Contemplating Conversion: Why the “Measure for Conversion” Mantra Isn’t Simplistic Science
Let’s take these in order, starting with the most obvious.
In a multi-channel business, your website is just one conversion point. Whether it’s the best conversion point or the worst is going to depend heavily on the nature of your customers, your relationships and your sales process. If you do a lot of affiliate marketing, and your affiliates sell your product for 20% less than you do on your website, then it’s simply unreasonable to measure your website by conversion effectiveness (unless, of course, you are measuring it by conversion to affiliates as well).
For almost any multi-channel business, it will be essential to come to some understanding of how important the Web is to supporting other channels. This is rarely a simple answer to come by, but once arrived at it can greatly shape your thinking about how to measure the Web. You may need to find website points that correlate to purchase interest and measure engagement to those points instead of measuring to actual conversion.
Our second point deals with the effect of visitors who aren’t coming to the website to purchase. If your website has a Customer Support component, for example, then it is simply wrong to measure your conversion rate as total conversions / total visitors. Including Customer Support visitors will obviously depress your conversion rates. That, in and of itself, isn’t important.
But what if your Customer Support traffic spikes every time you issue a new release? Now, your conversion rate is going to tank when you launch a new release — possibly setting off an entirely unwarranted firestorm of concern! The more functions your web site is being asked to perform, the less relevant conversion rates are as a measure and the more they will be distorted by outside factors if you try to trend them.
Fortunately, you can often segment visitors based on high-level cues from their behavior. So you can create a segment of visitors who view support information and subtract them from your total visitor counts. The more non-purchase segments you can identify and eliminate, the more meaningful and accurate your conversion rates are going to be.
If you can’t easily find behavioral cues that identify negative intent, you can also use measures of engagement to better classify potential prospects. It is sometimes easier to find pages that indicate a visitor is an interested prospect. By tracking conversion versus interest, you lose part of the funnel of your website (not all prospects may make it to the “interested” pages) but you have a measure that’s likely to be significantly more representative.
Our third bullet deals with the relationship between source and site efficiency. If you are trying to determine the effectiveness of your website or its “convincing” content, then you need to recognize that the level of qualification of prospects is going to be a significant factor in real-world performance.
Suppose you measure your website performance and find you have a 4% conversion rate. You then launch a big SEO program and your conversion rate falls to 3%. Has your site gotten worse? A significant percentage of new lands from SEO improvements or expansions in search or advertising programs will nearly always lead to lowering in the overall qualification of your prospects. The law of diminishing returns nearly always applies here. So site efficiency can only be trend measured vis-ÃÂ-vis a specific marketing mix. Failing to understand this can result in a series of totally unnecessary site-improvement “fire-drills.”
The fourth bullet point may be the most subtle and least welcome to web marketers. The idea is that you want to understand the operational conversion efficiency of your web site (its ability to convert those who decide to convert) and your marketing efficiency — its ability to convince real prospects to buy. A significant percentage of your web site conversion is quite likely to be purely operational — because the visitor showed up on your web site fully intending to buy. How can you know this. You can’t always.
But if your sales cycle is typically fairly long and the median conversion for visitors is 3 or more visits, then it’s a pretty good bet that any visitors who converted in their first session were fully intending to buy when they showed up. That means if you really want to measure the “convincing” performance of your site, you need to remove the visitors who’d already decided to buy just like you removed the visitors who aren’t prospects at all!
The last point addresses a common problem in almost all web measurement — the lack of statistically measurable significance of most changes on total site conversion. Most real site design decisions are at the page or even sub-page level. How should a message be worded? Does an image work better here? Is their too much text on this page? Even A/B tests to try an answer these questions typically won’t yield an answer when the outcome you’re measuring for is conversion. That’s especially true when conversions are a fairly low percentage of total volume.
There are two paths to tackling this issue: measuring to conversion proxies and measuring to Functional KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). The idea behind Functional KPIs is that you can measure micro-changes on a web site by using KPIs that are specific to the page’s actual function. In many cases, these KPIs let you measure the effect of very small changes to a single page.
