Google Analytics Fast Access Warning

[Update: May 10th - This warning originally read "This report is based on sampled data". Google have now explained that the warning appears any time you report on more than one dimension in Analytics on a date range containing more than 500,000 visits. See the Google Analytics Fast Access Mode help page for more detail.]

Everyone loves Google Analytics. It’s free, full of great features, and most of the time it works like a charm. We use GA data regularly in WhatClinic.com to make important decisions about everything from internal linking structures to on page keyword priorities, and it really comes into its own when something on the site is broken and we need to track the problem down.

However, like a lot of great free web services GA suffers from being too popular. The amount of data it has to crunch for our website alone is staggering, so imagine the load when you add in the tens if not hundreds of millions of other websites that use it too. Unfortunately the strain starts to show as soon as you really dig into your data.

The Dreaded Fast Access Mode Message

One of my most used features on GA is the Advanced Segment, which lets me filter the traffic I’m reporting on in a myriad of different ways. I can report on only the people who landed on our search pages, or only the people who came from Canada, or pretty much any set of people with an analytics parameter in common.

Google have a problem with this great feature though: in order to give you an answer to your query in a reasonable length of time they often fall back on using sampled data, or “Fast Access Mode” as they now call it, if you are using a date range that contains over 500,000 visits.

Google Analytics using sampled data

Sampled Data

Using sampled data is absolutely fine when your data points don’t suffer from a lot of volatility, but if they do then the results can be very unreliable. Take a look at the data set above. It uses sampled data because I’ve created an Advanced Segment with two parameters (user location and page URL) and I’m looking at a period of three and a half months which contains far more than 500,000 visits. Analytics is reporting a conversion rate in April of just 2.65% for the set of visitors I’m looking at.

Now look at the data set below. It is reporting a conversion rate in April of 4.36%. The difference is that it isn’t looking at sampled data because the period of time is much shorter and the visitors number is less than 500,000.

Google Analytics not using sampled data

Real Data

Our conversion data can be very volatile in places because of the niche or long tail nature of what we offer and what I need to report on from time to time. For instance. We might get 1,000 enquiries for dental clinics in Dublin in a week, but if I look at just the visitors who were looking for clinics in Rathmines that figure might drop to just 10, and those ten might have been made up of 3 on Monday, none on Tuesday, 1 on Wednesday, and so on. It’s the same when you look at American visitors to our Mexican dentists pages, or UK visitors to our Turkish cosmetic surgery pages.

Be Sure To Perform A Sanity Check

As with the case above, when something looks like a problem we all tend to look into it and see what’s going on, but when something looks good we tend to let it slide. My advice is any time you see the Fast Access Mode message in GA you should sanity check it by using shorter periods of time. This takes a little time but it will give you a far more reliable picture of what’s going on.

WhatClinic.com left hand side nav screen shot Vs. WhatClinic.com right hand side nav screen shot

 

Most of the time people run A/B tests in order to try and improve a single metric such as their site’s conversion rate, and they do this on the basis that even if the test fails to show an improvement that they can go back to their original setup and everything will be OK. But what if the original setup isn’t OK in the first place?

In the past we have made the mistake of assuming that just because we tested a theory once in the past that it holds true forever. It’s probably not a surprise to find out that this isn’t always the case, especially on a website that has changed it’s layout and functionality as many times as ours has! So every now and again we test a big change on our site for a few days just to make sure the some of our basic assumptions still hold.

Site Navigation On The Left Or The Right?

For the purpose of this test we wanted to see if having the main site navigation links on the left of the page or the right of the page affected our overall conversion rate. We had run this test in the past and having the links on the left outperformed having the links on the right. Seeing as so much had changed on the site in the meantime we decided to try it again.

Google Website Optimiser Results

The original left hand side navigation layout was a clear winner.

The results thankfully were pretty clear. Moving the navigation bar to the right hand side resulted in a drop in conversion across the site of 11.8%. So the navigation is staying where it is on the left hand side. We’re in good company too – Hotels.com in Europe think the left is the correct side for the navigation on their search results pages too, but maybe Airbnb.com know something we don’t? Their navigation is on the right hand side.

What was the last big change your A/B tested, and what was the result?

Is Google Declaring War On Link Building?

