The Attribution Gap 🛰️

Hello Reader,

👉 Reminder! Squarespace SEO Hacks is now open! This is my objectively fabulous course that goes beyond the basics and dives deep into SEO strategy exclusively for Squarespace website owners and designers so you can level up your visibility in Google, Bing, chatbots, and beyond. Learn more here!

👉 Not sure if it's right for you? Come to my live Q&A next week! Sign up here.

Because I've been prepared to reopen this course, I've been digging into my analytics to figure out if there have been any changes in my lead generation/conversion trends. Short story: I haven't seen many documentable changes.

However, it sent me into a deep rabbit hole when I discovered that my email marketing platform is claiming that they've sent me 900 subscribers through their creator network.

This gave me pause because I know I link to my own profile (you can see it here) all over my website, on social media, and in other places. I track those clicks decently and know I've sent loads of signups to that profile. Then I pulled out my calculator (I keep a real, old fashioned one on my desk) and started adding up the referrals that are directly attributable to specific other "Creators" on my newsletter software's platform.

Lo and behold, I had about 300 referrals from those folks (amazing!), not 900.

Which, coincidentally, gels with my own numbers in terms of clicks from my own website, socials, etc.

Can you visualize the picture I'm painting?

Basically, the software I'm typing in right now claims that they're responsible for 900 newsletter signups, but the real, attributable numbers say otherwise.

This is emblematic of a trend we see across these software startups: They want to shift attribution over to their software to keep you hooked on it. Substack is probably the biggest offender in this: They get their writers nearly addicted to to their platform because they claim every signup from their app as the platform sending subscribers and followers—including those that are linked and recommended from other writers on the platform or when people click on a substack newsletter link in Google that launches the app. (Don't even get me started on the other problems with that company! Short story: Try ghost.io if you want a similar platform.)

Sound shady? It is.

It's why we have to really look at our numbers and make sure that what we're seeing on the surface is reflected in our own personal experience.

Let's look at another example. I have a really popular freebie I link all over the internet. Google Analytics tells me that I have about a 20% conversion rate when people land on a certain sign up page.

The thing is, the math didn't math when I started looking into this too. If my conversion rate (this means the number of signups divided by the number of visitors to the page) was 20%, I would have far fewer signups for that freebie.

So I started testing. It turns out, a bunch of my own tests weren't logged when I signed up! But, you see, I'm one of a growing cadre of internet users who uses a variety of privacy focused browser technologies to reduce tracking on the the internet (I know too much to not be a smidgen paranoid). When I turned all that off, boom, my own opt-ins were counted.

Hmmmm... Seems like a lot of my site visitors are similarly concerned about privacy—and this plays out when I talk to people as well.

So, again, my attribution metrics were, to use a technical term, super funky.

Then we have the issue of zero click marketing, which is (warning: this is a very basic explanation) people getting the answer they need without clicking. (Read more about it in this excellent article.)

Attribution gets extremely fuzzy (another technical term) at this point because whatever metrics you use has no way to capture this zero click phenomenon whatsoever. So, you have awareness far before anyone takes action and their path is super windy.

For example, I had someone book a strategy session with me and it looked, from my analytics, like they'd Googled "Book a Strategy Session." I had a feeling that wasn't how they actually found me, that the attribution wasn't telling the whole story. So I asked! (Pro tip: Ask!) Turns out they were Googling some issues about Squarespace and SEO and made a mental note that I offered one-off calls. (They said, "You're everywhere so I figured you're the person to ask!") A month later they Googled that phrase they'd remembered and scheduled with me.

This is another one of those gaps we have in marketing that no numbers, no app, no bot can fill—we have to use our noggins and figure out what the complete-ish picture around attribution actually is.

You've seen some tips about how I handle this already, but let's break down some tips:

1. Approach attribution analytics from apps that have a vested interest in you believing your success is thanks to their ecosystem and not your own brilliance with a healthy dose of skepticism.
2. If the math doesn't make sense—you're probably right. Software isn't infallible, it's built by humans, has inherent biases, and deep limitations. Use your analytics skills and fill in the gaps.
3. Use those qualitative research skills! By this I mean, ask your clients how they found you if things are feeling fuzzy (remember, technical term), and don't be afraid to survey your audience either—most newsletter software makes this pretty easy.

The reality is that you're never going to have 100 percent clean and clear marketing attribution, no matter what the gurus say, no matter what the apps claim. But understanding the how and why behind your lead generation is non-negotiable, and oftentimes what's found in those attribution gaps is a goldmine.

Talk soon,

Sarah

​