Jeff: I like that Content Interest Index does apply to page level as it can give some indication of how well visitors are interacting with your content. In comparing Take Rate to CII, I do not want to say that you should abandon CII. I still say that CII is your unique formula that is very useful for your purposes and I’m sure many other sites would agree.

To show you that it shouldn’t be applied as a universal metric we can apply it to blogs. Blogs tend to measure links and comments more heavily than friend referrals and printed pages. Applying more flexibility to a CII could be an approach for any site to create one or several Take Rate actions combined together to give their own Content Interest Index, Engagement, etc… The point is lets not get hung up on names and any rigid structures when we are dealing with metrics that must measure this very non-rigid medium of the Web. We must do what works best for the specific needs and goals of each individual site being analyzed.

Thanks for the quick and thoughtful feedback.

I’m not sure I agree with you, however, on Take Rate being like CII.

CII measures at the page level, not the site level. Consider it a “micro-Take-Rate,” perhaps, because it uses two proxies for reader interest as the “mini-conversions” of that page, and can be used as a coaching tool to help content managers understand the impact of their content changes over time.

Its primary value is as a coaching tool. What the CII “coaches” is reader engagement, as measured by their readers’ willingness to share the content or send it to their printer (for filing, annotation or physical pass-alongs).

Your greater point is quite correct, of course. Everything relies on the objectives of your site. There is not one-size-fits-all engagement metric.

Aaron: Jim Novo’s post on analysis and insight definitely helps explain why the eyes of management or a client may glaze over in front of overly complicated models.

Jeff: I checked out your white paper on “Content Interest Index” and do see some value in it, but want to reiterate that each sites unique purpose will define how important any specific metric is. CII could be summed up as Take Rate which offers a good measure for micro-conversions and could also be related to engagement. Once again both are contingent on the site’s definition of an engaged visitor and their unique set of goals.

I often advise folks to use what is applicable to their online model and leave the rest. When we give too much math to some groups they tend to glaze over and start thinking about where they may have a beer after work. I like straight forward – actionable KPI that everyone can get behind and, more importantly, understand. Sure we can complicate measurement to where only a few folks “get it” but if they have no pull (E.g. aren’t the HIPPO – thanks for that one Avinash) nothing gets done. Just like out marketing – our KPI must be delivered to the right person with the right message (data) and at the right time.

Knowing is half the battle – right?

Cheers,
AJ

This is very valuable stuff. Thanks for sharing!

I’d like to humbly suggest another measure of the “engagement power” of a site. It’s called Content Interest Index, and here’s where you can download the whitepaper (free, and with no registration required):

http://www.digitalsolid.com/?p=219

Also, I explain the utility of this new metric in a quirky little Pecha Kucha (I’ll let you see what THAT is when you arrive). Here’s the link to that YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_5l6hXwzUo

This isn’t comment spam, BTW. I’m merely trying to spread the word on an open source “meme” that can be extremely valuable to content manages sites that get a lot of traffic and place an emphasis on conversions.

I hope you and your readers find it intriguing. I’d love to see any comments for readers on my blog or yours!

Jeff

-arnaud

These are definitely well thought out and practical. I am sure it will help everyone.

Thanks,
Mrutyunjay

Nice work Ron, very well thought out.

-Avinash.