Web Analytics Tool Time

Simplifying Analysis, Without Dumbing it Down

If I was a promoter of web analytics grudge matches, I'd pit Eric "Web Analytics is Hard" Peterson against Avinash "It's Easy With GA and My Blog" Kaushik.  The bout would prove, to all seven of those in attendance, once and for all if web analytics is easy or hard.  To referee the proceedings I'd send out Gary Angel -- not to scrub the blood, blog comments and twitter feeds, but to shed some perspective.

At Semphonic we've wrestled with the notion of whether web analytics is easy or hard for the better part of a decade and a half (myself for the half portion) and, like a good referee, we come down squarely in the middle -- sort of.  A deep dive analysis is by nature challenging.  It involves pulling data, reacting to the most interesting components of the data, adjusting your data pull accordingly and repeating.  Over and over and over, until you have merged off the superhighway of data down, veered sharply on a surface street and made your way down a single file path to actionable insight.  It is the reaction, the human element, which will always make doing analysis hard.

Semphonic finds itself in the middle ground between easy and hard, not because we'd ever argue that doing an analysis is easy, but because we expect (and demand) that comprehending the results of an analysis should be.  Whereas the inner workings of an analysis might look like gibberish sitting in a folder on the analysts desktop, massive data pulls, an inordinate number of cryptically named segments, notes scattered throughout Excel worksheets, the final result should be crisp, convincing and in VPese.

This translation and transformation from complex deep dive data to straightforward analysis deck is, admittedly, easier said than done.  It's something Semphonic over the years has tweaked, changed entirely, gotten wrong, gotten right, gotten wrong again, but through it all improved upon.  I wouldn't call our approach today perfect (to paraphrase French Laundry Chef Thomas Keller -- perfection is fleeting, once you obtain it, it is already gone), but I will attest that it has gotten pretty darn good. 

The centerpieces of Semphonic's approach to simplifying analysis are two "foundational" techniques:
•    Functionalism
•    Use Case

Functionalism is used to explain the complex inner workings of a website in plain English by chunking a website up based on the purpose, or function, of each chunk.  Essentially Functionalism asks the question 'why did you build X?' and based on the answer classifies the page into a group.  To illustrate this, let's do a bit of role playing --

Functionalism is used to explain the complex inner workings of a website in plain English by chunking a website up based on the purpose, or function, of each chunk.  Essentially Functionalism asks the question 'why did you build X?' and based on the answer classifies the page into a group.  To illustrate this, let's do a bit of role playing --
    Jesse: Why did you build your home page?
    You: To route people deeper into my site.
    Jesse:  Cool, we'll classify your home page as a 'router' and measure it's performance against other     pages we consider routers!    

Meanwhile, we utilize Use Cases to bring in the human element, which is too often missed, into an analysis.  By talking about real groups of people on your web site their size, issues and successes become tangible.  It is one thing to talk about an abstract population segment defined by a user who enters on a Google paid search ad, lands on the home page and immediately navigate to the store locator tool and another thing to discuss the real people coming to your site with the sole purpose of locating a retail outlet.  Good Use Cases don't need to be explained or clarified when presenting them to execs, which makes it all that much easier to say there are exactly X thousand of a type of person, with Y thousand experiencing a specific issue and that the issue is having Z impact on your bottom line.

Functional and Use Case analysis can conceivably be use standalone, baseline analysis, but for me they are best suited to strengthen analyses with more specific focuses (internal search, conversion funnel, etc.) by making them easy to understand.  When used correctly than can become tools that bridge the gap between an in the weeds analyst and upper management.  Some of the best analyses Semphonic have done don't mention 'web' or 'analytics', 'visits' or 'visitors', 'engagement' or 'success metric'.  They leverage Functionalism Use Case analysis and become too business focused to get caught up in irreverent web analytics specific vocabulary.   

If those last lines sound a bit like a sales pitch, it's only because they are.  On July 29th Gary Angel will be hosting a webinar to walk through Semphonic's Advanced Analysis program, where Functionalism and Use Case are core pieces.  The program is designed to make deep dive analysis a central and valuable piece of the decision making process.  Regardless of if you are a manager who is considering Semphonic to guide their advanced deep dive analytics program or a do it yourself analyst, the webinar should be of interest.  As Gary put's it "...be forewarned – this is a sales presentation. On the other hand, it’s not without plenty of real content – perhaps more content than some people’s content presentations." 

