Author: Barry Parr

We have a few more details on ComScore Media Metrix’s recent restatement of their at-work measurements, thanks to the Internet Advertising Report.

First, ComScore acquired Media Metrix’s sample, but not its software. Second, ComScore was combining two samples collected by very different means (telephone and email recruitment), and combining two very different measuring systems (end-user and proxy server based) at the same time it was expanding its sample.

Without the tracking software, ComScore incorporated its own server-based measuring system with the November 2002 release of Media Metrix 2.0.

In addition to the 50,000 home Internet users recruited via Random Digital Dial sampling methodology, Media Metrix 2.0 expanded its measurement panel to 120,000, including 35,000 samples of at-work and university users.

No wonder there were some problems with their numbers.

Today, Comscore confessed that its numbers for last fall are wrong. The principal source of the problem was its estimate of at-work use. At-work use is notoriously difficult to measure.
But the Times hints at a bigger problem with web site ratings: what are they for?
When advertisers are paying by the exposure, or even the click or the sale, is it really important which site is number one?
When advertisers are (properly) more focused on response than branding, and when its so easy to test a campaign on the Net, is it really important what the demographics of a site are?
The Times tells us some alarming things about differences between the services:

• Comscore has cut its estimate of the time users spend on some sites by as much as 75%
• Comscore and Nielsen use radically different methods for sampling at-work users (email vs. random-digit-dial)
• ComScore says Yahoo had 107 million users in the United States in December. Nielsen says it was 81 million.
• ComScore measures usage on college campuses and Nielsen does not, but this is not enough to account for the difference in the Yahoo numbers.

Web advertising must be conducted like direct marketing and not like broadcast. Overreliance on ratings is malpractice.

According to Nielsen//NetRatings [“The extra slash is for slashing prices!”] Raleigh, NC’s active at home online population grew 29% from January 2002 to January 2003, and Nashville and Sacramento grew by 19%. That seems…implausible.

N//NR continues:

The fastest growing local market experienced some big shifts in income levels over the past year. In Raleigh, the number of people with at home Internet access reporting a household income of $75,000 to $99,999 a year increased by 72 percent (see Table 2) from January 2002 to January 2003. Other high-income groups online grew as well with the $100,000 to $149,999 income bracket growing eight percent and the wealthiest bracket of $150,000 to $999,999 moving up 17 percent. By contrast the lowest household income bracket for those with at home Internet access saw its active online audience decrease by 26 percent.

“Raleigh has experienced major growth in high income households that have Internet access over the past year,” said Bloom “This will make it a prime regional target for marketers looking to push big ticket items like luxury cars and appliances.”

This recommendation would be wrong even if the data were correct, which I doubt. Wouldn’t it make more sense to target your ads to markets with the greatest concentration of affluent customers and not the fastest growth?

WebWord has an great discussion of Jakob Nielsen’s latest screed — “Homepage Real Estate Allocation“. The consensus seems to be that he hasn’t had a new idea since the nineties and that he’s more concerned with selling books and seminars than on increasing usability.

Jakob is a force for good on the Web and it’s hard to argue with the idea that most home pages have too little information on them. But his ruthlessly reductionist approach ignores design as a source of humanity and pleasure as well as information. As Adam Greenfield says, “Poor Jakob. What a cold universe he must occupy.”

Finally, Jakob illustrates this piece with a pie chart, the worst information graphic in the known universe. I defy you to guess the absolute or relative sizes of the OS, Navigation, and Content slices in Jakob’s chart without refering to the the text.