Wrong tracking codes gets associated with marketing channels(eVar) for Mobile App reports. Both tracking code and marketing channel eVar is last touch with 14 days expiration.

sreeg59737456

12-07-2019

Before I start: Adobe default marketing channel is not setup. We have an eVar that collects marketing channel info and s.campaign for tracking codes. Both have last touch attribution and set to 14 days expiration.

Exclusively for app reporting, we are seeing that wrong tracking codes are getting associated with the marketing channels. In one of our channel, push notification, a large amount of revenue is also getting attributed to email tracking code which is making us nervous. For example, in this screen shot, you that that if I breakdown marketing channel=email by tracking code, then tracking codes like (push_XYZ, google.com, SOC_123 etc.) shows up instead of  JUST tracking codes starting with 'EML....'.  Question is why???

If, both tracking codes and by marketing channel eVar has the same allocation, then it shouldn't be a persistence problem. We have the same settings is the report suites for Website, and it all looks fine.

Wrong tracking code.JPG

Should there be any special implementation rules for mobile apps? We send s.campaign as a context data and then a processing rule is applied.  Processing rule: If s.campaign(context data) is set, then overwrite the value of Campaign with s.campaign(context data)'.

Accepted Solutions (1)

Accepted Solutions (1)

PratheepArunRaj

Moderator

18-07-2019

Dear Sree,

Assuming my below understanding is correct.

You are passing s.campaign(context data) at Application  and at processing rules you are overwriting the s.campaign with s.campaign(context data) if set.

And eVar36 is not the context data, but based on s.campaign(context data) eVar36 is set like below (As example):

Overwrite eVar36 with Custom Value 'Email', if s.campaign(context data) is set and s.campaign(context data) starts with 'EM'.

If you have set the above, you should not see any differences in the numbers or correlation. If you didn't, then try to fix the same!

Thank You!

Arun

Answers (2)

Answers (2)

sreeg59737456

15-07-2019

Hi Arun,

Thanks for your response. Trying to give you some more perspective here.

1. The marketing channel eVar (context data) and s.campaign(context data) both fires with the clickthrough trackaction (event). Both are set to expire after 14 days and it has last touch attribution.

2. In Adobe Mobile Services, there is no way to set the 'Standard' Campaign variable which would feed the tracking code report. Hence, s.campaign is fired as a context data variable and then processing rule is used. Processing rule: If s.campaign(context data) is set, then overwrite the value of Campaign with s.campaign(context data)'.

3. I am not sure, if the order of the processing rule is messing up things here. Should this processing rule sit at the top of the list ?

4. When I pull up the data feeds,  I see that the tracking code from previous channel persists. For example in the same visit:

  • I come through email-->marketing channel eVar= email;  tracking code= EML_XYZ;
  • Then I come through Affiliate and purchase a product---> tracking code SHOULD BE 'AFF01_ABC'. But, we see that the previous tracking code persists. i.e. marketing channel eVar= affiliate;  tracking code= 'EML_XYZ'. (Note: when I look into Charles, the right marketing channel with its corresponding tracking code fires. Nothing looks wrong there).

               If I want to look at the order level, I find that even though I come from affiliate, the whole order gets attributed to the tracking code 'EML_XYZ' from email.

5. Should we fire the default campaign variable (how v0 fires for site) and change the processing rule accordingly?

Best,

Sree

PratheepArunRaj

Moderator

12-07-2019

Dear Sree,

Tracking code is fine.

How are you setting the Marketing Channel eVar based on the Tracking Code? Is it also based on Processing Rules or a separate Context Data based on the Tracking Code at the Application Level?

Seems like some implementation gap at Application Level.

Thank You!

Arun