The Commerce360 Blog

The home page of an online retail should have two goals; confirm to the visitor that they’ve arrived at the right place (you sell what they want) and enable them to quickly move toward the specific item they came to find.

Why is it then, that so many retail home pages are filled with huge vanity graphics which represent only a tiny fraction of the available inventory, and the navigation options are stuffed against the top or left margin in a font size and color that makes you wonder if they’re legal disclaimers?

The answer of course, is branding. Someone thinks that the home page should define the image and position of the brand. It should make an emotional connection with the visitor, presenting an indentity or appeal they favor or aspire too.

But a home page isn’t a store window, or a magazine ad, or even the cover of a print catalog. Each of those address the shopper before they’ve made the decision to actively pursue a purchase. The home page hits them after they’ve decided to take action, and stopping their momentum (the large graphics) and then making it difficult for them to restart it (hiding the navigation in mall dark type on the margins) is really counter-productive.

Think of your home page like the inside of your store or catalog – where you want people to clearly see the breadth of your offerings and (hopefully) rush towards them with excitement and anticipation of finding exactly what they want.

Zappos.com does it right. Their home page makes it clear in a fraction of a second that they sell all kinds of shoes (and other goods) and gives you literally dozens of ways to easily find the path to the specific type of shoe you want to buy. They also manage to clearly communicate several of their core brand values – service, huge selection, free shipping, and easy returns – without stopping or slowing down those who just want to buy something.

Branding and image are important, and I’m sure that if more designers were given the challenge of both presenting a high quality aesthetic and accepting that traditional navigation systems really shouldn’t be relied upon, we’d see a whole new generation of functional yet attractive home pages. This won’t happen until more of the marketers who usually give the designers their marching orders (or at least approve the final designs) change their ideas and expectations of the home page.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 12:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Commerce360 CEO Lucinda Holt will appear today on the Executive Leaders radio show between 10 and 11am on WWDB radio in Philadelphia. If you're in town, tune in to AM860 and check it out.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 8:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Shop.org Marketing Workshop starts tomorrow evening at the Hard Rock Cafe & Casino in Hollywood FL, and we'll be there. I'm participating on a panel called 'Improving the ROI of Paid Search" on Thursday, hosting three round-table discussions entitled “10 Quick Hits for Search Engine Success”, and we'll have a Commerce360 booth in the showcase area.

My panel presentation is a brief look at the Paid Search Scorecards we use to measure the impact and progress we're making against our goals for our client's PPC campaigns. The scorecards help us to keep in mind that PPC campaigns aren't simply about the right keywords, but rather a cascading set of variables that all need to be maximized individually and then considered and testing in combination.

Often you hear people come to the conclusion that 'this is a bad keyword' or 'that landing page doesn't work'. These statements may be true, but if the many other links in the chain weren't inspected, there's also a good chance that these conclusions are a serious mis-diagnosis. In my few minutes on-stage I'll talk about how we look at nine of the variables that impact paid search to ensure that we make the most of every campaign.

If you're in Hollywood and can pull yourself away from the tables and the pool, please stop by and say hello.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Moving quickly beyond the fact that it is a a major panel-based audience measurement company releasing a study that says (surprise) cookies aren't accurate, the study is most likely completely accurate and there are several interesting facts contained therein:

• 31 percent of U.S. Internet users cleared their first-party cookies during the month.
• Within this user segment, the study found an average of 4.7 different cookies for the site.
• Among the 7-percent of computers with at least 4 cookie resets, comScore counted an average of 12.5 distinct first-party cookies per computer, accounting for 35 percent of all cookies observed in the analysis.
• Web site server logs that count unique cookies to measure unique visitors are likely to be exaggerating the size of the site’s audience by a factor as high as 2.5, or an overstatement of 150 percent.
• comScore’s analysis of third-party cookies revealed an average of 2.6 distinct cookies per computer in December, indicating a similar rate of overstatement as the first-party cookies.

Further proof that web analytics are true but not accurate (a most excellent quote I heard from Jim Sterne).

