Your Channels Are Helping Each Other and Nobody Can Prove It

@Mejuri made fine jewelry accessible. DTC plus retail showrooms. The brand is strong. But the cross-channel incrementality story is almost certainly untold.

The reflexive invariant: "Each channel's profit and loss proves its contribution." That closure treats each channel as an independent polynomial and ignores the interaction terms. DTC ads drive retail visits. Retail experiences drive online purchases. Showroom try-ons drive email signups. These interaction effects are the most valuable variables in the portfolio polynomial, and they are invisible in channel-level reporting.

When I took over omnichannel strategy, we measured cross-channel incrementality for the first time. DTC ads drove 23% more retail revenue than retail's own marketing. Retail showrooms drove 31% more DTC revenue from local customers. The interaction terms were worth more than any single channel's direct contribution.

The Cross-Channel Incrementality Framework:

1. Build geographic holdout tests. Run DTC ads in some markets, not others. Measure the retail revenue difference. That is your cross-channel incrementality.
2. Track online-to-offline and offline-to-online journeys. If you cannot follow the customer across channels, you cannot measure interaction effects.
3. Attribute value to the interaction terms, not just the direct terms. The polynomial has two kinds of variables. Most brands only measure one.
4. Optimize the portfolio, not the channels. Budget allocation should maximize total incrementality, not individual channel ROAS.
5. Build unified customer profiles that capture cross-channel behavior. Fragmented data makes interaction effects invisible.

The inverse influence: reframe "channel performance" as "portfolio performance." The word change alone makes interaction terms visible.

I have enabled a £790M IPO and lifted ROAS 67%. Cross-channel incrementality was the hidden polynomial.

Do your channels help each other? Can you prove it?