Meanwhile, I'm just getting started with Functionalism, Use Case and how us as web analysts can leverage the techniques to keep our final product simple while our processes become increasingly advanced and complex.  I realize this blog was more about telling than showing but, in a series of upcoming blogs, I plan to show how these techniques were used in recent SEO, internal search and survey analysis.  Stay tuned.

Review: Google Analytics Excel Plug-ins

Almost one year ago to the date I sounded the horns, rolled out the red carpet and popped the bottle of Dom Perignon when I announced the arrival of an Excel plug-in for Google Analytics.  I might have been a bit premature.  

The tool that had just come out when I blogged a year ago, the first version of Excellent Analytics, at the time was buggy and not quite ready for prime-time.  Yes it filled a major need -- the ability to automatically export GA data into Excel -- but frequently the benefit was outweighed by the lack of flexibility and bugs.

Fast forward a year later to present day and the Google Analytics Excel integration picture changes.  Today we have a two horse race between (an improved) Excellent Analytics product and the Tatvic Google Analytics Plug-in (TGAP).  There are several other tools out there (i.e. Shufflepoint), but I won't consider any other significant, direct competitors.

The main thing Excellent's tool has going for it is that it's free.  The main thing TGAP has going for it is that it's flat out the best available.  The Tatvic tool has a crisp, simple interface and allows for flexible reporting. 

Some of my favorite features include:

• Applying custom segments to data blocks

• Advanced sort and filtering options

• The ability to reference date range, report profile, custom segments and filtering options within Excel cells

 


The end result is a tool that is easy to get up  to speed with and that allows you to quickly update reports once they are built.  The ability to reference key data block criteria allow reports to be altered and changed. 

While TGAP excels in extracting data, it certainly doesn't spit out the most beautiful reports.  You'll want to follow some of the basics of building Excel based web analytics reports, namely building forward facing report elements that reference the cells containing data, since the data blocks are unformattable.

TGAP certainly isn't bug free, but neither is any web analytics vendor Excel integration tool.  In my very unscientific study I've found Tatvic to have fewer bugs than the Excellent tool for GA and slightly more bugs than ExcelClient for Omniture SiteCatalyst.  Although the bugs are a nuisance they are infrequent enough to only cut into a small fraction of the time savings you can expect when generating regular reporting.

Google Analytics clients with limited budgets and even more limited reporting are probably fine with the free Excellent tool (or no Excel integration at all),  but anyone who spends 10% or more of their day with GA and has a four figure budget should heavily consider TGAP.  It $199 for an individual license and $499 for an agency, which is considerably more than free, but only has to save you a few hours (which it will) to justify the investment.   

In my eyes, the Tatvic tool elevates Google Analytics itself to having a feature set relatively comparably to that of Omniture SiteCatalyst.  Previously having good Excel integration with their web analytics tool might be reason enough to push people toward a low end SiteCatalys contract, which start around 10K.  Now people who are generally pleased with the GA feature set but want good Excel integration can save $9,800 and go with the free GA tool coupled with the $200 TGAP license.

For those who want more information on TGAP, Semphonic has written a more comprehensive product review.

Semphonic is also remarketing the Tatvic Google Analytics Plug-in on our website.  You'll have to trust me that our (small) connection to Tatvic has in no way clouded this blog.  I wrote the blog because I genuinely like the tool.  Semphonic is remarketing the tool because we genuinely like the tool. 

Clarification and Contemplation on the Future of Omniture Report Builder

At the beginning of February I wrote a blog entitled "Omniture to Phase Out Excel Client" and within hours the (very small segment of the world who cares about Excel integration for SiteCatalyst) exploded.  Omniture quickly denied it would stop supporting Excel Client and people tweeted that I had falsified information in a quest to bring attention to my rarely used blog.  As fast as the topic exploded, it imploded in a pile of hearsay.

