Pageview is Giving Way to New Metrics and it's About Time

MarketingVox, one of my favorite marketing sites has an excellent article about page-view becoming obsolete as a major metric for site success.

This is an issue I've been very passionate about. While page-views are important for determining part of the overall site metrics, I personally feel that in the new era of social media, social networking, social sites that combine different technologies like Ajax and Flash, it's becoming less and less relevant and important. Steve Rubel's article about page-view is a brilliant description of how other aspects and other metrics are becoming more important.

One of the aspects of the Web 2.0 mindset is to have users interact with the website. As more and more people spend more time online, companies are finding ways to encourage user interaction. Sometimes this happens on a single page, other times it's browsing. With the Web 2.0 mindset, page-view is less descriptive of the behavior of the users.

In the past, we looked at page views as a way to see where people are going on a website, we can see them migrate from the homepage, to the category page to the product page and finally to the checkout and purchase page. This linear model is becoming less and less relevant in socially based sites. YouTube and MySpace rely on people to bounce from profile to profile, video to video and interact with the elements on the page. This creates less of a linear pathway and more of a meandering pathway.

Steve Rubel describes tracking "events" as a more important way to look at analytics and user behavior on a site. He makes an excellent point that page-views and even unique visitors don't account for multiple monitors, multiple windows or in Firefox (I would assume) multiple tabs. As I write this post, I have 9 tabs open.

He makes an excellent point that I completely agree with:

Time Spent

With the rise of online video and other rich media, marketers also rely on time spent to measure attention. This is a good metric and it even holds as people interact with embedded video and widgets on whatever platform they choose.

Unfortunately, time spent fails to capture the most engaged users who like to peruse RSS feeds. For example, I subscribe to multiple RSS feeds from the Wall Street Journal but I only click through on those that I want to dig deeper. Still I spend up to 10 minutes a day with my Journal feeds and over an hour a day overall within my Google RSS reader. That time is not accounted for - at least by the Journal, but certainly by Google. There's the dilemma

His conclusion is that the more we track events and time spent, the more accurate the data is going to be to determine user behavior, site value and overall marketing efforts.

Right now, the industry still values some of the more traditional methods of determining and interpreting metrics, but I agree with Steve Rubel. There's an analytic shift that corresponds with the new way of internet marketing and Web 2.0 that current habits dont fully describe.

Google's Webmaster Tools Enhance Backlink Information

One of the holy grails of search marketing is to capture backlinks. It's hard to find the quality ones, it's hard to get some good (I hate the term) link bait, and it's hard to develop a backlink strategy that involves a ton of directories you've never heard of before.

Now that Google's added backlink information as a part of its webmaster tools, people like Matt Cutts and Andy Beal are reiterating the following:

- Do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight. I’m going to say that again: Do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight. Sometime in the next year, someone will say “But I saw an insert-link-fad-here backlink show up in Google’s backlink tool, so it must count. Right?” And then I’ll point them back here, where I say do not assume just because you see a backlink that it’s carrying weight.

So, if you can assume that viewing more backlinks that may or may not carry any ranking weight is inherently a good thing, the first question I had was what's the point? Why would Google add the links that they would essentially consider to be dren, when a simple link:searchintelligence.blogspot.com will actually give me some of the links that actually lend weight to the ranking relevance.

To tell the truth, I havent exactly figured it out yet. I'm not sure what the real value is, but I do know that the more data revealed, there's a potential that more useful revelations can be made, however, it also carries the potential that data-overload and perception blindness might set in.

I'm definately going to play with this for a while and write again on how it can be turned from raw data into actionable intelligence.

Doritos Ad - User Generated Video for the Super Bowl

One of the things I like about the Super Bowl is the mad rush and the pre-bowl ad buzz. There was a fairly innocuous ad with Kevin Federline (*shudder*) or K-Fed, imagining he was a rap star, when he wakes up, he's pulling fries out of some hot oil. Nationwide Insurance ran this ad, and of course, some people found issue with the idea of working in a fast food joint demeaning. This drew fire from restaurant groups.

Another ad from Snickers featured two guys mimicing Lady and the Tramp and accidentally kissing as they eat the Snickers bar from both ends. My friend Cord Silverstein sums that one up pretty well.

One of the ads that I really enjoyed was the Doritos UGV ad:




It was simple, effective, funny and endearing. Plus, it helps that the creators of the spot were from Cary, NC... a wonderful place to live.

It wasn't over the top, and it communicated the brand very well. I think that this could really be the next big thing for advertisers, tapping local talent, brand loyalists and aspiring directors to generate positive buzz (in the form of video)

Defining Search Metrics: Search Engine Saturation

In my last articles about search engine metrics, I defined search engine presence as "the number of times a site shows across the search engines for a selected set of keywords". Next, I defined, explained and showed an example of search engine fluctuation as "the natural fluctuation of presence of the same selected set of keywords over time".

