Online Conversion & Beyond

Search Engine Strategies - London - Orion Panel: All-Star Analytics Team

In a manner befitting a major sporting event, Kevin Ryan (Search Engine Strategies)began the session by asking the All-Stars to introduce themselves beginning with Jim Sterne (Target Marketing and WAA Chairman), Bryan Eisenberg (Future Now), Brian  Clifton (EMEA - Google), Steve Jackson (SATAMA, international Co-Chair WAA) and Ian Thomas (Microsoft). 

And it did look like a sporting event.  The Gallery Hall was packed.

At the outset, the panel tackled the issue of transparency labeled by Bryan Eisenberg as a "church and state separation" issue (i.e. the firm - Google - that sells advertising also measures results).  After lively discussion, some panelists concluded that most of those selling ads will soon have analytics "baked in" to their services. 

This led to a discussion of the benefits of the free tools (Google and Microsoft) which most on the panel supported.  For many small businesses, it's what they can afford.  However, one should not assume that any of the tools are free - the cost of analysis and reporting draws down on the internal resources of the firm, or must be farmed out to consultants or agencies.

Next, the panel discussed data (accuracy) versus trends.  Most agreed that the data is often contradictory . . . what you can get is useful trend data. Why are all the results so different? Lack of standards are key.  As Bryan said and others like Steve Jackson confirmed, each of the major tools has a different idea what's meant by a "session" or "visitor." It's confusing.

Jim Sterne indicated that he would prefer to put his energy into analyzing behavior - keyword to time spent on page to action taken.  Continuing the discussion on economy of motion, Bryan added that if you have a large site, you begin with the landing pages, etc. that give  you the big results. Identifying these pages is key to getting into action, versus simply generating reports (which may or may not lead to action).

To get to action, there is a need for education.  People have to be trained so that they can understand and use the data they get.

What about social media?  Yes, Jim Sterne said, we want to know what impact social networking is having on our results.  Bryan raised the issue of video, and the complexity of tracking the impact, abandonment points, etc.  for clients who want to know "is it working for me?"  However, everyone recognized that web analytics people are going to have to rise to this challenge because it's where the market is going.

A brief and incomplete (apologies to the speakers) synopsis of the key takeaways from the session - Bryan Eisenberg- Conversion rates are stagnant; Brian Clifton - We are looking forward to a year of testing; Jim Sterne - Time for focus on attitudinal measurement, Ian Thomas - Similar thinking by Microsoft, Google- ,  Jackson - Change in the culture of companies, more awareness of analytics.

Search Engine Strategies - London - Auditing Paid Listing and Click Fraud Issues

The session was opened by Frank Watson, Kangamurra Media,  introducing Jon Myers of MediaVest, who provided a historical overview of the click fraud issue, including a "how it was" slide from 2007 (this is a fast-moving issue).  He cast the issue as a David and Goliath conflict, in which Google and Yahoo! clearly occupy the heavyweight category. 

Jon provided some really interesting maps, showing the locations where fraud risk was highest.  While India, southern South America, Mexico, etc. were still in the red, it's interesting to note that the risks are up in the US, but somewhat down in the former Soviet Union and China.

The magnitude of fraud (UK alone) he calculated at over 26K Pounds Sterling during just the time consumed by the current session!  In contrast, he noted help on the way from a growing number of auditing firms and councils.  Finally, he provided some helpful hints for self-monitoring discipline . . . after all, if you are the potential victim, it's your responsibility to spot the problem first.

Andrew Goodman, Page Zero Media, continued with Preventing Click Fraud Through Proactive Account Strategy.   His opening assertion was interesting, that "rogue behaviour" seems endemic to the Internet (due at least in part to the "savvy gap" and relative anonymity of the web). Given that, he did not recommend that your in-house SEM people should be spending their energy on "policing" when they have other more pressing issues to attend to.  He showed a graphic from PPC Assurance, a 3rd party monitoring service, which showed how they could help you identify and address click fraud issues.

His key advice was to "build it (campaigns) right" to avoid fraud, leading with a "granular, well organized campaign."  He also had thoughts regarding keywords, cautioning against the use of "head keywords" and surprisingly "tail keywords" as well.  He suggested using two word phrases, and going for the "torso" of the keyword list to avoid the obvious threats.  His advice on monitoring was "track, iterate and adjust" looking for odd traffic,  high bounce rates, etc. (If, for a given keyword, time spent on page less than 5 seconds is 60+%, good chance it's fraud).

