Marketing channel (paid ones) vs specific tracking codes (utms)



I understand marketing channels and numbers behind tracking codes are not the same, even though the rules are in essence the same for a segment using the same rules and a marketing channel using the same rules. 


When comparing to Google Analytics channel and segment with same rules for a session are the same. 


For some reason Adobe has a different logic and the tracking rules expire after some time, even though marketing channel has changed.


This gives an impression that for all paid activities using tracing code (segment built on them) gives much bigger numbers, reflecting better the impact of paid media.


What are your thoughts on it? Basically for all main paid media channels a separate segment would give a better overview than marketing channels imho, yet raising the question what are the marketing channels useful for then?

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (1)

Answers (1)




GA's campaign timeout is a default 6 months.

AA's Tracking Code expiry is a default 1 week. (You can check this setting in your report suite's Conversion Variables admin interface.)

The vast difference between those 2 durations explains a lot of differences already. Both AA and GA have their own reasons for the way they report on campaigns. The widely perceived reason for GA's approach is because of its close ties to the Google advertising ecosystem, so there is a preference to attribute traffic and conversions to non-direct sources (follow the money!). I would say that compared to that, AA's approach gives a better idea of the user's actual marketing touchpoints.