Slashdot Mirror


Hits or Misses: Who is Your Website's Audience?

securitas writes "The Christian Science Monitor's Gregory M. Lamb wrote a story interesting to anyone who runs a website: How do you accurately and reliably measure the audience for your website? From the article: 'Most websites have no idea how many people view their content. This inherent fuzziness is causing problems for commercial websites, especially online publications desperate to make money from Internet advertising... How can you charge for ads when it's nearly impossible to tell advertisers how many people will see them?' The article discusses the flaws and problems with Nielsen/NetRatings and comScore Media Metrix - they grossly undersample workplace users - and the rise in the number of sites requiring user registration."

23 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Cookies? by Mz6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Call me oblivious, but wasn't this one of the reasons why cookies were created?

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:Cookies? by howlatthemoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What cookies don't tell you is who the person is, are visitors in the target demographic, are you missing an audience, etc. Of course, that said, I don't want to give that information out to most advertisers.

    2. Re:Cookies? by grahamm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should a web site have "target demographics" anyway? In considering advertising, should the advertising not be made appropriate for the people who do visit rather than the text be made appropriate for the target audience of the advertising?

    3. Re:Cookies? by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That would be nice, but the sad fact is that ad-supported corporate media exists to sell more ads, not to provide worthwhile entertainment or information. For example, do you think TV networks care if their shows have any dramatic or artistic merit? Maybe they once did, but the fact that well-written scripted shows are being replaced so heavily by "reality tv" shows they're pretty much just putting on anything they can to reach coveted demographics.

      On the other hand, if you're running a website for more altruistic purposes and then decide you need to start using ads to help defray your costs (rather than building the site in the first place in an attempt to make a profit), trying to reach a target demographic is probably the first sign you've completely sold out.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  2. Isn't it obvious by DecimalThree · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that is why most online advertising consists of fees based on the 'per click' methodology?

    "How can you charge for ads when it's nearly impossible to tell advertisers how many people will see them" --- These people use access logs??

  3. Re:mmm... by Mz6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I never really understood the concept behind forcing registration on users. Namely the NYTimes. Granted, I am sure it's for ad revenue, but atleast make it like CNN, MSNBC, etc...

    They know that the majority of these registations are bogus. There are even websites dedicated to fooling it. If the people at NYTimes didn't know any better, there are a TON of Mickey Mouses reading their paper.

    --
    Hmmm.
  4. Uh, No... by EvilJohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is completely backwards. Infact, it's exactly the opposite. It's quite simple to tell how many people view your webpage, and hell of alot easier (and more accurate) than radio or TV.

    This is the source of the problem with web advertising, your numbers fairly accurate and based on actual events, not some satistically questionable sampling method. There's little room for fudging.

    Demographics on the other hand are a little more complicated. There, you actually have to ask.

    ---

    --

    Less Talk, More Beer.
    1. Re:Uh, No... by thogard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's quite simple to tell how many people view your webpage, and hell of alot easier (and more accurate) than radio or TV

      No kidding. For the 1st time in the history of advertising since the invention of the shop sign, someone has a direct way to count how many people see the ads and how many of them respond in some positve way. The resutls aren't even close to the typical guesses used in the advertising game to sell ads so they simply say the web stats are wrong and go back to their old ways that say more comercials are good. Too bad the real stats show that consumers are overstaturated and ignore most ads. The problem is that consumers don't buy ads, its the large comapines that buy the ads and they don't know if its going to work or not so the compaines trust the ad providers to provide useful stats and then trust them even it it disagrees with market data. If you think some of the professional software is broken, take a look at real world ads. Some of them run away customers for years. For example Oral-B had anannoying warning sound on an ad for their toothbrushes and I hate it so much I'll never buy one of their products again and that ad ran a decade ago.

      I was in a meeting room with a bunch of ad idiots that had just charged the company I worked for about a million dollars to put the www.$COMPANY_NAME.com on the tail end of some well recieved comercials that were about "building brand". They said it would increase our hits a thousand times. I had the logs and said it had increased the sites hits to about 20 times what my personal site got. The idiot then asked me how much I spent on advertising my site. One of my coworkers made some comment about it being millions less than what they charged and that the web hits had only doubled. The team of idiots then told us we must be getting our numbers from an unrelaiable ad auditing source and couldn't deal with the concept that our numbers were from the apache logs.

    2. Re:Uh, No... by grahamm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do you detect if someone is accessing via a proxy (maybe not even knowingly, as some ISPs have 'transparent' proxies) which does not honour the no-cache and similar directives? If such a proxy retrieves the page is there any way of telling if it is then served to 1 or 1000 people?

  5. Re:Not too hard by onion2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mandatory reg. puts people off using the site in the first place (Why register if you can see the content.. If you can't see the content who knows if its worth registering for?).

    IP addresses is half the problem (everyone behind one company firewall looks like 1 user).

    Cookies are ok so long as your users are ok with you "tracking their browsing habits".

