Using 1:M relationships in Journey Builder Split

Question

I am trying to understand on how to utilize the 1:M relationship in the journey builder decision split.

I have two tables:

CustomerDE (CustomerId[PK], EmailAddress, CustomerName) ContractDE (Customer Id[PK],ContractId[PK], MobileNumber, ContractName, EmailConsent, SMSConsent)

The email is sent on the customer level but the sms is sent on the contract level(due to the fact that the client is a TelCo provider and each contract means buying a SIM). Hence, the consent is always on the Contract level.

Relationship in Contact Builder: Contact relates to CustomerDE (1:1, Contactkey relates to CustomerId) CustomerDE relates to ContractDE (1:M, CustomerDE.Customerid relates to ContractDE.CustomerId)

What I have tried and failed:

I have a journey that sends two SMS in a 10 day time period.

My Target Audience : TargetDE(CustomerId, ContractId, MobileNumber) CustomerId relates to Subscriberkey.

After the first SMS has been sent out,there is a wait period of 5 days and after that the second SMS is sent. but before sending the SMS I need to check the consent. My decision split is using contact data Contact data>CustomerDE>ContractDE.ContractId = JourneyData.ContractId(Attribute to Attribute comparison) AND Contact data>CustomerDE>ContractDE.SMSConsent = True.

However, this condition is not working and all contacts tend to go on the no path.

How do I tackle this? Should I change my contact key relationship in my data model?

Answer 1

If you don't need to have it in one journey, you could split the SMS in two journeys.

This is how:

Replace the second SMS activity with an update contact activity. Create a data extension where the update contact activity can store the subscriberkey.

Query the subscriberkey with the consent table, to see if the consent is Y.

Create a new data extension again, which will be used as the Entry Source for the new journey, that will send the second SMS. This data extension will have the subscriberkey that has consent Y.

Hope the above makes sense.