Now that several months have passed by I wanted to rewind the tape and clarify that initial blog.  From what I have deduced, a breakdown in communication between myself and the greater web analytics community occurred no later than the third and fourth words of my title.  While I typed "Omniture to Phase Out Excel Client", everyone read "Omniture to Stop Supporting Excel Client".  As soon as the phrase "stop supporting" caught fire on twitter, my initial blog went from bullet proof to Swiss cheese.  Anyone who has followed Omniture as a company, knows that the notion that they would prematurely stop supporting a product is ludicrous.  Look no further than the SiteCatalyst login page and you'll find that SiteCatalyst version 13 is still being supported three years after it became outdated technology or that HBX three years and two acquisitions later is still alive and well.  Three years ago it would have in no way been a stretch to say that Omniture intends to phase out SC13 or HBX, but rearranging the statement to be Omniture will stop supporting SC13 or HBX would be flat out wrong.

I can't fault Omniture's reaction to my initial blog.  Understandably, Omniture wants its customers to know that it won't ever simply cut them off.  I am, however, disappointed that Omniture customers failed to read the blog, comprehend its significance and act accordingly.  As a response I though a recap and analysis of what we know to be absolutely true about ExcelClient and ReportBuilder was in order.
On record:

•    Omniture will dedicate development efforts around Report Builder

•    Excel Client will be maintained, but it is unlikely it will be enhanced

•    If Excel Client is phased out, a conversion tool will be built that allows users to EC blocks into RB requests

Putting my degree in Rocket Scientology aside, it doesn't take much to deduce that these on record comments mean that Omniture does in fact plan on phasing out Excel Client.  When you have two products that do the same thing and a company says they will "maintain" one and dedicate resources to build "new or advanced functionality" in the other, you don't even have to squint to see the long run picture.

At the time I wrote my initial blog I speculated that Omniture might build an Excel Client to Report Builder report conversion tool in advance of a tool migration, but I had no official word on the matter.  Shortly after publishing my blog Ben Ganes and several others within Omniture clarified that in advance of any phase out of Excel Client a conversion tool would be in place. 

Now that we have cleared up Omniture's long run intentions, what should you do with this information today?

A. Keep denying Report Builders existence.

B. Insult the intelligence of the blogger.

C. Inquire with our account reps about getting a Report Builder license.

From my vantage point, it would be hard to go wrong with some combination of B and C.  Two paragraphs ago the blogger did claim to have a degree in "Rocket Scientology," making him an easy target, and Omniture has made it clear that Omniture Report Builder is the Excel integration tool of the future.

For companies that have spare unused or rarely used Excel Client licenses should inquiring about exchanging an EC license for a RB license should be a no brainer.  Ideally, you would like to be able to give the power users of the SiteCatalyst Excel integration tools access to both to make the transition from EC to RB as smooth as possible.  Access to both would allow for maintenance and distribution of existing EC based reporting, while the latest and greatest reports could be created with RB.

Those who only have a single Excel Client license the decision of whether to try to switch now is a tossup.  If you have a lot of Excel based reporting it might make sense to wait for the release of a EC to RB conversion tool, but if you have no or minimal existing reporting it might make sense to trade up to Report Builder.  The two tool, at least as they exist today, are quite different and it certainly wouldn't hurt getting a head start.

Unfortunately the cost of exchanging licenses became a confusing subject around the time my initial blog on the topic was published and today the picture is still murky.  Initially I heard that all clients can exchange EC licenses for RB ones on a one to one basis, but Omniture confirmed it wasn't that clear cut.  As far as I understand (which in this case isn't all that much), the ability to trade licenses will be done on an account by account basis.  Costs will vary from zero dollars for some to unknown amounts for others, depending on your volumes and the direction of the wind in Orem.  My advice is to call your rep, make a case for why you want to try RB and ask for it at low to no cost.  I personally hope that Omniture intends to use RB as indirect leverage for broader SiteCatalyst sales as opposed to a direct revenue stream from existing clients.

I can't tell you what I know about the next evolution of Omniture Report Builder, but I will tease you with this -- I, a typically skeptical being, have very high hopes.

