Howdy,

Okay, at least I’m within that “month to respond window” I mentioned earlier.

I love the question you pose at the top of your comment, Can you be “Engaged” and no longer be a customer? That’s brilliant (truly, no sarcasm implied or intended. The question of proper identification gets to the heart of much of these discussions, me thinks). Tell me what a “customer” is and I’ll give you my best shot at an answer.

I would agree that Dr. Geertz was engaged when on the NordickTrack site, both as NextStage defines engagement and for at least that one visit in which the purchase occurred.

I also recognize that a single web visit’s engagement (as NextStage defines the term) will leave a psycho-cognitive trail. It will probably (an opinion) be non-conscious unless it was an extreme experience.

Extreme experience? Yes, and forgive me for quoting from Reading Virtual Minds, Chapter 6 “Expectation Versus Satisfaction” (something which also plays into my The Money Is Where Engagement Meets Satisfaction Online, Responding to Geertz, Papadakis and others 5 Feb 08 comments and Back into the fray comes Joseph! posts):

What I’ve often pointed out to people is that they can remember the best restaurant meal they ever had and they can remember the worst, but how many of the mediocre meals can you remember? You want your material to engender moderately extreme reactions because — whether good or bad — extreme reactions are remembered, which equates to being branded. Mediocre reactions don’t get locked into an individual’s memory and, in the case of websites and promotional materials, are soon forgotten.

So your question causes me to wonder if there’s a way to re-activate positive engagement once a person is no longer a “customer” (one of the reasons I encourage clients to create multi-channel plans).

“Time since” and “customer defection”. Hmm…

Allow me to propose (what is to me) an interesting experiment: NextStage’s technology can determine how people will react/respond in the future. I think and am not sure that it could determine that someone was starting the psychological process of “defecting”. We already do something very close with our Loyalty and Visitor Return Ratio reports.

And of course, I’ll need to explain how we define Loyalty and Visitor Return Ratios.

Loyalty is the amount of pain an individual is willing to endure to either be with or to use something when they know less pain would be involved either being with or using something else. Visitor Return Ratios determine how strongly your site influenced a visitor to return. A strong enough negative experience will cause visitors to stay away, a strong enough positive experience will cause visitors to return, tell their friends and spend money — whether or not they found what they originally came to your site for.

There could be — dear god, do I dare call it — an uber-metric that is a mathematical union of what these two reports are actually measuring. I admit I haven’t looked at the math behind these two reports in several years (we’ve been using them since 2001-2002) and I do know they measure activity in the same brain foci.

Thus, being able to determine that someone was demonstrating nascent defection phenomenology, an intervention could be executed that would insure engagement (as I think you define it). We already address recognizing what visitors are worth investing time and money on with our Tirekickers to Buyers Breakdown report, so I think that aspect of your post — “What behavior - or lack of behavior - indicates a customer has defected and is no longer worth spending on because they will never respond? When do you stop spending and just ‘hope’ they will come back at some point in the future?” — is covered.

Let me know if this is of interest (call, Skype or email me. If you respond in this blog I won’t see it for another month).

You also want to know “…how long has it been since the customer was Engaged?”

Excellent question. What’s the threshold at which it is decided a customer is engaged? This question is relevant to NextStage’s analytics and think an extension of the concept is relevant to this discussion. We recognize that someone is engaged and the level of their engagement on a visit by visit basis. Thus we know various measurements involving session-length engagement (what’s the average level of engagement on a page/site/for a video/flash/…? At what point does the average visitor get engaged? What is/are the triggering event (”event” in NextStage terms) that causes engagement? …).

This is a rich field of study for us as it helps us determine when sites need to be redesigned, modified, how often content needs to be changed, so on and so forth. The reason I believe this extension is relevant is because (and this may speak to Dr. Geertz’s example) once the average visitor’s engagement with a site/page goes below a threshold level it is unlikely they’ll return (Loyalty and Visitor Return Ratio) regardless of whether or not they achieved a specific visit’s goal (purchasing some exercise equipment).

Hopefully this makes sense. Wonderful questions, these.

