New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`Research: Papers
`
`
`New Metrics for New Media:
`Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`Thomas P. Novak and Donna L. Hoffman
`
` Project 2000
`
`Vanderbilt University
`
`September 26, 1996
`
`We wish to thank Daimler-Benz, Interval Research Corporation, Netscape Communications Corporation, O'Reilly &
`Associates, and Yankelovich Partners for their generous sponsorship of this effort.
`
`This paper appears in print as: Novak, T.P. and D.L. Hoffman (1997), "New Metrics for New Media: Toward the
`Development of Web Measurement Standards," World Wide Web Journal, Winter, 2(1), 213-246.
`
`Project 2000 White Paper
`(c)1996 Thomas P. Novak and Donna L. Hoffman
`
`New Metrics for New Media:
`Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`1) Introduction
`
`The advertiser-supported Web site is one of several business models vying for legitimacy in the emerging medium of
`the World Wide Web on the Internet (Hoffman, Novak, and Chatterjee 1995). Currently, there are three major types of
`advertiser-supported sites: 1) sponsored content sites like Hotwired, ESPNET Sportszone, and ZD Net, 2) sponsored
`search agents and directories like InfoSeek, Excite, and Yahoo, and 3) entry portal sites like Netscape. At present,
`these three classes of sites are split at about 55 percent, 36 percent and 19 percent, respectively, in terms of
`advertising revenue (Jupiter Communications 1996).
`
`The sponsorship model is attracting increasing management attention because advertising is expected to be an
`increasingly significant source of revenues in this new medium (Rebello 1996). Sponsored sites are attractive because
`they are well suited to the Web environment (Hoffman & Novak 1996), yet retain important parallels to existing media
`in the physical world. In theory, institutional advertising practices and metaphors can be borrowed from traditional
`media environments to assist initial commercial efforts. Additionally, as it becomes apparent that commercial viability
`of the online storefront model is years away (MIT Faculty/Industry Workshop 1996), many Web managers are
`beginning to place more importance on advertising revenue streams as a source of profitability for online ventures
`(Rebello 1996).
`
`Against this backdrop, firms are trying to understand what makes a sponsored site successful. As advertisers and
`marketers debate the best ways to measure and track visits and usage on commercial Web sites, most firms remain
`largely in the dark about how many customers exist online for their offerings. Because the industry currently lacks
`standards for what to measure and how to measure it, the Web is having difficulty being accepted as an advertising
`medium and there is no assurance that firms will be successful in generating significant revenues from advertising in
`the future. Ultimately, the lack of standardization will limit the long-term viability of the sponsorship model (Murphy
`1996).
`
` (1 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1022
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`
`Page 1 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`This lack of standardization exists on several fronts. First, there are no established principles for measuring traffic on
`commercial Web sites that seek to generate revenues from advertising sponsorship. Second, there is no standard way
`of measuring consumer response to advertisements. Third, there are no standards for optimal media pricing models.
`Finally, the complexity of the medium in general hinders the standardization process.
`
`From an advertising perspective, the Web medium shares some similarity to radio: there are many different markets
`and they are clearly (at least in theory) segmented. But standardization in the radio medium eases the process of the
`media buy. In contrast, the Web presents a "nightmare" buy for agencies and their clients (CyberAtlas 1996). For
`example, Focalink's database of over 600 commercial Web sites (Focalink 1996) shows that there are more than 90
`sizes for Web ad banners, that sites use many different metrics to price advertising, that there is no consistency in
`definitions even among the same or similar metrics, and that consumer demographic information is virtually
`nonexistent.
`
`Despite the lack of information in this chaotic emerging environment, there is no dearth of activity. AdSpend (Jupiter
`Communications 1996) estimates advertising revenues for the first half of 1996 at $71.7 million, already at the level of
`a previous estimate of $74 million by Forrester Research for all of 1996 (CyberAtlas 1996). However, advertising
`revenue remains highly concentrated, with two thirds of all revenues going to the top ten of 600 advertiser supported
`Web sites (Jupiter Communications 1996). Estimates of Web advertising expenditures in the year 2000 range from
`$1.7 billion (Bear Sterns) to $1.9 billion (SIMBA) to $5 billion (Jupiter) (CyberAtlas 1996).
