Engagement Update!!

And no, it's not mine (definition 3.) That was three decades ago (and the resultant outcome of THAT engagement is still the very best part of my life!)

This is an update about the type of engagement that Joseph Carrabis waxes tediously semantic about here and claims is much harder to define.

I realized that my first post about engagement was actually very much related to these guys (Joseph Carrabis and Eric T. Peterson) and their "engagement project".

As an interesting aside (or <ASIDE> as Carrabis writes it), one of the posts refers to the fact that there is a patent application for an engagement formula. They mention that "someone working for Google" is the applicant (probably one of the inventors) but the assignee name is Yahoo Inc.

Ahhh...but there are two updates you must look at if engagement (definition 7) is of interest to you.

One of their posts here defines more clearly what the "engagement formula" entails. But EVEN BETTER is this post that shows and tells how to calculate it with Google Analytics' new features!! I've GOT to try that out. I only have one pressing question: WHY oh WHY couldn't I have found that AFTER finals?

And lastly, I'll leave you with this (30 minute) YOU TUBE video where Eric T. Peterson introduces himself for the first 4 minutes "for the few who have not bought my books" :-), and spends the rest of the time discussing how easy web-analytics ISN'T, and explains RAMP (Resources, Analysis, Multivariate testing, Process). He posits that knowing how to use web-analytics will determine whether you thrive or dive when web 3.0 hits. The last few minutes he gives real-life examples of how analytics has made millions. The most interesting example to me was one where analytics helped a company show evidence of "click fraud". And, as they had been paying $12-$15 a click, they were able to recover over 2 million dollars from search engines.

Read More......

Demystified, but still a little Foggy.

Though this posting's title could be describing me, that wasn't the intent! It's actually the way I feel about this really great post by 'The Future Collective' (whatever that is? Part of the 'Fog'?)

ANYway....I LOVED the post, and it specifically addresses engagement. As alluded to in a previous post, engagement is key in all learning. (DUH!) And 'The Future Collective' does a good job of showing where web analytics fits into the "equation". They/It define/s it simply enough: A+B=C where:

A + B = C -> (they are engaged) + (the site) = (to do what?)

* If you can describe what you want someone to do (”C”) and
* You know what the demonstrations of engagement are for your selected audience (”A”) then
* You can determine what the site (”B”) needs to be in order for “A” to happen such that “C” occurs.

The only FOGGY thing still is...that I DON'T know what the demonstrations of engagement are for my selected audience (learners rather than customers). It's not quite as straight-forward as a purchase, or putting something in a cart, or even registering. AND it probably varies quite a bit by person (thus the 'intended audience' qualifier). But my biggest hang-up is that I try to define what it is that demonstrates (learning) engagement in terms of what I know analytics can measure. Right now. Today. I'm pretty sure that progress will only come when we see past that limitation (that for all intents and purposes isn't real anyway!).

Glad I found the site. Will definitely be reading more. Read More......

Operationalizing Engagement

How does this formula grab you?


Whoa! Don't touch that back button YET!
What? this doesn't 'engage' you?

How about this version and explanation?
Σ(Ci + Di + Ri + Li + Bi + Fi + Ii)
Where

“Visitor Engagement is a function of the number of clicks (Ci), the visit duration (Di), the rate at which the visitor returns to the site over time (Ri), their overall loyalty to the site (Li), their measured awareness of the brand (Bi), their willingness to directly contribute feedback (Fi) and the likelihood that they will engage in specific activities on the site designed to increase awareness and create a lasting impression (Ii).”

"The components of the Visitor Engagement calculation are:
• Click Depth Index: Captures the contribution of page and event views
• Duration Index: Captures the contribution of time spent on site
• Recency Index: Captures the visitor’s “visit velocity”—the rate at which visitors return to the web site over time
• Brand Index: Captures the apparent awareness of the visitor of the brand, site, or product(s)
• Feedback Index: Captures qualitative information including propensity to solicit additional information or supply direct feedback
• Interaction Index: Captures visitor interaction with content or functionality designed to increase level of Attention the visitor is paying to the brand, site, or product(s)
• Loyalty Index: Captures the level of long-term interaction the visitor has with the brand, site, or product(s)"

You can read about that and MUCH more in the whitepaper entitled:Measuring the Immeasurable: Visitor Engagement by Eric T. Peterson and Joseph Carrabis. Engagement in the educational experience is essential! This too is a must read -- and an opportunity to join the conversation about engagement here. And just to whet your appetite, it documents Omniture's response to the subject of measuring engagement (and the author's response to their response):

"The same guys that want you all to believe web analytics is easy has now declared that “Visitor engagement formulas are largely another fad, just like parachute pants and the Hollywood diet. It’s a measure some consultants and vendors can pitch like snake oil.”

Omniture’s point that Visitor Engagement is a bad idea because it has subjective components fails to understand the work that folks like Jim Novo, Steve Jackson, Theo Papadakis, Joseph Carrabis and others have done; it makes me wonder if the author bothered to read anyone’s work on the subject."

Read More......