26 B!$#$#$ Visits?

When the Scitylana blog was launched in early June 2012, the reality was it was just another anonymous website in the vast world of the Internet. Whether it held some of the world’s best secrets or was simply a repository of random thoughts (or something in between), no one knew about it. In order to begin generating traffic, a two-pronged attack was launched that would hopefully drive traffic to the website: using referral traffic from Facebook and referral traffic from Twitter. The results show staggering differences in a number of areas. Based on the analytics data gleaned through just three weeks of data, four areas emerge that help classify, organize and understand the traffic: the location of the users, the browsers and devices used to access the site, the mobile versus non-mobile divide and, of course, the referring sites linking to the website.

            Overall 23 unique visitors have visited the site since its launch. A few multiple visits from the same user make the total number of visits 26. Within those twenty-six visits lies a wealth of data about the website and its traffic. One area that represents a very interesting set of data is the location of the users accessing the site. First off, all the users are from the United States and that is an important thing to note for a number of websites that have an e-commerce function. If you are selling a product in the United States with no international shipping, but you are receiving visits from all over the world, it is important to start thinking about expansion. In this case, with no international traffic, the analysis can focus on the more regional level. The analytics show that 13 of the 26 visits occurred within the Washington, D.C. area. This percentage (50%) is staggering considering that exactly half the visits in the world are from this one area. From this data, marketers, content-producers and more could look to build on the regional dominance that the D.C.-area has on this blog. Perhaps local D.C. retailers would be interested in this site strictly because of the proximity of users to this area.

            While regional demographic data helps one decipher exactly where traffic is coming from, browser data can help deduce the types of devices used to access the site. In the case of Scitylana, 14 of the 26 visits (nearly 54%) came from Windows computers and only 9 visits coming from Macintosh/Apple devices. What is significant in this data is the difference in coding and Web 2.0 technologies that must be present on these sites. While Mac computers can certainly see Flash technologies, for example, there are some differences in how that technology is rendered in both Mac and PC scenarios. Therefore, if a marketer is noticing traffic to their website coming in both Mac and PC avenues, it is important to test and guarantee that the user experience is clean and usable in both scenarios.

            An easy transition to another area that is affected by additional technological differences is the mobile versus non-mobile arena. Much like PC versus Mac, there are areas here where traffic must be handled differently in the mobile versus non-mobile space. In the case of Scitylana, 23 of the 26 visits came from traditional, non-mobile devices and while that symbolizes nearly 90% of the traffic, the other 10% was mobile and must be addressed. For example, going back to the example of Flash, it is a piece of software that allows consumers to see video and other elements and many mobile devices don’t support its use. The wildly-popular iPhone has trouble with Flash because, “many (if not most) current Flash games, menus, and even video players require a visible mouse pointer. They are coded to rely on the difference between hovering over something (mouseover) vs. actually clicking. This distinction is not rare. It’s pervasive, fundamental to interactive design, and vital to the basic use of Flash content” (Lazar, 2010).  So imagine you made a great video about your product (or blog) in Flash and you want the world to see it, but all of your users are accessing from an iPad—well, you are out of luck! Understanding where the consumer is coming from and on what device is paramount if you want to optimize their experience online.

            Perhaps the most valuable area of analysis to study is the referral traffic to the site. As mentioned earlier, two main mechanisms were used to try and drive traffic to the site: Facebook and Twitter. While both of these services are free, each provides users with something entirely different. In this particular case, it appears that Facebook was a much stronger source of referring traffic. Of the 20 referrals, eighteen were from Facebook and two were from Twitter. The remaining visitors came from direct traffic. While 26 visits isn’t a tremendous amount, it is clear that the referral traffic from Facebook was strong and drives consumers to the site actively. This reality has been seen in the news media as more and more sites are being sent referral traffic via Facebook. “A big priority for any media property on the Web right now: Trying to figure out how to take advantage of the traffic Facebook is sending to their site, and trying to figure out how they can get more” (Kafka, 2011). As more traffic is sent to the site, understanding which referrers are sending it and how it is performing is essential. In an e-commerce scenario, this is incredibly important, especially if you are paying for the traffic.

            Whether it’s a small blog like Scitylana or a giant site like The Huffington Post, understanding where your consumers are coming from, what devices they are using, whether or not they are using a mobile device and how they got there is incredibly important. In the corporate climate that exists today, every dollar is precious and if money is being spent, executives are going to want to see what it is bringing in. Analytics is where that reality begins and studying and understanding your consumers is where this process takes you.

References

Kafka, P. (2011, May 9) Facebook isn’t the new Google…Al Things D. Retreived June 23, 2012 from http://allthingsd.com/20110509/facebook-isnt-the-new-google-but-its-a-very-big-deal-for-media-sites/

Lazar, L. (2010). The real reason iPhone and iPod won’t ever support Flash. Cult of Mac. Retrieved June 23, 2012 from http://www.cultofmac.com/31097/the-real-reasons-iphoneipad-wont-ever-support-flash-they-cant/

Facebook vs. Google

 “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is the adage we’ve all heard when it comes to making changes to something good just for the sake of change. In the case of advertising on Facebook and Google, both have seen what works and seem to mimic each other in their usability in many ways. There are a number of similarities between the two applications that are evident when a user begins using the respective services. Two areas that stand out are the similarities in handling money and transactions, while the other area has more to do with targeting and demographics.