Link building

Following on from JCPenney’s very public punishment by Google last week, this week it’s the turn of OverStock.com to get raked over the coals. To me their infringement seems much more grey than JCPenney’s though. The full story is in the Wall Street Journal and on Search News Central today, but here’s a quick overview.

OverStock.com offered certain sites, including a lot of .edu sites, a 10% discount code for their visitors in return for a placing a link heavy piece of text on their sites. The sites themselves don’t get any money (*) in return for adding the links but it seems Google has called foul on this as being akin to buying links and have taken “corrective action” as they like to call it.

(* Because there’s a discount code being used there is a chance that the sites get a kickback, but in this case it seems the same discount code is being used on many sites so it is unlikely.)

Where to draw the line?

The problem I have with this is that it becomes very difficult to see how any overt link building exercise can be safe anymore. Say for instance that you have a web app that saves users a considerable amount of time by automating something that previously took a lot of manual effort.  It doesn’t save the user money per se, but it is still provides real value to them. Otherwise they would either have to spend their own time or pay someone money to do the required work.

Now, it is seen as perfectly white hat to go out and ask people to link to your useful free web app. The sites that link don’t get any money but the end users will save time. The sites that put up a link to your web app are in effect saying “Go here and save yourself some time”, but I disagree that this is materially different from linking to a site and saying to people “Go here and save yourself 10%”.

The only thing I can see that OverStock.com have done that might be considered dodgy is the inclusion of a lot of links with very optimised anchor text in their block of text. This will obviously improve their SERP rankings for these keywords, but again where is the line? Most people who build links will at least try and optimise their anchor text, even if it is only one link being asked for. So if one optimised link is OK, how many is not OK? Three? Five? Ten? You get my point.

Organic Vs Built Links

It seems to me that Google are moving the goalposts as to what’s acceptable and what’s not in terms of link building in response to being caught out at being gamed by JCPenney, OverStock.com and others. Their ultimate intention seems to be to only count organically gained links, and discount built or asked-for links. That sounds like a relatively hard problem to solve but it makes sense for them to try in response to the constant criticism they’re receiving at the moment about spam (or gamed) search results.

If things do pan out that way it means that a lot of sites are going to start seeing their rankings fall, and dramatically.

Black Hat SEO And What It Can Cost You

JCPenney Blackhat SEO

JCPenney Were Caught Using Black Hat SEO Techniques

Over the weekend the New York Times ran a story about how they had uncovered a scheme by retailer JCPenney to game the search engines by buying lots and lots of text links. In fact they discovered 2,015 text links relating to “dresses” alone. SearchEngineLand went on to show 774 pages linking to the JCPenney Comforter Sets page.

With Google taking plenty of flak recently about spam filled results they were particularly quick to act and happy to talk about taking strong “corrective action” in this case. On February 1st the average Google search results position for a JCPenney page for the 59 keywords the New York Times were tracking was 1.3; after Google were notified the average position of the JCPenney results dropped to 52.

There are a few interesting points raised by this story. First of all, by Google’s own admission, this link building campaign had been going on for months unnoticed. It’s probably less noticeable when a big company gets number one in the search results for a generic term like “dresses”, but 2,015 text links from spam link sites should have raised a flag earlier. For a company so fond of algorithms it’s odd to hear them say they only have 24,000 employees by way of a defence.

Second, even though Google have now taken their corrective action, i.e. punished JCPenney for violating Google’s Webmaster Guidelines, I wonder just how much money they made over the lucrative Christmas shopping season by gaming the system? Certainly more than the links cost them to buy. Do a quick back of the envelope calculation. Let’s say each of the 59 tracked keywords averaged 500 paid links each (less than either of the keywords talked about above), and that each link cost $10 to buy. That would cost $295,000, or a small fortune to you and me, but given that the keyword “dresses” alone has an average of 11.1 million searches per month suddenly you can see the value.

Third, as mentioned in the New York Times article, JCPenney claim to only get 7 percent of their traffic from organic searches. For an online retailer as big as JCPenney that is just unbelievable, but it’s easy to see why when you look at their on-site SEO efforts in any detail, as Alain Bleiweiss did in this post.

