Eric T. Peterson, I’m mad at you

March 26, 2009 on 12:13 pm | In Uncategorized | 10 Comments

That’s right, you’re on my bad side at the moment. You’ll notice I put the “T” in there, because I’m mad enough at you that if I knew your middle name, I’d be full-naming you in anger at the moment. But since I don’t know what the “T” stands for, I’m just going to make it up throughout this post so you can fully experience my momentary ire.

Now I’m not a rock star in the web analytics field like you are, but I lurk on just about every website and forum devoted to it. Imagine my happiness when I saw you write this post the other day. Unique visitors! The bane of our existence of web analysts… how do we know how to measure them accurately? IAB has a plan, so let’s ponder it. Okay, I’m with you. Then you had to go and call out one of the most dedicated WAA volunteers I know… Jodi… and then talk smack about the WAA. As my dear departed grandmother would say, shame on you. Shame on you on two counts – 1) making a bad call on how you personally are going to report on unique ‘cookies’ and 2) having the poor taste to go and make a personal attack on an analyst when you’re really just annoyed with the WAA. So Mr. Eric Theodore Peterson, you just sit on down because I have to give you a little talking to here.

Bad Call on the IAB Thing, Hoss
First off, I love accuracy as much as the next HIPPO. I’m one of those annoying suits – by day – that wants to be able to tie a web visit back to a household and then rub my hands together as I wistfully plot how to go sell stuff to that household. I’m a Director at a large media company, that’s what we do in the morning over coffee. So, in that capacity, I love the idea that I’m tying a web visitor back to a household and an actual, physical person. After all, you should know as well as I do that the IAB primarily serves advertisers like me and we ruthlessly use their data and audits to determine how much we’re going to pay for web-based advertising based upon the audiences you can assure me that you draw.

HOWEVER, you – Mr. Eric Thomas Peterson – are ALSO as a big of a nerd as I am. I know it, we had coffee together once, we spoke geeky talk. And you KNOW that the IAB can stomp their foot all day long and demand we track a web visit back to an individual human being… but there is not ONE analytics solution that can do that right now. To try and adopt language that makes this fact abundantly clear doesn’t accomplish one darn thing other than to once again draw into question the overall value of web analytics as a profession in the first place.

We spent YEARS trying to get a seat at the executive table to show how we need to use data, testing, and analysis to make customer-focused decisions. Yet – for reasons unclear to me – you plan to go to that table and make a statement like “100,000 unique cookies accessed our new website this month – what a record month for us! It’s up 110% over prior month!” Seriously? I’m one of those suits and the first thing I’d say to you is, “Unless you actually have a warm chocolate-chip cookie on your person, and you are going to give it to me, I don’t want to hear about cookies. What are my customers doing?” Once again, you’d stick to your guns and respond, “I can’t tell you what your customers are doing because I can’t prove that there’s a human being on the other end of those cookies. Even if there is, I don’t know who they are. My web analytics software doesn’t say that.”

Uh-huh. Yeah. I shake my head in wonder at that, Eric Tobias Peterson.

Jodi Embodies Everything Wrong With the WAA. Really??
Okay, so you didn’t actually say that, but you sure as heck implied it. And that’s CRAP. A giant, steaming unique cookie-filled pile of it. Jodi McDermott is one of the most dedicated, selfless, passionate, talented, and intelligent volunteers we’re lucky enough to work with over at the WAA. She – and all the others on the Standards Committee – work their proverbial buns off, in their spare time, to try and advance the field of web analytics by creating definitions that attempt to put us all on the same playing field. For years, they labor and argue over how to define something in a way that can both be constructed into a software solution – most software solutions – as well as be easily explained to an executive. Their focus is not on forcing definitions or enforcing standards, but rather herding and unifying a disparate group of terms and making sure everyone knows that at the end of the day, they mean the same thing.

I’ll stand behind what Jodi said. Until unicorns walk the earth again, this is the world we live in. The IAB’s definition makes advertisers happier because it makes us feel like we can quantify our target audience. But those of us who really understand it know that it’s a myth, because the technology doesn’t exist to allow us to measure with that level of precision. Even if it did, privacy laws would likely prevent it.

Yes, Eric Truman Peterson, you haven’t served on the Standards Committee or the Board. And clearly you’re not feeling the love with the membership thing either, given that you’re lapsing. That doesn’t give you the right to blast those who do love it and work hard to make it a better organization. Blast the organization all day long… we can take it and then some… but there’s no need to body-slam the people that work so hard for it.

That’s about all I have to say to you. Go to your room, young man, and think about what you’ve done.

10 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. You GO girl! But that lil man in his place! I wish I could tell people off like that!

    Comment by Dianne — March 26, 2009 #

  2. For the record the “T” stands for “Todd” but I appreciate your effort to “get my goat” by playing with the name. At least you refrained from using “Turd”, “Tuckus”, or “Tormentor” … thanks for that!