`
`Despite these heady forecasts, the perception persists that Web-based advertising efforts are not (and may never be)
`"serious." In part this may be because traditional advertising spending easily dwarfs current Web advertising efforts.
`For example, the price of a single 30-second television spot on prime-time's top show, Seinfeld, is currently $550,000
`(Advertising Age, 1996). As Table 1, compiled from the Direct Marketing Association (1996) and the Outdoor
`Advertising Association of America, Inc. (1996) shows, Web advertising expenditures represent a medium in its infancy:
`
`Table 1: 1995 Advertising Expenditures in Various Media
`
`Advertising Medium Total U.S. Expenditures
`(billions of dollars U.S.)
`
`Direct Response - Mail
`
`Direct Response - Phone
`
`Outdoor - Traditional
`
`Outdoor - Out of home
`
`Print - Magazine
`
`Print - Newspaper
`
`Radio
`
`Television
`
`Web
`
`Other
`
`31.2
`
`82.7
`
`1.83
`
`3.00
`
`12.5
`
`37.7
`
`11.1
`
`38.1
`
`.312
`
`21.3
`
`Comments
`
`.
`
`Telemarketing
`
`Billboards
`
`Transit, Bus, Airport, etc.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Estimate for 1996 (Jupiter
`Communications 1996)
`
`.
`
`Yet the skepticism can more importantly be traced to the fact that few have specified conclusively just how advertising
`on the Web can and should further a firm's strategic marketing objectives. Clearly, standardizing the Web
`measurement process is a critical first step on the path toward the successful commercial development of the Web.
`
`Therefore, the objectives of this White Paper are to:
`
`● Review practices for advertising measurement in traditional media.
`
`● Examine current practice for advertising measurement on the Web, drawing comparisons to methodologies
`
` (2 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`Page 2 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`used in traditional media research.
`
`● Propose standardized terminology and methodology for Web advertising measurement.
`
`● Offer preliminary recommendations for Web advertising research.
`
`● Address the policy and strategic considerations that affect the development of Web advertising standards.
`
`We believe that metrics based solely on impressions are necessary in the Web measurement process, but cannot and
`should not form the basis of a Web measurement system. Therefore, in addition to proposing a set of "basic
`constructs" and "exposure metrics" that define the consideration set of possible measures, we also introduce a set of
`"interactivity metrics" that we believe must be included in any complete program for Web measurement. We take care
`to identify what data are required in order to calculate a particular metric and remain cognizant of the link between
`Web metrics and media pricing models.
`
`We hope our preliminary measurement proposal stimulates rigorous discussion and debate. Our intention is to
`encourage the competitive marketplace to adopt specific metrics from each set. Research is necessary to identify
`which metrics are most useful for judging the effectiveness of advertising, for determining where and how ads should
`be placed, and for determining optimal pricing schemes for efficient media buys.
`
`2) Advertising Measurement Terminology in Traditional Media
`
`There is considerable confusion regarding the terminology currently in use for Web advertising; the first step is to
`ensure that all are working with the same vocabulary. We propose that if there is terminology from traditional media
`that is appropriate to use in the context of Web-based advertising, then it should be used avoid confusion and ease the
`adoption process of standards formation. Thus, we begin by providing a glossary of the standard definitions for key
`measures in print and broadcast vehicles. Such measures are used in most media audience evaluations and for
`intermedia comparisons in media planning in traditional mass media.
`
`The gross sum of all media exposures (numbers of people or homes) without regard to duplication.
`(Surmanek 1993).
`
`Gross
`impressions
`/impressions
`Reach
`
`The number of [unduplicated] people or households that will be exposed to an advertising schedule
`at least once over a specified period of time. (Batra, Myers and Aaker 1996)
`Effective Reach The number or people who are exposed to an ad at the "effective frequency."