    Its a tricky puzzle...

  6. You can't: live with it by Stephen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You can't measure the exact number of human visitors to a website, any more than you can measure the exact number of people who read a magazine. With a magazine, two people may read one magazine. With a website, one person may come from two computers, or two people from one computer. The problem is only that people, especially advertisers, seem to expect that exact numbers are somehow possible. But they really need to match their metrics to the medium, and not try and force the medium to fit print-media analogies.

    Anyway, the exact numbers don't really tell you anything. You really need to know the differences between two sub-populations (are visitors from pay-per-click ads or visitors from standard search results more likely to buy?). A program which makes this sort of comparison easy will give you far more insight than one which tries to get the total number of visitors closer to some mythical "true" number.

    (I am the author of analog and CTO of ClickTracks, but I'm writing in a personal capacity).

    --
    11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 1000010001101001100010011
  7. Banner ads and many sites themselves.... by Dagny+Taggert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...amaze me. I recently helped a friend put together a website for his bakery. Why did he want a website? Because it was something to do that he hadn't done before. Will it drive customers to his place? I doubt it; most small companies like that survive on local ads and word of mouth. I guess my point is that I am still, after all this time, doubtful when it comes to the accuracy of usefulness of ads or site based on visits, click-throughs, etc. I don't think knowledge of the availability of a product is enough; a site must be informative and interactive above and beyond what other forms of advertising can do. While some companies do a great job of this, too many others are like my friend's site---little more than a billboard.

    --
    Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
  8. Re:CSM by WoodenRobot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The CSM is essentially secular. See the 'about us' pages. Seems that the naming of the CSM was a rather unpopular move by the paper's creator, Mary Baker Eddy - the rest of the staff didn't seem to want to call it that, since it's not really Christian at all...

    --
    ---
    "I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
  9. This isn't rocket science! by peterdaly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tracking unique visitors?
    Not that hard if small margin of error is ok.

    Charging for ads when you don't know how many page views you will get?
    What about CPM (cost per 1k impression) rates? Want 10k impressions? Pay for 10k impressions.

    Target demographics?
    How about track what article topics are popular, how many return readers per topic, etc?

    These are not that hard to do with the right people. The guy who writes the "techie column" in many cases is not the right person.

    I guess if you think like a newspaper, you end up with these problems seeming impossible to figure out.

    Have I lost my marbles, or is this really not that hard?

    -Pete

  10. Oh come on! by peterdaly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Read the article. They are complaining that one user may read the content from work and from home, and so count as two users. One might also point out that sometimes two people may use the same computer, and only count as one person.

    My wife and I both read the same article/section in the newspaper we got yesterday, even though we only got a single paper. (We "logged" 1 impression even though 2 were made.)

    I understand that is the opposite of what you suggest, so...

    Not only that, but we had some sections delivered to us that we (gasp!) threw out without even reading even though we may have been part of the target demographic. (We "logged" 1 impression even though 0 were made.)

    And the web is different how?

    -Pete

  11. Relative comparisons over time/section are best by tentimestwenty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I find the value of web logs is more the relative growth of traffic, or from section to section. Since one can assume relatively the same degree of error each month (i.e. 2 users on the same computer, 1 user on 2 computers, etc.) you can gain a lot of information just by comparing logs over time. The same goes for section by section. If your web site has 5 distinct sections you can compare within them and then over time. Advertisers like to know absolute numbers, but if you can tell them that they'll get 2x if they advertise on a particular portion of your site and it's likely that section gets a certain type of visitor that is very valuable. In the least it gives you some solid direction about what your users want so you can build a better site, and eventually get more ad revenue from it.

  12. Re:Stupid crackhead mods by kfg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If you think Caddyshack is a "classic" then it's you who is probably a "little kiddie." It's a pretty funny film but certainly not a classic!

    By actual poll of caddies Caddyshack is the best movie ever made about Caddies. That meets the definition of classic.

    Caddyshack II was voted the worst movie about caddies.

    Of course they are also the only two movies ever made about caddies, but we'll overlook that for now.

    Personally I'm an officiando of dancing gopher puppets, so it's Caddyshack all the way, the undisputed classic of the genre.

    Everybody! "I'm alright. . . "

    KFG

  13. I wish Internet advertisers would learn... by Xugumad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not going to click on your banner. Nope. Not a chance. Not happening.

    It's not that I'm not interested in your product. Online adverts I see actually tend to be:

    1. Something unavailable to me (wrong country).
    2. Something of no interest to me.
    3. Something I own already (this happens a _lot_ with Gamespy).

    But that's not the point. The point is, I'm at the web site because I'm looking for something, and it's probably not your product. When watching TV, I never watch an advert, and immediately decide to research/buy that product. At best I'll make a mental note to have a look out for information on it later, in most cases I won't think about it until I'm looking for that kind of product, at which point I'll probably remember your advert.