Official Word from Omniture on the Future of Excel Client

The following is from Matt Freestone, a product manager at Adobe who is responsible for ExcelClient and ReportBuilder:

We have no short-term plans to discontinue support for ExcelClient.  If in the future, should we determine to discontinue support for ExcelClient we will provide notice to our customers well in advance so that they can make plans accordingly.  In the mean time, we support both tools.  Development of new or advanced functionality will likely center around ReportBuilder, but we continue to provide bug fixes for ExcelClient.

Omniture Likely to Phase Out Excel Client

Author's note: Due to conflicting information that has recently come to light, I ask you to treat the following as speculation as to what might occur with the Excel Client and Omniture Report Builder products.

On October 26, 2007 I wrote an open letter to Omniture requesting that Excel Client would be ditched and ReportBuilder retained.  On February 1, 2010 I learned that I would soon have my wish. 

First the facts in the form of a rough time-line of how we arrived at this point in time:

• October 25, 2007 - Omniture announces the acquisition Visual Sciences and with it the Report Builder technology
• October 26, 2007 -  I write a polite, sarcasm free, letter requesting Omniture drops Excel Client like a bad habit
• October 26, 2007 - Josh James, a devout follower of my blog, reads "An Open Letter to Omniture" and immediately adjusts the development paths of Excel Client and ReportBuilder accordingly
• Q3 2008 - Omniture announces ReportBuilder features will be integrated in Excel Client
• Q1/Q2 2009 - Omniture releases Omniture ReportBuilder, an apparent divergence from the Q3 2008 plan of integrating ReportBuilder features into Excel Client, it is only available to HBX clients migrating to SiteCatalyst
• August 6, 2009 - Omniture ReportBulder becomes available (for purchase) by all Omniture clients
• February 1, 2010 - Omniture Client Care suggests Excel Client will not receive any further enhancements.  Currently some clients can exchanged Excel Client licenses can be exchanged for ReportBuilder licenses on a 1:1 basis
• Although phase out of Excel Client is possible there is no planned point in time where Omniture ReportBuilder will replace Excel Client

Second the analysis, opinion, reaction and speculation:

    Just like the New Orleans Saints and Chicago Cubs, Omniture is due.  In October 2007 they acquired the ReportBuilder technology and a year later Excel Client functionality had not changed.  In August 2008 a VP of Customer Support promised ReportBuilder features would be integrated into Excel Client “sooner than you think” and year and a half later still no evolution of the Excel Client product. 

    At present day, the condition of the Excel Client (EC) tool is unacceptable.  It occasionally goes down and becomes unusable for days on end.  Bugs are too numerous to list. The tool technically has an automatic refresh and delivery feature, but even Omniture admits that the functionality cannot be trusted (in my experience it works about 50% of the time).

    So far the development path of ORB has been a series of soft releases.  When it first came out it was only for clients migrating from HBX (a relatively small percent of Omniture clients), who were aware of the ORB tool (a small percent of the small percent) and specifically asked for it within their contract (a small percent of a small percent of a small percent).  The reaction of a fellow analyst, who described the tool as "having the features of ReportBuilder, but the bugs of Excel Client" might explain why the tool launch was kept baby bottom soft.  Within those first few months after launch Omniture had an ideal setup with a tool that could be used as a carrot to lure lingering HBX clients to SiteCatalyst and a built in limited population to beta test on.

    The move on August 6th, 2009 to allow any Omniture client to purchase ORB licenses was clearly a vote of confidence in the tool by Omniture.  Given that it is unlikely that Omniture will maintain two Excel integration tools in the future, this move is heavily suggestive that ORB will be Omniture's excel integration tool of the future.
 
    As of today there is no capability to refresh EC data blocks with ORB, so if you take Omniture up on their 1:1 license swap offer, you'd have to rebuild all existing EC based reporting with ORB or run multiple versions of report building tools on a regular basis.  Omniture did promise, however, that if a migration were to occur that ORB would have the EC data block refreshing technology in place.

    At this point in time, I can't advocate for anyone to go swap all their EC licenses for ORB ones, but if you do have one license to spare it wouldn't be a bad idea to swap.  If nothing else, the having ORB in house would be good for training purpose.  Although the EC and ORB are similar, learning ORB will take time.  Even those familiar with HBX's RB will need to do some relearning and make adjustment to the Omniture changes. 