Finally, just as incredible as JCPenney’s poor on-site SEO is that of the New York Times itself. Despite knowing the name of the paper, the name of the company at the heart of the story, and the topic of the story, it still took me a number of searches to find the article. In the end I had to add a “site:nytimes.com” to the end of my search. Admittedly I should probably have done this at the start but I thought just having NYTimes in the search string would be enough. Hugo Guzman discusses the NYTimes.com site’s poor SEO in this blog post.

So, the black hat SEO discussion goes on with no real answer one way or the other. JCPenney are clearly paying a price now for what they’ve done, but I’d be very surprised if they didn’t come out ahead in money terms at least. As for Google, they will probably frighten a few people into avoiding black hat techniques by talking publicly about this case, but I’m sure plenty of others will see it as proof that gaming the system isn’t that hard and that you’re not likely to get caught for quite some time.

Tagged with:  

Some Predictions For 2011

A lot of the tech blogs I read play a game at the start of the year where their writers try to predict some of the new trends of the upcoming year. The fun part is when you get to look back a year (or two) later and see how right or wrong you were. Unfortunately I didn’t make any predictions last year, so I’m going to have to start from scratch, but here’s what myself and Caelen think are some of the likely trends in 2011.

  1. Mobile / Smart Phone Web Browsing Will Grow Rapidly
    On WhatClinic.com mobile or smart phones account for roughly 7% of our traffic. I expect this will grow significantly in the coming years, but for this year alone I’m going to say it will at least double.
  2. A New Public Enemy Number One
    There has always been an appetite in the media for a bad guy in the tech world. For years and years it was Microsoft, and recently both Facebook and Google have come under some pretty heavy scrutiny over privacy issues. Apple, currently valued at around $300 billion, is also a contender because of its sheer size, but which one will become the new Public Enemy Number One? It’ll be hard to prove this prediction one way or another but I think Facebook will cement itself in the media’s eyes as “the enemy” thanks to more Big Brother style privacy concerns. (Bigger gamblers would go for Foursquare / Gowalla / Twitter here…)
  3. Pay Walls Will Disappear In Favour Of Dedicated Apps
    People don’t want to pay per visit to read the news. To a lesser extent they also don’t want to get their credit cards out to take out a subscription. But app stores will have their payment details on file already from that time they bought Angry Birds. Expect all the big news media players to have dedicated apps with initially at least a variety of payment options (daily, once off, annual subscriptions and ad supported), and eventually drop the pay walls from their websites.
  4. Denial Of Service As Protest
    This one comes from Caelen, who predicts that D.O.S. attacks (which effectively disable the target website) will become more and more common, particularly as a form of protest against governments and large multinationals.
  5. A Flight Of The Healthy
    Private health insurance in Ireland is subject to a scheme called Risk Equalisation, which effectively means that the young and the healthy pay for the costs associated with the sick and elderly. As people tighten their belts, and the young in particular realise that they don’t really need health insurance until their thirties or forties, the sick and elderly will be left with rapidly increasing premiums and even a possible collapse of the private health insurance system as we know it.
  6. The Green Agenda Turns To Food Not Fuel
    This has been talked about for a long time, but as more green energy schemes come online and hybrid / electric cars become more popular, the focus of greening the planet will return to food related issues – what types of food you eat, where they come from and are the growing methods sustainable.
  7. Switching Off Part 1
    Instant on technologies will start to replace standby in laptops, TVs and other devices in order to save power when not in use. People will become more aware of the cost of using individual electrical items, e.g. your 40” LCD TV costs you €1 per hour to watch. People will get used to having to switch older appliances on and off at the wall more often once they start realising the cost of not doing so.
  8. Switching Off Part 2
    Expect to see some bars, restaurants, cinemas etc ask you to hand in your mobile phone before taking your seat. This will be part of a growing theme encouraging people to go offline more often and take part more in “meatspace” as one of my social media addict friends calls it, or the real world to you and me. Social media is great and all, but you don’t need to check Twitter every two minutes while you’re sat in a cafe with friends.
  9. Paid Video Content Becomes Global
    This one is probably too early, but sometime very soon the biggest blockbuster TV show won’t actually be on the TV first. The producers will deliver it globally through iTunes / YouTube or some other digital medium, so that each episode goes out at the same time globally. Enough people will pay for it (either through subscription or by watching / clicking on ads) because they want to watch it instantly on release and not wait even the few hours it’ll take for a torrent to appear.
  10. Social Media Games Get Serious
    I’m not talking about Farmville or the likes here, more about the game element of products like Foursquare. Right now the game element is pretty much just a high score boasting system. I have to say I don’t really see the point of it except for getting a few high score addicted early adopters to use the damn thing. But what if being the mayor of your local coffee shop came with a small wage attached? Or a check-in with a tweet or status update attached got you a 10% discount? Suddenly it’s not so pointless anymore.

