In this video, Jeremiah and Eric Peterson take us (and Charlene Li) to task on Attention and Engagement.
We are glad that Compete.com made it into their conversation about Attention and Engagement; looks like our Scoble interviews increased awareness of Compete.com’s usefulness for online competitive intelligence and measurement! We’re hell-bent on using our clickstream and survey capabilities to come up with universal metrics in these two areas (frameworks are key, but our view is that marketers need universal measures in order to put their own performance into context – relative to rivals, peers, or anyone else they want to compare themselves to).
Earlier this year, we introduced our Attention metric, and we disagree with the conclusions that Jeremiah and Eric have come to. Attention is a time-based measure, so logically the more time we spend on a site, the more attention we give it. We think of Attention as a pie-chart – its finite – so the sites that are increasing in Attention over time are performing well along this metric. Sure people can cite the issues of multiple browser tabs, etc, but the point is that marketers need an effective way to first identify and then see why sites like www.millsberry.com are so incredibly cool. This General Mills site ranks in the top 1,500 in visitors but leaps into the top 100 in Attention because its members spend over 30 minutes on the site each time they visit it (more than Myspace):
Ask the folks at MillsOnline if they think that total time spent on site is a great way to understand whether they are increasing/sustaining Attention in the marketplace – we bet they’ll say yes.
Here’s another great application of our Attention metric:
Don’t you think this will be a great predictor for which candidates are generating the most momentum between now and Fall 2008?!
Engagement is a different story altogether – and we agree with Jeremiah and Eric. Unlike Attention (a pie-chart), we see Engagement as a spectrum. Worse yet, it is tough to place companies/sites on the same spectrum because of the important "emotional layer" of metrics that need to be considered and that are company/situation specific. Our view is that you necessarily need to use attitudinal inputs gathered via surveys to crack the code on a universal Engagement metric (and we think that Reicheld’s work around advocacy and net promoter scores is a fertile place to begin).
We appreciate Jeremiah and Eric including us in their conversation and would love to advance our approaches with further feedback from them and their collective fans!