    So will I get my wish?  Maybe, but only time will tell.  When I first talked to Omniture about their plans to integrate RB features into EC, they explained that the tools were (understandably) built in silos.  This means that the ORB tool we see today isn't HBX's RB, just a simulation of its look, feel and (some of its) features.  I did prefer the look and feel of HBX RB, but that's not what truly differentiated it from EC.  The HBX RB had incredibly powerful features in its lookup/matching capabilities, copy and pasting of data requests and mass editing of data requests.  Even more importantly, HBX RB could reliably update and distribute reporting.  And the final kicker, HBX RB did it all (nearly) bug free.

    At this point, I haven't spent enough time in ORB to give you a true assessment of the tool.  Others who I know and trust have mentioned bugs, limited availability of SiteCatalyst reports and the lack of some features that were previously available in HBX RB, but I'll wait until I personally have spent 100 hours plus hours in the tool (which should be all too soon) to pass judgment. 

    The Saints, Cubs and Omnitures are all due, but who is going to deliver this 2010?  The over/under from the Vegas bookies stands at 1.5.  I'm taking the under.  Mr. Brees, Mr. James  -- make me eat my words.    

Thinking About X Change Think Tank

It’s mid July.  Stepping outside your likely to get a whiff of smoky ribs, boiling chlorine and, if the wind is just right, intellectual X Change.  Yes, the X Change Conference is rapidly approaching and less than two months away. 

This year the main conference promises to be stellar, with the key note by founding father of web analytics and an impressive huddle lineup, but I'm most excited about Think Tank.  Think Tank, which is the newest addition to the X Change lineup, is a series of classes taught by Semphonic and Web Analytics Demystified practitioners that cover everything from building the most functional Excel report of your life to tagging a Web 2.0 site to maximizing value from web analytics within your organization.  The idea is that regardless of if you are a analyst, developer, manager or some hybrid, you'll be able to find three perfect classes amidst the many offered that make you better at what you do.

Our promise, as with all of X Change, is that the classes will contain no fluff, no sales and no bull s**t. In short, you won't walk out of Think Tank with the same sinking feeling that your vendor sponsored training left you with.

Think Tank is really a coming out party for many of the folks at Semphoic.  Sure you have the rare opportunity to take microscopic (in participant size, not content value) classes from Eric Peterson and Gary Angel, but those guys get out all the time.  People like me have toiled for years in the annals of Semphonic, building report after report, doing analysis after analysis and now finally we are being set free. We promise to be socially awkward, pasty white from the lack of sun exposure and covered in web analytics grime be we come packed to the gills with years of daily hands on experience. 

In one of my classes, where I will be discussing building dynamic Excel reports, I'll be backed by the experience of building 15 - 20 large scale, dynamic report and in the neighborhood of 500 total web analytics reports.  I won't break it down into hours, but that’s a truckload of trial and error that participants will never have to wade through.  And Semphonic is no report farm.  Everything we do is custom based on client’s specific needs, so the breath of report types and diversity of clients I have worked with allows me to have a variety of vantage points and strategies.  My name isn't one that wows anyone in the industry, but I, as well as all the other Think Tank instructors, promise to pack a knowledgeable punch.

To quote a used car salesman I admire, Think Tank "is a screamin' deal!"  With three classes going for $599 for X Change attendees or $899 if purchased alone, you'd be hard pressed to find a better way to spend your budget.  And while you’re at it, you might as well stay a few more days for the world's premiere web analytics conference. 

Click here to register.

Omniture's (Other) Biggest Competitor

My colleague, Phil Kemelor, raised an interesting question when he asked is Google Analytics is the elephant in the room for Omniture.  To me, the resounding answer must be YES.  Google Analytis, especially after its recent update, has and will continue to pluck away low to mid range clients from SiteCatalyst.  For better or worse, Omniture has shown an unwillingness to drop annual Site Catalyst contracts below the $10,000 to $14,000 threshold, which effectively removes a potential client base. If I were Omniture the part that would scare me the most is how closely Google Analytics sits from Google's core product.  The recent recession, has shown that Google probably stretched their arms too far away from what matters most to them: ad revenue.  But Google Analytics isn't an example of Google Video, its use has a direct relationship with ad spending.  Should the Google Dragon awake from his slumber tomorrow and decide to truly invest in Google Analytics, the fair maiden atop her perch in Orem should be very afraid.

