolded sentence again. Although I’ll have to see the methodology before rejecting it as bogus, that last line does not really suggest objectivity here. Rather it appears this is yet another way for a metric to support a course of action (increase online ad spending) rather than measure the effectiveness of that action.

This is standard fare for ad agencies who feed their kids by exaggerating the effectiveness of their campaigns so I guess it’s no surprise that Microsoft is going to help them do that for the online spends, which benefit…..wait for it ….. GOOGLE! And Microsoft too. But given Google’s approximately 50% share of all online spends I think Eric Schmidt should send Steve Ballmer a really nice gift. Maybe a even a Lazy Boy CHAIR?

NOVA YORK (Reuters) – A Microsoft afirmou nesta segunda-feira que vai testar uma nova maneira de medir a efetividade de um anúncio publicado na Internet em um desafio ao padrão da indústria que ajudou empresas como o Google.

O “Engage Mapping” deve começar a ser testado em 1o de março e se diferencia do padrão que vincula vendas, interesse de compra e tráfego para o último anúncio que o usuário clicou online. Em vez disso, o sistema proposto tenta levar em consideração todas as interações de Internet que levaram o consumidor a comprar um produto.

A nova iniciativa da Microsoft segue-se à compra pela empresa da companhia de marketing aQuantive por 6 bilhões de dólares no ano passado, em um esforço para faturar com o crescente mercado de publicidade online e melhor competir contra o Google.

A Microsoft ainda está envolvida numa tentativa de aquisição do Yahoo, com proposta não solicitada equivalente a 41 bilhões de dólares.

“O ‘último clique’ é uma aproximação defasada e falha porque essencialmente ignora todas as interações anteriores que o consumidor teve com a mensagem do anunciante”, disse Brian McAndrews, vice-presidente sênior da unidade de propaganda e soluções editoriais da Microsoft.

Mais