agentleFS
SkillMedevSkillMedev/performance-marketing/skills/marketing-attribution/SKILL.md

marketing-attribution

Skill0 starsChanged 39 days agoMITView on GitHub

Guides selection and honest application of a marketing attribution model, surfacing common measurement traps. Use when evaluating channel ROI, auditing tracking, or choosing between attribution models.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Every number presented to stakeholders names the model that produced it.

    line 51
  2. Distinctive:

    No budget reallocation rests on a single platform's self-reported conversions.

    line 52

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Marketing Attribution

Attribution does not reveal truth - it reveals a model's assumptions about truth. Choosing a model is choosing a set of tradeoffs. The goal is to pick the model that creates the least-distorted decisions for the business, not the one that flatters the most channels.

Understand What Each Model Assumes

First-touch attribution credits the first interaction entirely - useful for understanding discovery channels, but it ignores everything that closed the sale. Last-touch does the opposite and over-credits closers like brand search. Linear attribution spreads credit evenly - neutral but often meaningless. Time-decay weights recent touches more heavily - reasonable for short sales cycles. Data-driven attribution uses conversion path modeling - best in theory but requires high conversion volume (typically 1,000+ monthly conversions) and complete tracking. Position-based (U-shaped) splits 40/20/40 between first touch, middle, and last touch - a practical default for teams that lack volume for data-driven models.

Choose Based on Sales Cycle and Data Volume

For sales cycles under 7 days with fewer than 500 monthly conversions: use last-touch with branded/direct excluded. For cycles 7-30 days: use position-based. For cycles over 30 days or complex B2B: use time-decay or a CRM-based opportunity model. For teams with 1,000+ conversions and clean tracking: test data-driven and compare decisions it produces versus current model. Never use first-touch as a primary model for budget allocation - it systematically over-invests in awareness and starves conversion channels.

Avoid the Three Most Common Traps

Trap 1 - View-through inflation: Meta and display platforms count view-through conversions by default, crediting an impression even when the user converted organically. Set view-through window to 1 day maximum or disable it, and compare platform-reported conversions to actual revenue. Trap 2 - Cross-device gaps: a user who sees an ad on mobile and converts on desktop appears as two separate paths. Use a unified identity layer or accept that mobile spend will be systematically undercredited. Trap 3 - Sampling and consent loss: iOS privacy changes and cookie deprecation mean 20-40% of conversions may be untracked. Use aggregated event measurement, first-party data enrichment, and model-based estimation - do not treat reported numbers as complete.

Triangulate, Do Not Depend on One Signal

No single attribution model is sufficient. Use platform-reported data alongside three additional signals: (1) geo holdout tests - pause a channel in a test market and measure revenue impact; (2) incrementality tests - meta-analysis tools or platform lift studies; (3) MTA modeled data from a third-party tool. When all three signals agree, act with confidence. When they conflict, investigate before making budget decisions.

Worked Example: Same Data, Two Models, Two Decisions

A DTC brand with a 14-day sales cycle and 800 monthly conversions reviews channel performance.

Bad: The team reads last-touch platform reports as-is. Brand search shows a 6x ROAS, Meta prospecting shows 0.9x. They cut Meta prospecting 50%. Six weeks later, brand search volume falls - the prospecting they cut had been filling the top of the funnel, and last-touch had been handing its credit to the branded query that closed each sale. Total revenue drops while every remaining channel's reported ROAS looks better than ever.

Good: The team applies the cycle-length rule above (14 days → position-based), excludes branded search from performance evaluation, and runs a geo holdout: Meta prospecting paused in two matched test markets for 4 weeks. Revenue in test markets falls 12% versus control - proof the channel is incremental despite its ugly last-touch numbers. Budget stays, and the position-based report becomes the shared reference, with a one-line disclaimer naming the model.

The data never changed. The model - and the validation - changed the decision.

Document and Communicate the Model

Every stakeholder who sees attribution data must understand which model produced it and what it does not capture. Include a one-sentence model disclaimer on every attribution report. Change models infrequently - switching mid-year makes year-over-year comparisons meaningless. When a model change is necessary, run both models in parallel for at least one quarter before switching fully.

Deliverable

Produce an attribution decision memo containing: the recommended model with the sales-cycle and volume evidence behind it, the channels excluded from performance credit (branded search, direct), the platform settings to correct (view-through windows, consent-loss adjustments), the triangulation plan (which holdout or incrementality test validates the model, and when), and the one-sentence disclaimer that ships on every report the model produces.

Quality bar

  • The recommended model matches the documented sales cycle and monthly conversion volume - not a default or a platform's preference.
  • Branded and direct traffic are explicitly handled, not silently credited.
  • At least one independent validation signal (geo holdout, lift study, or MTA comparison) is scheduled before major budget moves.
  • Every number presented to stakeholders names the model that produced it.
  • No budget reallocation rests on a single platform's self-reported conversions.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.