Measurability (was Re: UKNM: money / drain)

[Edd Dumbill]

I asked:


> > Can you explain how you define "successful"?  Has the web site had a

> > tangible, measurable, or significant effect on sales?


Leslie Bunder wrote:

> A site might not be created to increase market share or sales. It might be

> there to support the offering, maintain existing market share or even just

> add online value to the off-line brand and introduce the user to other

> aspects of the brand such as alternative flavours of a soft drink,

> nutritional value (or lack of value!<g>) etc, etc.


Yes, this is part of what I meant when I said that a brand/company site

needs to exist for a variety of "utilitarian" reasons.  I support these

as good goals for FMCG sites.


I'd also like to address the measurability issue, which takes in more

than just FMCG, obviously (so I've retitled this message accordingly).


Leslie also wrote:

> You could also define "successful" in terms of the user experience. If the

> site keeps eyeballs to its content and also gets people talking about it in

> positive terms then that can be successful.  It really depends on what the

> key objective of the online offering is.

> 

> Lots of ways to measure success. On the Web we often forget the all

> important issue of does the user actually enjoy or get something out of the

> experience of using the Web site.


One of my real difficulties with this whole issue is that I don't

believe people are using decent measurements for "success".  There are

"lots of ways", but hardly any are, in my opinion, useful.


You mention success can be measured by a good user experience.  I don't

agree because I don't think a good user experience is a business goal.

It's a prerequisite for a popular site, yes, but not a measure of

success imho -- I can't think of anyone who would _not_ want a good user

experience on their web site.


It seems to me that what site owners should be doing is:


  i.  defining the goal of their website 


  ii. defining how they're going to measure meeting that goal before

      going any further


I would argue for a start that being well-received by the rest of the

new media/marketing industry isn't a suitable measurement -- I have a

sneaking suspicion that it was this kind of "successful" that motivated

the Pepsi/Tango responses.  


Perhaps some others on the list would like to share how they measure

success of web sites.


I am disturbed by what I perceive to be a significant amount of activity

undertaken that lacks a clear goal or any measurability.  I am also

worried that some decision-makers have inappropriate information and

continue to make naive decisions and close their eyes to poor ROI (or

worse still, embark on activities without figuring out how to calculate

what they're getting back).


>From my own experience I'm still finding that people are concerning

themselves overly with click-throughs and page impressions without even

stopping to think about the quality/nature of the audience and other

such factors. 


There is a trade-off here: in one way each site needs to set its own

particular way of measuring success that is sensitive to their goals and

business model, but there's also a need for comparative measurement.

Unfortunately current methods lean too much to the latter, so we end up

comparing apples with pears all the time, and using the wrong metrics.


-- 

Edd Dumbill ------/ a new media consultant, writer & technologist /--

 | Director, Useful Information Company        <http://usefulinc.com>

 | Internet Director, Pharmalicensing    <http://pharmalicensing.com>

 : UK voice/msg: +44 702-093-6870            UK fax: +44 870-164-0230 

********************

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.

Email Khalil Ibrahimi

khalilexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilexcitecorp [dot] com)

 to advertise on Excite.

********************

Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html