None of the ideas described here really challenge the ultimate truth of the “measure for conversion” mantra. But together, they should make it plain that a simplistic view of what a conversion is and how conversion rate should be measured can be seriously wrong.
Reader Comments.
Gary,
Love the article, and appreciate the points you are making.
But you seem to be both rejecting and embracing the idea of the “site”. You clearly don’t believe that sitewide conversion is precise enough, but you don’t seem willing to embrace the idea that you should simply stop measuring the site and start measuring campaigns only.
Check out my blog, The Site is Dead. I try to address this issue from multiple angles.
I would also add that conversion rate is a lousy proxy because it does not contemplate lead value. For ecommerce, you really have to measure revenue (hard) and even for publishers and other web properties, you should establish value proxies for critical user events.
Matthew Roche
Offermatica
Gary: The point you make on why conversion rate is not great but then your proposal is still very fragile based on “behaviour identification” based on page views. This can be wrong for many reasons (think SEO directing people deeper into sites, where they don’t want to be, or wrong clicks becuase of bad navigation and many others).
Occam’s Razor blog by Avinash Kaushik had a very good post on “Stop Obsessing About Conversion Rate” which also proposes a much better metric to replace conversion rate:
http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/2006/07/stop-obsessing-about-conversion-rate.html
That blog also has a post on how to measure conversion rate for maximum impact:
Conversion Rate Basics & Best Practices
-Peter.
Leave a Comment
Pages: « previous page 1 2
No TagsArticle Sponsor
More Features
-
Loading ...
Latest News
- Funding in Brief: $10M for Spongecell, $8M for Prolexic February 9th 2012 ADOTAS – Rich media ad company Spongecell has raised $10 million [...] more »
- Google AdMob Axes Minimum Bids, Targeting Fees February 9th 2012 ADOTAS - As of Feb. 15, Google will change its [...] more »
- Infographic: HootSuite Analyses Social Media Impact of Super Bowl Ads February 7th 2012 ADOTAS - So, it’s the Tuesday after the Super Bowl, [...] more »
- Facebook to Serve Mobile Ads in Coming Weeks February 6th 2012 ADOTAS – According to a Financial Times report, Facebook will [...] more »
- Survey: 39 Percent of Mobile Users Responded to Super Bowl Ads Via Mobile February 6th 2012 ADOTAS - During the Super Bowl yesterday, mobile ad network [...] more »
- Sponsormob Leads the Way Into RTB for Mobile February 3rd 2012 ADOTAS – For more than half a decade, Berlin-based tech [...] more »
- Weird Study: Mobile Purchasing While in the Bathroom on the Rise February 3rd 2012 DM CONFIDENTIAL - According to 11mark, three-quarters of Americans with mobile [...] more »
Features
- Attribution Online: Introducers and Influencers and Closers… Oh My! February 9th 2012
- With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name February 9th 2012
- Rethinking the Online Advertising Ecosystem, Part One: Independent Publishers February 8th 2012
- Case Study: Social Ad Effectiveness February 8th 2012
- Video: “Build an SEO Foundation” Excerpt February 8th 2012
Spotlight
Sponsormob Leads the Way Into RTB for MobileADOTAS – For more than half a decade, Berlin-based tech firm Sponsormob has remained relevant in an industry characterized by [...] more...
Reader Favorites
Classifieds
- PS Technical Writer - SEO Data Analyst
- Interactive Project Manager
- Media Buyer
- PHP Software Engineer (Facebook Platform/Social AP
- SEO/Marketing Internship at Green Education Startu
Recent Comments
- With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name – ADOTAS | ShopComs.com: [...] With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a NameADOTASADOTAS – It's no longer important how
- Domain Outlook : Latest Domain News » Blog Archive » With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name - ADOTAS: [...] With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a NameADOTASADOTAS – It's no longer important how
- With gTLDs, Global Branding Starts with a Name: [...] and Microsoft have little to worry about over names like UnitedThis and UnitedThat. The
- ReTargeter » Attacking Bad Banners: Inaugural Edition: [...] between 0.01% to 0.1%. Even with retargeted ads, which tend to have clickthrough rates