In a move toward statistical sanity, Nielsen//NetRatings, a global Internet media and market research company, announced on July 10, 2007 that it added both “Total Minutes” and “Total Sessions” metrics to its syndicated Internet audience measurement service.

This decision is an example of a research company’s efforts to provide reasonable and useful data on website traffic. Although “total minutes” and “total sessions” still don’t slice visitor data in a way that sheds a complete light on visitor demographics, they will provide more useful data than the now almost universally disparaged “page hits.” Read Robert Niles’ July 13, 2007 post, “Hits, page views and other garbage we pass off as audience metrics,” for a nice perspective on the topic. Niles is editor of Online Journalism Review, connected to the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication.

Nielsen//NetRatings states:

the new metrics deliver greater perspective on total engagement across sites. Rich Internet Application (RIA) technologies like AJAX and streaming (both audio/video and other content like sports scoreboards and live stock quotes) have greatly enhanced the consumer experience, yet pose special challenges to Internet audience measurement. AJAX refreshes content without reloading entire Web pages and streaming provides dynamically changing content within a single page or a media player. While a page view metric under-credits such engagement, the total minutes metric provides a common denominator for user behavior that is independent of site design. “’Total Minutes’ is the best engagement metric in this initial stage of Web 2.0 development, not only because it ensures fair measurement of Web sites using RIA and streaming media, but also of Web environments that have never been well-served by the page view, such as online gaming and Internet applications,” said Scott Ross, director, product marketing for the NetView service.

Nielsen//NetRatings data show that the difference between time spent and page view metrics varies by Web site category. Among search providers, the time spent and page view ratios are similar. For example, the ratio of total minutes spent on Google Search versus Yahoo! Search is 3.3 to 1 (see Table 1). Their page view ratio is 3.1 to 1.

The time spent ratio is 3.6 to 1 between social networking sites MySpace and YouTube, Nielsen//NetRatings finds, but the ratio of page views is much larger, at 10.4 to 1. YouTube visitors spend more time per page than MySpace “because they are primarily watching videos, requiring fewer page refreshes. While MySpace may be able to serve more ads because of its number of page refreshes, the time spent ratio is an important comparison of audience engagement on the two sites.”

As OJR Editor Niles stated in his post, “Over the long run, third-party traffic data, survey results and advertiser testimonials can help show potential advertisers a more accurate picture of our websites’ ability to attract readers and deliver them to an advertiser than another salesperson’s spin will.”

While waiting for a flight to Chicago after the 2007 International Conference of the IABC, I spent some time recording a conversation with Ned Lundquist, ABC. Follow this link to the podcast, and enjoy a 9-minute conversation that touched upon the IABC conference, observations about New Orleans, Ned’s Job-of-the-Week email newsletter and website, and the current job market for communicators.

One correction to my recorded introduction: Ned now is with Alion Science and Technology.

I’m a member of the International Association of Business Communicators, and a new member of its advocacy initiative, led by IABC member Mike Zimet.

We could debate a long time about the meaning of “advocacy” and how IABC could address it as an organization. I’m dividing the subject into three distinct parts, two of which have been discussed in Mike’s most recent post and all of the subsequent comments. I personally feel compelled to support the third part of advocacy, along with other interested IABC members. The three parts are:

1) Advocacy focused on our profession. Who has ever attended a communications-related conference or seminar without hearing someone say that communicators need a “seat at the table” where the decisions are made? This part of advocacy would help to raise the awareness of the role of effective, strategic communications within an organization or other operating entity.

2) Advocacy focused on our association. Mike Klein summarizes this by highlighting the need “to find more and more effective ways of promoting what our members bring to our clients and communities’ respective tables.” We must raise awareness of IABC, both from a leadership spokesperson perspective and as professionals within the organizations that employ our services. In the same recent post on the IABC Advocacy Commons, Kristen Sukalac makes an important distinction between an association and/or its members “speaking out” and “taking a position.”

3) Advocacy focused on social responsibility. I spent a lot of time at the recent IABC International Conference in New Orleans passing out information about the IABC Advocacy Initiative and talking with IABC members. I received the most enthusiastic responses when I talked about using our communication skills and experience to “make a difference” globally and locally, as we would support charitable organizations and causes, and allow them to “Be Heard.”

The vision that I discussed with Mike Zimet includes working with local IABC chapters throughout the world, helping them to identify local causes or organizations that need the kind of help that chapter members could provide on a pro-bono basis. This could:

• Enhance the professional image and personal self-esteem of individual chapter members who volunteer for pro-bono work in the local community. Want proof? Ask anyone who swung a hammer or carried lumber at the Habitat for Humanity project in New Orleans. Better yet, ask to see the video of the project that was shown at a general session during the IABC conference. Imagine how we will feel when we give back to the community using our greatest skill: The ability to communicate.
• Boost the image of local chapters by offering something tangible to promote in addition to the monthly networking luncheon.
• Enhance the image of IABC as an association, as it benefits from the many acts of service done by IABC members and chapters.

A beautiful part of this is that it can develop organically, without the need for micro-management by the IABC Executive Board, staff, or the heads of the Advocacy Initiative. These efforts would benefit from some way(s) to share ideas, resources, information and success stories. At little or no expense, that would be easy using various forms of social media, including wikis, blogs, instant messaging, vidcasting, and digital image storage–most of which is available right now from free-to-join social networking sites including The Communicators’ Network and MyRagan.

It is exciting to see the progress being made in different pieces of the advocacy initiative. I will be working on the social responsibility piece., and would love to hear from anyone interested in helping to make it happen. Contact me through this blog or by sending an email to tomATcommakazispeekDOTcom. (Substitute the @ symbol for AT and a period for DOT in this email address.) [UPDATE July 9, 2007] I’m deleting this invitation to contact me about the social responsibility portion of the IABC Advocacy Initiative because I don’t want to appear to be working apart from the IABC Advocacy team, led by Mike Zimet. A social responsibility subcommittee has been working under the IABC Advocacy Initiative group for several months. For now, your interest in participating is enough; we will hear more from the SR subcommittee about how to help in coming weeks.