Ad platforms typically rely on custom pixel and server-side tracking, which can miss parts of the customer journey due to privacy regulations like ATT introduced with Apple iOS 14. In contrast, Fospha does not depend on custom pixels and instead operates with a fully privacy-compliant model. Our solution provides a more comprehensive view by reconciling all available e-commerce data, addressing the limitations of platform-specific attribution. While differences in data attributed by channels are expected due to the distinct modelling approach used by Fospha, we generally observe directionally similar trends compared to ad platforms.
One of Fospha's key strengths is its ability to highlight the impact of upper-funnel activities, such as Awareness and Consideration campaigns, re-crediting them when a strong relationship between impressions, spend, and sales is identified.
4 Key differences between Fospha and Ad Platform Attribution
Fospha’s Data Ingestion Pipeline
4 Factors that can lead to differences between Fospha and Ad Platform:
Spend distribution across the funnel
Specifically, whether a brand is spending more or less in Awareness, Consideration, or Conversion campaigns.Limitations with customer Google Analytics setup
When a customer's GA setup—specifically their UTM tracking—is poor, a significant portion of initial credit may be attributed to sources like direct or organic search. This can lead to a larger pool available to attribute to other sources, such as paid social.Attribution windows vs. Fospha training window
Depending on which attribution window a customer selects in an ad platform, differences can be greater or smaller. Our hypothesis is that a longer attribution window (for example, 30 to 90 days) can cause a larger divergence between Fospha and the ad platform.Channel diversity and share of wallet across channels
If there is lower spend diversity across channels, we observe that the proportion of credit aligns more closely with cost, especially when spending in one channel approaches the 80% mark.
Metrics handled by Fospha:
Metrics remodelled by Fospha will differ from ad platforms; however, some metrics are ingested directly from the platform and should match more closely. In cases where differences arise, there may be a data delay from the ad platform or GA.
Metrics pulled directly from ad platforms:
Cost
CPM
Clicks
CTR
Metrics modelled based on ad platform data:
Conversions
Cost per Purchase (CPP)
Revenue
Return on Ad Spend (ROAS)
Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC)
% New Customers
How to make sense of Fospha, AP and GA side-by-side?
We have observed that while ad platform, last-click, and Fospha data differ in values, they tend to be directionally aligned. Therefore, triangulating all three data sources can be useful for confident decision-making.
Fospha: Use Fospha to understand the broader, cross-channel impact of paid social campaigns. It helps identify the true contribution of impressions, even if they don't directly lead to clicks.
Ad platform attribution: Ad platform data is useful for understanding the immediate post-ad impact but may not provide the full picture of cross-channel influence. As platform data is reported hourly, it can be especially valuable during key sales periods like BFCM to identify trends and optimize campaigns in real time.
Google Analytics: GA offers a narrow view, focusing on direct, last-click conversions. While useful for understanding immediate outcomes, it may undervalue paid social’s influence earlier in the funnel.
How To Use Fospha Data During Black Friday?