`Frequency
`
`The number of times that an individual is exposed to a particular advertising message in a given
`period of time.
`
`Effective
`Frequency
`
`CPM
`
`Duplication
`Gross Rating
`Points
`
`Share
`
`The number of exposures needed for an ad to become "effective". In mass media models, effective
`frequency stipulates that a certain amount of exposure is necessary before it is effective, and is
`used interchangeable with effective exposures. Research indicates that less than three exposures
`will not allow adequate recall. However, too many exposures are inefficient in that incremental recall
`after 7, 8, or 10 exposures during a purchase cycle is very small.
`
`Cost-per-thousand impressions (exposures). The cost per 1,000 people (or homes) delivered by a
`medium or media schedule.-(Surmanek 1993).
`
`The number or percentage of people who see an advertisement or campaign in two or more vehicles
`
`GRPs are a measure of scheduling impact calculated on a weekly or monthly basis. GRP for mass
`media can be calculated as multiplying the reach (expressed as a percentage of prospects in the
`target market exposed to television and/or magazine vehicles carrying the ad) by frequency. The
`GRP level for a particular schedule can also be calculated by summing the ratings of the individual
`show carrying the commercial (assuming one commercial per show).
`
`"Share of audience" is the percentage of HUT (or PUT, PUR, PVT) tuned to a particular program or
`station. "Share of market" is the per-centage of advertising impressions generated by all brands in a
`cate-gory accounted for by a particular brand, but often also refers to share of media spending.
`(Surmanek 1993).
`
` (3 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`Page 3 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`Ratings
`
`HUT, PUT,
`HUR, PUR
`Composition
`
`Cost per
`Inquiry
`
`The percentage of a given population group consuming a medium at a particular moment. Generally
`used for broadcast media, but can be used for any medium. One rating point equals one percent.
`(Surmanek 1993).
`
`The percentage of {homes/people} tuned in to {TV/radio} at a particular time.(Surmanek 1993).
`
`The mixture of audience characteristics found in the audience for a medium or vehicle. It also refers
`to the percentage of some medium's total audience made up of the target segment.
`
`The cost to generate an inquiry in direct-response advertising. Calculated by the total cost of the
`direct-response advertising divided by the number of inquiries it generates. [www.infi.net/
`powerhouse/glossary.html]
`
`3) Current Practice for Advertising Measurement on the Web
`
`3.1) Types of Ads
`
`We focus upon the form of advertising referred to as "banner ads" and "target ads." This primitive form of Web-based
`advertising may ultimately not be the most effective, but as the current dominant form, we feel it is appropriate to
`propose a set of standards for its measurement. At a minimum, using banner and target ads, whatever the limitations
`might turn out to be, provides a concrete example to work with. Although we expect Web-based advertising efforts to
`evolve, the problem with making recommendations more general so that they could encompass other types of yet to
`be developed Web-based advertising is that they would be too broad and diffuse to be practically useful.
`
`A banner ad is a small, typically rectangular, graphic image which is linked to a target ad . Banner ads come in a
`variety of sizes, with 90 percent of banner ads ranging from 120 to 500 pixels wide (with a median of 460 pixels) and
`from 45 to 120 pixels high (with a median of 60 pixels) (Focalink 1996). Banner ads typically provide little information
`other than the identification of the sponsor, and serve as an invitation for the visitor to click on the banner to learn
`more. Following are a few examples of banner ads:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Target ads, on the other hand, can be fairly involved, ranging from a single web page with basic HTML, to a Web page
`enhanced by Java applets, audio, or forms, to a series of linked pages, or to a complete corporate "Internet Presence,"
`"Content," or "Online Storefront" site (Hoffman, Novak & Chatterjee 1995).
