 Poster: A snowHead
|
Here is something interesting, Alexa (which is using cookies to track users) say that there are around 6 page views per user over the previous three months (it is dropping probably as the forum figures work their way out.). However the Ski Club claims 50 page views per user in their November figures. Now if Ubrain is correct and there are in fact less visitors than claimed than the ratio of page views to visitors looks really high.
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| DavidS wrote: |
| New stats for the SCGB site have now been posted.. |
No update since March although I note in their advertising they quote 200,000 unique visitors per month during the peak season but... nowhere in their statistics have they ever made 200,000 unique visitors, even over a single month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
davidof, I see what you mean. My own view is that advertising-financed websites, magazines, newspapers, TV stations (and any other branches of the media) are best advised to have their data independently audited.
Maybe there's a general lack of independent auditing of UK ski websites. Do any of the UK sites have their traffic audited?
I do think that Laura Zachary's branding of the world as "cynical" back on 17 March was harsh. The snowHeads community is inquisitive and intelligent, as far as I can see, and not cynical at all.
Definitions of data measurement are extremely important. DavidS, who seems to have been away recently, made some very useful points earlier in the year. As a Ski Club member I think it would be good for them to be addressed.
As he suggests, should the data be measured as total IP addresses, or should cookies be counted? Whatever, it's very important that the phrase "unique visitors" is properly defined if it's being used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
| ....it's very important that the phrase "unique visitors" is properly defined if it's being used. |
Only to advertisers - who (if they have any sense) look at such figures with caution.
Advertisers also need to consider if the viewing audience match their (the advertisers') target profile (for example, users of London City Airport may no be all that high, but their profile http://www.londoncityairport.com/advertisingatlcy/ will, I guess, attract advertisers with high-cost product to sell to youngish folk.
In the case of the SCGB site, I would have thought only the general order of viewing figures had any significance. After that, I suppose advertisers have to make a judgement against the tone of the site about the profile of the audience that would visit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
In the case of the SCGB site, I would have thought only the general order of viewing figures had any significance.
|
I'm afraid I'm not convinced that the figures in question are correct even to this degree.
| Back in April I wrote: |
| I did a quick scan through and found that on average there were around 25ip's per posting-user on snowHeads which would transform 650,000 unique IP adresses into 26,000 actual people. Still a good, strong user base but a different order of magnitude I think you'll agree. |
OK, I'm not a 'qualified web auditor' but I do have good understanding of what these things mean and "unique IP's" DOES NOT EQUATE TO "unique users".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u brain, To be fair, my head hurts when trying to work out what web analysis figures mean.
Apart from advertising potential they matter to a company because it wants to see a good return for its investment. But to be honest, hard evidence that web visits are translating to sales is more important.
From the advertiser's viepoint, the question is something like "are 10s of thousands of visitors with the profile of the target for my product going to be visiting this site?".
In the case of the SCGB, which? Books seem to think so (resorts page) - OK, they may be a "partner" but the logic is the same. I seem to remember Land Rover, too during the skiing season. And resorts may also think they benefit from the links to the site. I guess what matters is being a high-profile site with a lot of visitors - bet advertisers would like to get access to the BBC site!
Were snowheads.com to be interested in such vulgar matters, I would have thought it will soon be large enough to act as a portal to skiing-related companies - charging companies for the links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U are right Nick, that in the end what matters is how many actual sales are generated by the advertising. This can be very hard to track though, esp. with something like the landrover deal at SCGB which has to be seen more as a 'brand enhancement' exercise rather than being about direct sales.
I am interested in involving advertisers/sponsors with snowHeads: I have to be! Having declared at the outset that the discussion forum here would remain a cost-free, open access facility for as long as it was within my power to provide it, I have nevertheless, spent all my time since Feb working on it and if I'm not to be the only snowHead who doesn't ski next season, must begin to generate some form of income form it or leave it be as it stands and go and get a job (I believe SCGB are hiring  ). Well, I'm quite proud of some of the recent developments and people seem enthusiastic for more so I'll try to stick with it.
So now I am faced with having to deal with potential advertisers saying "your site has only 650 users, the scgb's has 650,000: how can u expect us to take u seriously?". I don't want to have to explain how and why the Ski Club's figures are so wildly inaccurate, I don't want to seem like I'm slagging them off, but they simply do not have 1000 times the traffic that snowHeads does: Fact! They may well have more traffic (although I wouldn't be surprised if we are excedeing their's through the Summer months) but on nothing like that kind of scale.