Now, if the owner of the site doesn’t tag all the pages it intended to tag (this happens all the time), they will get no data from those pages, and will have an incorrect view of what happened during the visit. If the javascript is present but does not function properly (this happens a lot), then again they get no data from the page. If the javascript is present, and functioning but the information in the variables is incorrect (this happens - human error can and does creep in), then the data will be incorrect and the assumptions people make when studying the data will be wrong.

What I mean by “calibration” is automatically scanning the site and uncovering these conditions so they can be corrected. This is not a core competency of the WA vendors, and not something, IMO they should undertake. (Ref. link to my most current post below). It is a complex problem, and getting more complex as websites get larger, more dynamic, using ever more complex technologies - ex. creating all Flash modules and deploying tags inside the module.

On a related note, Michael Wexler just posted a significant article titled “What Web Analytics is Missing” - http://www.nettakeaway.com/tp/article/377/what-web-analytics-is-missing - to which I responded - http://weblog.maxamine.com/2008/08/15/response-to-michael-wexlers-post-rewhat-web-analytics-is-missing/

Anybody as surprised as I am that I got to this so quickly? I mean, less than a month! The next thing you know I’ll be reading my emails.

Yes, we agree that people don’t need to know science in order to use it (our CEO is currently vetting a response to another blog in which I go into that in some detail). Our lives are our lives because we don’t need to understand science in order to use it. Quoting from that as yet unvetted comment, ““Simple to explain to just about anyone…” and I worry if our decisions on usefulness are going to be based on simplicity of explanation. If so, then everyone who doesn’t understand solid-state physics, magneto-interference pattern imaging, magneto-optical coding, lasers, satellite telemetry, … oh, heck, let’s just go to basic electricity… throw away your digital cameras, computers, pdas, smartphones, stop watching TV, move out of your homes completely, never again use cars, buses, boats, trains or planes, …” so your point is well taken.

Your examples are also worthy. I believe they speak directly to the “information is worthless unless it is actionable” concept that presents some semantic challenges based on the definition of “actionable”. In the same piece noted above I offer “We’ve been intentionally collecting meteorological data for about 250 years. There was nothing in that toolset that could affect climate until recently. We also developed the ability to collect meteorological data going back far into prehistory (I can provide references to paleoclimatology if necessary. A quick search of Science provided some 1012 references going back to 1900).” hence the concept of future actionability must be taken into account (kind of like storing Olympic athletes blood for ten years in case future tests demonstrate some form of doping). For that matter, NextStageologists know never to throw out data (our web data goes back to 1997, research data goes back to 1987) because someone may come up with models someday that can reveal more than is presently known (obviously the paleoclimatology example at work, yes?).

I was not aware that web analytics vendors were not accountable (at least in some part) for implementation and calibration (I think I may have a different understanding of calibration than is offered here). I know nothing about web analytics and can only speak from NextStageish experience. We work with our clients to make sure implementation (installation? It’s just a javascript tag that goes on all pages) is correct. We also actively take part in the calibration cycle. Ex: client tells us that they know their visitors are between 25-50 years of age, we see spikes and heavy-loading at 55-60 years of age. Is the client mistaken, is our technology behaving improperly, … ?

I’m happy to report that so far our technology has behaved properly and we were able to help clients gain a better, more complete and accurate understanding of their real visitors.

Is this what is meant by “calibration”?

Another concept of “calibration” that we use is that our system recreates itself every three or so months; the process humans go through every night when they dream (the reordering of memories, substantiating of neural pathways, integration of new information, storing elements in various brain areas, …) our system does every three months. Thus when asked “How does your system deal with changes in population and demographics?” we can answer “Our system recalibrates itself, recognizing new things it’s encountering and giving them precedence in its decision making processes and shuffling things it’s no longer encountering as often into less used storage.” There’s more to it than that and, as this discussion recognizes, people don’t need to know the science in order to use the results.

Then again, NextStage is now moving from pure and applied research to a more traditional company that markets tools, consulting and trainings (or so I’m told).

Love the mitered board example. Perhaps you’ve heard my corollary to Maslow, “If all I have is a hammer, everything looks like my thumb.”

“The teachable moment”. Nice.