                When a marketer wants to advertise on television, radio and other traditional offline media, there is a life-cycle to the process that takes time and money. The spot must be produced, the media must be placed and then the media runs and then it ends. There aren’t a lot of places within that cycle that can start and stop quickly or even be ignored altogether. The reality is the Internet—and Facebook and Google specifically-- have turned that model upside down. With these two Internet tools, marketers can begin a marketing campaign and stop on a dime. While there are some minimum thresholds to begin a campaign, the dollar values are incredibly low and aren’t really barriers to entry. Furthermore, if the media isn’t working it can be stopped immediately. That is absolutely not the case with offline media, where campaigns can be stopped, but certainly not immediately, as inventory has already been placed and will run until traffic departments can replace or pull the spots.

Additionally, there is the issue of demographics and targeting. Both of these firms realize that marketers really find targeting to be efficient and effective ways of focusing their marketing message on consumers that meet a certain set of criteria. This again is certainly a part of traditional offline media, but there aren’t any guarantees that every male 18-35 is watching ESPN or listening to urban radio. Facebook and Google can absolutely drill down to specific areas, passions and even zip codes. Having said that, there are some differences between these two behemoths and demographics is a good place to start.

As much as Google is able to create specific traffic funnels for certain consumers, it doesn’t know you and your personal interests as well as Facebook does. This reality is a function of Facebook’s usage of personal data and the valuable information you share about yourself on Facebook. For example, if you like hockey Facebook knows this because you have “liked” the NHL, your favorite hometown team and have shared articles about the sport. Google doesn’t have quite this access. They can see a pattern of your searches, but can’t drill down to ‘31 year old male who likes the Washington Capitals,’ like Facebook can. Additionally, it should be noted that the same technology that Google uses to power their searches is also what makes them more predictive than Facebook. Because of those aforementioned search patterns, Google can more accurately conceptualize where your likely to go and then can serve you ads via AdWords accordingly. The ability for both firms to succeed based on these definable and unique characteristics is profound and central to their growth.

Conversation, Content and Bieber

From the town crier, to megaphones, to the invention of the television, the concept of having a message and then sharing it has existed in some fashion. Broadcasting, as a concept, is basically this same idea. Taking a message and sharing it with a larger group. The actual definition is “to transmit for public use” and clearly this concept can be conferred to the Internet, where producers of content are sharing their message and broadcasting it to others. So how does using the Internet to “broadcast” a message translate to the job of a marketer? To be blunt-- not well. Think of it this way: the Internet has basically made everyone a broadcaster. Someone with a funny baby, a great eyewitness video or a catchy song can become a sensation (see: Charlie bit my finger, the Oakland fight and Justin Bieber) and at the same time, millions of people post something and no one ever sees it. So just broadcasting a message into the Internet ether isn’t going to get you anywhere. The reason Charlie and Bieber worked was they went “viral” and sparked a conversation. This is where the content versus conversation emerges for marketers who are looking to use social media to engage their consumers. It must be a two-way conversation—not just broadcasting a message and hoping for the best.

In hopes of engaging with an audience and eventually finding a relevant foothold, marketers must be able to utilize the messaging and interact with it. Long gone are the days a company can put up a Twitter page and then not respond to questions, comments and solicitations. Companies (and individuals) hoping to be relevant in the social space have to be ready to engage with the consumers they hope to hook. “As conversations are increasingly distributed, everything begins with listening and observing. Doing so, will help identify exactly where relevant discussions are taking place, as well as their scale and frequency…Perhaps most importantly, the process of listening and observing will reveal the cultures of the very communities you may wish to engage” (Solis, 2008). This point by Mr. Solis illustrates that the engagement of the consumer is advantageous for both parties as the consumer gets what they are looking for, and at the same time, the marketer benefits from the exchange of information. Catherine Novak noted a similar point in her look at the conversation versus content discussion when it comes to how important the viral nature of good and relevant content can be. “Users are constantly sending out little bits of information, but the fun really doesn’t start unless those morsels are taken up by someone else and responded to, passed along, or even “liked” (Novak, 2010). The point being that the “fun” Ms. Novak referenced is the core of this argument. Getting information out there isn’t that difficult, (I’m doing it right now!) but finding someone who is willing to take the time to read the work and then engage with it is really the core of this style of communication.

Here is some more Bieber for the masses...