`
`Chatterjee (1996) considers banner ads to be a form of passive advertising exposure, in that the consumer does not
`consciously decide to view the banner ad. Rather, the banner ad is presented as an outcome of accessing a particular
`Web content page, or as the outcome of entering a series of key words into a search engine. Conventional market
`segmentation theory would lead us to predict that the more targeted the banner ad, the higher the click rate. Thus, ads
`placed on home pages of general-interest sites, or on the entry page of a search engine would have lower click rates
`than ads that are consistent with the content of a narrowly targeted web site, or banner ads presented by a search
`engine in response to specific keywords (e.g. ads for Lionel trains presented every time a visitor searches for "model
`railroad" or for "Neil Young").
`
`Paid links are a different form of passive advertising, and may be most simply viewed as a text version of a banner ad.
`
` (4 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`Page 4 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`Paid links are often incorporated in directories, which may contain large numbers of such paid links.
`
`Chatterjee considers target ads, on the other hand, to be a form of active advertising exposure, since the consumer
`actively decides to access the target ad (I.e. by clicking on the banner ad), only after being passively exposed to the
`banner. Active ad exposure is under the consumer's control; passive ad exposure is under the marketer's control.
`Thus, the distinction between passive and active advertisements implies a crucial difference between banner and
`target ads. Further, the concept of an active advertisement is a feature that differentiates Web advertising from
`advertising in traditional media.
`
`To date, most of the focus in Web advertising measurement has been upon banner advertisements. This is most likely
`because their passive nature means banner ads have many more parallels with traditional media planning than do
`active ads. The factors that affect perceptual selection (i.e., that the consumer will pay attention to an advertisement
`he or she comes across) in print media should also impact perceptual selection of banner ads. These factors are
`closely tied to the "creative" function in advertising and include size, position, directionality, motion, color, intensity,
`contrast, and novelty (e.g. Wilkie 1990), all of which we would expect to be useful for predicting the likelihood that a
`visitor will click on a banner ad.
`
`3.2) Pricing Models
`
`Currently, exposure models, based upon CPM or Flat Fees applied to site exposure or banner ad exposure, are the
`dominant approach to Web media pricing. Fees based upon actual click-throughs are also in use, where the advertiser
`pays for actual clicks on a banner ad that lead to the advertiser's target ad. In the following section, we consider these
`and other possible pricing models. While we believe it is premature to recommend any one media pricing model, it is
`important to understand the relative strengths and limitations of methods currently in use or that have been proposed.
`
`3.2.1) Exposure models (CPM and Flat Fee). Flat fee pricing consists of a fixed price for a given period of time. Flat
`fees were the earliest Web advertising pricing model to appear. Flat fee pricing can be implemented either with or
`without traffic guarantees. Naturally, it would be advantageous to the advertiser to request guarantees of traffic level.
`The earliest ad pricing approaches on the Web simply used flat fees (e.g. ad cost per month) without clear
`specification of the traffic delivered in that period of time. At a minimum, accurate information on site traffic must be
`made available to the advertiser so that the advertiser can evaluate alternative Web media vehicles.
`
`Assuming accurate traffic information, flat fee prices can be readily converted into a CPM (cost per thousand
`exposures) model. CPMs can also be enhanced by providing "guarantees" of the number of impressions in a given
`period of time. Thus, we consider the flat fee and CPM models to be interchangeable if traffic information, specifying
`the number of (possibly unique) visitors to a Web site, is available. If traffic information is not available, then flat fee
`pricing can still be used, although its value is then impossible to evaluate.
`
`Ninety percent of CPMs for Web advertising sites (Focalink 1996) range from $10 to $150, with a median of $60. This
`compares with CPMs of $6-$14 for national television, $8-$20 for magazine, and $18-$20 for newspaper advertising (I/
`Pro 1996).
`
`The ultimate challenge is to determine the business models that will be effective in this new environment. At present,
`the advertiser-supported business model is being largely driven by a broadcast paradigm that has initially gravitated
`toward CPMs as the appropriate unit of measure. In this model, the belief is that exposure-based pricing takes into
`account different advertisers' response functions and represents a rational way to price advertising on the Web.
