Analytics Strategist

March 17, 2009

the wrong logic in attribution of interaction effect

Attribution should not be such a difficult problem – as long as reality conforms to our linear additive model of it. The interaction, sequential dependency and nonlinearity are the main trouble makers.

In this discussion, I am going to focus on the attribution problem in the presence of interaction effect

Here’s the story setup: there are two ad channels, paid search (PS) and display (D).  

Scenario 1)
      When we run both (PS) & (D), we get $40 in revenue.  How should we attribute this $40 to PS and D?

The simple answer is: we do not know – for one thing,  we do not have sufficient data.
What about making the attribution in proportion to each channels’ spending numbers? You can certainly do it, but it is not more justifiable than any others.

Scenario 2)
    when we run (PS) alone we get $20 in revenue;  when we run (PS) & (D) together, we get $40.
    Which channel gets what?

The simple answer is again: we do not know – we do not have enough data.
Again, a common reasoning of this is:  (PS) gets $20 and (D) gets $20 (= $40 – $20).  The logic seems reasonable, but still flawed because there is no consideration of the interaction between the two.  Of course, with the assumption that there is no interaction between the two, this is the conclusion.

Scenario 3)
    when we run (PS) alone we get $20 in revenue; running (D) alone gets $15 in revenue; running both (PS) & (D) the revenue is $40.
    Which channel gets what?

The answer:  we still do not know. However, we can’t blame the lack of data anymore.  It is forcing us to face the intrinsic limitation in the linear additive attribution framework itself.

Number-wise, the interaction effect is a positive $5, $40-($20+$15), which we do not know what portion to be attributed to which channel. The $5 is up for grab for anyone who fight it harder – and usually to nobody’s surprise, it goes to the power that be.

Does this remind anyone of how CEO’s salary is often justified?

What happens when the interaction effect is negative, such as in the following scenario?

Scenario 4)
    when we run (PS) alone we get $20 in revenue; running (D) alone gets $15 in revenue; running both (PS) & (D) the revenue is $30.
    Which channel gets what?
How should the $5 lost distributed?  We do not know. 

What do you think? Do we have any way to justify other than bring out the “fairness” principle?

If the question is not answerable, the logic we use will at most questionable, or plain wrong.

However, all is not lost. Perhaps we should ask ourselves a question: Why do we ask for it in the first place? Is this really what we needed, or just what we wanted? This was the subject of one of my recent post: what you wanted may not be what you needed.

Blog at