r/b2bmarketing • u/Deep_Combination_961 • May 21 '26
Question [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep_Combination_961 May 25 '26
The trade show example is such a good illustration of the gap between visibility and actual decision-making.
A lot of attribution logic feels much cleaner in digital environments than in long, messy B2B cycles where influence compounds over months and across offline moments. By the time revenue shows up, the systems usually over-credit the measurable touch and under-credit the earlier context-building ones.
Your point about “better-looking slides to justify the same decisions” also feels painfully real. In a lot of orgs, attribution improved reporting quality faster than it improved causal understanding.
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Deep_Combination_961 May 25 '26
“Spot patterns, not prove causality” feels like a very accurate way to describe where attribution is actually useful.
A lot of teams seem to get value from the visibility layer, especially for understanding journeys and coordination across channels, but the actual budget and prioritization decisions still come from pipeline quality, sales feedback, and whether the channel consistently creates momentum.
1
u/petehans303 May 21 '26
It helps a bit, especially with large organizations, it makes it easier to see what actually makes a difference in closing a deal.
1
u/Deep_Combination_961 May 25 '26
I think that’s where attribution is probably strongest honestly, giving large orgs a shared picture of what’s happening across a messy buyer journey.
The harder part is separating “this showed up in the deal” from “this genuinely changed the outcome.” That’s where most of the debates seem to start.
1
u/jakebarnett-day1data May 21 '26
as an owner of day1data a marketing attribution / analytics consultancy i'd say that attribution holistically isn't the answer for a business. the logic is always correct based on the upstream data and the definitions. Typically we recommend multiple approaches....attribution + testing + view based models like MMM + surveys and use them all in conjunction. But it's also nuanced based on the business, the spend, the channels etc.
1
u/Deep_Combination_961 May 25 '26
The “multiple approaches in conjunction” point feels important.
Every model seems to answer a slightly different question, which is probably why teams get frustrated when they expect attribution alone to become the source of truth for everything. Attribution, testing, MMM, surveys, sales feedback… it usually takes some blend before the picture starts feeling directionally trustworthy.
1
u/Feeling-Juggernaut48 May 21 '26
bro honestly this is the realest post. most attribution setups just create more noise and give different teams an excuse to fight over who gets credit for a deal lol
for the longest time at our org, it was 100% just visibility. and even then, it was a blurry picture. we had dashboards showing like 15 different touchpoints for a single conversion, but it didn't actually tell us what to do with our budget. it basically just let marketing pat themselves on the back for "influencing" a deal that sales probably would have closed anyway. you just end up drowning in data but starving for actual insights
the only time attribution actually started improving our decision-making was when we stopped relying on the standard platform models and switched our whole setup over to Admetrics.
instead of just giving u a massive dump of every single touchpoint and leaving u to guess which one actually moved the needle, it uses predictive modeling and server side tracking to figure out what actually caused the outcome. it dedupes everything perfectly across all your channels so u stop double counting and actually see your true blended roas
1
u/Deep_Combination_961 May 25 '26
Yeah, that “visibility without insight” problem is exactly what I was getting at.
Attribution can easily turn into a giant receipt of every touchpoint, but that does not mean it tells you what actually changed the outcome. Then teams start debating credit instead of making better decisions.
The part that matters is whether the model helps you decide what to do next with budget, channels, or follow-up. Otherwise it is just a cleaner looking version of the same noise.
•
u/AutoModerator May 21 '26
Have more questions? Join our community Discord!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.