Inconsistency in Parsing UTM Data

mkassowitz
(@mkassowitz)

6 years, 1 month ago

I am using your plugin on a site with an extensive PPC campaign on both Google and Bing. The Bing campaign data is regularly captured by your plugin, but not so for the Google Adwords campaigns. On the latter all we get typically is the GCLID and campaign marked as SEO (which is incorrect.)

Here are two URLs for comparison:

Here is a sample of a Bing tracking URL:

https://st8wide.com/?st-t=bing&utm_campaign={Campaign}&vt-p1={AdGroup}&vt-k={keyword}&vt-mt={matchtype}&vt-c={AdId}

Here is a sample of an Adwords tracking URL:

https://st8wide.com/?st-t=stwide&utm_campaign=Business_Insurance_Calif&vt-p1=Business_Insurance&vt-k={keyword}&vt-mt={matchtype}&vt-c={creative}

We also use Dialogtech for tracking phone responses generated by these URLs and that also works fine.

Any insight would be helpful.

Marty

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

Plugin Author alquemie
(@alquemie)

5 years, 11 months ago

Marty,

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Did you set the custom query string parameters in the admin? Are you sure your destination URL in Adwords is set to include the campaign info and not set to “auto” which is what generates the GCLID?

Let me know and I’ll try and help resolve this issue.
Chris

Thread Starter mkassowitz
(@mkassowitz)

5 years, 11 months ago

Thanks, Chris!

I’d like to send you a doc that might help explain more clearly what we were thinking. My understanding of the problem we’ve been confronting has evolved and this will give some example URLs as well. Do you have a direct address you can provide me?

Marty

BTW, when I did the update to v 2.4.1, I lost function because it is requiring GF 2.3.1.1 which is not apparently out.

Thread Starter mkassowitz
(@mkassowitz)

5 years, 11 months ago

Chris,

I changed line 34 of gf-campaign-fields.php from
“protected $_min_gravityforms_version = ‘2.3.1.1’;
to “protected $_min_gravityforms_version = ‘2.3.1’;”

This allowed the plugin to work. It was generating an error asking me to update to a GF version that did not exist.

I modified the query string parameters from the instructions you sent me and viola! They are working!

One request. Is it possible to add parsing for one more field? What we are trying to capture is the “vt-c” parameters below. The first is a GA example, the second from Bing.

https://st8wide.com/commercial-general-liability-insurance/?st-t=stwide&utm_campaign=Liability_Insurance_Texas&vt-p1=Commercial_General_Liability_Insurance&vt-k={keyword}&vt-mt={matchtype}&vt-c={creative}
https://st8wide.com/?st-t=bing&utm_campaign={Campaign}&vt-p1={AdGroup}&vt-k={keyword}&vt-mt={matchtype}&vt-c={AdId}

Cheers!

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

The topic ‘Inconsistency in Parsing UTM Data’ is closed to new replies.