 

References

Novak, C. (2010, July 27). Why conversation, not content, is king. SocialMediaToday.com. Retrieved April 12, 2012 from http://socialmediatoday.com/wordspring/152636/why-conversation-not-content-king

Solis, B. (2008, August). Introducing the Conversation Prism. PR 2.0. Retrieved June 10, 2012 from http://pdf.edocr.com/248786cc9c0c4e3a29ea813ba548b73bc8035cfb.pdf

Mobile Doesn't Mean High-Tech...Necessarily

The data says it all: “Mobile marketing and location-based marketing are two of the fastest growing sectors of the technology industry. Worldwide mobile advertising spending is expected to grow from $1.7 billion in 2007 to $12.8 billion in 2011” (Wright, 2010). The fact that this industry continues to expand financially means the attention and focus on the quality of the traffic deriving from it will continue to be scrutinized in increasing fashion. Perhaps as more of these devices saturate the marketplace the push for understanding what happens on them will become more profound, but for now, mobile analytics remains the red-headed step child to traditional web browsing. 

               
While we all might have seen the button that allows us to look at what mobile traffic is arriving and even what is converting, have you ever considered what each metric means in relation to a mobile device? In a recent article by Macala Wright, the author offers the following example: When a marketer is analyzing web site engagement, if the mobile to web interaction is 1.9 page views via a mobile device versus 1.0 pages on the web, that’s a key indicator for potential of mobile growth” (Wright, 2010). Exactly. Wait, what?  So why would a page be more likely to be read on a mobile device than on a big pretty monitor? Maybe it looks better, maybe the mobile version is optimized to reduce other distractions. Maybe the consumer funnel is much clearer and defined on mobile. Whatever the reason, the data might (and probably will) be different for web versus mobile traffic and as marketers we have to be aware of that. 

                One final thought on the mobile traffic is that if you are possibly reading this on a mobile device—congratulations—you probably have a nice income. If you are using a smartphone to access this data odds are you pay for unlimited data and you are able to browse the net openly. The reality is millions of Americans don’t use smartphones (gasp!) and might not be able to see every page you’ve designed for a mobile-friendly device. Some consumers are still using old devices and one’s not optimized for heavy web browsing usage. The reason this is important is that many industries might be geared towards the lower-income population and therefore the mobile presentation should too!

References

Wright, M. (2010, July 10). Understanding Mobile Analytics. Fashionably Marketing. Retrieved from http://fashionablymarketing.me/2010/07/mobile-marketing-app-analytics/

Chrome Gains Ground, Passes Firefox

From PC World

One of the last frontiers of dominance for Google has been their inability to break through the web browsing stranglehold held by Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Mozilla’s Firefox. That may all be changing as news broke last week that Google’s Chrome has overtaken Mozilla’s Firefox browser to become the world’s second most popular browser. “…in May, Chrome gained 1.3 percentage points, more than double its average increase over the last 12 months, to climb to 20.2%, while Firefox lost six-tenths of a point to fall to 19.6%” (Keizer, 2012). This is a significant moment for Google as they try and gain more market share in this sector behind Microsoft’s uber-popular Internet Explorer.

Experts have noted that as Google continues to roll out more and more applications and tools, the symbiotic nature of their products will drive more and more users to use their browsers. Additionally, web metrics tools like page rank and even Google Analytics tools are more easily accessed through Chrome than via Mozilla or Internet Explorer. One of the challenges in getting more users to utilize Chrome is the very fact that many computers come preloaded with Internet Explorer and consumers either don’t realize they have other options or are too lazy to explore these tools. This is where marketing and the resources of each company come into play as Microsoft and Google absolutely dwarf the size of Mozilla and are able to roll out their efforts on multiple platforms and channels. Additionally, the size and power of the two e-giants allow for them to sustain larger marketing and commerce losses than Mozilla. Having said of all that, Mozilla has survived up to this point with lower marketing spends and overhead costs.

Mozilla famously has gotten to their saturation point with classic grassroots marketing and aggressive strategies. By utilizing strategies like open-source labs, campus outreach and even community involvement, Mozilla has gained their market share in a simpler, more methodical manner, rather than throwing money at expensive online and offline campaigns. This strategy completely runs counter to the effort of Chrome and Internet Explorer, who have expensive branded campaigns running nationally via TV and other mainstream media. Despite this, others have noted the limits for a company like Mozilla in this space. “Of course, it could be argued that Mozilla is so unique that its grass-roots marketing programs can't be replicated. Firefox is an open-source software product: It's free and it has a massive and devoted global developer community to leverage. It's not as if Mozilla is trying to sell soap or burgers” (Schmitt, 2009). Perhaps this battle will crescendo with news that Chrome has finally passed Mozilla, but only time will tell.

References

Keizer, G. (2012, June 1). Chrome Steals Second From Firefox. PCWorld. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/256624/chrome_steals_second_from_firefox_in_browser_wars.html

Schmitt, G. (2009, June 10). How Firefox Gets Grassroots Marketing Right. Ad Age. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/digital-firefox-grass-roots-marketing/137197/

A Little About Scitylana

I wish Scitylana was my dog. I found a sweet picture of a funny dog and used it as my logo. As for the name: a-n-a-l-y-t-i-c-s spelled backwards is "scitylana"--plus it sounds cool...

- The Commish.