This time, I want to talk about the two types of search engine saturation. I'd like to defne search engine saturation as essentially "presence over the total data size". In statistics, the data size is represented by the variable "n". If the data size is a dozen eggs, then n=12. The data size of states in the US is n=50. In this case, we're measuring results over three search engines. "SE" = 3. If we included Ask.com in the results, SE would equal 4. However, at this point, we're only measuring 3 search engines, Google, MSN and Yahoo!.

The next part is the total number of results tallied. Since we're measuring the top 15 ranks in Google, the top 10 in MSN and Yahoo!. With this information, we can calculate the total data size for any data capture.

n= (# of keywords) * (15 Google + 10 MSN + 10 Yahoo!).

in this case:

n= (3)*(35) = 105

To calculate the saturation, you divide each presence by "n" to get the percentage of the search engines the site occupies as a function of the entire marketspace.

Domains	SE Presence	SE Presence	SE Saturation	AVG Saturation
www.apple.com	7	17	16.19%	11.43%
www.engadget.com	7	9	8.57%	7.62%
en.wikipedia.org	4	7	6.67%	5.24%
www.gizmodo.com	6	6	5.71%	5.71%
www.appleinsider.com	5	4	3.81%	4.29%
www.mobilewhack.com	5	4	3.81%	4.29%
www.thinksecret.com	7	3	2.86%	4.76%
news.bbc.co.uk	4	3	2.86%	3.33%
www.businessweek.com	3	3	2.86%	2.86%
appleiphone.blogspot.com	0	3	2.86%	1.43%
www.macworld.com	1	3	2.86%	1.90%
www.everythingiphone.com	5	2	1.90%	3.33%
gizmodo.com	4	1	0.95%	2.38%

Apple.com has a presence of 17, and divided by 105, the search engine saturation equals 16.19%, which represents the market share of the marketspace. This number will fluctuate as the results fluctuate. The saturation measurement is useful as a snapshot of the search engine space and a result of your campaign. However, what's really important is the trend of data. You want your presence to rise and you will want your average saturation to rise as well. The average saturation measures the health of the life of the campaign as the raw numbers of the presence fluctuate. In essence, it's a measurement that you can measure and quantify to see if you're doing well, or if you're trending down.

Each of these metrics have value in and of themselves, however, when taken as a whole, they start to give you a clearer picture of the life of the natural search campaign.

Lord of the Rings Online's Launch Gains Traditional Media Response

Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar, brought to life by Turbine Games is going to be released on April 24 this year. This is the first time that Middle Earth, the legacy that launched and inspired the entire fantasy movement will be available to thousands of fans.

There are two aspects of this release that I've found interesting. I would argue that 2006 was the year that MMORPG's (massively multiplayer online role-playing games) became prevalent in the eyes of the public, the news, investors, futurists... and as a rumor that's been circulating, even interesting to Google. Last year, we saw what was once really only noticed by those of us who have *cough* geekier *cough* interests, are being noticed by a wider audience and are gaining credibility within more communities. The watershed event, I would imagine, is when Blizzard Entertainment announced that their game World of Warcraft has over 7 million subscribers, even more recently, they announced that they just hit 8 million. There were figures released that reveal that MMO's represent over 10 billion dollars in world wide spend.

Now, it seems that more traditional sources of information are reporting on launches of MMORPG's. From the New York Times, to Fox News, there is a lot of buzz about this game that doesn't come from the gaming industry. I think that this combines the fact that the story of Middle Earth and the brave free peoples in it, is universal and loved the world over and the fact that MMO's are quickly becoming big business. While amongst the true fans of Tolkien's work, there is some worry and skepticism that the online version of the game will dillute Tolkien's story, I think that as more and more people embrace their digital lives, the art of other people will find themselves online.

In 1955, Tolkien began to worry his creation had become a “vast game” for some readers. This was not good, he wrote, even “for me, who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive.” It seems that Tolkien would disapprove of his creation to be represented as a "game". However, I think that his use of the word "game" represents people who are taking his work as trivial, as mere fantasy and as something that, because it's not real, it cannot teach us anything valuable about ourselves. However, as we see science fiction, another aspect of the overall "fantasy" genre, we can see that often times, observance about the human condition can come from unlikely places.

This is what I think Tolkien meant when he worried that his creation was becoming a "game". In Turbine's MMO, they've assured the anxious, the excited people who love the story, that they're making the game reflect Tolkien's love, his detail and his message in the game. While there will be some departure from the canon, all the decisions that change the lore are, at least, faithful to the spirit of his work.

