Myth: native outperforms display, full stop.

Myth: native outperforms display, full stop.
Wrong — the comparison is usually rigged. A retailer claimed native beat display 3-to-1 on cost-per-acquisition. Then someone matched attribution windows.

Display was measured on a 1-day click window. Native on 30-day click plus 1-day view. Native was simply harvesting credit display had already earned.

Rebuilt on identical 7-day click, view-through off: native's cost-per-acquisition went from $12 to $34. Display's stayed at $26. Native lost.

Native wasn't a better channel. It was a better-credited channel. Change the measurement and the "winner" flips. So which channel actually drove the sale — or were you just rewarding whoever stood closest to the cash register?