Playing right into my discussion about "tribes", Robbin points us to a PDF from the Web Analytics Association, a document that features standardized definitions of various concepts.
The Web Analytics folks want everybody to speak the same language.
Catalogers spent more than a hundred years disagreeing about metrics, and still do (ask anybody how they define the methodology used in their version of a matchback analysis, and you'll see what I mean).
Multichannel advocates have one metric (multichannel customers are worth 'x' times more than single-channel customers), though nobody agrees upon the timeframe to use to determine 'value'.
These are interesting times.
Time for you to speak your mind ... should disciplines have standardized definitions that everybody agree upon?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
It is time to find a few smart individuals in the world of e-mail analytics and data mining! And honestly, what follows is a dataset that y...
-
It's the story of 2015 among catalogers. "Our housefile performance is reasonable, but our co-op customer acquisition efforts ar...
-
The emails come in on a daily basis now ... " here's what I think I need, what should I purchase ?" So, today I write a Search...
I wouldn't call "customers are worth 'x' times more than single-channel customers" a "metric".
ReplyDeleteIt's a finding. Or perhaps a hammer, because supporters use the statistic to support requests for more funding for their channel.
Personally, I think it's not a particularly compelling statistic, since it's unlikely that the multi-channel behavior CAUSES the added profitability. More likely, it's demographics.
As for the WAA definitions document, I think it's awesome. I think the authors should be congratulated on an excellent document.
:)
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly a hammer!