BPA Worldwide Blog

What's you opinion? BPA committees propose several new reporting options

As we work our way through BPA’s global audience development committee schedule in advance of our Board of Directors meeting in December, a number of interesting proposals have been brought to the table. I will highlight some of these ideas here with the hope that you will provide your feedback and help shape BPA policy as we move forward.

PROPOSAL 1: Integrated Brand Reach and/or Multimedia report

It has come to our attention that some BPA members wish to report multiple media channels on a BPA Worldwide report, but do not have the resources at this time to fully integrate their files and report “uniques.” As a result, BPA is considering offering a “Multimedia Report (MM)” that will provide publishers with the opportunity to report multiple media channels without identifying any overlap. ABC (North America) has a similar offering.

To be clear: the distinction is that Integrated Brand Reach (IBR) report documents gross recipients of each channel, the number of uniques served and the overlap in channels delivered. The Multimedia Report will show only gross for each channel—with no indication of the unique number of recipients. This proposal would also include the creation of a new channel for non-requested digital magazines on both the Multimedia Report and the Integrated Brand Reach Report.

We would like to hear your opinion on the following ideas:

1. Offering the two services (IBR and MM)
2. If two services are offered, do our reports sufficiently distinguish between the two measurements (see links to the draft reports)
3. Should BPA allow reporting an aggregate of the gross measured, or is the figure of no value in the marketplace
4. Should a new channel of the brand be created for non-requested digital magazines, which are currently considered non-qualified.

PROPOSAL 2: Remove 36-month age requirement (non-print channels)

It is clear that BPA cannot apply the same B-to-B print magazine standards to other channels analyzed (i..e. E-newsletters) in the Integrated Brand Reach report. The capture and control infrastructure for the additional channels are not yet present within most media owners processes. This is especially true when capturing audience demographics.

It has been suggested that BPA remove the 36-month age requirement for demographics on any media channels other than print circulation. This rule would be re-addressed in the future as media owners develop more advanced systems/processes and “qualify” subscribers to channels of the brand, either as they do for print or by linking subscribers of other channels to the information held for their print subscription. In the meantime, however, removing the age stipulation on demographics (other than print) may allow media owners to move more quickly into a truly integrated database.

PROPOSAL 3: Event audience reporting

BPA’s Audience Development Advisory Committee proposed that media publishers be allowed the following options when reporting event figures: event registration only, event attendance only, or both registration and attendance as two separate figures.

This proposal would apply to reporting data for both live and virtual events.

We understand that sponsors of events have the opportunity to promote to registrants even though they may not attend the event. This promotional opportunity may occur before the event as well as after the event. Therefore, it would be of value to have the number of registrants verified. But registrants should not be confused with attendees.

PROPOSAL 4: Publicity Rules

Now that BPA has moved to measure all channels of a brand through the Integrated Brand Reach audit report, should media owners be required to disclose, via a single blanket statement at the beginning of promotional pieces, the circulation/distribution source claim as either: BPA, “Publisher’s Own Data” or another third-party source?

If the promotional item is comparative in nature and involves audited and unaudited channels of a brand, then disclosure of the sources of claims must occur, particularly when the source is “Publisher’s Own Data.” However, this may not be a typical case.

As always, your input is invaluable to us as we consider potential changes to BPA’s processes. Please use the “Comment” button below to share your thoughts and ideas.

Why not tag agnostic?

Q. Since the BPA Interactive audit is dependent on the placement of JavaScript tags, why not allow a site to use any analytics tool that deploys a tag rather than only the BPA-issued one?

A. The BPA Interactive audit process uses JavaScript tags to establish site traffic levels upon which we base our audit. Key traffic metrics include page impressions, user sessions (visits), and unique browsers among others.

In developing our process we opted to implement a single-tag technology for one important reason: standardization.

Critical to the audit process is that metrics, requirements, procedures and reported results are held to an equitable standard. This ensures a level playing field for all audited properties and comparable data sets for those using audit results. 

The decision to use a single-tag technology was influenced by several factors including the results of a white paper issued by Stone Temple Consulting entitled “Web Analytics Shootout” (http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/analytics-report-august-2007.shtml). The paper focuses on the many reasons why different (tag) analytic tools produce different traffic counts and led us to conclude that a single tag, consistently applied, was the preferred audit approach.

An excerpt from the white paper:

Web analytics packages, installed on the same web site, configured the same way, produce different numbers. Why?

1. By far the biggest source of error in analytics is implementation error. There are dozens (possibly more) implementation decisions made in putting together an analytics package that affect the method of counting used by each package.
2. Placement of JavaScript on the site.  
3. Differences in the definition of what each package is counting. The way that analytics packages count visitors and unique visitors is based on the concept of sessions. There are many design decisions made within an analytics package that will cause it to count sessions differently, and this has a profound impact on the reported numbers.

Points 1 and 2 are detectable and correctable through an audit. Point 1 is a bit more difficult to address because implementation has typically taken place prior to audit and errors, while correctable, can impose upon available IT resources.

Point 3, differences in definitions of metrics, is a major issue which totally defeats standardization and makes comparison of results one of apples to oranges.

Another key aspect of the BPA Interactive audit process is the filtering of mechanical (spider/robot) and internal traffic from the results. Using a single tag and analysis platform allows BPA to control the filters and ensure they are consistently applied across all audited sites. For a given site, we can set the filters once and periodically adjust as necessary.

To allow non-BPA tags to be used would require direct access to a site’s operating system and nearly constant monitoring of filters. Such an approach is not practical both in terms of the auditor time involved and site security concerns related to outside party access.

In summary, BPA chose not to be agnostic when it comes to tags since:

1.     Tags from different analytic platforms define and count metrics differently meaning audit results are not comparable.

2.     Non-BPA tags would require extensive monitoring that involves significant auditing manpower resources and the willingness of sites to allow outside system access for checking and testing purposes.

 

BPA Interactive audit data not affected by Nielsen system glitch

You may be aware of a recent news story wherein The Nielsen Co. reported a technical glitch that caused it to underestimate the amount of time people in the U.S. spent online. Please note that the problem did not affect the BPA Interactive traffic audit. Only Nielsen’s panel-based measurements have been affected and the issue pertains to session duration (time on site) not traffic volume.

To be clear, the BPA Interactive audit uses Nielsen’s SiteCensus tagging technology as part of our process. Audit results are derived from a census-based processing system which is subject to multiple checks and balances. As such, our audit methodology and resulting traffic data remain sound.  

When examining monthly average session data from the past six months for all BPA audited sites, there has been very little fluctuation in average session duration. When compared to the previous month, variations are slight, ranging from +2.7% (July 2010) to -5.4% (September 2010). Aggregate session duration for October compared to May showed a variance of -0.3%.

As with all BPA data, you can remain confident that our audited web traffic data remains accurate and dependable.

Please contact me directly if you have any additional questions or respond using the COMMENT button below.