I love digital analytics, but the perceived concreteness can lead to some tricky situations…
Unless you’re only using one channel to showcase your brand (if you are I’m intrigued to hear why!?) your audience is almost certainly seeing you in more than one place. This creates a challenge for Google Analytics and other similar tools. While its easy to generate ‘last-touch’ reporting this doesn’t give you a true sense of why someone responded.
So we’ve been building up our understanding of multi-touch attribution, including using tools like Ignition One. But this doesn’t help if/when you include offline in your media mix. You still can’t fully understand what the impact of the full mix is.
The tricky situation this puts you in is particularly relevant if you’re still trying to build the business case for integrating digital. Individuals can interpret last-touch reporting in terms of ROI (return on investment) on a purely channel by channel basis. This can mean investment is skewed, and integration completely overlooked.
Unless you invest in regular market research studies I’m not sure there’s a real-time answer (until we all get micro-chipped!). So next step for us will probably be considering what ‘closest guess based on historic data’ models we can devise and use.
Where are you with your attribution models? Be great to compare notes!
I often mull over whether my digital transformation work will ever been done (in a good way), and what it will look like when we get there. I was thinking this over while scanning through a e-consultancy report on the evolution of agencies. There were a couple of role descriptions which I think go some way to painting a picture of digital first organisation structures:
“staff who have a strong, vertical digital skill, but have either a breadth of experience outside of this vertical area or at least a useful level of understanding and empathy with other vertical digital channels and, notably, with traditional marketing practice and techniques.”
Chief creative technologist (More on this theme in the excellent chiefmartec blog)
“The three main areas of focus for the role are:
1. Helping the Chief Marketing Officer translate strategy into technology and vice versa
2. Choreographing data and technology across the marketing organisation
3. Infusing technology into the DNA of marketing – practices, people and culture”
I’m still undecided whether digital teams will cease to exist entirely. I certainly think there will be fewer titles with ‘digital’, ‘web’ or ‘online’ within them. Like the descriptions above, digital and non-digital staff will have more rounded skills-sets all around.
Notes from Brand Republic event 17 April 2012
This week I was pleasantly surprised by an old blog post on charity bounce rates getting picked up. It sparked a conversation with @charitychap and @LondonKirsty about reducing your website bounce rate that I thought worth elaborating on.
Having assumed a view on average bounce rate for charity websites from my old post. We all agreed the key challenge is that measuring your bounce rate might be easy (and is critical) but it’s harder to know how to reduce it apart from following the generic tips out there. The conversation got me thinking about the analysis we started to consider in my last job.
We got to the stage of considering how best to segment our view of bounce rate. This came from the recognition that taking a site wide view of bounce rate might work for some websites which have a single purpose, but many charity websites have multiple purposes and so a single view isn’t good enough.
This means a good definition of your key audience groups and their goals is very important. Along with recognising that goals may vary by personal circumstance and time of year. For example, for health charities there is a clear ‘patient pathway’ view that can be taken – from diagnosis, through treatment, to recovery, and often to maintenance.
But how exactly can you take a segmented audience view of bounce rate without requiring all of your users to be logged in or personally identifiable? Well – we didn’t find a concrete answer to this. But here are some ideas:
- Use your content as an approximation of the audience; look at bounce rate by section rather than site wide and make assumptions about the audience consuming that particular section and how you might cross-sell or up-sell to that group.
- Use the traffic referral source as an approximation of the audience; look at bounce rate segmented by traffic source and see where you can make assumptions about the audience based on this eg those from BBC Vs The Sun, Google Vs Bing are different demographics.
- Segment those that don’t bounce from those that do; these are two high level segments that could shed some light on things when looked at within a content section.
Finally, of course, the best way to reduce bounce rate is to test, test and test again. I’m not sure enough testing of the ‘bread-and-butter’ online activity happens in charities. But the surest way to find out what improves your bounce rate is to test variations and find the winning combination until you start to spot potential to improve further.
To see with speaker notes please view here and use the ‘actions’ option.
I’ve been pondering bounce rate. Bounce rate is when someone visits your site but then quickly exits without clicking into any other page. It’s natural to aim for the lowest bounce rate possible. Low bounce rate generally means a more engaged audience.
At the British Heart Foundation our bounce rate is currently around 40%. But this has been playing on my mind since a committee member from a well known commercial brand said they thought it was high. What should charities be aiming for? and is it really a bad thing to have a higher bounce rate? why might commercial and charity sectors differ?
According to my quick twitter poll 40% is similar to other charities, one person even said for their health professional information bounce rate is more like 100%. Taking a quick sweep of the internet – advice seems to be that 40% – 65% is an acceptable average range.
But having a high bounce rate can’t always be a bad thing. There are some cases when you probably want people to leave your website right away – say when you have some sort of affinity deal with a corporate partner, or if you’re signposting to another charity who offers services you don’t, or serve an audience you don’t support.
So why would commercial and charity sectors differ (if they do)? Well perhaps people who go to commercial brands are generally looking to build their trust in the brand a little bit more than they might be on a charity site. Or maybe commercial sites are not designed to meet people’s goals quite so well / quickly.
I’d be really interested to hear other people’s thoughts and any additional bounce rate benchmarks anyone is willing to share.
One thing’s for sure – if you’re not monitoring your bounce rate, you should be!