So, there are some predictions for the coming year. Share yours in the comments below. Here are some of the blog posts that inspired this post:

Rand Fishkin on the SEOmoz blog
Matt Cutts on his predictions for 2009
JWT’s 100 things to watch in 2011
Damien Mulley’s ones to watch in 2011

Tagged with:  

Google Instant Preview and Analytics

Google’s Instant Preview, which lets you see a preview of the page you’re going to click through to, has been in testing for some time now and was finally rolled out to the world on November 9th. For those of you who haven’t seen it in action before, here’s Google’s own video demonstrating it.

I played around with Instant Preview a little over the last couple of days, and while it looks nice on the page I haven’t found it particularly useful yet. I’ve a feeling it will work well for certain types of search, obviously anything specifically visual related, maybe shopping for product you know already. The level of detail offered in the Instant Preview certainly isn’t sufficent to decide whether or not the content of a given page is useful, so it seems to be trying to promote “good looking” web pages.

Time will tell I guess, but what effect is Instant Preview having on your website right now? For us, you can see from the Analytics screenshot below that over the last couple of days, as more and more people hear about the product, there has been a small spike in what I thought was “weird us traffic”.

Traffic from Google Instant Preview

The traffic can be identified as having a source of (direct) and a medium of (none) in your own Analytics. It’s normal to expect a certain amount of this traffic from all over the globe that Analytics essentially can’t identify, but only our US (direct) (none) traffic has experienced this particular spike.

Normally a little extra traffic would be more than welcome, but in this case I think Google is doing something wrong. It seems like every person who uses Instant Preview is being counted as a visitor to our site, whether they click through or not. Judging from the 91.92% bounce rate of the traffic in question yesterday, this is not a good thing!

Bounce Rate for Google Instant Preview Traffic

The bounce rates above are only for this (direct) (none) traffic from the US, which wouldn’t be a problem if it were just the usual handful of visitors a day, not now that it’s heading towards several hundred with a bounce rate heading towards 100% it could start to have negative effect on the site overall. We work hard to keep our pages’ load times and bounce rates down, knowing that Google takes both into account when ranking pages.

Hopefully this is just an oversight on Google’s part which will be rectified soon, but in the meantime watch out for “weird us traffic” to your site with an abnormally high bounce rate. Let us know in the comments if you’ve experienced it too.

UPDATE 15 NOVEMBER

The UA we are seeing in our web server logs is 5.0+(en-us)+AppleWebKit/525.13+(KHTML,+like+Gecko;+Google+Web+Preview)+Version/3.1+Safari/525.13

UPDATE 23 NOVEMBER

It looks like Google have gotten around to fixing this problem now. We’ve seen the strange traffic fall off today on our Analytics, and Google have just posted this update to their Analytics blog: http://analytics.blogspot.com/2010/11/instant-preview-issue-resolved.html

Web Application Pricing Review – SEOMOZ

SEOMOZ is a collection of Search Engine Optimization (SEO) tools that automate a wide range of tasks. These include checking a site’s ranking for a selection of keywords, crawling a site for errors, and competitive intelligence. Compared to other SEO tools they have a killer marketing feature credibility.

Not only does the product ooze quality, it was also created by long standing and respected members of the SEO community. In our world, where SEO has become such as distrusted and misunderstood profession, the importance of credibility cannot be overstated.

[Disclosure: We use SEOMOZ at WhatClinic.com, but have no further relationships with the company.]