Finally, we heard from Shuman Ghosemajumder, Business Manager for Trust & Safety, Google.  He described the ways that Google protects against click fraud, including their treatment (and non-charge) for invalid clicks.  By casting the invalid clicks web wide (large "false positive'' pool), they attempt to save users from improper charges. He noted that Google does, in fact, have an economic incentive for addressing the issue, which relates directly to their need to compete (for dollars) on the basis of advertisers' ROI. 

Shuman provided an explanation of Google's 3-part system for invalid click detection, Proactive  (Real-Time) Filters and Offline Analysis and Reactive Investigations. According to Google, < 10% of clicks are filtered today, most proactively.  Less than .02% are detected reactively.  As for tools, some employ simple rules (e.g. >1 click per IP within n seconds) and some are found through statistical anomaly detection, a far more sophisticated technique.

Thanks to Frank Watson, for moderating a great session, and an excellent, if short, Q&A.

Search Engine Strategies - London - 021908

With the help of some good friends (Thanks Greg, Rory, Matt), I find myself in the midst of Search Engine Strategies - London, and will be providing session coverage during the rest of the week.  After the wear and tear of an elongated commute across the pond (weather delays), I'm frankly happy to just be here.

To get some of the local flavor, I'm sitting in the Local Search session, listening to Hunter from Qype, Web 2.0 review site which boasts multi-lingual capability.  In a comparison of local 2.0 sites and directory sites, he concedes that Directories remain a good place for small businesses to advertise.  However, the expectations of users for 2.0 content (video, maps, etc.) may drive the change (convergence?).

The real question on the table is "how can local search compete?" Perhaps the best answer came from Andrew Klein, Spotzer, who said that the way that local search players can best compete with Google is by "becoming a 'trusted advisor' for  clients."  This differentiates them in a positive way from the large media companies.

More to come . . .

Look for more this week. Happy to be back online.

Long Time, No Post

For the faithful readers of this site, an apology and explanation are in order.  Since August of 2007, I've had the opportunity to work closely with my friends and colleagues at Future Now, Inc. as they took the critical steps to become a public company.

To make certain that I did nothing that would violate the (SEC) rules, I've been silent regarding my work there.

See you all later in the new year!

Sources of Discontent with Work - Look Deeper for the Real Answers

It seems that every day, there's another study or report regarding how satisfied people are at work.  According to the latest from the Conference Board, the majority of those employed in the US dislike their current jobs.

What's really important (according to the report) is what they dislike. 

• It's not their supervisor - "Somewhat surprisingly, 53% of surveyed workers said they were happy with their immediate supervisor"
• It's not their working conditions - " . . .  52% are satisfied with the physical environment at work. "
• It's not the work itself, which many find interesting and rewarding.

It's the other stuff.  " . . . when the questions turn to money, the discontent shows. Thirty-six percent of workers are happy with their wages, while just 21% are happy with the bonus plan at work. Less than one-fourth of workers are happy with the promotion policy at work, with fewer than a third satisfied with their potential for future growth."

Another factor that is important to consider is age.  The majority of older workers (55+), particularly those making over $50K per year, are happy with their jobs.  Contrast this with younger workers:

"Less than two out of every five workers under the age of 25 are satisfied with their jobs. This segment of the population has the lowest level of satisfaction and the lowest level ever recorded in the nearly 20-year history of this survey."

Given the new emphasis on retention at many companies, where a significant percentage of the over 55 workforce is expected to retire soon, this is a chilling prospect.

Although the shift from minority dissatisfaction to the majority view is new, it's been moving that direction for years.  The problems are not new.  What remains to be seen are (a) deeper looks at the root causes of dissatisfaction with compensation and prospects for the future and (b) some new ideas to address the situation.   For instance, has the continued rise in executive compensation been a major or minor contributing factor to employee dissatisfaction with pay? What other factors are major contributors to the negative trends in job satisfaction?

We've had long enough to admire the problem.  Let's see some solutions.

Please Come Back - We're So Sorry

We live in the age of public apology. And since a week in rehab (or a few hours, ala Britney) is not an option for poor behavior on a corporate scale, new media has become the confessional of choice.  Witness the JetBlue CEO's recent appeal to customers  on YouTube after a horrible week. 

