BookmarkSubscribeRSS Feed
🔒 This topic is solved and locked. Need further help from the community? Please sign in and ask a new question.
pcapazzi
Pyrite | Level 9

We have a process where we return to a campaign and update a campaign level attribute and then re-publish the campaign without executing it. This is so that an external process can be kicked off.

 

However, in reconciling counts between our initial reports and counts in the CDM weeks after the execution there is a discrepancy. Over time there are subjects that will be removed from the tables CIS works with. However... I think that when we re-publish a campaign weeks after execution (and we do not re-execute) that the CI CELL PACKAGE table may be getting updated counts at that time. Is this a valid assumption? If it is valid is it updating counts from the contact history table or from the infomap? Note: out contact history table is updated weekly to remove invalid agents. The same is done to the underlying tables that the infomap uses.

 

Example:

Campaign 1 has a single segment. There were 100,000 subjects at run-time and 100,000 customer were mailed. After the mailing has gone out we revisit the campaign (say 1 month has passed) to set a variable that the campaign is 'done' and we hit publish reporting data. Another month passes and we are reviewing the counts and see that CI CELL PACKAGE has a TOTAL_MARKETING_CONTACT_CNT of 99,998.

 

We are using CIS 6.4

 

Thanks.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
shill
SAS Employee

That column was actually removed in 6.3. There may be a replacement view sitting on top of it that's querying the CH table directly, so if you have updated CH status codes in there, it might explain the change. 

 

Historically, that column was only updated when you published, and wasn't ever maintained so that it properly reflected failed contacts, and the other corresponding TOTAL_*_CNT columns required ongoing ETL to update as well. Since the aggregation is done automatically on the fly for the VA reports that now ship with the product, it was decided that these misleading fields should be removed.


Register today and join us virtually on June 16!
sasglobalforum.com | #SASGF

View now: on-demand content for SAS users

View solution in original post

2 REPLIES 2
shill
SAS Employee

That column was actually removed in 6.3. There may be a replacement view sitting on top of it that's querying the CH table directly, so if you have updated CH status codes in there, it might explain the change. 

 

Historically, that column was only updated when you published, and wasn't ever maintained so that it properly reflected failed contacts, and the other corresponding TOTAL_*_CNT columns required ongoing ETL to update as well. Since the aggregation is done automatically on the fly for the VA reports that now ship with the product, it was decided that these misleading fields should be removed.


Register today and join us virtually on June 16!
sasglobalforum.com | #SASGF

View now: on-demand content for SAS users

pcapazzi
Pyrite | Level 9

Thank you. I heard back from our IT who had said they are populating the field I was inquiring about with the counts of agents at the point where we re-publish reporting data and that previously the field was not populated by CIS.

 

Thanks!

How to improve email deliverability

SAS' Peter Ansbacher shows you how to use the dashboard in SAS Customer Intelligence 360 for better results.

Find more tutorials on the SAS Users YouTube channel.

Discussion stats
  • 2 replies
  • 966 views
  • 1 like
  • 2 in conversation