`
`But in fact, impression/exposure models go only part of the way because the Web is different from traditional
`broadcast media. The Web is based on a many-to-many communication model and traditional media are based on a
`one-to-many communication model. Thus, in addition to exposure metrics, we also need interactivity metrics. The CPM
`approach places too much emphasis upon the banner ad, and essentially no emphasis upon the target ad which is the
`"real" marketing communication that the advertiser wishes the visitor to see and interact with.
`
`In the CPM model, larger numbers are bigger winners because the one-to-many model seeks a mass audience for its
`message. The dangers of relying solely on exposure models means that interactive managers will be driven to scale
`their sites to larger, mass audiences with more homogeneous tastes in order to attract more advertising revenue. This
`is in contrast with solving the more difficult problem of how to measure interactivity and price advertising according to
`the value of a consumer's interactive visit to the advertiser.
`
` (5 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`Page 5 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`CPM and flat fee models do nothing more than simply count the number of visitors exposed to a particular banner
`advertisement on a particular site. But because consumer behavior on the Web depends upon a whole host of
`measurable factors, including the type of site and the consumer's motivation for visiting it (Hoffman and Novak 1996),
`a simple counting of visits is not sufficient to demonstrate value to the advertiser of their advertising expenditures. We
`believe it is meaningless to compare directly the number of visitors exposed to banner ads across pages without taking
`these factors into account.
`
`3.2.2) Click through. Ad pricing based upon click through is an attempt to develop a more accountable way of
`charging for web advertising. The payment for a banner ad is based on the number of times a visitor actually clicked
`on it; this currently runs about $0.25 per click (I/Pro 1996). A relatively small proportion of those exposed to a banner
`ad actually click on the banner; DoubleClick (1996) reports that 4% of visitors who are exposed to a banner ad the first
`time click on the ad. The top 25% performing ads in the DoubleClick Network had an average click rate of 8%, with
`some click rates as high as 12 to 15%. Click through rates drop off after the first exposure, falling to 2% for the second
`and third exposures, and 1% or less at four exposures. Thus, payment based upon click through guarantees not only
`that the visitor was exposed to the banner ad, but actively decided to click on the banner and become exposed to the
`target ad. Click through payment can be viewed as payment for target ad exposures.
`
`However, the practice is not without controversy. In April 1996, Yahoo agreed to let Procter & Gamble pay only for the
`"click-through," rather than gross impressions (Associated Press, 1996). Some Internet publishers feel that this pricing
`strategy is unfair, arguing that the click-through is at least partially a function of the "creative" and not under the
`publisher's control. On the other hand, as we argued above, applying only traditional media exposure models to the
`Web does not take into account its unique, interactive nature. Additionally, the Internet is the first commercial medium
`in which it is actually possible to measure consumer response, not just assume it. Thus, although the click through
`model may not represent the optimal approach to measuring the value of interactivity, it offers a departure point from
`which to proceed.
`
`3.2.3) Interactivity. While payment based upon click through guarantees exposure to target ads, it does not guarantee
`that the visitor liked the ad, or even spent any substantial time viewing the ad. We propose that a further measure of
`the value of an advertisement should be based upon the degree to which the visitor interacts with the target ad. Such
`an interactivity metric could be based upon duration time spent viewing the ad, the depth or number of pages of the
`target ad accessed, or the number of repeat visits to the target ad.
`
`Recently, a member of the Online Advertising Discussion List (1996) announced to the list that Modem Media, the
`interactive advertising agency, had developed a pricing model in which its clients will pay, not for exposures or click-
`through, but only for activity at the client's Web site. This has raised anew the controversy surrounding the best Web
`media pricing models, with Web publishers arguing that that the problem with activity-based measures like click-
`through or interactivity is that the Web publisher cannot be held responsible for the activity related to an advertisement.
`An analogy is drawn with print, in which the Web publisher would argue that the print medium charges for ads whether
`or not they lead to sales.
`
`Not surprisingly, advertisers and their agencies argue that since the Web medium allows for accountability, models can
`and should be developed which measure consumer behavior. In the long run, the solution will probably be found by
`accepting the reality that the medium and the advertisement interact and that all parties share responsibility for
`outcomes.
