The Problem With Attribution

Saima · March 18

What Matters, What Doesn’t, and Why It May Be Time to Move On

For more insights like these, check out the Revenue Makers podcast and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Attribution has long been a point of contention for marketing leaders. It’s the conversation that never seems to end — how do we prove what’s working, what’s not, and what marketing’s real impact is on revenue?

We’ve spent so much time trying to defend marketing’s value with attribution models that we’ve lost sight of the bigger question: Are we measuring the right things?

In one of the most popular episodes of Revenue Makers to date, Adam Kaiser and I tackled the attribution debate head-on. After years of leading revenue teams and building attribution models of every kind, we’ve come to a few clear conclusions — some of which may be uncomfortable for marketers accustomed to traditional models.

Marketing Influences 100% of Revenue—Even If Attribution Can’t Capture It

Let’s start with a fact that often gets overlooked: Every single closed deal is influenced by marketing in some way. Whether buying team members read articles, watch webinars, see paid ads, or hear about your brand in their networks, marketing plays a role in shaping their journey.

Yet, many companies still measure marketing’s success by asking a limited question: “Did this deal originate from a marketing touch?”

That’s the wrong question. B2B buying has changed. Up to 70% of the buyer’s journey happens anonymously — long before buyers fill out a form or talk to a salesperson. The reality is that no one is making a purchase without engaging with marketing along the way.

This isn’t about marketing taking credit. It’s about recognizing that buyers educate themselves before they ever raise a hand. And when attribution models fail to capture that influence, they lead marketing teams to defend their existence rather than focus on driving impact.

All Attribution Models Are Imperfect. Pick One and Move On.

No model is ever going to be 100% right.

First-touch attribution over-weights the earliest engagement. Last-touch ignores everything that came before the demo request. Multi-touch attempts to assign credit across various interactions, but the weighting is often arbitrary.

Marketing leaders waste too much time arguing over which model is best when, in reality, consistency matters more than precision. Pick a methodology that aligns with your business and stick with it. Whether it’s first-touch, W-shaped, or another model, the key is to use it as a guideline for optimization, not an exact measure of impact.

Attribution should never be the only factor in deciding where to invest. The real question isn’t who gets credit but what’s driving engagement and revenue.

Align Measurement With Your Go-to-Market Strategy

A misalignment between measurement and strategy creates chaos.

If your company has moved to an account-based model but is still tracking individual MQLs, that’s a problem. Account-based revenue teams should focus on buying group engagement and progression, not isolated lead conversions.

Yet, many companies try to measure both at once — applying lead-based KPIs to an account-based motion. That disconnect leads to misaligned reporting, confusing discussions with sales, and an inability to clearly demonstrate how marketing is driving business outcomes.

The solution isn’t more attribution data — it’s ensuring that your measurement strategy reflects how your company actually wins deals.

One Pipeline, One Source of Truth

Another common issue? Multiple versions of pipeline numbers floating around.

Marketing has its own attribution model. Sales has a different forecast. Finance has its own revenue projection. And when leadership asks for pipeline data, they get three different answers.

Yikes.

For attribution to be meaningful, there has to be a single, agreed-upon source of truth. If marketing is reporting one number while RevOps is reporting another, credibility is lost. The moment different teams operate with conflicting data, alignment breaks down.

The MQL Era is Over. Meet Buyers Where They Are.

For years, marketers have been forced into an MQL-driven mindset, measuring success by whether prospects raise their hands.

But that approach puts too much burden on the buyer.

A prospect has to:

Identify that they have a problem.
Find your company as a potential solution to that problem.
Take action by filling out a form or requesting a demo.

That’s too many steps, and it assumes buyers will do the work and include you every time.

Instead of waiting for buyers to self-identify, companies need to be more proactive. That means:

Identifying accounts that are in-market before they reach out.
Engaging entire buying committees, not just a single lead.
Using intent data to meet buyers where they are, rather than waiting for them to come to you.

The companies still relying on MQL-based models are the ones struggling to drive pipeline today. The ones embracing a buyer-driven, account-based approach are the ones gaining traction.

Attribution Should Guide Decisions — Not Justify Marketing’s Role

Marketing’s job isn’t to prove its worth — it’s to drive growth.

Attribution should be a tool for optimization, not validation. It should help teams see winning patterns, what’s working, where engagement is strong, and how to improve revenue outcomes. But it should never be the primary metric used to justify marketing’s existence.

Instead of getting stuck in an endless loop of refining models, marketing leaders should focus on the bigger picture:

Are we influencing pipeline at every stage?
Are we helping sales accelerate deals?
Are we meeting buyers where they are and driving action?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then marketing is doing its job — whether attribution captures it or not. The companies that understand this will stop debating attribution and start making more strategic decisions and investments. And that’s what ultimately drives revenue.