Products · Taxonomy & Governance
Define your naming conventions once, enforce everywhere
Set the rules for how campaigns, ads, audiences and tracking links are named — then validate every entry at the moment it is created, not in the report six weeks later.
Trusted by
Where naming conventions break down
- Your convention is written down somewhere, and every team that contributes to it moves it a little further from the last version.
- Two people build tracking parameters by hand and you get two parameters, and you find out which is which in the report.
- You name the campaign in the ad platform, then name it again in the warehouse, and the two agree only by coincidence.
- When you correct a convention, you re-tag what has already shipped.
64%
of B2B marketing leaders say they do not trust their own organization’s marketing measurement for decision-making. Names that do not match are one of the reasons the numbers built on them are not believed.
Source: Forrester Marketing Survey, 2024
Conventions become fields, not guidelines
Build templates that encode your taxonomy. Controlled vocabularies for the fields that must match across teams; free text for the fields that shouldn’t; modeled relationships so a choice in one field constrains the next. The correct name becomes the easy name, which is the only kind of governance that holds under deadline.
A name that breaks the convention cannot be submitted
Field-level validation checks every entry as it is made. A value outside the vocabulary is rejected at entry rather than surfacing in a report after the spend is committed. Names, UTMs and tracking codes are generated from the template rather than typed from memory, so there is nothing to mistype.
One campaign ID that matches in every system
Every campaign carries a single identifier, and its attributes travel with it. The same ID resolves in the ad platform, the analytics tool and the warehouse, so cross-system joins stop depending on a hand-maintained lookup table. Values entered once are inherited at every handoff downstream, which is the part your team feels: nobody re-keys the same campaign into the next system. It is the same idea the content product applies to assets — one identity, held at every level you need to measure.
What this is not
It helps to place this against categories that already have a name.
Not a data catalog
A catalog documents data that already exists so people can find it. This governs data before it exists, at the moment it is created.
Not an analytics or BI platform
It does not report on performance. It makes the data your reporting runs on consistent enough to trust.
Not a campaign management or ad platform
It does not buy or traffic media. It defines how the things you buy and traffic get named.
Not a DAM
It governs campaign structure rather than storing assets — though it connects to the DAM you run.
Works with the stack you already run
Native connectors across the ad platforms you buy on, the analytics and storage you report from, and the content systems your assets live in. An API suite and flat-file exchange cover whatever will never have a connector.
Frequently asked questions
Didn't find your answer? Bring your questions to a thirty-minute walkthrough with someone who has done this at enterprise scale — we'll show you, not tell you.
There are three taxonomy products. Which one do I need?
Start here if the problem is how campaigns, ads and tracking links get named in the first place. Choose Taxonomy Management instead if the naming is settled and the difficulty is governing and distributing it across brands, regions and agencies. Choose Content Taxonomy & Governance if the thing you need to identify is creative assets rather than campaign structure. Most teams begin here and add the others as the problem widens.
What is a taxonomy governance framework?
A taxonomy governance framework is the set of rules that decide how marketing data gets named and structured, plus the mechanism that enforces them. The rules are the easy half. Most frameworks fail because enforcement lives in a document and a review meeting rather than in the tool where the data is created. Claravine puts the rules in the template and validates at entry, so compliance is the default rather than an audit finding.
What are best practices for campaign naming conventions?
Keep the convention short enough to read at a glance. Put every value that must match across teams into a controlled vocabulary rather than free text, and order fields from broad to narrow. Decide who owns a change before you need one. Above all, generate the name from a template rather than asking anyone to type it — conventions that rely on typing drift.
How is this different from a data catalog?
A data catalog documents data that already exists, so people can find and understand it. This governs data at the point it is created, so the data is correct before it exists. Catalogs are read-mostly and describe the past; this is write-time and shapes the future. Teams often run both.
Can we keep working in spreadsheets?
Yes. There is a spreadsheet interface and an Excel add-in, so the format stays familiar even though the governance underneath does not. Adoption does not require a change programme, which matters because onboarding complexity is one of the most-reported obstacles in this space.
What happens to the taxonomy we already have?
It gets modeled as templates and controlled vocabularies rather than replaced. Historical data can be mapped where it is worth mapping. Most teams find the existing convention is broadly right and was simply unenforceable.
See it against your own taxonomy
Thirty minutes with someone who has implemented this at enterprise scale, not a generic product tour.
- Your naming conventions modeled as a working template
- Which of your current entries would pass validation, and which would not
- How governance holds without becoming a bottleneck
- What rollout looks like across teams and agencies
- Which of your platforms connect natively
- Pricing and packaging, discussed openly