Test 1 – Simplicity

SEOMOZ Pricing

SEOMOZ Pricing

At first glance the pricing looks pretty overwhelming. There are three plans that each have different volume limits for each of four different feature sets, and to make matters worse each feature set has its own incremental scale, each of which is independent of the overall pricing scale:

SEOMOZ features scale

To a potential first time customer this makes the pricing seem complicated and confusing. To alleviate this SEOMOZ do an extremely good job of promoting the lowest price option and give reassurance that the first 30 day period is risk free.

Test 2 – Market Size

Pricing is definitely set high enough to make SEOMOZ commercially successful with any kind of reasonable market penetration.  If they have any kind of success getting customers onto higher price plans then I could see a tremendous amount of revenue being generated.

Normally I would think that a $99 per month entry was too high as it would exclude the bulk of the market. However, I feel that that this entry point is correct or near correct for SEOMOZ for two reasons.

  1. Price sensitive customers can rationalize a $99 expense by treating the purchase as a single $99 purchase which they then unsubscribe from. I see a slight potential problem here in that the 30 day money back guarantee essentially allows this market segment to game the system and get value for nothing.
  2. The market advantage SEOMOZ has is credibility, which would not be enhanced by low end pricing.

Test 3 – Comparable Pricing

Complete failure here. As a potential customer I have no idea if SEOMOZ is reasonably priced, there is simply no frame of reference. To make matters worse SEOMOZ price points are so distantly spaced that I can’t easily compare one price to another to determine the best one.  I would nearly always recommend having two price points relatively close to each other so that potential customers can directly and easily compare one to the other.

Test 4 – Adoption

The 30 day money back guarantee massively reduces the barrier to entry of the $99 per month price.  None-the-less I think I would prefer to see a massively crippled free version that I would use for lead generation.

For example I think a free plan that crawled just 25 pages and tracked 10 key phrases would be commercially useless but would still allow a potential customer who was wary of entering their credit card details to become comfortable with the product. In addition, amateurs would use it and talk about it which would increase overall market awareness.

Test 5 – Price Discrimination

SEOMOZ discriminate on volume not features. Essentially they’re saying “the more sites that you have & the bigger the sites the more you pay us”. This is a perfectly reasonable method of price discrimination, but I think that some feature discrimination could segment the market further and therefore improve revenues.

For example, I would suggest that the Q&A feature not be made available on the base plan.  This would then create strong pressure to upgrade during an SEO crisis period when the customer’s need of the product is at its highest and their price sensitivity is at its lowest.

SEOMOZ’s price discrimination is extremely aggressive. In fact I think it is far too aggressive. There is a massive difference between $100 a month and $500 a month. There have to be a large number of users on the $99 plan who would happily pay more, but won’t stretch to $500 per month.

Suggested New Pricing

Suggest new SEOMOZ pricing

The main point of this new pricing is the introduction of a new price point closer to the base plan. The base plan has also been reduced in functionality and number of campaigns. I believe that such a pricing structure wouldn’t hurt adoption while providing an attractive upgrade route for satisfied customers.

At this level of pricing I really don’t think that people are going to sign up for anything but the base plan so I think it’s okay that the PRO membership is still clearly the preferable option to start at.

SEOMOZ Pricing Analysis Score Card

Simplicity: 4
Market Size: 9
Comparable Pricing: 2
Adoption: 7
Price Discrimination: 3
   
SEOMOZ Score 5.0

 

Where Search Needs To Go

Google’s mission of “organizing the world’s information to make it universally accessible and useful” may seem like an impossible dream, but for me that dream doesn’t go far enough.

When I do a search I don’t just want information in return. At a minimum I want knowledge, and ideally I want the necessary understanding that goes with it too.

Social Search
Social Search (Image courtesy of Lone Wolf Librarian)

Even with the last decade’s worth of advances in search technology and online media, I still find by far the best way of understanding a topic is to discuss it with another knowledgeable person.

While the information available on the web is immensely valuable, it can take an inordinate amount of time to piece together all the relevant fragments (and to discard the irrelevant ones) in order to gain the knowledge that a real person would have about the subject.

What’s so frustrating is that often one of these knowledgeable people is in the same company or even the same room as you, but without standing up and asking everyone around you a question you have no way of knowing who that knowledgeable person is.

You don’t know who already knows what you want to know.