Back to the business of MMORPG's. When the game Star Wars Galaxies launched, there was very little response from the traditional media. The only outlets for information was from game related news organizations. However, because of the widely noticed success of World of Warcraft and Second Life, a launch that combines such a universal intellectual property and the timing of more media recognizing how big online worlds are, Lord of the Rings Online stands to have a significant entry into the MMO market. Time will tell if the players remain faithful to the game or if the skeptics will be converted... but at no other time has an online game gathered such an interest from the outlets that have traditonally ignored gaming (unless there was a scandal or controversy like Grand Theft Auto).

Following, is the preview of the game from Game Trailers' newly embedded player. Personally, I plan to be in Middle Earth with my friends, my digital friends and I plan to create my very own Fellowship.


Update: MarketingVox "The Voice of Online Marketing" has also picked up the launch of "LOTRO".

Defining Search Metrics: Search Engine Fluctuation

LeeAnn Prescott, the research director for the US markets at Hitwise,
revealed that after Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone at MacWorld, that the search demand for the iPhone has superceded the search demand for the iPod. It's only a slight coincidence that earlier I defined the concept of "search engine presence" using the example of the iPhone.

That search engine presence measured the top ranking sites, ignoring position, instead focusing on ranking on a variety of terms, that dominate the search engines for a selected sampling of keywords.

Because I was explaining a concept, I chose to use a small sample of keywords that related to a topic that interested me. I used: "iphone, apple iphone, ipod phone". The results were as follows.

	1/10/2007
Domains	SE Presence
www.apple.com	7
www.thinksecret.com	7
www.engadget.com	7
www.gizmodo.com	6
www.appleinsider.com	5
www.mobilewhack.com	5
www.everythingiphone.com	5
gizmodo.com	4
en.wikipedia.org	4
news.bbc.co.uk	4
www.businessweek.com	3

These sites ranked for the preceding terms on 10 Jan. However, for the 4 weeks that ended on 20 Jan, Hitwise compiled the following top sites that had traffic from the term "iPhone".

Apple's sites receive over 50% of the traffic from the iPhone search, however, Engadget, by being one of the most trusted sites on consumer electronics and also having the benefit of ranking well across the board for the searches, received the 4th highest amount of traffic. Hitwise and my search engine presence tool measures two different things, I can only measure presence, Hitwise can measure traffic. While I know that I'm comparing apples to oranges, here's where we see the overlap of traffic and presence.

In the 13 days where I took my first measurements, the search engine marketspace has fluctuated. Supporting the idea that traffic and clickthroughs can influence ranking in the search engines. Notice that Apple and Engadget have a significant upsurge in their presence.

	1/10/2007	1/23/2007
Domains	SE Presence	SE Presence
www.apple.com	7	17
www.engadget.com	7	9
en.wikipedia.org	4	7
www.gizmodo.com	6	6
www.appleinsider.com	5	4
www.mobilewhack.com	5	4
www.thinksecret.com	7	3
news.bbc.co.uk	4	3
www.businessweek.com	3	3
appleiphone.blogspot.com	0	3
www.macworld.com	1	3
www.everythingiphone.com	5	2
gizmodo.com	4	1

We see EverythingiPhone.com, Gizmodo and ThinkSecret.com drop in their presence, we see Wikipedia increase their presence.

As the search for iPhones increase, as they have... that's created the circumstances for the search engines to continually shuffle the results, shuffle the ranks and shuffle the presence. However, what we have strong evidence for here is that ranks change, presence fluctuates and the environment changes. Therefore, it's vital for any company who has a search engine marketing strategy to keep tabs on the environment for their selected keywords and not just on the position or rank of just a few. If you dont notice the change, it's likely that you could be left behind.

While LeeAnn Prescott and I are measuring two different things, traffic vs. presence. The overlapping data as it applies to the search engines often complement each other and provide a larger picture of what's happening.

Thanks LeeAnn, your article was brilliant, informative and I enjoyed reading every bit of it.

User Generated Video Popular, Yet Hard to Monetize

eMarketer, one of the best sources for marketing information, research and analysis posted an interesting article the other day about user generated online video (UGOV). They referenced a study from London's Screen Digest that found that user generated online video was responsible for 47% of all the video consumed in the US in 2006. They further predict that by 2010, UGOV will account for 55% (44 billion streams) of video consumption on the net.

Like my prior article about monetizing virtual worlds, companies and marketers are looking at the sheer numbers of eyes on the monitor and they're recognizing that this could become a significant source of revenue and branding for them. eMarketer goes on to recognize that while UGOV is a significant source of traffic and media consumption, it only accounts for 15% of revenue from online video sources.

