What This Chart Shows
This chart displays how much of each lever’s impact is driven by magnitude vs frequency—i.e. Did impact come from the size/scale of the signal or from repeated exposure? Each lever is a row (or group), you see two stacked bars: the share of attribution from magnitude (how big the audience is) and the share from frequency (how many times each person receives the messaging). Each row adds up to 100%, so you see the split between magnitude and frequency for that marketing activity.
Key Questions This Chart Helps Answer
- How much of each channel's effect is from magnitude vs frequency?
- Are we mostly "reaching more people" or "showing more to the same people"?
- Which channels are magnitude-dominated vs frequency-dominated?
- For planning, should we invest in magnitude expansion or frequency optimization?
Axes, Metrics, and Units
Element | Description |
|---|---|
| X-axis | Share (0% to 100%). Costs: "% of Total Magnitude/Frequency Attribution Signal" — mROAS-weighted share. No-costs: "% of Total Lift Attribution" — each bar segment is that lever's share of lift from magnitude or frequency. |
| Y-axis | Lever or group name (e.g. channel, campaign, series). Category labels; up to 15 rows. |
| Green segment | Magnitude attribution share. |
| Amber segment | Frequency attribution share. |
| Bar labels | Percent inside each segment (e.g. 60%, 40%). |
Control Options Reference
Control | Meaning |
|---|---|
| KPI classification / hierarchy | Used to select which R&F block to use when the pipeline has per-target R&F data. This chart does not show an outcome/KPI group dropdown. |
| Grouping mode | Lever: one row per lever/series, Channel, Campaign, Funnel, Segment, Topic: aggregate magnitude and frequency contribution by that dimension; one row per group |
| Event categories | Filter by specific event categories (include/exclude). |
| Funnel stages | Filter by specific funnel stages (include/exclude). |
| Search terms | Text search on lever/series labels. |
How to Interpret the Results
- More green (Magnitude): Impact is more from magnitude / scale of signal; consider growing magnitude or audience rather than frequency.
- More amber (Frequency): Impact is more from frequency; consider frequency caps, creative refresh, or reallocation if frequency is already high (see Frequency Saturation chart).
- Roughly 50/50: Balanced; both magnitude and frequency matter for that lever/group.
- No-costs mode: Bars show how attributed lift is split; read the subtitle to know you’re in no-costs.
- Costs mode: Bars show the mROAS decomposition (marginal return from +1% magnitude vs +1% frequency). Use to decide whether to invest in magnitude expansion or frequency.
- Grouping: With channel/campaign/etc., compare which groups are magnitude- vs frequency-driven; use for portfolio-level planning.
Practical Applications for Marketers
Application | How to use this chart |
|---|---|
| Budget and reallocation | Magnitude-heavy levers → invest in magnitude/audience; frequency-heavy and saturated → shift spend to magnitude or other levers. |
| Channel strategy | See which channels are magnitude-limited vs frequency-limited; align tactics (magnitude extension vs frequency capping). |
| Campaign setup | Use split to set magnitude vs frequency goals (e.g. “this campaign is frequency-heavy, cap frequency”). |
| Magnitude vs frequency optimization | Complement Frequency Saturation and R&F diagnostics: this chart shows attribution split; others show saturation and constraints. |
| Planning and storytelling | Explain “our impact is mostly from magnitude” or “from frequency” at lever or group level. |
Common Mistakes and Misinterpretations
Mistake | Why it’s a problem | How to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Treating the bar as absolute spend or revenue | Bars are shares (magnitude % vs frequency %), not dollars. | Use for split and direction (magnitude vs frequency); use other charts for spend or revenue. |
| Ignoring costs vs no-costs mode | In no-costs, split is from kernel ratios applied to lift (or 50/50); in costs, split is mROAS-based. Wording in title and footnote differs. | Check title and footnote to see “Lift Split” vs “mROAS-Weighted Split” and read the no-costs subtitle when shown. |
| Comparing rows with different filters or grouping | Which levers/groups appear and their order depend on filters and grouping mode. | Compare only under the same filters and grouping, or note when they change. |
| Assuming “magnitude” means raw reach count | Magnitude here is the attribution share from the kernel (magnitude / saturated signal level), not raw reach. | Interpret as “share of impact from the magnitude dimension,” not “reach count.” |
| Using it as the only R&F view | This chart shows split; it doesn’t show saturation, optimal frequency, or constraint type. | Use with Frequency Saturation and Magnitude/Frequency Portfolio Diagnostic for full picture. |
Caveats and Considerations
- Near-zero signal: If magnitude + frequency attribution is near-zero for all levers (or all groups), the chart shows “Magnitude/frequency attribution signal is near-zero for all levers” (or the grouping/filter variant).
- Filter-empty: If event category, funnel stage, or search leaves no levers, or (in grouped mode) no non-zero signal after filters, the chart shows the relevant filter-empty or no non-zero signal message.
- Grouping: If grouping is Topic (or another taxonomy) and that taxonomy isn’t available, the chart shows a short message that the grouping is not available and suggests trying another mode.
- Top 15: At most 15 levers (or groups) are shown, by total contribution. Others are not in the view.
- No outcome/KPI group selector: R&F data is not grouped by outcome; the KPI group dropdown is not shown for this chart. KPI classification/hierarchy can still drive which R&F block is used when the pipeline provides per-target blocks.
- Model-derived: Splits come from the R&F kernel and (in no-costs) attributed lift; they are not observed splits. Use for direction and prioritization, not as exact accounting.