Thank you for the demonstration examples. I would need to see numbers and know goals, objectives, defined success markers, etc., in order to be comfortable with them. The examples provided indicate that intergroup communications occur more elegantly, not that (what I recognize as) business outcomes are achieved. And I do know the value of enhanced intergroup communications in any organization, so if that encompasses the goals, objectives and defined success markers then bravo! and well done.

Joseph G: “Engaged, positive experience, and no positive ‘time since’ value”

Re: Nordic Track site, yes, you *were* engaged, and that’s my point. I don’t really have any reason to spend marketing budget on you. What (as a Marketer) I really want to know is this: for each incremental marketing dollar I am spending on customer marketing, how can I allocate towards customers with the highest Potential?

You’re no longer engaged, and so not worth spending additional marketing budget on. Hopefully the experience has been positive, the product meets expectations, and when you are ready, you will buy another piece of equipment. But as a Marketer, there’s not much I can do proactively, because you *were* Engaged, and not Engaged now. I can only create incremental profits from those that *still are* Engaged at some level.

Which is why Marketers need a metric to determine where the customer is in the process of dis-Engagement. “Time since” is no doubt a proxy for something more accurate, but it’s a heck of a reliable one! At some point, the process of dis-Engagement gets along too far, and you are lost. I have suggested elsewhere this point on Joseph’s model is “0″ acceptance, which is where I think the theoretical and practical models may intersect.

This whole engagement discussion is remarkably similar to the “customer defection” discussion that has been taking place offline for years:

When is a customer no longer a customer? At what point is the customer “lost”?

What behavior - or lack of behavior - indicates a customer has defected and is no longer worth spending on because they will never respond? When do you stop spending and just “hope” they will come back at some point in the future?

Businesses have a very difficult time letting go of customers, declaring them “lost”. Online, this is evident in continuing to e-mail “customers” who have not even opened an e-mail for 2 years. I’m pretty sure a “no open for 2 years” customer is “dis-Engaged”.

Offline, I ask, If you have had no contact with or from a customer in 3 years, are they still a customer? Most answer yes. OK, If you have had no contact with or from a customer in 5 years, are they still a customer? Many answer yes. How about no contact in 10 years? 20 years? When is a customer no longer a customer, when have they “dis-Engaged?”

At some point way before the 20 year mark would be my answer, and understanding / acting on that process of dis-Engagement - which happens much, much more quickly online than offline - is the key to addressing the root causes of dis-Engagement (Marketing, Product, Service) before they manifest as a lost customer.

In sum, there is much more power from a Marketing perspective in understanding the dis-Engagement process than “Engagement”.

When everyone figures out what “Engagement” means for them I will then ask, for each customer, how long has it been since the customer was Engaged? The answer to that question generates the most optimal marketing approach to that customer, including none at all.

Yes, the intersection of your models and mine is hinted at (if not documented) in Back into the fray comes Joseph!, Responding to Geertz, Papadakis and others 5 Feb 08 comments and a few other places. I think some confusion might exist as your “disengagement” takes place over some time period greater than a single visit. What we measure is where, when and how a visitor “disengages” in a given visit. From this we can conclude what factors lead to “disengagement” and correct for them.

Reading through your comment, I wonder if we’re holding two separate pieces to the same puzzle; you can determine when the “Potential Value of Relationship” goes negative, we can supply methods for keeping the PVoR positive for as long as possible (minimizing the cost of “re-engagement”).

The Good Dr. Geertz, 28 Feb 08, 11:14am

Yes. I remember seeing the new LinkedIn at that time and thinking they must really be feeling the pressure from FaceBook. I think it was FaceBook.

Your analysis re the FaceBooking of LinkedIn and your interaction with it is quite good. For what it’s worth, I’ve written several columns about redesign methodologies on IMedia about this very phenomena.

Jim Novo, 28 Feb 08, 8:58pm

Your thoughts on ego versus connections on social networking sites are strongly congruent with lots of our research.

The Good Dr. Geertz, 5 Mar 08, 3:00pm

We really do have t-shirts if anybody wants one. Two different styles, both very stylish. I’ll see if I can bring some to some conference.

“…you learn more about a consumer’s experience by observing their interaction as opposed to the effects of that interaction.” I think you need both. That’s just me.

