More Opportunity. More Growth. Advertisers Publishers. Solutions Built for Success Innovative, easy to use tools to help you understand and reach your audience and provide a streamlined customer experience. Committed to Our Publishers The largest and most established global Publisher Development division with the highest tenure in the industry.
Specialized Strategies Focused and strategic recommendations based on region, distribution model, vertical, and business size.
Fill 1 Created with Sketch. We've seen strong results through partnerships on CJ. The placements marketplace, cross-device tracking, and ease of the platform are some of my favorite things about CJ.
CJ is our platform of choice for two reasons: First, the CJ platform is user-friendly and reliable, allowing us to identify top performing brands and grow our advertiser base.
Second, the talent within the CJ team—staff are quick to suggest new routes to growth and consistently responsive. CJ has been keen to embrace new ideas and we look forward to working together in the years to come.
Sophisticated Tech Made Easy An intuitive platform designed to let you focus on what matters most—from getting started and finding the right brands, to actionable insights that uncover new opportunities for growth.
Another helpful feature of Insights are the Rank and P ercent Change columns, which appear for all Top Performing selections. This section shows individual publisher performance data and how the performance has changed period over period, shown by their rank and the percent change.
Looking through the percent change column, you can quickly identify partners who are significantly growing or declining and impacting the overall performance of your program. There are currently over 10 filters to layer onto the performance reporting to help you drill down into your data with even more filters scheduled for release in ! You can use each filter separately, or you can combine two or more filters to review performance for a very specific campaign.
For example, say you have provided a publisher partner with an exclusive code to promote on their mobile app. Advertisers Publishers. Complete Mobile Tracking through Button PostTap App Partnership Yields Fantastic Results When we announced our strategic partnership with Button, we knew that improving the customer shopping experience and enhancing tracking capabilities in mobile environments would lead to improvements in metrics like conversion rate and Read more.
Consumer Electronics Giant Sees Post-Migration Revenue Growth in Global Markets A consumer electronics brand worked with CJ to bring all global affiliate performance under one platform, leading to increased revenue growth in five key European markets and increased efficiency, scale, and profitability. Although this question will do little to increase measurability, its inclusion helps to further define a program. If an indicator statement ends "in order to Quantified Program Assessment QPA is a highly mechanized method of describing and measuring various performance indicators.
The adaptation known as QPA was developed by Systems Development Associates and further refines the method for application to the criminal justice field. These components of QPA are integrated into the more generic subject of performance indicator development in this Handbook in order to more completely describe the process.
As earlier described, a performance indicator is the final level of specificity to be described. The PPI will describe an anticipated result in clear and measurable terms. For example, if a substance abuse treatment program had as one of its objectives to interview and screen potential clients being released on parole, the PPI could be stated as follows:.
In this example, the key words are "interview", "assess", and "all". All of those key words qualify and specifically describe the event, and if left as the only performance indicator, could easily be measured.
However, left as it is, either the program will interview "all" potential candidates or not, producing a purely dichotomous result. It becomes important to further define this PPI because even if some candidates were interviewed, then obviously some activity did occur.
Similarly, if all candidates were interviewed but not all were assessed, some recognition should be given to at least partial attainment of that performance indicator. One alternative would be to split that PPI into three others, one describing just the interview, another describing just the assessment, and another using the word "most" instead of "all".
A more clear alternative is to write Secondary Performance Indicators which further define the Primary Performance Indicator. It is what you expect the program to accomplish. To continue with the previous example, it has now been rewritten to appear in the following format, including four SPIs and one PPI.
SPI Much More SPI Somewhat More SPI Somewhat Less SPI Much Less If it seemed important, variations could also be written which would provide for interviews only, assessments only, or some combination of the two. The process of further defining a performance indicator has now been accomplished by describing gradations of achievement. This is done with the assumption that partial under- or over-achievement will always occur and should be measured as part of program evaluation.
As previously mentioned, the gradations of achievement described above are also assigned numerical values on a five-point scale. These values become important during statistical calculations of overall goal attainment. However, the ultimate score attained by the program has little intrinsic value by itself. Its value lies in an examination of how the score was attained.
This will be described later in the "Performance Analysis" section. As previously mentioned, some indicators of a program's accomplishments may be more important than others. For example, in a substance abuse treatment program, See Appendix 3 a client's participation in a job training program may not be as immediately important as reducing or eliminating drug and alcohol usage.
If this were to be decided in a collaborative manner, reduction or elimination of substance use would be weighted more heavily than participation in job training. The determination of how much more or less important one indicator is than another is a relatively subjective decision, and provides another reason for collaborative indicator development.