Definitely a problem if you're a brand marketer paying for coverage across unique humans. Much less of an issue if you're an online retailer trying to understand visitor behavior. Sure the numbers won't be right (did you really think they were?) but the trends should be true and accurate. Don't forget it's not just uniques that is affected - things like ave-number-visits-before-purchase and similarly 'cookie-based' cumulative measurements are also equally impacted.

Two thoughts:

• What if web analytics software provided an option to compensate for the likely overcounting of uniques due to cookie deletion. A simple place we could tell it to decrease the unique visitor count by 33% (or whatever) because that's what we believe our overstatement rate to be. Wouldn't it be nice to just quickly see reports with this clean-up IF we believed that made them more accurate?

• Any chance we could get all those cookie deletion utilities to empty them out and then write a new cookie telling the rest of us the date of the last flush?

Related Discussion: AVC AttentionMax

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I’m talking of course of the ever-expanding list of Webmaster Guidelines, a supposedly friendly set of suggestion for how you should create and code websites if you want to be respected on the Google Internet. Of course, it’s really just a Webmaster Wishlist, describing the way sites and pages and links would be created in a world where everyone was trying to serve Google’s best interests.

In other words: “Those with the gold, make the rules.”

The existence of the list implies an arrogance, but there’s a practicality too. We’re free to ignore their suggestions, and they’re free to ignore our websites. In theory, a balance can be found between what they ask of the world and what they provide to the world, and we can all just get along.

When the ‘Guidelines’ specify clear actions that will result in pages or sites being removed from the Google index, I find it a useful document and think it operates on a fair premise: Don’t stuff keywords in white type on a white background. Don’t create 700 versions of the same page with different title tags. Don’t show one page to the GoogleBot and another page to Joe Consumer.

When the ‘Guidelines’ get vague and try to make water flow up-hill in pursuit of some supposed karmic-good, I think they’re laughable and should be treated as such: Don’t create additional pages for search engines (just think about your users). Don’t separate sites into different domains or sub-domains because you believe it will result in better organic rankings (again, pretend the engines aren't there). Don’t exchange links or otherwise lift an un-natural finger to get more links to your site (pretend this is not predominantly what you're being measured on.)

Which brings us to today’s broo-haa-haa. The trouble with links. Votes. Recommendations. References. Google Juice. The bots at Google have asked the carbon-life-forms for help. You too can squeal in the name of Google.

They need a clean world where all links are truly organic (naturally forming) and since we’re all cursed with the knowledge that more links improve our rankings (and thereby results and generally bottom lines) we just can’t help but bite that forbidden fruit. Thus paid links are original sin.

Here’s where the ‘Guidelines’ really go crazy, actually requesting that you not share in the value that has been jointly created by your content, your link equity, your rankings. Your website in co-operation with Google and its algorithm has been given a certain status, and the collective value of that status is why people search Google and they make all that money. There is no doubt they own the collective value.

But shouldn’t you own your sliver of the value, and be able to monetize it? Both legally and morally in terms of the relationships between websites and the Google index? Why should they keep 100% of the value?

And if sharing in that value is confusing to their algorithms, is that really our problem?

As a side note. I’ve never sold a link and very rarely recommended or participated in their purchase. Neither decision was based on what Google may or may not think.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My six year old has become fascinated with checkers lately, and I've noticed that there is this moment in each game where it goes from being fun and interesting to the sudden realization that there aren't any real moves left and someone is going to get decimated.

I'm guessing they feel like that at Microsoft and Yahoo today. Google probably feels pretty good.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once again our Lianna Evans has been selected to speak at Search Engine Strategies, this time in New York City this week. She's on both Thursday and Friday this week:

"Images & Search Engines" on Thursday, April 12 from 11:00am – 12:15pm
Regular search engines can't understand text trapped within images, and this session looks at strategies to combat this problem for the image-intensive site. It also examines how to generate traffic using your images via image-specific search engines.

