Attribution models, even multi-touch, are fundamentally designed to answer "Who gets credit?" and often become weaponized internally. Causality analysis asks a more strategic question: "What sequence of events causes a deal to progress faster?" It focuses on optimizing the process, not distributing credit for the outcome.
Related Insights
Many marketing teams invest in attribution tools hoping to justify spend, but these platforms can't provide clear answers if the underlying engine is inefficient. You must first diagnose and fix how your leads convert into meetings before attribution data becomes meaningful.
Attributing pipeline to a single source (Marketing, SDR, AE) oversimplifies a collaborative process. This reporting style identifies team underperformance but offers no insight into *why* it's happening or how to fix it, rendering it strategically useless for scaling or problem-solving.
A modern data model revealed marketing influenced over 90% of closed-won revenue, a fact completely obscured by a last-touch attribution system that overwhelmingly credited sales AEs. This shows the 'credit battle' is often a symptom of broken measurement, not just misaligned teams.
Instead of debating multi-touch attribution, first identify the single, independent event that caused a sales rep to engage a prospect. This "trigger" (e.g., demo request, MQL score) reveals the true efficiency of your GTM motions, which is a more fundamental problem to solve.
The question modern attribution should answer is not "Which channel gets credit for this dollar?" but "What are the commonalities across our most successful buying journeys, and how can we replicate them?" This moves from a simplistic, linear view to a more holistic, pattern-based understanding of customer acquisition.
Standard attribution often credits Google due to last-click bias. To find true sources of influence, mandate that the sales team asks every new customer: "How did you *truly* hear about us?" and "Who or what influenced you to sign up *now*?". This reveals the real people and channels driving decisions.
Go beyond standard W-shaped or last-touch attribution models. Create "influence reports" that measure the sheer frequency a channel appears in any revenue-generating journey. This provides a different lens, showing which channels are consistently present and influential, even if they don't get direct attribution credit.
Don't abandon attribution; evolve it. The old model of single-touch software attribution is outdated. A modern approach triangulates data from software (GA4), self-reported forms ("How did you hear about us?"), and conversational intelligence tools, using AI to identify common buying journey patterns.
CloudPay stopped attributing opportunities to single sources like "marketing" or "sales." Analysis showed multiple departments influenced every deal, rendering attribution a source of pointless internal arguments. They still use multi-touch attribution at the campaign level, but not to assign inter-departmental credit.
Relying on a single data point like "first touch" to explain pipeline creation is flawed. It ignores the complex buyer journey and inevitably leads to a blame game—marketing providing "shitty leads" versus sales doing "poor follow-up"—instead of a systematic analysis of what is truly broken in the process.