For example, imagine I am researching Photo Voltaic Cells for my house. Not only do I want to find out about all the available products and how they work, but I also want to know if one of my colleagues has experience with using them, or if one of my friends works in a related industry.

This is where I think Search needs to go. It needs to be able to tell me not just what information exists out there but also who I can talk to about it. Google have made some basic attempts to address this with beta features like “Results from people in your social circle for …” at the end of your search results, or by integrating live Twitter feeds relating to the keywords you use, but the results I’ve seen so far are patchy at best.

A well implemented feature that achieves this would not only save you lots of research time personally, it could also save businesses huge amounts of money by increasing productivity.

Imagine you work in a multinational and are tasked with looking into a piece of US tax legislation. You do a search and the results show that Mary in the Paris office did a lot of similar searches six months ago and created some documents that mention the topic too. A quick phone call to Mary could save you hours or even days getting an understanding of problem at hand.

Given all the recent media coverage about online privacy in relation to Facebook and the like there would definitely be some obstacles to overcome in relation to sharing the information needed to work out who knows what, but given the proliferation of Google Apps I think it would be well within their capabilities to start offering this in the enterprise space.

[A quick aside to the topic: Anyone who has ever done any teaching knows that sharing information is a beneficial in both directions. If you are knowledgeable about an area and teach it to someone else, often in the process you can develop an even greater understanding of the topic, particularly by being asked unexpected questions.]

The idea for this feature started out as part of a conversation I had with colleagues over a beer around two years ago and I’m a bit surprised that it hasn’t happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will, and soon. What ideas have you had to improve Search, and have any of them come to pass?

Tagged with:  

Web Application Pricing Review – KISSmetrics

It seems to me that web application pricing has started to come of age.  I was getting sick to the back teeth of start-ups pricing on the 37signals model minus a few dollars. Just as the US lead the free model, now young eager start-ups in the states are driving realistic pricing that genuinely has the potential to create a successful company.

Over the next few weeks I’m going to have a look at a few of them and attempt to dissect their pricing with a view to seeing if their pricing passes the following tests:

  1. Simplicity
  2. Market Size
  3. Comparable Pricing
  4. Adoption
  5. Price Discrimination

A Quick Introduction To KISSmetrics

KISSmetrics is an analytics service that attempts to model a website’s most commercially important interaction with its users – the conversion funnel. Their market is anyone who runs a website commercially and who cares about the performance of their conversion funnel. Value is delivered by providing business intelligence that enables the website owner to intelligently change their interactions with their users, maximizing their revenue as a result.

KISSmetrics Pricing

KISSmetrics Pricing

Test 1 – Simplicity

KISSmetrics has beautifully simple pricing that poses no barrier to comprehension. I can immediately see what pricing plan suits me best.  It almost seems a shame for them to include standard features on this list (Unlimited Reports, A/B Testing, GA Integration) which interfere somewhat with the simplicity.

I have one minor problem with the simplicity of the pricing – what happens if I opt for the 1 million event plan and in one particular month I run 1.1 million events?  Are the last 100K events trashed? Are they stored and subsequently computed if I upgrade. Is a random 100K chunk lost?  In my opinion this needs to be clarified and simplified in the customers’ eyes on the pricing page. For example, change the Events per month values to “First 1 million events”, “First 5 million events” and “First 10 million events”.

Test 2 – Market Size

Pricing affects market size in a variety of different ways. Trivially, market size equals the number of customers multiplied by the average price, so the higher your price the bigger the market. However, higher prices can reduce customer numbers and you can end up excluding part of the market. However, conversely, you can increase your sales/marketing resources allowing you to capture more of the market.

In my view there is no question that KISSmetrics have set pricing high enough so that even if only a small percentage of the market adopts their service the company will be a success. The pricing should also provide KISSmetrics with sufficient resources to be able to go after more market share.

I only offer one proviso here: if KISSmetrics is not as well funded as it seems, then it would pay to offer a heavy discount for annual subscriptions, rather taking slightly more money in the long term delivered as smaller monthly amounts now. That way the money invested in sales can be immediately recycled.

Test 3 – Comparable Pricing

No one wants to pay too much for a product. If a potential customer feels a service may be priced too high many will delay or avoid the purchase. Unfortunately for KISSmetrics the product that is immediately comparable to the first time visitor’s eye is Google analytics, which is free. To make matters worse, KISSmetrics itself ensures that I make this comparison by including ‘Google Analytics integration’ on its pricing page.