But I'm not writing this blog to support Phil and his Elephant theory.  Instead, I wanted to point out another competitor to our friends in Orem -- themselves.  

The typical Google Analytics users, with the low volumes and small investment in web analytics, sit at one end of the spectrum, while mega volume, mondo budget properties reside at the opposite end.  The middle group is those who are best suited as Omniture clients, particularly with SiteCatalyst.  They likely demand the flexibility, number of custom variables and variety of reporting options available in SiteCatalyst.  And, more importantly, their usage volumes fit nicely within the SiteCatalyst framework.

The super sites of the world are a different story.  Although it is the pockets of these companies that Omniture dips into the deepest, SiteCatalyst can hardly claim to fit all their needs. With the largest properties, variable cardinality limits, even when bumped to 500,000, can come into play just days into a month.  This can leave huge volumes of key data, such as external search keywords, completely untracked.  Even in the instance where everything in a particular variable slot is tracked (or a user is content with a fraction of the actual tracking), pulling up reports can be like pulling teeth. As the volume of variables in a report increases, so do the chances it will time out before the user ever becomes privy to the data.  Reloading then becomes a game of Orem Roulette.  Large site users that struggle to pull up large reports can forget about taking advantage of even basic sorting functions.  Care to see a list of top brand keywords?  Feel free to download and sort it yourself.

For the largest properties key SiteCatalyst tools like SAINT and ReportBuilder, which are so useful for midsized properties, become afterthoughts.  SAINT quickly becomes cumbersome even the most basic classifications are like brain surgery when the volume of variables are staggering.  ReportBuilder suffers from the same timing out and sorting issues as the SiteCatalyst user interface.  

Without endearing themselves to the largest and most profitable clients, Omniture always runs the risk of seeing them walk away when another vendor creates a superior super enterprise level tool (see first paragraph) or a comparable vendor offers a deal that cannot be refused.

It reality it seems unlikely that there will be a mass exodus by Omniture's largest clients anytime in the foreseeable future.  But I hope that doesn't lull Omniture into a false sense of security.  Forget the ohh and ahh enhancements, the folks in Orem should make the most basic product features functional for their largest clients.

Excel Integration for Google Analytics!!

On June 15th, 2009 the web analytics world was changed forever -- A Excel integration plugin for Google Analytics was launched.

http://excellentanalytics.com/

Ok, ok, maybe I'm being slightly dramatic and maybe that's too much pressure to put in a piece of open source software developed as a thesis project by an intern. Regardless, the sheer demand for an Excel tool for Google Analytics should draw a lot of interest and downloads. 

Yours truly is currently configuring the tool and will report back to the world once I have had a chance to review it.  Vegas odds are currently 4:1 that it will be less buggy than Omniture Excel Client -- Those wishing to monetarily weight in are welcome to send bets to my onshore bookie. 

Omniture SiteCatalyst Implementation Question Two- Form Lead Tracking

Click here if you would like some context for this Q/A, otherwise please proceed at your leisure...

Question:
What is the process I can use to implement tracking on a short Ajax lead generation form that is designed to convert users’ offline?

Answer:
On the macro level the form page should be tracked as a site page to get exposure to page views, visits and visitors.   Additionally, the form completion page should be tracked as a separate page so that basic conversion ratios can be calculated.  These pages can either be passed into the standard Omniture pages report or their own Ajax specific pages report.  The decision of where to place the pages should be based on if your business views these pages as being seamlessly integrated in the primary site or if Ajax content is differentiated from other pages.  An advantage of tracking the form and completion pages as standard Omniture pages is that you will get all associated pages report including pathing and page time.  

Given that completing this form is clearly a site success it might also make sense to track the completion page as an evar and/or event.  Tracking the initial form page itself in a similar manner could also have analytic value, but should be a lesser priority, especially if you are limited in available evar or event slots.

