Skip to main content

The immeasurable web

The internet is quite possibly the greatest thing numbers folks could ask for -- number of regular internet users within a country, segmented by demographic, state, income; what web sites they visit, how much they spend and how many conversations they're having. Numbers everywhere.

I want to preface this by saying that this is quote possibly the most pompous thing I've ever done on this blog: Quote myself. As I've often explained to clients, students, co-workers, friends and family who are unaware of WebTrends, Clicktracks, comScore, Nielsen, log files, clickthroughs, unique visitors and hits vs. impressions:


"The greatest part about the internet is that you can measure everything. Getting everyone to agree on the numbers is another issue." - Me


[Author's note: Excuse me, I need you to make room for my head on the page while you read.]

Another story is out today about how a web property (Myspace) was getting jobbed on their uniques. To me, the argument is a closed-case. The IAB (Internet Advertisers Bureau) has demanded an audit of comScore and Nielsen, who both essentially sample a percentage of internet users and extrapolate that to represent all internet use (you can see how completely fucked that model is online), which should be provided by the end of the year.

Throwing another monkey wrench into the equation is how antiquated algorithms account for newer technologies like AJAX. This has also proven tricky for both of the major players in this space:

But then there are also wild variations between ComScore and Nielsen Online's panel data, which further muddies the waters.


Sucks for advertisers. And for publishers. Interesting to note that "deleting cookies" and "work/home internet access" are listed as reasons the big players don't trust publishers' log files, claiming that they inflate the numbers. While that may be true, it doesn't explain why either are able to explain why they're unable to track specific access to sites, like Facebook, or the significant drop off in September when kids go back to school. In fact, it takes several months for their "ratings" to adjust and account for college students.

There are several players trying to fill in this gap. Quantcast offers what they're calling "Open Internet Ratings Service", by using a hybrid approach of pulling in numbers from log files and from a panel of 1 million folks. Compete is also offered as an alternative in this space but at this point they're not a true measure of log fies.

What's the solution? Well, for starters let's agree to share access to your log files. That's a great first step and it completely kills this notion that a sampling of internet users determines all internet usage. Not gonna happen. A second approach would be agreeing on which stats matter. Is it impressions? Unique monthly visitors? Time spent on a site? Conversion rate? These are all based on mass. The greater the mass, the higher the value. Right, Britney?

When it comes to measurement, however, I don't think measuring the masses is the answer. I've said it before, but the question, while easy to dismiss if you're loading up the buckshot and pulling the shotgun's trigger, isn't how great the audience is by volume, but rather by quality.

Is quantity a measure of success? Sure, if the only thing that matters is eyeballs. But the low clickthrough rates of banner ads suggests the offline measurement model being used by advertising doesn't work much better online. Even Google PPC ads that yield a 5% click through are considered as success -- and the last time I looked 5% was a failing grade.

Let me put this into perspective for you with yet another anecdote:

A project I worked on while at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan was a basic event invitation form. Success for this campaign was determined by the number of RSVPs by a certain date. We sent out email invites to 50 physicians, and all 50 RSVP'ed via our online form. That's a 100% success rate. Would advertisers care about it? No, but to individual businesses riding the long tail it does matter.

The point is that while the web may be immeasurable, the metrics discussion will never end partly because the goals set up front are meaningless. 5%? I'll take 100% any day.

Update: Proof positive: via Valleywag, "ComScore backtracks on numbers that tanked Google's shares". Nice.


Comments

Quantify Me said…
One thing that wasn't mentioned was quantcast's option for sites to collaborate (collude?) in gather stats. Sites insert some code which pings quantcast every time a page is hit. This also has the ability to track the reach of those video and music players that people embed in their web pages which can reveal a lot about the true reach of a site.

The best example I can think of is imeem.com, the 'youtube of music', which in terms of site visits is scoring a healthy 9million US uniques per month putting it just oustide the top 100. On alexa and compete it scores in the same ball park.

But on quantcast's imeem stats page there's a link to 'imeem network'
http://www.quantcast.com/p-03Kgz0RV6Ztmc
which shows that this site that's generally considered to be something of a tier 2 social site is actually hitting something like 150million uniques per month through people embedding widgets in their pages, making it bigger than sites like msn, ebay and amazon.

Popular posts from this blog

How to Rick Roll Someone

I've noticed a lot of traffic to my blog from a post I did on Rick Roll. In particular, people are looking for how to do it. So, without further adieu, here's a quick 1, 2, 3 on "How to Rick Roll Someone."


Pick your target. This should be someone not suspecting a peculiar link, email or heads up. Works great if you're the guy/girl in the office known for sending YouTube links via IM
Grab the URL. The YouTube video is probably the easiest to snag, because the URL isn't a dead giveaway. Sites that truncate URLs like SnipURL and TinyURL are handy if you want to send folks to yougotrickrolled.com.
Pick your delivery method and send! IM, email, blog (wink!), what-have-you.


Please, feel free to get creative. Our programmers used a "Can someone test this site?" email to the office to Rick Roll the entire staff. Or better yet - send the URL along to unsuspecting family members as "Our newest family pictures!".

Another fun way is via conference or phon…

My first Facebook spam!

Well, that didn't take long. I was spammed twice today via my Facebook profile by someone named Andrea Rowe, saying that she likes my profile picture (flattery is my weak spot) and wanted to chat. She's promoting a site through one of the TinyURL-esque sites and let me know that her username is "foxy_hotty". Here's her follow up message:


hi there David, how's it going? i wanted to chat with you, but they don't have that here, whatever. if you'd like to, you can check out my other profile at http://snipurl.com/XXXXX my username's foxy_hotty. we can chat there, just dont mind the bad pics, lol. soooo, ya, see you i hope.


Yes, I edited the SnipURL ending because I refuse to give spammers free promotion or even worse, the click through. For those unaware, sites like SnipURL and TinyURL allow you to send truncated versions of URLs, which is particularly handy when you're posting URLs to your blog (formatting) or SMS-based tools like Jaiku and Twitte…

Fake Facebook Likes and Twitter Followers -- And the Implications for Brands

This post originally appeared on the Large Media blog.


There's been a lot of talk about Twitter followers lately, including both presidential candidates, celebrities, musicians and the like utilizing services to game their numbers. Specifically, a lot of the "Top 10" have been found to have a substantial amount of fake followers, in some case to the point where 70% of their following is either bots or inactive profiles. Most articles and infographics on the subject are telling, however with a little digging you can find out that there are also social media "experts" utilizing the service to give the appearance of bloated numbers. Intrigued, and given our rare propensity to tweet as an agency, we wanted to see what the fuss was about.

So we gave it a try.

Discovery

In August we saw some ads on a third party Twitter "profile checker" site  saying they can send a thousand followers your way for $9. The process is pretty simple: select how many followers yo…