Attribution is easy to promise and hard to do honestly. Here is what you should expect from us.
Some things are properly trackable. Unique discount codes tell you which creator drove a purchase. Tracked links and UTM parameters tell you which post sent traffic and what that traffic did next. A dedicated landing page per campaign, or per creator, isolates the visits and the conversions so they are not lost inside your general site traffic. Where your commerce platform supports it, we can hook codes and links to order data, so you see orders rather than clicks. That part is proof.
Other signals are real but weaker. A rise in branded search, a lift in direct traffic, a jump in saves or shares during the campaign window — these usually tell you something worked, but they are inference, not attribution. Someone who sees a creator’s post on Tuesday and searches your brand on Saturday will look like organic traffic. People also screenshot rather than click. Anyone who promises to attribute every rupee of that behaviour to a specific post is guessing and charging you for the guess.
Your monthly report says so plainly. It shows spend by creator, the content that went live with links to it, code and link performance, on-platform numbers straight from the creator’s own analytics rather than retyped by us, the site-side data, and the softer signals set beside the campaign dates so you can judge them yourself. It names what underperformed. Where we cannot separate influencer effect from your other marketing, the report says that instead of claiming credit.
If you already have a benchmark to beat — a CAC number, a code redemption rate, a last campaign that disappointed — send it with your brief and we will tell you before we start whether we think it is reachable.