Marketing attribution.

An honest view of how each channel contributes to enquiries and sales, including what the data cannot show.

Analysts compare source cards with a chart and inspect one bar through a magnifying glass.

Keep the model visible when reading the numbers.

Different tools can credit the same conversion differently. We align campaign tagging, conversion definitions and available CRM outcomes so the team can interpret reports without treating one model as the complete customer story.

What we can build together.

The final deliverables, review rounds and schedule are agreed around your brief.

Journey and data review: Map the interactions and systems that can contribute evidence.
Tagging conventions: Agree campaign naming and source capture for consistent reporting.
Model interpretation: Document how the chosen tools assign credit and where their views differ.
Business reporting: Connect available lead and sales outcomes to acquisition information with known gaps recorded.

Compare like with like.

Write down the reporting settings

Before comparing channel reports, check the conversion definition, attribution window and time period. Different settings can produce different views of the same activity. Keep those settings beside the interpretation so a reporting difference is not automatically mistaken for a performance change.

Use the model as one view of the journey

A buyer may hear about the business offline before clicking a campaign link. The visible data may capture only part of that path. Combine attribution reports with available sales context and describe the gaps when making budget recommendations.

From brief to handover.

Inspect the current evidence
Review campaign tags, analytics, CRM records and the questions the team needs to answer.
Align the definitions
Agree events, naming and reporting views before comparing channels.
Explain the differences
Document limitations and build a reporting routine that supports decisions.