    I will apologize here and apologize again in a comment in my own blog … I was perhaps a bit harsh in my tone towards Jodi. I recognize the value of the work she has done and feel horrible that I went too far in my analysis of her post. But I think the essence of the post is very valid: nobody benefits when two organizations that are supposedly working together are actively pushing different definitions of the same term.

    In my defense — and the “mom” tone in your post makes me pretty uncomfortable trying to defend myself, I have to say — I think perhaps you have over-simplified the conversation you would have with the bosses about “cookies” versus “people”. I never said you would go to the bosses and talk about cookies … never said that … what I said was that the IAB has given us guidelines to improve the accuracy of the numbers we use when we talk about the number of people coming to our site. If you present “cookies” to the boss today and call it “people” … well we both know you’re not talking about people, right?

    This comment box is small, and I’m not going to win you over I can tell, so I will leave you with this:

    1) I’m sorry I pissed you off
    2) I will apologize to Jodi publicly
    3) I’m sorry you quit the WAA, your passion will be missed

    Can I leave my room yet? ;-)

    E.

    Comment by Eric T. Peterson — March 26, 2009 #

  3. My apology, FYI.

    Comment by Eric T. Peterson — March 26, 2009 #

  4. OK, you can get out of your room now. :)

    First, thanks for apologizing, that means a lot to me. Second, never be sorry for pissing me off – instead be happy that your words inspire passion. Lastly, I gave up the WAA so I’d have more time to read your blog and fuss at you. Aren’t you a lucky man?

    On the subject of being more accurate… I seriously wonder if we’ll ever get to that level of specificity legally. Maybe through mobile handheld devices before PC’s, maybe not. I’d love it as an analyst, but as a private person I’d fear it at the same time.

    On two orgs like IAB and WAA not having the same definitions… I agree. It is a bummer we’re not completely in synch; but they’re a much larger and better-funded group… We’re like the NPR to their CNN. If you have big ideas on how to align us better without the WAA selling out, bring it on, my brother.

    Even though you pissed me off, you know there’s nothing but love, right?

    Comment by April Wilson — March 26, 2009 #

  5. Remind me never to get on your bad side. Wow!

    Comment by Vicki — March 26, 2009 #

  6. Phew, thanks. And hey, if you quit WAA to harass me … can I convince you NOT to quit? You’ll get my vote for sure ;-)

    Regarding accuracy … I hate to say this (since I think you might send me back to my room, or worse) but I don’t think you understand what the IAB is saying. They are ** not ** trying to get more details about audience — they are trying to correct an obvious problem with cookie-related visitor counts. There is no PII involved … all that is required is a simple ratio and some middle-school math. Nothing more.

    So whoever told you that the IAB is trying to get in your back pocket (or whatever) … wrath out on them since they lied to you! ;-)

    Regarding the IAB vs. the WAA … again, this is where I think Jodi missed out (but I am holding my tongue.) The IAB ** is ** a bigger and more well-funded and more visible organization, which is exactly why telling them “thanks, but no thanks” is a very, very bad idea. It would be, to use your analogy, like NPR saying “yeah, those guys at CNN are idiots … they don’t know news from blogs” … A) obviously not true and B) nothing to be gained by saying that.

    Given Jodi’s hard work in developing a relationship with the IAB … I’m not sure I have any suggestion other than, drum-roll please, to seriously consider their definitions of “Unique Cookies” and “Unique Visitors” as an improvement on the WAA’s existing “standards”

    Surprised? No, you’re not, because that is what I said in my blog post.

    Love ya, sorry you can’t keep the party going at WAA, glad you’re keeping me honest, and hope to see you at the big Dallas-area WAW this summer!

    E.

    P.S. Can I have a dollar?

    Comment by Eric T. Peterson — March 26, 2009 #

  7. Wow. April – while you may not tout yourself as a God of the web analytics world, thanks for defending my good friend Jodi, who I do believe was attacked in a MAJORLY UNCOOL way. People like Jodi are doing what is needed to advance standardization and while this is a long, tedious and somewhat painful task – attacking those that are committing themselves to this is beyond my comprehension. Agree or disagree – everybody needs to act like a professional and treat each other with some mutual respect whether you agree or not. Thanks again. You could give most of these talking heads a run for their money.

    Comment by Kiran — March 27, 2009 #

  8. [...] there by the IAB. Her post was met by some rather harsh criticism by Eric Peterson, who was then sternly lectured by April Wilson (who is a WAA Board director) and then apologized to Jodi down in the comments of [...]

    Pingback by | showmeanalytics.com — March 29, 2009 #

  9. [...] a follow up from my Metrics Insider article on March 20, Eric Peterson’s post on March 23 and April Wilson’s post on March 26.  It’s been a long week with a lot of fiery fury in the Web Analytics [...]

    Pingback by More on Unique Visitors… « Widget Analytics - Measuring the widgets in the wild — March 30, 2009 #

  10. [...] org chart. Constructive argument is the backbone of being Great. (Even in my blogging – like when I argued with Eric T. Peterson – we didn’t agree, but that’s what being an analyst is [...]

    Pingback by What Would Wonder Woman Do? » This I believe… — July 30, 2009 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^