Another way to think about it is - look at how their site slowed down as the forum there got busier and busier. This suggests that the forum formed a large bulk of their traffic. They boasted of their archive of 60,000 messages (over 2years I think), now look how many have been posted to snowHeads since Feb. I think we can see the direction the traffic is flowing
There is no question that scgb is very much more than its web site whereas snowHeads (thus far) extends little beyond the net. But, in the on-line stakes, they're not really quite what they're making out they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| davidof, I do think that Laura Zachary's branding of the world as "cynical" back on 17 March was harsh. The snowHeads community is inquisitive and intelligent, as far as I can see, and not cynical at all. |
Yeah, right!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry, there are quite a few non-English snowHeads. You posted "Yeah, right!" without any smiley. If you look at Chambers you will find the following definitions:
yeah exclamation, colloq yes.
right adj 6. correct; true • the right answer.
The clear implication being you are agreeing wholeheartedly with David Goldsmith.
However, I have met you before in PostieLand, and English is a sneaky language (does "bad" mean "good" in any other language?): I don't think you are agreeing with DG at all. I think you were using "Yeah Right!" more in line with this site.
But it is not clear. You may know what you meant, but many who read your post may misunderstand your stance.
Smileys are useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Just a note on the claims made for readers/visitors to any media related publication, whether physical or web. All can be (and most are) independently audited (ABC'd) to provide advertisers with analysis about circulation and site visits/hits. There is a publication for all media types called Brad which is available either on line or in tombe form which details not only the ABC (audited readership), but reader profiles amongst other information.
That said, the most common profile is ABC1, which covers pretty much most of the population (surprise, surprise ) and I'd expect the SC and snowHeads would also fall into this category. So, no wonder that Land Rover seemed to invest so much in the SC web site last season - ABC1's are most certainly going to match their customer profile! Their product range (no pun intended) covers vehicles from about £17k to well over £50k.
As far as measuring how well an advertising campaign goes, there are simple enough mechanisms to monitor success. For example, if punters interested in a Land Rover visited their website from a link in the SC site, that process should (if set up correctly) trigger a response mechanism providing useful data. I suspect, though, that that is as far as it goes. What Land Rover should then monitor is where the initial enquiry goes - was a brochure ordered? Or if a telephone enquiry was raised, where did the lead come from? I suspect that their own internal marketing would not define the source of the enquiry, which would be a failing on their part, though that's hardly uncommon.
Gerry, you're a staunch defender of the SC so I'd suggest keeping your (petty?) comments confined to the part of the SC site now dedicated to the discussion of internal politics etc. You should remember that there are members of snowHeads that could be potential SC members, who aren't aware of the MO decision. If the bickering spills over onto this site and erupts once more, then you could well be doing greater damage than has already been done. Something I'd guess that you would not wish to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Mark Hunter wrote: |
| Just a note on the claims made for readers/visitors to any media related publication, whether physical or web. All can be (and most are) independently audited (ABC'd) to provide advertisers with analysis about circulation and site visits/hits. |
I knew about audit of printed media, Mark - but not about audit of web site hits. Any idea how it's done? I guess auditors could have sight of web analysis reports, but am not sure of how they could be sure there was no tampering with the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Hunter, let me take this opportunity to remind you of what one very mature and fair minded person said:
| Kramer wrote: |
| I do not like a lot of the things that Gerry posts on the other side, and they make me quite angry sometimes. When I think about it though, the things that make me angry are the fact that Gerry takes a different view to me on something that I feel quite passionate about, and the fact that some of his arguements and counterpoints are (IMHO) well argued and obviously thought out. I don't think that he has been any more provocative than some of the posts made against the councils decision, including some started by myself. |
The important thing is not to get upset with people because they have a different point of view. David G has his views and I have mine. Politics is politics and there is no point in personalizing any of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Gerry
| Quote: |
| Politics is politics and there is no point in personalizing any of it. |
True but it's a shame that scgb has become so 'poltical'.
There is little more cynical, in my view, than misleading statistics designed to woo advertisers - if we are cynical for seeing through that then I for one, am proud to be so.
I don't recall whether u were involved with the forum at scgb before MO day but those who were will remember the constant stream of interesting, informative, amusing, high value material DG was delivering. In fact, the standard was so high that some were even under the impression that he was employed by scgb to 'add value' to the forum! Seems funny now with hindsight ey?
