Skip to main content
reopt Handbook
reopt Handbook
Customer Conversion Simulation

Reading Guide

How to Read the EvidenceConversion Rate Intervals

Conversion Atlas

Conversion Atlas by ChannelConversion Atlas by ProductConversion Atlas by RoleKorean Conversion Atlas

Paid Marketing

Paid Channel BaselinesReported and Incremental ConversionsCreative, Retargeting, and Saturation

Referral Marketing

Referral Funnel MetricsReferral Experiments and Limits to Spread

Partners and Influencers

Influencer Marketing ConversionPartnerships, Collaborations, and Sponsorships

Ecommerce

Ecommerce Conversion BaselinesEcommerce Funnels and CartsEffect Sizes of Ecommerce Levers

SaaS

Self-Serve SaaS ConversionEarly-Stage SaaS ConversionSales-Led Conversion

Apps

Mobile App Acquisition and RetentionApp Subscription ConversionDesktop App Conversion

Consultation and Application Forms

Building Forecasts

Expert Forecasts and CalibrationChoosing a Forecasting ModelLLM Synthetic Customers

Korean Case Studies

Korean Cases: Advertising and CommerceKorean Cases: Consultations, Finance, and Public Experiments

Appendix

Handbook›Customer Conversion Simulation›Partnerships, Collaborations, and Sponsorships
한국어KOEnglishEN

Partnerships, Collaborations, and Sponsorships

Distinguish attribution and incrementality in affiliates, B2B partner win rates, podcast and newsletter sponsorships, and brand collaborations, with attention to denominators.

Written and reviewed by Eric Han · Co-founder & CTO, reopt

Key takeaways

  • The median incremental share of attributed podcast conversions is 28%, with undisclosed control construction. Among brands also buying streaming, it is 14%.
  • Reported conversion rates for the same channel can differ by a factor of about 190 when vendors use different denominators (calculated): Podscribe brand conversions, from free signup to expensive purchase, are 0.021% per impression; Magellan purchases are 3.98% per visitor.
  • Adobe's 20.4% affiliate revenue share for the 2025 holiday season is attributed and includes influencers in the same bucket.
  • A seven-week loyalty/cashback affiliate shutdown found no detectable revenue difference. One case supports only the possibility of zero effect.
  • B2B partner win-rate gains differ within one company's reports: 53% self-reported versus an 11.7% network average. Prefer 11.7%, without interpreting it causally.

Affiliates

EvidenceFigureNatureGrade
Adobe 2025 holiday seasonAffiliates/partners account for 20.4% of US online retail revenue; social 4.6%Attribution model undisclosed; includes influencersB
Haus caseAll loyalty/cashback partners paused for seven weeks; no revenue differenceOne multinational D2C brand, synthetic control, vendor caseD
Edelman and Brandi, JMR 2015Crawlers detected adware and cookie stuffing; violations differed by network2012 data; measurement study showing fraud can contaminate attributionB
Forrester TEIThree-year ROI 314%Composite model from five interviews, commissioned by Impact; not an inputD

The conclusion is “one shutdown did not detect a difference,” not that loyalty affiliates never create incrementality. Coupon affiliates were not tested in that case. We found no public content/review-affiliate incremental estimate or peer-reviewed field experiment on coupon cannibalization. Pausing affiliates by geography or period is a relatively inexpensive measurement approach.

B2B Partners

Win-rate gains for partner-involved deals
Thousands of Crossbeam-network companies, October 2024. Nonrandomized; relative versus percentage-point change unspecified, grade C.
  • 50+ connected partners37.1%
  • Overall average11.7%
  • 1–5 connected partners9.4%
  • 5–10 connected partners2.5%
Source: Crossbeam

The data do not distinguish partners joining promising deals from partners improving outcomes. Do not interpret the dip to 2.5% at 5–10 partners causally.

MetricFigureNatureEvidence
Partner-sourced win-rate gain+53%; cycle −46%Self-report; not an inputCrossbeam 2023, C
Marketplace revenue share20%, expected 32%Respondent estimate; 57% have revenue above $101M. Not early-startup dataTackle 2025, C
Churn among integration users58% lowerSecondary survey citation; engaged customers also self-select into integrationsSecondary citation, D

We found no app-marketplace traffic-conversion benchmark or causal integration-retention study.

Podcast Sponsorship

Two measurement vendors use fundamentally different denominators.

MetricPer impression: PodscribePer reached listener / visitor: Magellan
Visit / responseHost-read 0.29%; producer-read 0.28%2.23% of reached listeners; host-read 3.22%, producer-read 2.09%
ConversionBrand conversions, from free signup to expensive purchase: 0.021%, 0.019%Purchases by 3.98% of visitors; leads by 4.65%
CPA$129, $127—

Podscribe also splits by buying method: fixed-episode buys have 0.40% visit and 0.025% conversion rates; impression-based buys 0.28% and 0.017%.

