Exhausted after my AlwaysOn NYC coverage plus having lunch with my manager at IBM and then just missing Jimmy Whales talk at NYU because it was too packed today; I was just about to go over for a life drawing session at Brooklyn Artists Gym (which I still may go to, but if I go I'll be late, as usual).
Then I saw Gary Angel's post of Eric T. Peterson's Engagement Metric care of Google Alerts, which mentioned me – and suddenly – I felt energized. After all, I was surrounded at Always ON NYC, which Kimberlee Morrison at Know More Media commented on better than I realized, surrounded by power makers, a bunch of CEO's and kinda felt like …. well … not all that comfortable – not exactly out of place – but I don't hang out at Davos either (and a good number of AlwaysON Attendees did, some flying in right from Davos – by direct jet – practically airlifted to the roof of the bloody Mandarin Oriental!), and I could not afford to go to Davos even if I was invited and wanted to.
So I did not say much – but Kimberly Morrison picked up what I only half realized myself:
"…This week WebMetricsGuru author Marshall Sponder is covering AlwaysOn Media from New York. He started the conference off with a reflection on what it felt like to be surrounded by so many powerful people; downplaying his own growing citizen media power. Check out some of Sponder's other posts from AlwaysOn Media.
I guess it would be "citizen media power" since I don't have any other authority. Or do I? That's what I'm going to explore in the context of Gary Angel's comment on Eric T. Peterson's post.
"…, he evaluates Marshall Sponder’s referrals to his site using the Engagement metric and comes up with a specific action he can take based on the KPI. In passing, he mentions some previous issues he’s had with how broad Marshall’s posts sometimes are."
I did write up a couple of words for Eric's blog last night (on my SideKick 3, almost ready to pass out from a couple of drinks at an AlwaysON after party – I have to say they do know how to "booze it up" for sure at AlwaysON. I think Eric is going test if my engagement score will sell him more books (I hope it does). As far as the action to take …I'm glad when Web Metrics can actually inform you on the next steps to take.
Here's what I think – Web Metrics, Web Analytics, whatever you want to call it – is simply a method of "focusing" and communing with web data. When you get enough information (go through the process) often the next step becomes clear (if it's not – then you haven't gotten all the information that's needed yet).
So I'm glad if Eric could get, out of his Engagement Metric, that the next step was to focus on visitors to his site that were coming from mine, because they were more engaged.
"….On this last point, I think Eric and I both suffer from envy. I know I do. I write a "corporate" blog so I have to be pretty careful about staying on topic and not writing about politics, religion or popular culture. I often wish I could though! I love web analytics. I really do. But I love books, movies and football too. And Marshall is enviably prolific (as well as amazingly timely – I can promise I did no writing the evening I had dinner and wine with him)!"
Well, my life is my writing, my web analytics and my art – maybe not in that exact order – but I believe, as a blogger, the sooner I write down my impressions – the more vivid they are. My approach is 180 degrees away from the Chinese painting approach of taking in information and then drawing a picture from memory several days later – my best work is immediate. But it's also possible to take in information and process it and later comment on it – and I've done that to in a post called When Search Engine Ranking is not enough where I commented on a former client where I had digested a lot of information over time. Both approaches are needed and valid – but I feel the best work – and the type that draws engaged visitors to Eric T. Peterson's site – come from posts where I'm emoting about Web Analytics.
Besides, it's not every evening that I get to have dinner with Gary Angel – and I wanted to capture that … and not lose it …..and that's why I stayed up and wrote a post on Dinner with Gary Angel at The Modern – Semphonic two weeks ago. It's the artist in me. I have to express what I know – I can't contain it, I have to express the experience, capturing the immediacy of it, or lose it.
"….2) Eric describes a particular action that he can take based on the Engagement KPI (get Marshall to plug books) – and it makes sen
se. But it doesn’t so much change my mind as make me think I need to clarify my original post."
I just want to say that Gary Angel's approach has been very helpful to me in understanding the value of my work to Stakeholders at IBM and elsewhere – even when the reports don't suggest any clear course of action.
A keyword report on a bunch of Storage Group UR L's don't necessarily tell the Stakeholder what they should be buying in the way of Keywords, or even, what they should optimize for, but the report does have value and it may move the stakeholder towards a decision – inform them as to the next steps they can take (informing vs. knowing – it's part of their process not the conclusion of it).
"….The Engagement metric is much richer than most KPI’s – by blending a half-dozen separate measurements, it comes close to providing something like a real context for decision-making (you're probably picking up hints that I think a report set needs to have multiple descriptive KPI's to provide an overall context within which an action might make sense). That’s why I think it’s unusually good. But even so, Eric has snuck in a second metric (Marshall doesn’t generate book sales) before coming up with an action. I’ll give him a pass on that since he could presumably create an Engagement/Sales ratio as yet another KPI. And in a way, he's even snuck in a third because the original KPI is simply a measure of engagement but he's crossed it by source – tieing it to a particular kind of story – a story about sourcing. This gradual building of a context around a measure is exactly how I think reporting actually works – and how analysis drives to actionable understanding."
I think Web Analytics can be like a mirror – you can see what you project into it ( I often use the term "touch the data" – I need to connect on a gut level (again, the artist) in order to know what to do next).
If you need a direct answer – you can get it (depending on how you ask the question) if you get enough good data ("good data" is a value judgement – I guess – one man's "good data" is another's "bad data", or whatever).
What I think Gary Angel is really saying – is the value of an Engagement Metric, or any metric, KPI, is independent of it being directly actionable. As long as it contributes, in some way, to a better understanding of the subject, it has value and is worth reporting on.
However, I'll add another insight that I noticed this morning at CEO Showcase: Web & Blog Analytics & Research – AlwaysOn NYC when BuzzLogic's information gathering might be related to Eric's Engagement Score:
"…In fact, I'd say that something about BuzzLogic reminds me, in a tangential way, of Eric T. Peterson's engagement score – just follow me here. What Buzzlogic is trying to do is find the authorities – the people who really matter that are blogging or just talking about your company. I believe, perhaps, that engagement might be a quality that goes with "authority". If that's the case, Eric might have, without realizing it, defined an algorithm for determining authority – or a part of it. Read Eric T. Peterson's post in detail to find out more."
Could it be that Eric's "engaged visitors" to his site, coming from mine, are engaged because they believe me? And if that's the case – is Engagement really another form of "Authority" – the kind that BuzzLogic is looking for to decide which conversations are more important?
Well, I've said enough and if I am going to do any life drawing tonight I better get going.