It's hardly surprising then that he should be one of the most active voices of dissent in the aftermath of the closure.
In the intervening period, u have presented many a strong argument in foil of DG's words, fighting the council's corner when they were 'too busy' to do it for themselves: I'm sure they honour u for it.
However, I don't think "Yeah right" quite makes the grade as:
| Quote: |
| well argued and obviously thought out. |
Still, U are as welcome as anyone here to be sarchastic but let's keep a perspective on it and see it for what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Mark Hunter wrote: |
As far as measuring how well an advertising campaign goes, there are simple enough mechanisms to monitor success. |
It also has to be said that some advertising campaigns are very unsuccessful and can destroy a brand. Strand Cigarettes would be one well known example and the weird Nissan Ad were a couple of Russians take a Nissan for a test drive and, presumably find it so awful they push it off a cliff and take a bus instead.
A lot of ads are placed by big firms because someone has a budget to spend.
I posted the info about the skiclub.co.uk site as a point of interest rather than to be critical.
Now Natives.co.uk is one site where I cannot fathom their business model. Very little advertising yet they seem to support a paid staff of around 10 people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
u brain, you're rigth, lets not be political. Lets have clarity, are you saying that the scgb statistics are designed to be misleading? Yes or no will be suitably unpolitical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Gerry wrote: |
Mark Hunter, let me take this opportunity to remind you of what one very mature and fair minded person said:
| Kramer wrote: |
| I do not like a lot of the things that Gerry posts on the other side, and they make me quite angry sometimes. When I think about it though, the things that make me angry are the fact that Gerry takes a different view to me on something that I feel quite passionate about, and the fact that some of his arguements and counterpoints are (IMHO) well argued and obviously thought out. I don't think that he has been any more provocative than some of the posts made against the councils decision, including some started by myself. |
The important thing is not to get upset with people because they have a different point of view. David G has his views and I have mine. Politics is politics and there is no point in personalizing any of it. |
Gerry, I assure you I'm not upset. As a member of the SC (well, for the time being), I'm concerned that potential members could be put off from joining if we continue a bickering debate here, where people are free to come and go and formulate a poor opinion about the current state of the SC which may or may not reflect the actual state of affairs. I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. I do appreciate that the very thing I'm keen to avoid I am probably now guilty of perpetrating 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Well welcome to snowHeads Beck Daross! As Ian said, what a unique entrance!
Ok, to answer your question in the simple terms you request: "No".
I am saying they are designed to woo advertisers. The dead giveaway is the fact that they are on a page titled "Advertise on skiclub.co.uk".
I have never said, nor wished to imply, that these statistics were created to deliberately mislead. In fact, in a post by Laura Zachary, SCGB's 'New Media Manager' here , she declares that it was her desire not to mislead. I have no reason to disbelieve her. I'm sorry if I gave u that impression.
However, no matter what the original intent, as they stand, the figures are misleading. Laura Zachary said in that same post that what has been counted is IP addresses and those totals have been presented as 'unique visitors'. However, unique IP addresses do not equate, even remotely, to unique visitors and, for reasons I explained here, there is reasonable cause to suggest that these figures could even be inaccurate by as much as a factor of 25.
I do think it's in the interest of scgb that they deal with this, since they are the ones who'll lose out if one of their advertisers ends up feeling misled - intentionally or not.
Perhaps a concerned club member might raise the issue on their own forum?
Anyway, there's little point going on about it anymore here. If anyone in authority at scgb were aware of the details of this conversation, I expect something would have been done about the situation already.
Of much more importance than any of this though is: do u board or ski or have u just been watching for a few years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Hmm. This site: http://simplythebest.net/info/spyware/alexa_spyware.html talks about how web site figures can be massaged - at least for alexa scrutiny. I am not suggesting that SCGB does this - just observing how debatable any web figures can be.
BTW, the above URL also discusses the question of whether alexa is spyware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Mark Hunter, so based on what's already been written about the Ski Club in here do you think these people are going want to join?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry, what's here is here. Why exacerbate things? I suspect that most people don't go to the trouble of reading every single thread from the beginning, although if there was someone interested in joining the SC I have to concede that they may well read more of the SC designated threads here.
Perhaps the time has come to draw a line under the discussions here. The main contributors now are mainly members anyway, so one has to assume that there is little or no interest from others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry, Mark Hunter, I did not contribute to the old forum (what on earth did I do with my time, I hear you ask )... nor did I know a great deal about the SCGB itself.