"Search & Regulated Industries" on Friday, April 13 from 9:00am – 10:15am
Involved in pharma? Gambling? Alcohol sales? Run a medical site? Offering legal advice? Chances are, you have to deal with regulations from the government, from search engines or from your own company about what you can and cannot say on your site and in your ads. How can you stay within the rules yet not compromise your search marketing campaign? This session explores the issues.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The stakes in local search engine optimization went up today, as Google announced their free 411 service. Now anyone call dial 1-800-GOOG-411 and get not only the phone number but also connected for free to local businesses - or a list of available businesses in a category.

And guess what - the listing results are provided in the exact sequence of the results for the same search at local.google.com. Local search has been growing, and I know in some cases having huge impacts for very small businesses smart enough to optimize.

But as rank-based free-411 catches on the benefits of a #1 ranking for a category in local are going to skyrocket. And so will the efforts made to win the local search race.

Bonus: Tips for the service below.

When you are asked for city and state, you can:

* say the city and state like "beverly hills california".
* say the zip, e.g. "nine-oh-two-one-oh".
* type the zip code using the key pad, e.g. "9-0-2-1-0".

When you are asked for a business name or category, you can:

* say a business name, like "Giovanni's pizzeria".
* say a category name, like "hardware stores".
* say "go back" to change city and state.

When browsing through results, you can:

* say the listing number (e.g. "number two") or press the corresponding key (e.g. "2") to choose a listing or navigate between results.
* say "text message" or press "9" to receive a text message, when you are calling from a mobile phone.
* say "details" to get more information about the current listing.
* say "start over" or press "*" to start from the main menu.
* say "go back" to change business or category.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Eric Peterson author of Web Analytics Demystified (and other forms of fame) is asking all Web Analytics professionals to complete this survey.

To encourage you, Eric is providing the followignto thank you for the few minutes it should take you to complete this survey:

1. A complimentary copy of the results of this survey (available in mid-May 2007)
2. A twenty-five percent discount off the purchase price of Eric T. Peterson's Web Analytics Demystified and Big Book of Key Performance Indicators (normally $49.99, you'll save $12.50 and pay only $37.49 which is like getting the Big Book of Key Performance Indicators for FREE!)

I just completed the survey in just a few minutes. Go ahead, do it.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One of the best aspects of blogs is when they provide a 'backstage pass' and in that regard Poynter.org is a great site for a news junkie. But the organization also does some interesting research, and a week or so ago they came out with this study about how people read news stories online.

While the study was on news stories, it does strongly suggest that despite rumors to the contrary, people will read long copy online - presumably assuming it is relevant and compelling.

When readers chose to read an online story, they usually read an average of 77% of the story, compared to 62% in broadsheets and 57% in tabloids…

In addition, nearly two-thirds of online readers read all of the text of a particular story once they began to read it, the survey revealed. In print, 68% of tabloid readers continued reading a specific story through the jump to another page, while 59% did so in broadsheet reading.

The research also found that 75% of print readers are methodical in their reading, which means they start reading a page at a particular story and work their way through each story. Just 25% of print readers are scanners, who scan the entire page first, then choose a story to read.

Online, however, about half of readers are methodical, while the other half scan, the report found. The survey also revealed that large headlines and fewer, large photos attracted more eyes than smaller images in print. But online, readers were drawn more to navigation bars and teasers.

Some good thoughts and readers comments over at GrokDotCom.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We held our first formal internal Intro to Web Analytics/Omniture SiteCatalyst training session today, and while I did a poor job of time planning (we only got through about 1/2 the planned 90 min presentation in a full 2 hours) the conversation and interest in continuing to push analytics to the center of our work was great.

There were 15-17 people in for most of the session, including everyone from members of the sales team to account managers to the search team to strategists to new-to-Omniture analysts to a person from our finance dept. (We've grown a lot lately, and I've not posted enough about that - will catch up there soon.)

Preparing for this was interesting, in that it caused me to try and define the role and potential for the kind of web analytics and analysis we strive to provide our clients in a way that only some blank PowerPoint slides and a deadline can.

At the core I think web analytics should assist in four areas - optimizing marketing resources, satisfying visitors, improving the site, and increasing revenues. Many of those are inter-related but each drives a hierarchy of questions which the analytics can help answer.

