Chinalytics Longmarch Blog

While many of my readers probably already know the Yahoo! Web Analytics Forum: For those who don’t, I highly recommend you become a member and subscribe to the updates. There is no better way to keep yourself updated about the hot topics in the Web Analytics arena (while sometime the email updates stack up quite a bit in my Inbox….)

Currently a hot discussion is ranging on the benefits and implementation of the Web Analytics Association’s Web Analytics Standards (PDF).

1. Brandt Dainow started the discussion off on iMedia Connection claiming: “What the WAA has done is a retrograde step — the WAA standard has less precision and utility than the JICWEBS standards, so it moves us backward not forward. However, WAA is a major force in the world of web analytics and online marketing. What it says matters. In this light, the work of the WAA standards committee is a disaster for the web analytics community. It will take years to undo the damage and create proper precise standards that can be implemented in software. The WAA “standard” is not a standard, it’s just second-rate muttering.”
2. Stephane Hamel replied on his blog, highlighting the differences between an industry standard and a “standard terminology”, arguing that the Web Analytic’s Association’s value is coming from creating a consensus among the different actors in the market.
   The ISO is a standard body, and in order to claim ISO certification you need to abide by strict rules, and pay undergo audits to retain certification. On the other end, the IAB is a more open structure, much more similar to the WAA, that was able to define common terminology regarding online advertising and bring “standards, guidelines and best practices”. On the other end, the IAB is a more open structure, much more similar to the WAA, that was able to define common terminology regarding online advertising and bring “standards, guidelines and best practices.” Which one makes most sense? Which one makes most sense? In my mind, the second option is the way to go! In my mind, the second option is the way to go!
3. Many other post in the thread, but I like the reply from Angie Brown, co-chair of the commitee (extra points for staying calm, too).
   There are several reasons the definitions are written the way they are, and why we left some wiggle room in them (too much, in some people’s opinion and that’s fair enough). First, there’s the intended audience. Stephane hit the nail on the head when he said we used marketing rather than engineering terms. Web analytics is a business function, and we tried to write the definitions (yes, definitions, not technical standards — for now) in such a way that they would be accessible to most marketers.

Check the whole this out. Which argument do you agree with? Let me know in the comments