Posts here certainly wouldn't stop me from joining, if I could see a good reason for doing so. On the whole I have found them useful and reasonably balanced. Most readers should be able to discriminate between unwarranted snide comments and fair, if direct criticism. Valid points are being raised in this discussion forum that do not appear elsewhere, and I am glad that my ability to choose, as a consumer, is being augmented, thanks to snowHeads.
The issue of what constitutes a unique visitor is a vital one for potential advertisers, and the fact that it is being raised in this forum is ultimately to the benefit of all consumers, whether the SCGB, or indeed any Internet-based advertising media, likes it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I think we should be able to rely on good old plain English to define the phrase 'unique visitors', PG.
If I, my wife, and two daughters, visit a website then we are 4 unique visitors. But maybe we're not registered as such if we do it from the same computer. If I visit a website four times and - for whatever reason (and I still don't understand what an IP address is) generate 4 IP addresses I do not become 4 'unique visitors'.
But it seems that maybe I do become 4 unique visitors. We really need some industry-standard definitions here. If the phrase is misleading then it should be dumped in the North Sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If the phrase is misleading then it should be dumped in the North Sea.
|
Like you DG I'm no expert but I suspect we will be feeding the fishes. Registered users is a safe statistic both snowHeads and SCGB could confidently quote. But are lowish numbers unlikely to impress anyone in adland. Anything else, from what I understand of previous posts in this thread, seems highly suspect and probably totally misleading. Witness our 'highest number of users on line' which peaked at 86 - but probably around 65 of them were googlebots - not even real users far less 'unique'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Data for the six months between November 2003 and April 2004 has now been entered on the Ski Club site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan, The UK 'Ski and Snowboard Industry Report', which uses various sources (mainly tour trade) says 1,011,000 for winter 2002-03. Don't have any global figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
So making the crude assumption that most of the "unique vistors" to the Club site were from the UK, about 70% of the snowsports community here visited the site last winter. I know nothing about marketing, but it seems clear that the site did not persuade many of its "unique visitors" to buy its main product, viz. club membership. Perhaps many more of them bought Land Rovers. Or have I got this wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Alan, Some may have bought Landrovers. I drive a Corsa 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I have some pretty negative experience of these issues in printed advertising media, magazines etc. Readership numbers, numbers of copies distributed, were sometimes wildly exaggerated. I would warn any potential advertiser, particularly if contacted by 'lesser known' publications, to take any figures quoted with a King Kong-sized pinch of salt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
PG, they don't even have to be lesser known. Audits are done once a year, between these times publishers wildly exaggerate their circulation figures. Usually on the hope and a prayer arguement that potential readers will suddenly swing to their publication!
Anyone running an advertising campaign has to accept that in some cases the publications print another 25 - 30% on top of the circulation figure. As long as advertisers are aware of this, they should negotiate a price deal that reflects it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Mark Hunter, I visited the French premises of an expat mag distributed around Europe once. 30,000 copies printed bi-monthly according to the advertising was in fact nearer to 20,000. Approximately one-third ended up in outbuildings on the owner's farm. A small quantity was mailed out to a membership which wasn't even close to the figure claimed. Some were dumped haphazardly in public places. The remainder was distributed through the official channel to the Maisons de Presse around France or the equivalent system in the UK. The percentage of unsold returns was huge. Out of an original figure of 30,000, I reckon perhaps 1,000 to 2,000 were actually read by someone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
admin, You've lost me (easily done). What does "CPM" mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Nick Zotov, Calendars Per Month....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Zotov, according to the SC site it's "Cost per thousand views". Why mix english and latin (or french?) though I don't know 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Alan Craggs wrote: |
| Nick Zotov, according to the SC site it's "Cost per thousand views". |
Cost seems a tad high - couldn't find it in the SCGB site - can you give me a link?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not exactly sure what the 'M' is for but yes, it means cost per 1000 'impressions'. It's quite a low-tech form of count: every time a page with the ad on is loaded by a viewer, it counts as 1 impression regardless of whether that viewer has been there before. Even just a hit of the 'refresh' button tends to count as another impression.
Those kind of rates weren't too un-common in the olden days of dot.com.mania but things are a bit more 'sane' now.
These days $10US CPM is considered very much the 'top end' of the market.
Nevertheless, if anyone fancies paying £25CPM to advertise on snowHeads I'm all ears 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
(rounded to the nearest thousand will do 