John Cass, 27 Mar 08, 4:17pm

I’ll offer that the definitions supplied by John are actually subsummations of those I originally offered. They seem (to me) like simple special cases, ie, elements of the definition space I supplied. For example, the definition of attention that includes no action taking place. That condition can’t exist. Our design (unless (prepare for my standard caveat) you have lots of training) doesn’t allow for it.

And I think that’s it! I think I’m caught up with this trail (as there was nothing for me to reply to in Dr. Geertz’s last comment. Onto the next when I return.

Your comments:
“…my experience and learning indicate that most business people don’t care about science.”

Agreed, however they don’t have to care about it to use it. Anyone who has ever used a tire gauge or a tape measure has employed a scientific calibration method.

Take web analytics; vendor produces web analytics tool – company buys web analytics tool - company is responsible for correct, complete and functioning implementation of web analytics tool - automated monitoring identifies implementation problems. This last step is the rub. The web analytics vendor specializes in providing the measurement tool, not the calibration tool. The company does not have to be expert at science to employ automated monitoring of their web analytics. It must, however have accountability at a senior level – one neck to grab - and a recognition that without this calibration, all bets are off, and that manual discovery of implementation problems is a complete and utter waste of valuable time that their web analysts could be using to do more important things. The results of my survey that is currently underway (Where in the Organization is the Web Analyst – July 15-22, 2008) will bear out the chronic problems that practitioners have with their own implementations.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ZMHnEO9H1kveqXYSYkcgig_3d_3d

Going back to Avinash’s observation – “We have too many damn tools!’” Yep, the toolbox has 4 hammers, 5 screwdrivers and a utility knife, and the task calls for cutting a mitered corner. Now I suppose you could position the utility knife, whack it with the hammer, wedge a screwdriver in the crevice, and repeat the process until you make your way across the board…..it’s possible, not efficient, the outcome will be really ugly, but it’s possible.

Your question : “Is the natural progression due to the tools being used, due to the information provider becoming more trusted, perhaps due to the people receiving the information finally having the cognitive readiness to accept the information as both valuable and valid, …?”

I believe it is a confluence of things contributing to maturation in organizations. The web has disrupted entire industries – newspapers, auto, real estate, travel, consumer goods, government agencies. It would be great if somebody had an “Easy Button” for managing web assets – maybe Staples could start loaning them out People are coming to grips with the fact that no one product is the magic answer, and that jumping from one vendor to another is not the answer either. They are coming to grips with the complexity of their sites, the fact that legislation and market conditions are constantly changing, that they are subject to the laws of all the countries they operate sites in, that achieving good natural placement in Google has a tangible benefit, and that bad things can happen to good sites, and can lurk there for a long time, that if you’re a great big company, you might be a “target” for lawsuits by people who find your site inaccessible to them, that the mobile web tsunami is coming, all this in addition to the daily grind of figuring out who is looking at what for how long using what type of viewing device and what are they doing as a result? You refer to it as “cognitive readiness”. I’ve always called it “the teachable moment.” Increasingly, organizations are getting there.

Your comment:
“I’d love to see a piece that demonstrates the successful implementation of such a group if such is available.”

Here are a couple of success stories. The first one is a site of around 2000 pages owned by a company with numerous locations across the country. The site’s primary function is lead generation and information provision on health-related issues. SEO is important to them and they run online ad campaigns. They conduct surveys through the site. The organization supporting the site is small, so they rely on their vendors. Once a month, the manager has a call where all the vendors are present – site structure, web analyst, SEM, search analyst, survey company. Everyone is expected to present information and recommendations based on the agenda the manager sets.

The second is a global B2B company. Their public site is large, their intranet is sprawling, and they have a constant flow of micro-sites going up. Their web team consists of people with expertise in search, web analytics, copyrighting, marketing, ad campaigns; yet they all are part of one team. Content management is dispersed throughout the organization using a CMS that was developed in-house after they determined that there was not a market solution that fit their business. This team, however, has dotted lines to content owners and teams. Decisions of what web site management solutions they use (whether it is traffic, search, A/B testing, surveys, or structural analytics) are made by this team. They have developed and are utilizing web standards and continue to grow from strength to strength.

There are others. I like these two because they are at opposite ends of the spectrum and demonstrate that there is more than one way to get there, once people define what it is they are trying to achieve.