`
`3.2.4) Outcomes. Ultimately, marketers are interested in outcomes, and the ultimate outcome is purchase. As
`Stephen Klein of I/Pro stated, "One hundred thousand people going to a site is worth something, but a site that only
`five people visit can be worth more if they are the right five people" (Murphy 1996).
`
`The metrics discussed thus far relate to early stages of the purchase process. Banner ads affect the consumer's
`awareness, and interaction with the target ad affects the consumer's comprehension and understanding. Beyond these
`initial stages are the marketing objectives of attitude change, purchase intention, and ultimately, purchase.
`
`An outcome-based approach to pricing Web advertising begins by specifying exactly what the marketer would like the
`target ad to do. Examples of typical outcomes include influencing attitudes, motivating the consumer to provide
`information about him or herself, or leading the consumer to purchase. Whatever the marketing objective, the Web
`provides a vehicle for integrated marketing campaigns that allows the marketer to track and measure the
`advertisement's effectiveness.
`
` (6 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`Page 6 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`A current example is PI ads (per inquiry) - these ads pay a royalty on actual product sales, but require no upfront
`payment. Consider the "Associates Program"(1) offered by amazon.com, a million-title Web-based book store. Thus
`far, over 300 Web sites have joined the Associates program. In this program, Associates advertise books sold by
`amazon.com that they feel are appropriate to the content of their Web site. If a visitor accesses amazon.com through
`the Associate's Web site and purchases the book advertised on the Associate's site, the Associate receives a referral
`fee of up to 8% of the purchase price of the book.
`
`The next step is to develop a set of integrated response measures (over time and possibly over sites) that relate
`exposure and interactivity metrics to consumer response. This make take the form of, for example, purchase behavior
`in an online storefront, attitude change, number of visitors who request further information, and so on. However, the
`development of such metrics requires two things: 1) identified visitors, and 2) multi-site data on every Web site
`involved in the integrated marketing campaign. Until these data are available, the measurement of outcome remains
`elusive.
`
`3.3) Industry Players
`
`In this section, we categorize the competitors in the Web measurement business. This categorization proceeds by
`organizing firms' offerings according to the functions each serves. These functions include Measurement & Analysis,
`Auditing, Advertising Support, and Standards. We define each function briefly below.
`
`Our intent is not to review in detail what each product does or how (or even how well) it does it, but instead to
`summarize the competitors and their alliances in terms of the markets in which they compete. Every effort has been
`made to sketch these relationships accurately, but the fast-moving nature of the Web measurement industry means
`that some inaccuracies are possible. In Tables 2 through 5 that follow, we list firms within each category in alphabetical
`order, list the products each firm offers within that category, table its strategic partners, and then offer any relevant
`observations. Partners are classified according to whether they are investors, owners, or involved in a strategic
`alliance. As the tables make clear, there is an enormous amount of activity in this emergent industry.
`
`3.3.1) Visitor Measurement & Analysis. The Web measurement process involves counting and summarizing the
`visitor transactions on a Web site. Measurement and analysis products tell managers who is accessing their site,
`when, and what is being accessed. Different products perform these tasks at different levels of specificity and with
`different degrees of accuracy.
`
`3.3.2) Auditing. Traditionally, the auditing process involves the objective evaluation of transaction counts by an
`independent agency. The purpose of the audit is to produce validated data that permits advertisers to compare Web
`sites in the context of the media buy. A "trusted" third party is sought to avoid any potential or actual conflicts of
`interest. In the Web medium, the auditing function is served both by traditional media auditors and firms that engage in
`the measurement process.
`
`While prevailing industry wisdom is that independent third party audits are necessary for potential advertisers to trust
`traffic claims of Web sites, there are some dissenting viewpoints. Rick Boyce, vice president and director of advertising
`sales at HotWired has been quoted as saying, "No one has come up to me yet and said, 'We won't buy your site
`because you haven't had an independent audit. We built our own tools that allow us to measure impressions and click-
`throughs. But, we're different because our brand name indicates quality" (Murphy 1996). Thus, the key issue is
`advertiser trust, and it remains to be seen whether independent third party auditing is the only method for securing
`such trust.
