<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The only metric that matters</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ojr.org/p1874/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ojr.org/p1874/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=p1874</link>
	<description>Focusing on the future of digital journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:43:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Claridge</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/p1874/#comment-2398</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Claridge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1874#comment-2398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Surely all the web analytics metrics work to contribute to the ultimate goal of revenue? On top of that, some metrics are going to be more important than others for different kinds of sites. I&#039;m sure Facebook and Youtube have &quot;time on site&quot; metrics that can be measured in hours, but Facebook are probably doing a better job in terms of revenue.

Conversely a single page sales letter or &#039;squeeze&#039; page (a page that asks for your name and email address in report for some information) probably want to focus on getting more page views and are not concerned about the time on the site.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surely all the web analytics metrics work to contribute to the ultimate goal of revenue? On top of that, some metrics are going to be more important than others for different kinds of sites. I&#8217;m sure Facebook and Youtube have &#8220;time on site&#8221; metrics that can be measured in hours, but Facebook are probably doing a better job in terms of revenue.</p>
<p>Conversely a single page sales letter or &#8216;squeeze&#8217; page (a page that asks for your name and email address in report for some information) probably want to focus on getting more page views and are not concerned about the time on the site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Chase</title>
		<link>http://www.ojr.org/p1874/#comment-2397</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Chase</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 10:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ojr.org/?p=1874#comment-2397</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert - I agree with virtually everything you have to say but would add one caution to those relatively new to worrying about keeping advertisers happy. The dreaded click-through metric has caused more angst than any I&#039;ve seen. Unless the ad is explicitly direct response (think of a TV add that has you call a 800 #), click-through is the wrong metric to track and sets one up for advertiser disappointment.

Not only are most ads on news sites not geared towards direct response, unfortunately there&#039;s a lot of scorched earth that made people reluctant to click-through on ads. At one time, there were unpleasant surprises that greeted people who clicked-through on ads (e.g., pop-ups, back-key disabled, etc.) that caused people to regret clicking on an ad. As a byproduct, about the only people clicking on ads are adolescent males. That doesn&#039;t mean that an impression wasn&#039;t made...it simply means there aren&#039;t click-throughs.

On top of that, usually online ad dollars come from print or broadcast where there&#039;s no notion of a &quot;click-through&quot;. Consequently, it holds an online ad to a much higher standard than other ad types. How many people pull over and call a business from an ad they heard on the radio? About the same # that click on online ads that aren&#039;t direct response oriented.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert &#8211; I agree with virtually everything you have to say but would add one caution to those relatively new to worrying about keeping advertisers happy. The dreaded click-through metric has caused more angst than any I&#8217;ve seen. Unless the ad is explicitly direct response (think of a TV add that has you call a 800 #), click-through is the wrong metric to track and sets one up for advertiser disappointment.</p>
<p>Not only are most ads on news sites not geared towards direct response, unfortunately there&#8217;s a lot of scorched earth that made people reluctant to click-through on ads. At one time, there were unpleasant surprises that greeted people who clicked-through on ads (e.g., pop-ups, back-key disabled, etc.) that caused people to regret clicking on an ad. As a byproduct, about the only people clicking on ads are adolescent males. That doesn&#8217;t mean that an impression wasn&#8217;t made&#8230;it simply means there aren&#8217;t click-throughs.</p>
<p>On top of that, usually online ad dollars come from print or broadcast where there&#8217;s no notion of a &#8220;click-through&#8221;. Consequently, it holds an online ad to a much higher standard than other ad types. How many people pull over and call a business from an ad they heard on the radio? About the same # that click on online ads that aren&#8217;t direct response oriented.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>