Why Single-Touch Attribution Still Dominates (and Why It’s Holding B2B SaaS Back)

For decades, attribution has been the promise of clarity in a world of complexity. Marketers want to know: which campaigns are working, which channels deserve investment, and which programs actually influence revenue? On paper, attribution answers those questions. In practice, however, the models we rely on often distort reality.

As per RevSure's State of B2B Marketing Attribution in 2025, nearly 90% of B2B SaaS marketers still use either single-touch attribution (48.5%) or basic multi-touch attribution (40.9%) as their primary method. These models feel practical; they fit neatly into reports, align easily with CRM defaults, and provide a simple story to share with leadership: “This is the campaign that drove the deal.”

But this simplicity is an illusion. Single-touch attribution assumes buyer journeys are linear, when in fact they are multi-threaded, recursive, and often involve six to ten stakeholders in enterprise sales. Even basic multi-touch models, which attempt to spread credit across touchpoints, assign arbitrary weights without accounting for context, behaviors, or funnel velocity.

The result is a picture that looks tidy but doesn’t match reality: some channels get more credit than they deserve, others are systematically undervalued, and critical pipeline insights remain invisible.

‍

Why Single-Touch Persists

If the flaws are so obvious, why does single-touch persist? The answer lies in habit, technology, and organizational psychology.

• Tool Limitations: Most CRMs and marketing automation platforms still ship with first-touch and last-touch attribution out of the box. They are the “path of least resistance,” requiring no new setup, integrations, or process changes.
• Organizational Inertia: Teams that have long reported attribution in terms of “what drove the lead” or “what closed the deal” often find it politically difficult to introduce complexity. Attribution conversations are hard; single-touch is easy.
• Perceived Clarity for Stakeholders: Executives often seek a single answer to a straightforward question: “Which campaign worked?” A single number tied to a single campaign makes for a clean board slide, even if it’s misleading.

This is why single-touch wins the political battle for simplicity, while losing the strategic battle for truth.

‍

The Risks of Staying Static

Remaining reliant on outdated attribution isn’t just a technical limitation. It’s a strategic risk.

• Budget Misallocation: Channels that are easy to track (paid search, retargeting) get inflated credit. Channels that influence deeper in the funnel (webinars, community programs, events) appear weak and get underfunded. Over time, this distorts spend and skews ROI.
• Skewed Funnel Insights: Without visibility into how different touchpoints contribute to opportunity progression or deal acceleration, GTM teams are left guessing which programs help and which hurt momentum.
• Eroded Trust with Sales and Finance: When attribution numbers don’t align with pipeline reality or bookings, marketing’s credibility suffers. This erodes cross-functional alignment at exactly the moment when CMOs are being asked to tie spend directly to revenue.

In an era where accountability and precision are demanded from marketing leaders, clinging to simplistic attribution models is not a neutral choice; it actively undermines credibility and performance.

‍

The Next Wave of Attribution

So, what comes after single-touch and basic MTA? Forward-looking GTM teams are adopting models that move beyond counting touches toward reflecting funnel reality and buyer complexity.

Time-decay models account for momentum by assigning more credit to recent touches. Behavior-weighted models distinguish between low-effort signals (such as an email open) and high-value engagements (like a demo request or a visit to a product page). And AI-driven attribution layers historical performance, persona data, and funnel velocity into dynamic models that assign credit based on the likelihood of contribution to pipeline progression.

The point isn’t to make attribution harder; it’s to make it more representative of the truth. And while these models require cleaner data, predictive modeling, and closer alignment with RevOps and finance, the payoff is attribution that can guide strategic investment, not just explain the past.

‍

RevSure AI Attribution: From Measurement to Guidance

Where most attribution models stop at explaining what happened, RevSure pushes attribution into the realm of what will happen next. This is where AI changes the game.

RevSure AI Attribution doesn’t just distribute credit across touchpoints, it learns from the historical patterns of your funnel and adapts dynamically. Instead of static weights, it evaluates:

• Buyer behavior signals, distinguishing between low-intent and high-intent actions.
• Funnel velocity, how fast similar accounts have historically moved through stages.
• Multi-threaded buying groups, mapping influence across all stakeholders, not just individuals.
• Conversion probability, assigning likelihood scores at account and opportunity levels.

This makes attribution not just descriptive but predictive and prescriptive. Marketing teams can identify which campaigns are likely to accelerate deals, which personas are true decision-makers, and where spending should be reallocated in real-time.

The result is attribution that behaves less like a static report and more like a growth co-pilot, guiding budget allocation, informing sales prioritization, and aligning with revenue forecasts.

‍

Benchmark: A Warning and an Opportunity

Our survey findings highlight a sobering reality: only 10.6% of B2B SaaS marketers currently use AI-driven attribution. That is both a warning and an opportunity.

• Warning: The overwhelming majority of teams remain in the shallow end of measurement, producing reports that simplify but distort the truth.
• Opportunity: Early adopters gain a strategic edge by linking attribution not only to lead counts but to pipeline velocity, conversion confidence, and revenue forecasting.

One CMO in our study captured the shift well: “We don’t need attribution dashboards anymore, we need attribution engines that tell us where to spend the next dollar.”

‍

Moving Beyond the Comfort Zone

For teams still entrenched in single-touch attribution, the path forward doesn’t require ripping and replacing everything overnight. It requires deliberate evolution.

The first step is auditing your data flows: where do touchpoints live, and where are the gaps? From there, standardizing inputs like UTM parameters and lead source values reduces noise. Piloting advanced models on a limited scope — specifically, a single campaign, a single region, or a single funnel stage — allows teams to build confidence before scaling. Most importantly, attribution must be validated with RevOps and finance so that the outputs align with pipeline and bookings, not just marketing dashboards.

This iterative approach moves attribution from fragile simplicity toward dynamic accuracy without overwhelming the organization.

‍

Final Thought: The Future Belongs to the Dynamic

Single-touch attribution served its purpose in an earlier era, when buyer journeys were simpler, sales motions were more linear, and marketing accountability was less scrutinized. That era is over.

Today’s SaaS landscape is defined by multi-threaded accounts, digital buying groups, anonymous signals, and AI-accelerated GTM strategies. Attribution models that ignore this reality don’t just fail; they actively mislead.

Marketers who persist with simplistic models risk underfunding the very programs that build a long-term pipeline. Those who embrace dynamic, AI-powered approaches will not only defend their budgets; they will also earn a strategic seat at the table, guiding where growth investments should be made.

Curious how your peers are evolving attribution to reflect modern B2B realities? Download The State of B2B Attribution 2025 for benchmarks, maturity frameworks, and a 90-day roadmap to stronger attribution.