`
`3.3.3) Advertising Support. Recently, the industry has seen the emergence of firms dedicated to supporting the
`advertising function. These firms offer products that aid the advertiser, the agency, and/or the Web publisher, in the
`various aspects of the online media buy.
`
`3.3.4) Standards. Numerous firms and organizations have signaled their intent to set measurement standards for Web
`advertising. The point of such standards is to facilitate the measurement process (what should be measured and how
`should it be measured?) and define universal criteria for verification of visitor measurements claimed by commercial
`Web sites.
`
`Numerous strategic and policy issues affect the standards-setting process, including whether trust of the auditing
`function requires an independent third-party in the measurement process, and how to protect consumer privacy in the
`
` (7 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`Page 7 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`face of extensive "clickstream" data collection efforts.
`
`Table 2: Industry Players: Visitor Measurement & Analysis
`
`Firm
`
`Allen Marketing
`Group, Inc.
`www.allen.com
`
`Products
`
`Partners
`
`Comments
`
`Guest Track
`
`.
`
`Registration program that
`builds profiles of registered
`users and links them with log
`file to enable customized
`presentations.
`
`Andromeda
`www.andromedia.com
`
`Aria Web Recording and
`Reporting SystemVisiTrac (co-
`branded version of Aria with
`K2 Design)
`
`Draper Richards, LP
`(investor)
`K2 Design (strategic
`alliance)
`Platinum Ventures
`(investor)
`Softbank Corporation
`(investor)
`
`Bien Logic
`www.bienlogic.com
`
`Clickshare
`www.clickshare.com/
`clickshare
`
`Surf Report
`
`Clickshare Access and
`Payment System
`
`Everyware
`www.everyware.com
`
`Bolero
`
`Group Cortex, Inc.
`www.cortex.com/
`sitetrack
`
`Interse
`www.interse.com
`
`I/PRO
`www.ipro.com
`
`Site Track
`
`Market Focus
`
`I/CODE
`Nielsen I/PRO
`I/COUNT
`
`Firm
`
`Products
`
` (8 of 30)7/23/2006 8:22:34 PM
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Arbitron New Media
`(strategic alliance)
`
`CyberAtlas (acquisition)
`DoubleClick
`(strategic alliance)
`Hearst Corporation
`(investor)
`NetGravity
`(strategic alliance)
`Nielsen Media
`Research
`(strategic alliance)
`Softbank Corporation
`(investor)
`Verifone
`(strategic alliance)
`Partners
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Registration program that
`tracks consumers via unique ID
`enabling multi-site user
`authentication,
`microtransaction billing and
`settlement, and cross-site
`access measurement;
`Newshare Corp. Spinoff.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Meets ABVS standards
`
`I/CODE is a registration
`program
`
`Comments
`
`Page 8 of 30
`
`

`
`New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards
`
`LDS WebTrac
`
`Save the Children
`(strategic alliance)
`
`Can match log file data to
`external databases
`
`Price Waterhouse
`(investor)
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Spin off of Digital Planet;
`products will be marketed
`under the NetCount/Price
`Waterhouse name
`
`.
`
`Household panel provides
`demographic data on home PC
`usage patterns, including time
`spent on specific pages of the
`World Wide Web, in
`departments of on-line
`services, and in desktop
`applications.
`
`.
`
`Inexpensive product targeted to
`small and mid-size Web sites.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`tracking system used to modify
`the site for different users
`based on profiles and browsing
`behavior
`
`Logical Design Solutions
`www.lds.com/prodserv
`/prodserv.html
`
`NetCount
`www.netcount.com
`
`net.Genesis
`www.netgen.com
`
`NetCount Basic
`NetCount Plus
`NetCount
`HeadCount
`
`Net.Analysis
`
`The NPD Group, Inc.
`www.npd.com
`
`PC-Meter
`
`Open Market
`www.