tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32202893.post7830790392218560067..comments2023-10-18T08:32:17.510-07:00Comments on Kevin Hillstrom: MineThatData: Catalog ROI Is Overstated Because Of SearchUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32202893.post-69932178597997341792009-03-02T17:26:00.000-08:002009-03-02T17:26:00.000-08:00Thank you sir!Thank you sir!MineThatDatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14014200122021988374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32202893.post-20572909010068056132009-03-02T16:56:00.000-08:002009-03-02T16:56:00.000-08:00Yes, that makes total sense.The new reality is you...Yes, that makes total sense.<BR/><BR/>The new reality is you know you mailed them and you know they clicked; but you really don't know why they bought. Was it the catalog? Was it purely a product driven search? Was it the combination? Or, something else totally unrelated like a recommendation from their FaceBook friend and they used Google because they didn't know the exact URL?<BR/><BR/>Some reasonable inference and business rules seem appropriate to get you close enough to inform better decisions. These will have a significant impact on ROAS calculations.<BR/><BR/>This is where the debate starts and quickly gets heated since it ultimately drives revenue attribution and budget allocations.<BR/><BR/>Clearly if a company sees the world through a catalog lens, the approach may be biased and may be harmful to the business in the long run.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the insight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32202893.post-69282509017619966992009-02-13T08:33:00.000-08:002009-02-13T08:33:00.000-08:00I wouldn't make this complicated. If you haven't ...I wouldn't make this complicated. If you haven't linked website visitation activity to offline purchase behavior or to promotions, do what you can.<BR/><BR/>Let's say that you match back online transactions to the January catalog, and you see that 1,000 paid search customers actually bought "because" they were mailed the catalog.<BR/><BR/>Let's also say that your normal conversion rate is 3%.<BR/><BR/>And let's say that your normal conversion rate from catalog shoppers is 5%.<BR/><BR/>You can then make the assumption that if 1,000 paid search customers purchased after receiving a catalog, then 19,000 (95%) clicked through paid search but did not purchase --- and your web analytics tool can help you directionally verify this.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, you actually have 20,000 paid search visitors that would not have happened had a catalog not been mailed.<BR/><BR/>At $0.50 average cost per click (or whatever the number is), you have $10,000 of additional expense that should be allocated across your catalog segments/lists. <BR/><BR/>Sure, you don't know which segment/list caused this, but isn't it better to estimate that you have an additional $10,000 in expense than to not even be aware of the topic?MineThatDatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14014200122021988374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32202893.post-33374510662789805282009-02-12T13:33:00.000-08:002009-02-12T13:33:00.000-08:00Finally getting caught up on my reading. I agree ...Finally getting caught up on my reading. I agree with your points. For those of us who are challenged by the details, how do you do this, especially for prospects who are anonymous paid search clickers:<BR/><BR/>"Almost nobody matches the unconverted paid search clicks back to the catalog that caused paid search to happen."<BR/><BR/>I have a visitor ID for the clicker and a mail file, now what?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>CaseyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32202893.post-48468191637950968412009-01-05T22:14:00.000-08:002009-01-05T22:14:00.000-08:00I considered writing this post as an open letter t...I considered writing this post as an open letter to you ... having your picture in the upper-right-hand corner of the post, suggesting that you are penalized for 97 uncoverted clicks while catalog gets credit for the three conversions.<BR/><BR/>Yup, those comments are made every day. It's hard to separate the legacy of an industry from the future of an industry.MineThatDatahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14014200122021988374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32202893.post-56483727591615492672009-01-05T17:52:00.000-08:002009-01-05T17:52:00.000-08:00Hi Kevin --Beyond the common business flaws in the...Hi Kevin --<BR/><BR/>Beyond the common business flaws in the channel profitability models (not allocating costs correctly, over-attributing sales to catalogs) that you point out, there are often significant psychological issues at play too:<BR/><BR/>* "Catalog is our heritage -- we're a catalog firm -- hence Catalog Is Important"<BR/><BR/>* "We spend a great deal of money on printing and postage each quarter, a very great deal -- hence Catalog Is Important"<BR/><BR/>* "We have many good writers and designers working heroically to put out each book --hence Catalog Is Important"<BR/><BR/>* "Catalog Is Important -- ERGO we need to give Catalog every benefit in our financial models. For instance: if a book went into the household any time reasonably recently to the order date, then we credit the book. If we didn't give Catalog the benefit of the doubt, the books would look awful, and that wouldn't make sense, as we all understand that Catalog Is Important."<BR/><BR/><BR/>2009 is going to shake our industry to the roots. <BR/><BR/>By year's end, there will be few if any "catalogers" left. <BR/><BR/>The survivors of 2009 will be "direct marketers", using an appropriate mix of online and print, and not wedded to the past. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying the print catalog will die in 2009 -- it wont -- but I think the "We are a Cataloger" approach is rapidly heading towards extinction, as retailers who overly prop up the print channel in their fin models head over the cliff.<BR/><BR/>(Not trying to sound grim, but I fear that is how this reads...) Onward and upward --<BR/><BR/>Alan<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.rkgblog.comrimm-kaufmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11537242246745655184noreply@blogger.com