At my agency, which is focused on Search Marketing, has faced the same shortage of industry talent, where we chose to build the systems and processes to create experts vs. buy them. Here’s an example: http://www.findresolution.com/2007/12/sem-mentors-apprentice.html

When you say, “There are not enough talented analysts to meet the current demand, much less the future needs of our data-driven, B.I.-focused industry. “Experience”, although important, is not the same as talent. “, are you saying there isn’t enough talent because it’s such a difficult, arcane discipline that only a very small subset of the entire population can even hope to master it? Or rather are you suggesting that the field to date hasn’t produced enough ‘talented analysts’?

If it’s the latter, I suspect the reluctance to hire folks without specific WA experience, but *with* relevant business analysis experience and acumen is a major cause. There are plenty of people with excellent, relevant (though tangential) experience who could easily be the next crop of ‘talented analysts’. But no one will hire and train them. Everybody on the hiring side wants the experienced, hit-the-ground-running candidate but won’t take a chance on investing in motivated, non-WA-specific experience because they don’t want to invest in the time and cost of training a ‘talented analyst’.

Until this logjam is broken the industry will suffer as the existing pool of ‘talented analysts’ becomes more and more valuable and continues to get hired away to the next best paying competitor. Failing to develop future talent is a short-sighted approach in any sustainable endeavor and web analytics is not immune.

Interesting post but I guess I respectfully disagree with your assumption. I thought it was interesting that you intentionally left media agencies out of the mix when you listed all who have “dropped the ball”. Should media agencies be a part of the solution? Absolutely. But in the end, its not a question of who owns it…that will likely be different depending on the situation. But what will be critical to provide the best solution to the client (ultimately isn’t that what is most important?) is a true partnership between media, creative and technology interests.

I agree though that assumptions are being made based on some very general top level wa metrics sometimes.

I don’t necessarily think buyers are cowards. I think it’s more simple than that — some have very little knowledge (if any) in web analytics. Why buy something you don’t understand? If you don’t know what you’re missing out on, why worry?

I still believe it’s possible to build collaborative web services that render media agencies redundant. Power to the advertisers!

With the big bucks thrown at fluff issue, I don’t believe the question is as difficult to comprehend as you portray it.

Media agencies are in the position of power in the marketplace. Companies that depend on media agencies over web analytics service companies are following accepted business practices. To do otherwise is a risk. If you (you in this case being individuals in those companies with the authority to decide between ma and wa) take a risk, and suffer bad financial results, you get blamed and you suffer consequences. If you follow accepted business practices and suffer bad financial results, it was probably someone else’s fault. CYA.

Second, I don’t believe all web analytics companies are selling more results, less fluff. Many web analytics companies appear to take routine statistics (web visits, time spent, penetration, et al.) apply some voodoo math to the statistics and pop out values that are alleged to have meaning. Plenty are unsupported and unsubstantiated fluff. So a consumer needs to take a risk going away from the media agency then has to be bold enough to believe they can separate the quality web analytic company from the fluff.

Do media agencies have a future? You bet. They are the ones with the clients. All they have to do is follow the trends and do what the clients want. If the clients want web analytics, the media agencies will buy web analytics companies and make them subsidiaries (a process currently underway). Then a client employee can take the safe road and hire a media agency and get web analytics data.

I agree on your thoughts that it may well be BI that takes ownership. Even where I’m working there is a massive move to consolidate the analytics data with the already built and robust BI systems and people are looking at ways the various tools available can provide suitable feeds into the proposed data warehouses.

Ultimately this would mean web analytics data just becomes another data source that feeds into the warehouse and which you can base your queries on. The interesting thing about this is that the vendors front end tools may become less important (certainly from an enterprise point of view) and instead it will be the quality of their back-end data systems/schema, along with their data collection methods and any pre-formatting/cleaning of data they can do prior to feeding in the data, that will be the driving force in selecting a vendor.

How do we make accountable marketing (more results, less surface) more appealing? I mean, it should be a no-brainer, but it isn’t.

Move budgets from marketing or communication units to sales units. Sales units have to make every dollar count.

We need to become embedded in media agencies, or become a filter between media agencies and advertisers. Currently the latter seems like the easier route.

Sometimes I even argue whether media agencies have a future. Business models change on the Internet, and companies like Google facilitate change.

RESPONSE:
It is simply the product of people viewing the web as business asset through too narrow a lens for far too long.

If your concept of “success” was…shall we say limited by certain pre-conceived notions, would you choose to date the beauty queen that makes her case wearing a thong bikini, or the conservatively-dressed-with-business-case-coming-out-of-every-pore agency? Hands down, the bikini-clad beauty queen is the sexiest and most fashionable….and then what?

Companies are increasingly understanding the importance of web-enabled information/products/services to their bottom line. Today, people are struggling with clarity; they are, however, increasingly overcoming this hurdle.

Agencies can gain - and have gained - advantage (intentionally or unintentionally) as a result of this lack of clarity by site owners. Agencies tend to employ creative types that may be fabulous at what they’re fabulous at. Unfortunately, what they’re fabulous at can - and often does - work at cross-purposes with what the client needs to accomplish.

Downside: if you are the CMO who engaged an agency to create a totally-sexy, total-flash-with-no-discernible-connection-to-the-bottom-line web site, we’ll look for your name in an upcoming news article, as someone who “has decided to leave to pursue other interests”

As you can see by Jeff C’s response to my response, his agency has had their share of undoing the damage that can and does occur.

As site owners become more attuned to the strategic importance of their web properties, the people they put in charge of these decisions will, in turn, be more attuned to all the contributing factors. As that occurs, agencies that don’t fully understand the interrelationships of structure, strategy, and optimization, combined with purpose, will be sidelined in favor of those that do.

“As long as there is big bucks in fluff they won’t see a need to change.”

Any thoughts on why companies continue to throw big bucks at fluff (cause you’re dead on)? We, as web analysts need to stop this, right? Why haven’t we or what’s stopping us?