    An example might be easier. I frequently see adverts for car insurance. I don't drive, for a variety of reasons, but if I was going to learn and buy a car, I'd probably start calling around the companies whose names I remembered from adverts. Well, actually I'd Google for a comparison site, but lets pretend I'm too lazy to do that, okay?

    Oh, also, pop-ups/unders are a really good way of persuading me to avoid your company, your advertiser, and whatever site I got the pop-up/under from.

    1. Re:I wish Internet advertisers would learn... by Xugumad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, while I'm on a roll (just mod me offtopic, I'm ranting here)...

      If I'm on your site, you have my attention. Stop trying to get my attention with fancy tricks that break my browser or talk half an hour to download.

      Don't resize my browser. If I wanted my browser window to fill the screen, I'd be resized it myself. Equally, if I wanted a poky little window that happens to perfectly fit your site, I can grab that little resize widget myself. It's not like you're saving me effort, as I have to then resize the window back again later.

      Don't tell me your site won't work with my browser. Let me try. Chances are, you've mis-detected my browser, and/or haven't tested in three years, and it'll work just fine if you let me in.

      Okay, going to go get some actual work done now.

  14. Mind boggling stupidity by danharan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who cares about demographics? We're trying to figure out what people's interests are, what types of ads they'll respond to.

    Well, duh. If a visitor looks at the sports pages during work hours, you have a fair deal of information about that person already. Isn't that already enough to serve up ads that would likely be relevant?

    If these dead-tree publishers of yesterday's news got a clue, they might also realize that web-ads are actionable, and actions can be counted. Do people click on the ads? Do they generate leads or sales? There's this interesting industry called affiliate marketing they should look into (my guess is they'd make good money off personals and job ads).

    What they read, when they read it, and what ads they want to learn more about. WTF more do they need?

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  15. advertising by mabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For those who haven't figured it out already, the web is not an advertising medium. Yes, you can find people who will pay for advertising, but it's a peripheral and unimportant element of the service.

    Hasn't the dot-com-bust taught us anything? Revenue models based on advertising are not going to work except for the rare few who have market share and a steady stream of gullible businesses that want to cheat and try to buy an audience instead of building one.

    Anyone who needs to know how many people are on his/her site and their nature, will already know, and will already have things in place to measure and qualify this. The most obvious of which is sales of their products/services. Traffic reports are amusing but otherwise irrelevent unless you're in the business of selling traffic reports (like Nielsen - another bottom feeder that is providing a crutch to businesses in an effort to continue to perpetuate the myth that online advertising is worthwhile).

  16. Earing the right to count your visitors by amichalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is all about earning the right to count your visitors.

    There is NO WAY I am going to spend time giving up my privacy and demographic information if the site has not earned the right to waste my time.

    When you walk into any store in the mall there is a small laser that is counting foot traffic. Each person or close walking couple breaks the beam once to enter and once to exit. It isn't precise, but it is close enough and further the store EARNED THE RIGHT to count visitors becuase there is a reward - viewing the merchandise. Plus, there is a very low cost (exposure to a low powered laser).

    Compare this to a website that would require you to fill out a form, presumably with valid info (the article mentions 90210 as the most popular zip code on the web), and THEN you get to see the content. No thanks. potentially valuable content not worth the bother.

    Now if there was some technology that would allow you to store this reader profile and it would be transmitted when you visited a website without the need to fillout a form, I bet some people would use it.

    But no one wants to give their drivers license to the GAP store clerk before entering and there will never be a time that, no matter how valuable it would be for a web site owner, people provide valid, accurate data on who they are to view site content that has not earned the right to ask for that information.

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  17. How to track? Use Google AdSense by Goldenhawk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I have been pondering the same issue for quite some time, as my business depends heavily on internet traffic. I've found one of the best ways to both track traffic, and benefit from it, is the Google AdSense program.

    With a relatively compact bit of javascript embedded into a page, the user gets hopefully relevant ads that are not obtrusive or flashy, same as the Google Adwords text-only ads you see on the right side of the Google results pages. And you can customize the colors and format to suit your own pages. Google, while they do serve the ads based on your site's content, do allow you to prohibit certain keywords, so you can block out competitors' ads.

    To make it useful to the host, Google allows you to create "channels", so within one AdSense account you can track different pages. You can get a detailed report of how many pageviews each channel generates, as well as click-thrus (which of course leave your site).

    To sweeten the deal, you get paid for click thrus. That means you get paid when someone leaves your site, but my philosophy is that if they do that, they weren't planning on sticking around anyway, so I might as well profit from it.

    In my case, my site generates about 3000 pageviews and 15 clickthrus, and that translates into about $1 a day in revenue. It's not much, but I roll that back into the Google AdWords campaigns that I run, which generate inbound traffic. I'd rather have people coming to my site that want to be here, than those that don't, so I see it as a fair trade.

    And in the end, the reporting and tracking are handled by Google, and provide a tangible benefit to my business.

    Oh, and if you want to see an example in operation, look at the very bottom of our site's main page.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music