The assignment of exact weights is done in a manner in which one weight relates to another. The "middle ground" weight may be determined to have a value of If another indicator were twice as important, it would be weighted with a value of Similarly, if another indicator were weighted as half as important, it would be assigned a weight of 5.
As a general rule, weights should vary in a range of 5 to 20, 10 to 40, etc. Relative levels of importance can be established using a simplified method of weight determination which established a median weight of 10, with two other weights of 5 and 20, with 5 representing "half as important" and 20 representing "twice as important". Alternatively, one could establish the range of 10 - 20 - 40 based on the same principle.
The exact numerical value of the weights is not critically important. More important is how the weights relate to each other. Whatever value is determined for the varying weights will be automatically considered when score calculations are performed. See next section on Performance Measurement. The assignment of weights is optional. Although using this step in the process does provide for greater accuracy, earlier research indicates that equal weighting will lose little information.
If time and resources are minimal, it is clearly more important to focus the evaluative energy on establishing clear goals, objectives and performance indicators, rather than the somewhat more complex process of assigning weights. One of evaluation's most useful features is its ability to provide program management and funding sources with current information regarding the operation of a program.
Much evaluation has been criticized for producing results which are not timely, and therefore render diminished utility. The methods described in this Handbook provide for frequent and efficient measurement, and therefore provide all those interested with timely and useful results. It remains true that a final evaluation of a program, based on observations over time will continue to produce the most valid and reliable analysis, and the methods described in this Handbook will contribute to that type of assessment.
But it is also true that program managers and funding agencies have legitimate and more immediate needs for timely information which describes the ongoing progress and achievements of a program. Importantly, the two needs must not be confused. It is quite possible that short-term results may not be a predictor of long-term results. Experience tells us that many new programs will undergo a developmental process which in its early stages may not be exemplary of its ultimate long-term achievement.
Therefore, whatever short-term outcomes are measured in a given program must be viewed within this context, and be used for the purposes of fine-tuning and program modification, not as a final judgement of its worth.
The first assessment performed based on performance indicator achievement should be done approximately one month after the program is fully operational, meaning when all staff are hired, trained and working toward the program's goals.
This one-month assessment is performed to determine the usefulness and accuracy of the indicator statements. It will probably not take longer than one month of operations to asses this usefulness. The first month of operations is a critical phase, one during which most program staff and management begin to see their functions more realistically than could have been seen during the planning phase. It will not be unusual to make modifications to the indicator statements during this phase.
The consensus group input is important at this point in order to provide balance. There will be some indicators which are simply not negotiable, and should not be altered, regardless of their potential for achievement. There will be others, however, which may be modified as a result of the one-month adjustment period. At the end of this first assessment, the indicator statements should generally be fixed with little, if any, further modification. The next and following assessments should occur quarterly.
This three-month period will provide for somewhat more valid and slightly more reliable results which will allow management to broadly predict the level at which the program will ultimately function. It is worth restating here that these assessment techniques are to be viewed with an objective inquisitiveness, a process designed to allow for modification. It may be that indicator achievement is not possible with the resources initially planned for the program.
This analysis may not impact on the ultimate worth of the program, but rather points to the need to add resources in an attempt to provide for the realization of the goals. Any evaluator must be cautious to avoid judgements which are too quick or too critical. Ongoing performance and long-term data will always provide for the most accurate assessments.
An advantage in performing frequent assessments is that they provide management with the opportunity to observe exactly what allows for and prevents indicator achievement. This form of evaluation, know as "Path Analysis" offers information which explains how and why events occur, and offers some degree of predictability of events, based on the program's actions.
This method should also be planned as a part of the program's evaluation, and requires a rather sophisticated statistical model to calculate. It is essentially a "road map" of the program's progress and actions which notes and measures critical events and decision-making points, and is useful in planning future similar programs.
An annual assessment may occur after the program has been in full operation for one year. This assessment will obviously provide more reliable data than those previously done, but in the case of a program with multi-year goals may not represent a "final" evaluation.
As periodic assessments are performed, a pattern of achievement scores may emerge, and will be useful in making overall observations of progress. If a program's goals, objectives and performance indicators have been carefully constructed, then measurement will be a relatively mechanical process. However, because there is no way to completely eliminate subjective judgement from any decision-making process, measurement should rely again on the consensus group.
Regardless of the clarity of a performance indicator, there may be varying interpretations of the degree of achievement.
0コメント