Hi all, I'd be really grateful if someone could give me some advice: I've ran several email marketing campaigns now for the past two years with varying success. These campaigns are sent to a fully opted-in 3rd party mailing lists from a company that is quite reputable. The return we get from these campaigns is border line when we only use the trackable data (people clicking on the tracked links within the email). However, we have been gathering the data of people who has converted on our site 2 weeks post campaign through different sources. I've then given this data back to our list company to match it to their records, which gives us more conversions to attribute back to the campaign, as people may have seen the email but come direct to our site. This process can lift the volume of conversion by as much as 800% - excellent!!! Or is it? I'm wanting to ask your advice whether other companies do this? How accurate is it? Can we attribute all these conversions that our provider says is on their database or just a percentage? Thanks for any advice you can give
Perhaps you should do a manual cross-reference at some point to verify that the conversion rate increase is indeed accurate. At 800% it sounds somewhat over-optimistic.
Hi Chris, thanks but we do do this manually. For example, one campaign can produce 18 leads that can be directly attributed to a campaign via trackable links (Google Analytics etc). We then look at all leads generated on the site two weeks after the campaign and then send this data to the company who tell us which leads were on their database and would have received this email but for example came to our site via the URL. This 800% increase is not on the conversion rate but on the volume of "conversions" (or leads) we can attribute to the campaign. Thanks