# Channel mix comparison

> Use when you need to compare channels fairly rather than by whichever one the tool credits.

## Fill in before running

- `{{BUSINESS}}`
- `{{CHANNEL_DATA}}`
- `{{COSTS}}`
- `{{MODEL}}`
- `{{SALES_CYCLE}}`
- `{{MIN_CONVERSIONS}}`

## Prompt

```
Compare channel performance for {{BUSINESS}} without pretending attribution is settled.

Channel data: {{CHANNEL_DATA}}
Costs by channel: {{COSTS}}
Attribution model: {{MODEL}}
Sales cycle length: {{SALES_CYCLE}}

Output:
1. Table: Channel | Spend | Attributed conversions | Cost per conversion | Share of total conversions | Direction attribution likely biases this channel (over, under, neutral) and why.
2. The same table with one alternative reading: what the picture would look like if the channels you flagged as under-credited were credited 20 percent higher. Label this clearly as a sensitivity check, not a result.
3. Which channel comparisons are fair and which are not, given the model and the sales cycle.
4. One test that would settle the biggest disagreement, with the design, the metric, and how long it needs to run.

Rules:
- Do not declare a winning channel. Rank by cost per conversion and then state how far the ranking would have to be wrong to flip.
- Channels with fewer than {{MIN_CONVERSIONS}} conversions are directional only. Label them.
- If the sales cycle is longer than the lookback window, say that before anything else and explain which channels it penalises.
- No em dashes. Plain English.
```

## Getting a better result

- Give real spend, including agency fees and production costs, or the ranking is fiction.
- The sensitivity check is what to show when someone insists their channel is undervalued.
- Take the test in section 4 seriously; it is usually cheaper than another quarter of arguing.

---

From the QuQi prompt library - https://www.quqi.io/prompts/channel-mix-comparison