Will this translate into repaired customer relations (and sales)?  It may be too early to know, but it's a good start.  And it is really, really quick, a good attribute for any attempts at "We're so sorry." 

We'll be interested to see whether the buying public responds positively.  Or if this will seem lame after the newness of the approach wears off.

MBODLG Best Practices

Yesterday evening the MBODLG (Mass Bay OD Learning Group) reprised one of its most popular formats, the multi-track "best practices" session, titled Best Practices in Six Work Environments III.  Six teams of presenters provided experience-based overviews of OD work in Internal, External, Healthcare, Biotech/Pharma, Non-Profit and Virtual environments. 

I sat in on the virtual teams session, co-led by Nancy Settle-Murphy (Chrysalis) and Nina Viswanathan (Monster) and learned some new tricks to make virtual environments more engaging, improving the experience of group leaders, facilitators and participants.  We also took a look at a new tool to help virtual teams succeed.

From what I heard in conversations with those attending the other five sessions, the learnings were well worth the time spent in each breakout.  Many thanks to our great presenters.   And thanks also to our hosts Tufts Healthcare, who provided a wonderful facility for the work.  It was  a great night for all who attended.

Nifty New Map Feature

Thanks to Rick Burnes of FaneuilMedia, we're testing a new map mashup tool.  Here's where we work.

Employee Conversion - From Detachment to Engagement

Josephine Rossi's review of the new book from Gallup Press, 12: The Elements of Great Managing in the January T&D magazine poses an interesting question:

"What do $300 billion USD, € 90 billion euro and $3 billion SGD have in common?"

According to the Gallup organization, these are estimates of lost worker productivity due to disengagement in the US, Germany and Singapore, respectively.  And the bad news is that these are not exceptions . . . similar results are found in other countries that Gallup monitors.

The key to reversing this trend, according to authors Rodd Wagner and James K. Harter, lies in improving the quality of managers expected to bring the best out of the employees with whom they've been entrusted.  It's long been known that people "join companies, but quit managers" (source unknown).   So the focus on managers makes good sense, as long as we don't forget the employees themselves.

One interesting aspect of the book, according to Rossi, which falls outside the steps to employee engagement, is the treatment given to compensation.  The authors refer to compensation as ". . . a status-laden, envy-inspiring, politically charged monster."  The authors say that "while higher pay doesn't ensure engagement, compensation disparities among peers most certainly will kill it."  (And keep in mind, we are not talking here about runaway executive compensation, which has effectively stamped out any remaining pretense of meritocracy.)  We're just talking about peer comparisons.

As a follow-up to Marcus Buckingham's 1999 book "First, Break All of the Rules" this is a well done sequel.  The 12 elements are well stated.  Consider adding this one to your reading list.

To Tell The Truth - Consulting Disasters

On Pearl Harbor Day (some real irony here),  I had an opportunity to join four respected local consultants on a panel for the IMCNE/SPC (Institute of Management Consultants - New England/Society of Professional Consultants) holiday meeting entitled “When Good Clients Go Bad: Best and Worst Case Scenarios about Managing Your Clients.”

The panel, moderated by the lovely Martha Hopewell of Seven Centers Strategic Management Consulting, consisted of John A. Boisvert, founder and CEO of Greenwood Consulting, Roy Sequeira, President of Sequeira Consulting, Hinda Sterling, PhD co-founder and senior partner of Sterling & Selesnick, Inc. and your's truly.   

Presenting in case study format, each of us related a story of an engagement gone wrong and provided our own perspective on causes and corrections.   The stories ranged from runaway sponsors who left the consultant to face an angry audience to client/consultant issues with scope and budget. 

When we asked the audience to join us in the analysis and provide us with their thoughts on "rescue," the meeting came alive.   As consultants, we've all had less-than-successful engagements, so the responses were both empathetic and helpful.  And thanks to Martha's gentle facilitation, we were able to get to the heart of the matter in each case, leaving both the panelists and the audience with an appreciation of the skill and courage it takes to do consulting well.   

Hats off to my colleagues.  It takes guts to talk about the "ones that didn't go well."   And many thanks to the audience for their thoughtful participation, friendly advice and willingness to admit that they've been there too.