A common trend has emerged in recent years among campaign tracking platforms where the number of successful actions reported by the Network is typically lower than Advertiser data. We all know this difference as the “discrepancy,” and for many Networks it has become a recurring annoyance. And while it seems as if this is something we are stuck with, there are ways to manage and minimize the problem.
Large discrepancies result in unnecessary administrative complications and other disadvantages for a Network. I see it all the time – one offer is being run using distinctly different tracking platforms, with split testing resulting in one of the Networks reporting more successful actions than the other, resulting in larger revenues for the Publisher. When this happens the Publisher has an easy decision as to which Network through which they’ll continue to run the offer. Additionally, Networks that choose to update statistics to show unreported leads may spend several hours and waste valuable resources doing this data importation.
So how do we eliminate these tracking discrepancies?
I should first point out that I don’t think there is any way to successfully track campaigns with 100% accuracy, as there are too many variables that can skew data and thus disrupt the tracking process. However, I do think there are methods available to close the gap and report data with improved accuracy.
Don’t Rely On Browser Cookies
Most tracking platforms use persistent browser cookies and pixels to track conversions. However, the majority of platforms aren’t prepared for customers who have cookies disabled on their computer, which results in the customer not being tracked through the conversion process. So what do we do if a customer has cookies disabled? In Commission Junction’s Publisher FAQ they address cookie tracking accordingly:
Q: What about customers who have their cookies turned off?
A: Over 99% of all Internet users have cookies enabled in their browsers (less than 1% of all users have their cookies disabled). The fact is that cookie-based technology is a reality that will remain a part of consumer tracking for individual Internet businesses. In the highly unlikely situation that a customer elects to have cookies disabled, the customer is out of the range of publisher tracking and sales cannot be tracked.
I fully agree with CJ that cookie-based tracking is the best overall method for tracking customers. Cookies allow easy identification of unique customers, and they can help prevent fraudulent activity. However, I strongly disagree with CJ’s position that “the customer is out of the range of tracking” when they have cookies disabled.
I should point out that although less than 1% of users have cookies disabled, an unknown percentage of cookies are being removed or deleted in other ways:
- Customers manually delete browser cookies;
- Cookies often expire based on time constraints;
- Cookies are regularly removed by anti-virus and anti-spy software.
We can only speculate as to the adjusted percentage of cookies that are actually unavailable by the time a conversion occurs. It seems more than feasible that the 1% of customers with cookies disabled, combined with those removed through other means, could inflate the percentage closer to the three to ten percent level that Networks are currently experiencing.
By logging specific user characteristics that do not require browser cookies, we may be able to more accurately identify customers and better track conversions. Although cookies may not be available, we still have access to other information that can be evaluated at the time of conversion. These include:
- IP address
- User agent (browser)
- Operating system
- Screen resolution
- Language
If we log all of these characteristics at the moment a click occurs, we may be able to identify customers at the time of conversion (when the pixel fires) and eliminate a portion of the conversion discrepancy. I have yet to hear of anyone using this type of tactical measurement approach, and it may open up the possibility of reporting false-positives if not properly executed. But it merits closer examination and testing.
Strategic Pixel Placement
Typically, tracking pixels are placed near the bottom of the confirmation page of an offer. There are two common scenarios that could stop an HTML page from fully outputting and thus preventing the pixel from being written to the page:
- Inadequate Server Speed and Reliability – As a campaign grows in size, we often see that the hosting location is not suitable or adequately prepared for the number of page requests. As a web server experiences heavy load it may have difficulty keeping up, which typically results in pages not loading fully. If the tracking pixel is placed near the bottom of the confirmation page, then the pixel may never be outputted during times of heavy volume.
- Users with Slow Internet Connections – As the number of dial-up users grows smaller by the minute, there remains a small percentage of users who may not have the Internet speed and availability necessary to experience the offer the way it was designed. Large confirmation pages that contain rich multimedia and imagery may not be fully downloaded by the customer in these cases, which could also prevent the pixel from being outputted.
Asking the Advertiser to place a tracking pixel near the top of the confirmation page (just after the “<body>” tag) may provide better pixel reporting during high traffic loads, and when customers don’t have adequate bandwidth to handle the page.
Advanced DNS Routing to Avoid Latency
With a larger number of international campaigns being run inside the United States, DNS latency can have a drastic impact on conversion discrepancies. Many Networks have already established global DNS solutions to ensure that international web requests are handled without latency. Failure to have the proper DNS for a global campaign may result in an unsatisfactory user experience and dramatically increase the conversion discrepancy. There are many services available to help Networks establish a global DNS without requiring any hardware or software updates to the current tracking platform. Even strictly domestic Networks could greatly benefit from a more sophisticated DNS structure.
Ultimately and unfortunately, there is no way to completely eliminate campaign tracking discrepancies. I advocate measures that ensure discrepancy is kept as low as possible, and I think the solutions discussed here are appropriate for that purpose. I also believe that what’s best for the Publisher is best for the Network. A higher percentage of conversions and less discrepancy allows Publishers to have confidence in the reporting and an increased trust in the Network.
Network
