Comments on: Page Views Are Dead, Engagement Named As Heir

By: amolpatil2k

amolpatil2k — Wed, 28 May 2008 11:25:49 +0000

It is an old story, which keeps repeating itself. There is a lot of discussion on what is the most rational way of doing things. But ultimately what happens looks more like the most profitable or manipulable way of doing things. We can talk about page views and engagement all we want to but it is gonna get us nowhere.

The big worry is Commoditization. Because everything on the Net is available to everyone on the Net, everything is in danger of becoming a commodity. P2P has shown that even intellectual property laws cannot slow down this trend.

Now if everything is going to become a commodity then value would have to come only from customization. This would mean that Pull would no longer generate value. Only customized Push would be able to generate value. Also because closure cannot be achieved in something as wide as the Net, no one (or at least the wider audience) would be willing to put money down for customized Push. This is where ad money would come in.

Customized Push sponsored by ads might just prove to be The Future of the Net.

By: Content, content everywhere but who is getting the traffic : Tips from the T-List

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:16:55 +0000

[...] on the site longer and interested longer – all elements that advertisers love. As GigOM said “Page Views are dead, Engagement named as Heir“.The final style of player is the now ubiquitous social media, social networking and user [...]

By: www.webyantra.net»Blog Archive » How Web2.0 has all but killed the pageview?

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:33:02 +0000

[...] business goals. As this post indicates, the internet world as started taking note of this anomaly. This post on Gigaom theorizes that the pageview should be replaced by engagement oriented metrics; AC [...]

By: Chris Grant

Chris Grant — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:36:02 +0000

The whole thing is silly anyway. Pronouncements referring to something as THE metric or THE concept are just attempts to create a titillating sound byte or quick quote to be picked up by bloggers, which is basically what has happened successfully in this case.

I like what the commenters are saying here – every situation is different, users operate at different levels, it’s not worth discussing. And there’s no news in the first place – experienced smart people have been thinking in terms of “engagement” since forever.

By: Beau Vrolyk

Beau Vrolyk — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:33:50 +0000

With "Page Views" becoming suspect - weren't they always - and the folks who are spending $21b in on-line advertising finding themselves in a technology swamp from which they don't know the exit, leadership is required.

The question is: "Where will advertisers find the intellectual leadership they crave in the on-line world?"

The on-line world must prove something is reasonable and that it works. An act that has nothing to do with Web 1.0, Web 2.0 or any other technobabble buzzword. It has to do with verifiable measurement of customer buying patterns, not "coolness".

By: Kevin Horne

Kevin Horne — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:28:37 +0000

Agree 110% with Darren's comment. You can't even get clients to look one level deeper from pageviews into "which pages" so they can determine which content is worth investing in (and which isn't), which content is helping to drive suspects to prospects to customer, etc. etc.

On to the next buzzword. ;)

By: Darren Herman

Darren Herman — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:37:08 +0000

If pageviews are dead and we’re looking at the ‘engagement’ metrics, which by the way, has no universal definition, how do we plan on educating every single marketer about this, when many marketers are still stuck in Web 1.0?