In my view, if you cannot provide a favourable external comparison then your own pricing needs to be comparable. I should be able to compare one of your prices against another and get a level of comfort that the package I’m buying is priced competitively. For this to happen two price points need to be close together. KISSmetrics’ pricing fails here.

Test 4 – Adoption

I don’t care what planet you live on but $1,800 a year is a lot of money.  Having entry level pricing at this rate automatically excludes a huge portion of the market that would otherwise derive value from the product. Unless KISSmetrics has high costs associated with a sale (maybe support costs) I would be tempted to look at a lower entry price that was limited in such a way that it wouldn’t cannibalize my higher priced offerings.

KISSmetrics Potential Market Size

KISSmetrics Potential Market Size

This way it would be easier for KISSmetrics to get much wider adoption, and if the pricing was designed correctly they could push customers up their price plans as they prove the value of their product.

Even if a small user with 100K events per month was willing to pay $1,800, the pricing is going to make them feel like an idiot. “Here am I paying for a million events when all I’m going to use is 100,000”. Pricing should make the customer feel like the smartest guy in the world.

Test 5 – Price Discrimination

The goal of price discrimination is to segment the market according to willingness to pay, with a goal of maximising revenue.  KISSmetrics discriminates on one axis only: volume. It’s even debatable if they use price discrimination at all – one bar of chocolate costs X, two bars cost 2X, etc.

Since the distribution of websites by their traffic is a classic power curve (as in the events graph above) the KISSmetrics pricing model will always result in the most customers being on the lowest price plan.

This means that the bulk of the market can only give KISSmetrics $149 a month. Customers with less than 1 million events still get access to all of the features so there is no reason why they would ever adopt a higher price plan. This doesn’t make much sense; it’s kind of like offering a student price for a haircut and then not allowing them to purchase an expensive and more profitable colouring.

What defines willingness to pay for KISSmetrics? This is always difficult to model and generally we have to accept an inaccurate model that works for the bulk of customers but fails for a minority (for example cheap OAP pints fail to account for the millionaire OAPs). For a KISSmetrics’ customer it would seem that the factors that matter are:

  • Volume of events
  • Dollar value of  the margin on the average event
  • Perceived potential improvement that can be expected

The second two factors are difficult to model which is probably why KISSmetric’s have stayed away from pricing off of them. However, I would contend that there are several ideas that would we could look at to help define these factors, albeit inaccurately.

  • Logins. The number of people who want access to the data. A company selling X units at a high price is typically going to have more people who want access to business intelligence than a second company selling the same volume at a lower price.
  • Accounts reconciliation. Refunds and charge backs are likely to be a factor in higher ticket items.  Adding a feature that would allow for the service to be reconciled with month end accounts ensures that refund sales and charge backs are taken out of the analytics and that data is true and accurate. In addition, top-end products may result in the creation of a sales lead rather than an online purchase and being able to reconcile sales with the lead conversion funnel will be valuable.
  • Traffic Spike Overruns. This feature would securely store events that overrun a plan and can subsequently be recovered by paying the transaction fee. The longer a site has been in existence the more iterations it will have been through and given that KISSmetrics is targeting metric driven companies the less perceived improvements there are likely to be. It seems likely that older sites have more predicable traffic with smaller spikes,  so pricing off of this may be able to segment the market (needs more research).

Suggested New Pricing

I’m not going to suggest that this is right; however it should show the rough direction that I would like to move the pricing towards.  Also please accept that I haven’t put in the kind of effort required to make the verbiage easily consumable – clearly a lot of work would be required to get this into any kind of finished form.

Proposed New KISSmetrics Pricing

Proposed New KISSmetrics Pricing

* All accounts get free A/B testing and commoditized website analytics integration (including Google Analytics).

This gives me

  1. A much more attractive market entry price that is sufficiently limited so that it shouldn’t cannibalize my higher priced plans
  2. Pricing is comparable. Silver is obviously much better than Bronze for just 20% more
  3. There is an attempt to segment the top end of the market and to price discriminate accordingly

What do you think of KISSmetrics pricing model? How would you change it to move the company forward? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Also feel free to suggest other web application pricing that I should look at

Google Instant Adds 90Kb To Your Search

Google Instant is an amazing piece of technology. However, I imagine, like most techies, the question that first springs to mind is “Oh my god, how much data is this sucking down?!?”