We talked a bit about having the right expectations with web analytics in relation to a project, how it was a long road from tagging to reporting to analysis to insights and finally to actions. And beyond preparing for that time-frame, how to think about web analytics software as a tool that enables a larger process where questions result in answers which beget more questions and only after a whole bunch of those cycles can you start to form opinions and then get to the work of starting to figure out what to do about it. Then of course worrying about how to convey the ideas and share with others (particularly time-pressed managers) all that data in a useful context to someone who didn't go through that process.

This is only a bit of what was touched on, and all that was before we even got into SiteCatalyst! You can see why we ran over time! But I thought it was important to set the tone before we looked at the software that this isn't a 'quick answer lookup system'. It's easy to get that impression but I think it leads to either disappointment or massive underutilization.

We did finally get a bit into SiteCatalyst, touring the core aspects of the interface and trying to establish the pattern by which it is used, at least in relation to generating basic reports. To summarize and help newbies consider all of their options I came up with this list:

1. Develop the question
2. Find right report
3. Set correct time-frame
4. Display relevant metrics
5. Configure The Graph
6. Sort appropriately
7. Sub-relate (optional)
8. Compare or Trend
9. Wish for more data/relations
10. Print
11. Email
12. Bookmark
13. Schedule
14. Set Alerts
15. Add to Dashboard
16. Share

What did I miss on this list? Comments appreciated.

Tomorrow we finish what we didn't today, getting through lots of sample screens and reports covering all the program basics. Next week we'll take a quick tour of the many advanced features.

Want a free seat at the class? Come work with us!

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 9:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In my own browsing of the archives of DaveNet, I came across this fascinating post by Esther Dyson from December 1, 1994 which introduces an idea we may now call pay-per-comment. One could also argue that the post actually anticipates pay-per-click years before GoTo (which become Overture and was the example that was used to create Google Adwords) by introducing the notion that if you pay to be read/heard it filters content, creates value, and increases the odds of relevance.

From her 12/1/94 post:

It's very simple. We all keep on getting the newsletter for free -- but it costs us, say, $10 to write back. Most of us are pretty short of time, but we're always ready to say something when other important people are listening. Sometimes, we're even humble enough to want to test our ideas against other smart (or at least knowledgeable) thinkers.

It's the way the world is heading, Dave. There's too much noise out there anyway. The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted. The job of the future is pr guy, not journalist. I'm too busy reading, so why should I pay for more things to read? Anything anyone didn't pay to send to me... I'm not going to read.

Yes, in a world full of content and advertising and pr, I still want to know what your friends and mine are thinking, but I want only what they think is so good that they'll pay to have me read it -- because they honestly believe it will raise their stature in my eyes.

It's an interesting idea even today. If leaving a blog comment cost something - say $1 - wouldn't that filter the comments in a useful way? And eliminate comment spam to boot? Assuming that the blog owner still retained full editorial control - so you had to pay and be deemed reasonable and relevant to get posted. I think I would read comments more thoroughly and probably write them more frequently and conscientiously.

Top blogs could charge more, any blogger could give the money to charity, there lots of details to work out. But it's a darn interesting idea. Thanks Esther (12+ years later).

Update: Just noticed Bryan Eisenberg has a discussion of comments. Wonder how this idea would rate.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

As narcissistic as the blogosphere is, you'd think they'd be making a big deal about its birthday. Since April 1, 1997 the great Dave Winer has been writing Scripting News.

You could do a lot worse with your time than reading the archives at ScriptingNews or even better yet of DaveNet.

I'm not sure when I first heard of Dave (although I was a big fan of ThinkTank many years ago), but my introduction to blogging quickly brought me to him and RadioUserLand was the first tool I used. I watched as he (and others) created and popularized RSS and then Podcasting. Success has a thousand fathers, and online those fathers get to argue (just like in the Anna Nichole Smith case) but Dave seems to show up as grandfather amazingly frequently. So at least from this little corner of the blogosphere, thanks Dave.

Posted by Craig Danuloff at 4:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)