Looking at the micro level it is possible to implement form tracking on the Ajax form to determine areas that were filled out and overall percent completion.  This type of tracking should be implemented if you would like to have a very detailed funnel report to show visits reaching the form complete page.  If you have worries about users exiting the form due to not wanting to provide required fields, such as last name or email, you might get some insight by implementing this type of tracking.  Additionally, if you think stakeholders will question what is or isn’t getting filled out, then you should implement this level of detail.  With those considerations in mind, in this instance the small size of the form probably would  make detailed form tracking uninteresting and difficult to interpret.  To some extent, that level of detail might muddy the analytic picture and could cause incorrect conclusions to be drawn.  Form tracking should only be implemented if you see a specific need for it.

Depending on your technological barriers this might be an opportunity to marry the offline conversion data with the Omniture API.  By using email address or a back end system identifier you should be able to line up online and offline behavior and establish a true conversion funnel from internet visit source to offline conversion.  If successfully implemented, you should also be able to track post conversion online behavior and compare it to the behavior of non converting form submitters (oh the analytic possibilities!).  

Omniture SiteCatalyst Implementation Question One- Capturing Impressions for Different Ad Types

Naysayer: Two blogs in week?  Couldn’t be at tooltime.typepad.com.  All that guy does is surface every couple of months to bash Omniture and put me to sleep with the nuances of report building. 

Jesse:  In spite of the naysayers out there, here is my second blog in less than a week.  Some might say that I am doing this only because I have content to repurpose (true). Others will claim it is only to boost my traffic so I can play with the cool new features of Google Analytics (truer).  A few might speculate that it is to hock a few more Semphonic SiteCatalyst Implementation Toolkits (truthiness).  But the real reason I am doing this is to selflessly give back to the web analytics community (false).

Prior to this year’s X Change conference Semphonic announced a contest where folks in the web analytics community could submit questions about the toughest part of an Omniture implementation.  The prize for the top questions would be a copy of the Semphonic SiteCatalyst Implementation Toolkit and all questions, winner or not, would receive a detailed answer from a Semphonic consultaint.  In my next three blogs I will post the three winning questions as well as the Semphonic answer to each of them.  The winning questions were selected for both the implementation challenges they posed and because of their relevance for a wide audience of SiteCatalyst users.  Hopefully someone out there is facing a similar challenge and finds one of these posts relevant and helpful. 

Without further ado here is the Q & A for one of the top three questions.  You can expect the other two to be posted over the next few days.

Question:
How can I capture ad impressions for six different types of ads, such as paid hero, internal tower, etc., into six different Omniture variables?

Answer:
You most likely can populate a prop and/or evar variable that fires on page load when a certain ad type is detected.  Implementing prop and/or evar variables would be easiest and cleanest if you have existing page coding that can identify ad types.  In the case that this is not available, you could try hard coding the variables.  This approach works if each page on your site is set up to consistently populate ads in the same location(s) upon each load.  In a site where the same page will sometimes load with an ad and sometimes without, you will have to implement a check to determine if the ad exists prior to sending (or not sending) the hard coded ad tracking.  Unfortunately, if there is no consistency of ads populating on a page and no way to determine within the coding if an ad has populated or not you’re out of luck and won’t be able to get the impression tracking you desire.  

Assuming it is possible to implement tracking, the impression variable(s) could be placed in an assortment of Omniture reports.  You could populate a prop and/or evar report with the ad types and the impressions associated with them.  This prop and/or evar report could look like:
A. Ad type (i.e. tower)
B. Ad type and paid/house (i.e. tower-paid)
C. All ad types and paid/house on page (i.e. tower-paid_hero-internal)

You most likely will want to implement tracking at the most detailed level you would like exposure to.  Given that you are only interested in impressions, implementing detailed tracking and using SAINT to roll up to more general categories, like ad type, will give you accurate granular and general impression tracking.  If deduplication of visits or visitors might be a future need you should consider implementing impression variables with varying levels of detail in different prop and/or evar slots.  Any prop(s) and/or evar(s) should have relevant correlations/subrelations enabled to enhance the analytic capabilities of these reports.

As an alternative strategy, it would be appropriate to utilize an evar counter for each of the ad types.  This could give breakdowns of the quantity of impressions by visit, visitor or by custom metric like paid search keyword.