Analysis: Nielsen Swaps One Problematic Metric For Another

Authored by Scott Karp on July 10, 2007 - 3:39am.

Nielsen took a big step towards accelerating the death of the page view by announcing it would rank websites by time spend on the site instead. But time spent is an equally problematic metric that assumes that more is better, which isn’t the case with web applications designed for efficiency, like Google search.

Ranking top sites by total minutes instead of page views gives Time Warner Inc.’s AOL a boost, largely because time spent on its popular instant-messaging software now gets counted. AOL ranks first in the United States with 25 billion minutes based on May data, ahead of Yahoo’s 20 billion. By page views, AOL would have been sixth.

Google, meanwhile, drops to fifth in time spent, primarily because its search engine is focused on giving visitors quick answers and links for going elsewhere. By page views, Google ranks third.

The problem is that the web is not a monolithic medium. Reading a blog, using instant messaging, and using web search are utterly different — the idea that one metric can be used as a yardstick to compare them is absurd on the face of it.

The simplest common metric that would be meaningful is returning unique visitors, i.e. how many people use the site/service everyday, every week, etc.

Oh, but wait…you can’t measure unique visitors on the web, because people clear their cookies, use different computers, and do all sorts of things to defeat the technology.

Makes you wonder what the point of this obsession over metric is.

Oh, right, so that advertisers can figure out where to advertise and investors can figure out which sites to overpay for. Well, maybe we should look at the metric used by one of the most successful sites from both an advertising and investment perspective — what metric does Google use? Page views? No. Time spent? No. Unique visitors? No.

Oh, that’s right, those are OLD media metrics — proxies for things that matter, like actions. Google makes money by selling actions, i.e. clicks.

No wonder more than half of all online advertising revenue goes to Google.

Maybe it’s time we dropped the obsession with old media metrics and started thinking about Web native metrics.

Or we can just let Google run away with all the money.

Scott Karp

 

Scott Karp is the Editor of Publishing 2.0, a blog about the convergence of media and technology. This piece was originally published on Publishing 2.0 and is posted on DMW with the author's permission.

DMW only publishes selected pieces from Publishing 2.0. You can subscribe to Publishing 2.0 to receive all content published daily.

Flickr Photo Credit: canonsnapper



Comments

Google Metric v Nielsen

I'm sorry, but this is too simplistic an answer to just run to Google and criticise les autres...there are still a large number of Ads that aren't necessarily relevant for a click through approach, and one needs a metric for them too. For example, on this blog there is an ad for Digital Music Forum West..I have clocked it, but I don't want to look at it now, but I am now aware and will go and look at it when I have time. Google will have measured a "zero", yet I can assure you it has had an impact, and thus a value.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Add image
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br><p> <b> <i> <img> <hr>
  • Images can be added to this post.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.