Continuing the Discussion with Joseph Carrabis July 19, 2008

I’ve been participating in a very interesting discussion with Joseph on The Future of Web Analytics Demystified.

My comments to his most recent comments are posted there and here.

Joseph’s comments:
“…my experience and learning indicate that most business people don’t care about science.”

Agreed, however they don’t have to care about it to use it. Anyone who has ever used a tire gauge or a tape measure has employed a scientific calibration method.

Take web analytics; vendor produces web analytics tool – company buys web analytics tool – company is responsible for correct, complete and functioning implementation of web analytics tool – automated monitoring identifies implementation problems. This last step is the rub. The web analytics vendor specializes in providing the measurement tool, not the calibration tool. The company does not have to be expert at science to employ automated monitoring of their web analytics. It must, however have accountability at a senior level – one neck to grab – and a recognition that without this calibration, all bets are off, and that manual discovery of implementation problems is a complete and utter waste of valuable time that their web analysts could be using to do more important things. The results of my survey that is currently underway (Where in the Organization is the Web Analyst – July 15-22, 2008) will bear out the chronic problems that practitioners have with their own implementations.

Going back to Avinash’s observation – “We have too many damn tools!’” Yep, the toolbox has 4 hammers, 5 screwdrivers and a utility knife, and the task calls for cutting a mitered corner. Now I suppose you could position the utility knife, whack it with the hammer, wedge a screwdriver in the crevice, and repeat the process until you make your way across the board…..it’s possible, not efficient, the outcome will be really ugly, but it’s possible.

Joseph’s question : “Is the natural progression due to the tools being used, due to the information provider becoming more trusted, perhaps due to the people receiving the information finally having the cognitive readiness to accept the information as both valuable and valid, …?”

I believe it is a confluence of things contributing to maturation in organizations. The web has disrupted entire industries – newspapers, auto, real estate, travel, consumer goods, government agencies. It would be great if somebody had an “Easy Button” for managing web assets – maybe Staples could start loaning them out. People are coming to grips with the fact that no one product is the magic answer, and that jumping from one vendor to another is not the answer either. They are coming to grips with the complexity of their sites, the fact that legislation and market conditions are constantly changing, that they are subject to the laws of all the countries they operate sites in, that achieving good natural placement in Google has a tangible benefit, and that bad things can happen to good sites, and can lurk there for a long time, that if you’re a great big company, you might be a “target” for lawsuits by people who find your site inaccessible to them, that the mobile web tsunami is coming, all this in addition to the daily grind of figuring out who is looking at what for how long using what type of viewing device and what are they doing as a result? Joseph refers to it as “cognitive readiness”. I’ve always called it “the teachable moment.” Increasingly organizations are getting there.

Joseph’s comment:
“I’d love to see a piece that demonstrates the successful implementation of such a group if such is available.”

Here are a couple of success stories. The first one is a site of around 2000 pages owned by a company with numerous locations across the country. The site’s primary function is lead generation and information provision on health-related issues. SEO is important to them and they run online ad campaigns. They conduct surveys through the site. The organization supporting the site is small, so they rely on their vendors. Once a month, the manager has a call where all the vendors are present – site structure, web analyst, SEM, search analyst, survey company. Everyone is expected to present information and recommendations based on the agenda the manager sets.

The second is a global B2B company. Their public site is large, their intranet is sprawling, and they have a constant flow of micro-sites going up. Their web team consists of people with expertise in search, web analytics, copyrighting, marketing, ad campaigns; yet they all are part of one team. Content management is dispersed throughout the organization using a CMS that was developed in-house after they determined that there was not a market solution that fit their business. This team, however, has dotted lines to content owners and teams. Decisions of what web site management solutions they use (whether it is traffic, search, A/B testing, surveys, or structural analytics) are made by this team. They have developed and are utilizing web standards and continue to grow from strength to strength.

There are others. I like these two because they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and demonstrate that there is more than one way to get there, once people define what it is they are trying to achieve.

Your comments are most welcome. What are you seeing in your organization?