← Every exhibit
How does marketing mix modeling compare to multi-touch attribution?
| Dimension | Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM) | Multi-Touch Attribution (MTA) |
|---|---|---|
| Data granularity | Macro aggregate time-series (weekly, regional) | Micro user journeys (click-stream logs, user IDs) |
| Privacy resilience | Completely immune to cookie loss and tracking bans | Highly vulnerable to iOS privacy changes and ad blockers |
| Offline coverage | Evaluates TV, radio, print, OOH, and macro trends | Blind to offline channels; measures only digital clicks |
| Carryover modeling | Explicitly models multi-week adstock and memory decay | Assumes linear touchpoint decay or arbitrary lookback windows |
| Saturation modeling | Models diminishing marginal returns and channel capacity | Treats all touches as having constant linear returns |
| Causal validity | Moderate (vulnerable to endogeneity if uncalibrated) | Extremely poor (confuses correlation with ad persuasion) |
| Execution speed | Strategic (quarterly/annual budget planning) | Operational (daily keyword and campaign adjustments) |
Swipe or scroll horizontally if the table is wider than your screen.
Reference & Evidence
Source: Table from this essay. Sources and interpretation are given in the article.
Related exhibits
-
The triangulated commercial measurement architecture
From the essay What is marketing mix modeling?
-
Which operational miscalculations undermine marketing mix modeling?
From the essay What is marketing mix modeling?
-
The synthetic parallel-trends screen
From the essay What are parallel trends? The assumption behind difference-in-differences