The answer of course is: “it depends”. It depends to a large degree on the kind of results you’re going to see, how many results there are on the page, whether they have maps in them or images, and lots of other factors. It also depends on how accurate the query suggestions are at guessing what you are going to type, since the more accurate it is the fewer times it will have to re-fetch results from the server.

For instance, let’s say I’m going to look up train timetables from Victoria Station, London. I start typing, and when I put in the first letter ‘v’ Google makes a wild guess that I’ll be looking for Verizon and grabs down results for it. So far 13.5Kb of search result data has been sucked down, an increase of just under 13Kb over the non-instant option, which just sucks down the suggested search queries, not the results themselves.

Victoria's Secret

Victoria's Secret not Victoria Station

When I type the letter ‘i’, Google realises I’m not looking for Verizon and decides I must be looking for Victoria’s Secret. That adds another 29Kb to be sucked down, which includes a couple of images. (Which are pretty tame by the way, I have safe search on at work).

Now, 29Kb is pretty small. Google have compressed the data, and since search result data is very compressible it averages about a 70% bandwidth saving, good for what is essentially pure text with some images thrown into the data.

From that point until I get all the way to ‘Victoria St’, my results stay static, since it looks increasingly likely that I’m looking for lingerie. However, there is another 10K pulled down, or about 1.4Kb per keystroke. This isn’t results, just different suggestions being cycled through the list as I type, (vicodin, victoza, victor) but Google is still showing results for what it thinks is the most likely option – Victoria’s Secret.

This behaviour is the same as it is for the existing search suggestions so we’ll discount the data for that. When I’ve got to ‘Victoria St’ Google realises its embarrassing mistake and decides that I must be searching for Victoria Stilwell the famous dog trainer. That adds another 25Kb, again with images encoded into the results.

Victoria Station

Victoria Station

When I get to ‘Victoria Sta’ the penny drops and Google gets Victoria station results, which weigh in at just 11Kb, with no images, and from then on to the end, the results don’t change, except for the cycling dance of other possible auto complete suggestions (victoria stafford, victoria station salem etc.)

In total then Google Instant added 89Kb in downloaded data over and above what a previously standard experience would have required. A tiny test of 20 other random queries from my own search history shows this to be pretty average. Obviously maps and image data which are not in the final result set add to this, but calling it 90Kb extra per search (with 6 queries in the search) seems to be in the ballpark.

This maps pretty well to Google’s own expected figures. They reckon they’ll see 5 to 7 extra search results fetched as a result of an Instant search, and presumably they know what they’re talking about. How much it is used and how accurate it will be is anyone’s guess.

Taking Google’s current round estimate of 1 billion searches per day and 6 as the midpoint of their reckoning of accuracy, and my finger-in-the-air of 15Kb for the data for each extra set of results, we get a pretty measly 85 Terabytes extra of data leaving Google’s server farms and the average UK user, who averages around 4 searches per day, getting an extra 360Kb per day down their internet connection. This is hardly a noticeable amount of data for a corporation that deals in Petabytes for its indexing of the web. Similarly, 360Kb is hardly noticeable for a user with even the slowest of broadband connections.

But is there any point? In all my use of instant so far, it’s felt like no more than a bothersome distraction. I do use Google suggest pretty often for long tail searches, and it’s easy to see if what’s being suggested describes what you want to type.

However, looking down at the search results is a further glance away, and the information takes longer to interpret. It feels unnatural to me. If I’m typing a query string, I’m typing text, so a suggestion of what I am going to type may be helpful.

On the other hand a suggestion of search results for that query isn’t what I have in my mind. It’s another step away from the thought in my brain that millisecond.

Time will tell I suppose, but if Google Instant isn’t an instant hit I’d expect to see it become opt-in rather than opt out for Google users by default pretty quickly.

How have you found using Google Instant so far – do you like it, hate it, or haven’t really noticed it at all? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Tagged with:  
© 2010 WhatClinic.com Blog