Isn't that an argument for assessment on a campaign basis? I'm still wrapping my head around his calculations. It looked like he included the cost of the ads prior to the reporting window in his multi-touch model. That's a fair way of measuring the true cost of user acquisition, but if the ads you are paying for today won't pay dividends until you're out of the reporting window, it would skew the ROI.
I'm not sure if this is the same thing as what you cited, as my argument is about the cost association during the reporting window as opposed to the future revenue association. I can't figure out a way to back those out in real-time (i.e. in enough time to make adjustments to the campaign) though.
In long-running campaigns, I still typically want to be able to measure changes to performance over time.
With a fluency in the ramifications of the attribution models and windows, I like to look at multiple attribution models (last-click and parabolic multi-touch) to draw conclusion about performance.
My takeaway from the post was simply, "Be aware of how much attribution models influence metrics," and I think that's a critical point.
Indeed, that is the most salient point. I like your suggestion of looking at many attribution models to assess true performance. This seems especially relevant in larger organizations where there is an incentive to game the budgeting process - presenting just the best possible case is what marketing is all about but can lead to skewed perspectives of success.
I'm not sure if this is the same thing as what you cited, as my argument is about the cost association during the reporting window as opposed to the future revenue association. I can't figure out a way to back those out in real-time (i.e. in enough time to make adjustments to the campaign) though.