Sources: Podscribe Q4 2025 and Magellan first half 2026, attributed, grade C. Podscribe's visit and conversion rates both use impressions, so do not multiply them. Doing so understates the result by about 250–345 times (calculated). Only the Magellan column contains sequential stages. Magellan's Q1 averages are 9.74% leads and 5.22% purchases; the vendor warns against direct comparison because periods and aggregation differ.

Incremental Share

Incremental share of podcast attribution by advertiser traffic
(Exposed − control) ÷ exposed; brand medians. Control construction undisclosed; US measurement-vendor data, grade C.
  • 0–1M monthly visits41%
  • Overall median28%
  • 1–5M monthly visits23%
  • 20M+ monthly visits16%
  • Brands also buying streaming14%
  • 5–20M monthly visits12%
Source: Podscribe Q4 2025

At 28%, divide attributed conversions by about 3.6 (calculated). Promo codes and dedicated URLs capture about 21% of attributed conversions; the same source states this is about 75% of incrementality if the incremental share is 28%. Codes miss many attributed conversions but may capture most incremental conversions under that assumption.

Podcast incremental-conversion intervals

Estimate conversions from attributed CPA, then reduce them by incremental share. Concentration is low because control-group construction is undisclosed.

Load a benchmark
Fixed inputs
Stage rates

k sets the spread around the mean. For the same mean, a larger k narrows the interval. A small mean×k skews the distribution and pulls the median below the mean.

Incremental sharePodscribe median; 12–41% by size
Incremental conversions
21conversions
90% interval 9conversions ~ 38conversions
Mean 22conversions · Actual count 7conversions ~ 40conversions · Chance of zero 0.0%
Cost per incremental conversion
$480
90% interval $267 ~ $1,130
Distribution of Incremental conversions5% 9conversions · Median 21conversions · 95% 38conversions
1conversions23conversions44conversions

8,000 runs. The 90% interval holds only rate uncertainty around the expected value; the actual count adds chance variation in counts. Vertical lines mark the 5th percentile, median (darker), and 95th. The last bin collects values above the 99th percentile. Concentration k is an author judgment.

Newsletters

beehiiv 2026 reports a 41.24% open rate and approximately 3% CTR across 28 billion emails. These are platform figures; beehiiv says most bot activity was filtered, but remaining Apple MPP effects cannot be verified. Newsletters using Boosts average 84 new subscribers monthly. The 2.75-times growth of referral-network participants is self-selected. We found no independent sponsorship conversion/incrementality data or retention after cross-referrals.

Brand Collaborations

We found no papers quantifying cohosted-webinar conversion, Instagram collaboration-post conversion, or limited-edition collaboration sales effects. Related platform evidence indicates that 63% of people reached by partnership ads were not exposed to existing ads in the same ad set (ten advertisers, article, C via press).

No public collaboration benchmark was found. Korean partnership evidence also covers only supply and share (Korean Cases). Measure partner audience size and overlap first, then test a small joint campaign with split regions or cohorts.

Simulation Inputs

StageInputEvidence and conditions
Podcast attributed → incremental share12–41%, center 28%US; control construction undisclosed
Podcast per-impression ratesVisits 0.28–0.40%; conversions 0.017–0.025%Both per impression; do not multiply
B2B partner win-rate gain0–12%Nonexperimental; assume limited causal contribution
Loyalty / cashback affiliate incrementalityNo input; measure internallyHaus single case, D, directional only

Do not use Adobe's 20.4%, Forrester's 314%, Crossbeam's 53%, integration churn's 58%, or beehiiv's 2.75 times as inputs.

Related docs

Conversion Atlas by Channel

Compare click-through rates, conversion rates, and costs across Google search, Meta, TikTok, LinkedIn, email, and referrals with evidence grades.

Reported and Incremental Conversions

Use randomized experiments at eBay, Meta, and Google to assess the gap between platform reporting and actual effects, and choose adjustment multipliers for simulations.

Influencer Marketing Conversion

Trace the $5.78 influencer ROI claim, distinguish discount-code attribution from incrementality, and assess follower size, disclosure, and Korean live-commerce figures.

Ecommerce Conversion Baselines

Compare global, UK, and Shopify conversion rates by category and device, and examine Korean public statistics and their limitations.

On this page

AffiliatesB2B PartnersPodcast SponsorshipIncremental ShareNewslettersBrand CollaborationsSimulation Inputs