So what's a company to do? How does one create a stable business and profit around UGOV? One answer is to do what Current TV is doing. One of the ways is to create a cable channel like Current TV. I truly enjoy Current TV. They're edgy, they're smart and they create an addictive program watching experience. I like the fact that in the span of an hour, I can be touched, offended, enlightened, frightened and entertained by their submitted videos. Current TV drives traffic to their site and the site drives users to their TV. I enjoy what they do and I think they do it well.

Another option is to monetize the traffic that comes into the site by putting ads and sponsored links on the site. However, this may backfire on the providers when ads start piling up on the videos they want to watch. iFilm and Atom films do a good job with putting short ads on their content, but as more and more providers emerge, it'll be tougher to insure that the users are getting what they want, without sacrificing their credibility. Lastly, if I can watch the same video without ads, what's my motivation to watch the ads?

There are other ways to monetize the streams and traffic: digital sales, subscriptions and licencing technology. The desire to generate revenue has reached a point, where it's becoming like the multimedia "industry" in the early 90's.

Viddling Around blog has an excellent commentary that ties in Esther Dyson's "blasphemous" but accurate comment that there "Was no Multimedia Industry". She maintained that multimedia was a feature and not an industry. The post goes on to note that we may be following the same path now and treating UGOV as an industry and not a feature for relevant sites.

The eMarketer article goes on to say that in 2006, revenues from UGOV sites reached $200 Million in advertising revenue. They predict that in 2010, that revenue will increase to over $900 Million.

I however, remain skeptical of that prediction. I believe it's based on current trending only and the theory that they're treating UGOV as an industry in and of itself... not a feature. Only time will tell at this point.

I think that UGOV has huge potential for relevant and contextual markets, but the rush to profit from it reminds me of a few other internet revolution bubbles. It's exciting, it's exhilarating, it's cool and it's hot... but I agree with Viddling Blog and Esther Dyson, it's a feature, not an industry.

Virtual Worlds Get Their Own Conference

Virtual worlds have been getting a lot of attention lately. It seems that people are realizing that digital property can translate into real world profit. In the past year, we've seen companies like Dell make announcements in Second Life and even some politicians like George Miller and Mark Warner have held events there as well. We've seen ideas about the taxation of virtual property, and even companies that run online worlds help real world police find criminals and victims.
The amazing thing about this, is that all this has started to reach a watershed after World of Warcraft announced that it has over 7 million (with an "M") subscribers. Even recently, they announced that they just reached the 8 million mark. Good for them! They deserve it.

With the attention focused on virtual worlds, it seems as if companies, marketers and even the government are all scrambling into a multi-billion dollar industry because they all smell profit. While I have nothing against the free market, I can almost see the gaming community start smirking and waiting to pounce on the poor bastards who make stupid mistakes while trying to communicate to an educated, creative, intelligent and highly defensive and protective community.

Even Sony, the makers of the PlayStation and some of the best games around were pounded mercilessly for their ill-conceived "All I want for Xmas is a PSP" campaign. If there was any company that had some good will stocked up for all its done for us, Sony would be one of them. Nope. They were humbled and shamed into submission for its miserable and, in my opinion, patronizing campaign.

It's been announced by Digital Media Wire, that there will be a virtual worlds conference, to be held in New York. From the article:

"Fortune 500 companies seeking to understand and maximize marketing, entertainment and business strategies within virtual worlds."

I wholeheartedly support the efforts to embrace and understand virtual worlds and the people that inhabit them. I hope that the conference will educate those Fortune 500 companies that they need to do their homework first. I hope that when those companies enter our digital domains that they do so contextually, appropriately, entertainingly and respectfully.

However, I know that not all of them will. I predict that in the next year, there will be a company that jumps into a virtual world, hoping to connect to the gaming community and will get slammed against a wall with such force, other companies will think twice about entering our domain again.

Games marketing have come up with some real nuggets of pure advertising dren, and the good folks at 1UP were kind enough to share some of the worst with all of us. I would like to think that the worst is behind us, but I seriously doubt it. I would like to say that the conference will educate the people of the Fortune 500 to tread carefully, do their homework and for god's sake... talk to us first.

The topics to be covered in the conference will include:

understanding consumer behavior patterns inside virtual worlds; technology and design issues; and the benefits of standalone immersive corporate worlds versus destinations within "Second Life."

While I think that this would be a fascinating, exhilarating and educational conference. I have a hard time believing that these companies are there to understand a rapidly growing social phenomena. Instead, I think that they might just be there to learn how to profit from our virtual worlds.

We'll see if they gain credibility, I hope they figure out a way to enter the virtual world and not make asses of themselves. But we all know that at least one of them will do exactly that this year. I wonder which one it will be?