Advertisement

Firms’ Web traffic data don’t line up

Share
Times Staff Writer

In the chaotic world of modern marketing, the Internet is touted as the best medium for determining the effectiveness of ads.

So why is there so much controversy over a measurement as simple as how many people visit a website?

The independent firms that measure online traffic have been accused of undercounting minority Web surfers, overestimating visitors by more than double and ignoring Web users at work.

Advertisement

In an example of the sharp disparity that sometimes arises, in September three outside groups weighed in on how many visitors the San Francisco Chronicle’s website, sfgate.com, received. ComScore Networks said 2.4 million, Nielsen/NetRatings counted 3.7 million and the Audit Bureau of Circulations came up with 7.6 million.

The dispute isn’t just academic. Knowing the size of Internet audiences more precisely is important as advertisers try to decide where to allocate their money. They spent $16.9 billion in online ads in 2006, up 35% from the year before.

“Measurability is going to become more important,” said Dave Martin, director of interactive media for Ignited Minds, an ad agency in Marina del Rey. “It would be great not to have to try and guess what traffic levels are.”

That’s why the two biggest firms measuring Web traffic, Nielsen/NetRatings and ComScore, have agreed to independent auditing of their numbers.

Last week, more than seven years after they first started measuring Web traffic, Nielsen and ComScore said they were on track to finish extensive audits by the Media Ratings Council, which also monitors print, radio and TV, within about a year.

Nearly 70% of advertisers said they would prefer to advertise on a site whose numbers had been audited by a third party, said Neal Lulofs, a spokesman with the Audit Bureau of Circulations. About 84% of advertisers said having this verification would become increasingly important.

Advertisement

Right now, there are hundreds of companies out there that count site visitors. Problem is, their statistics can vary by the millions. Nielsen/Net Ratings and ComScore have received most of the heat. To measure an audience, the two firms use panels that count eyeballs, similar to the way Nielsen measures TV viewers: They select a sample of people, use software to track what they do online and then extrapolate traffic patterns for the entire Internet.

“There are enormous questions about their reliability,” said Benjamin Schachter, an analyst with UBS Investment Research.

One of the research firms’ biggest critics has been the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group that tries to increase the amount of advertising money spent online. In an open letter in April, the group said the panels “undercount or ignore the diverse populations that are the future of consumer marketing.”

“As advertisers are spending more and more money online, they deserve to have confidence in the numbers they’re using to make decisions about where to put their money,” Sheryl Draizen, senior vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, said in an interview.

Nielsen and ComScore said the audits might in fact show that the companies’ methods of using panels to track Web data were in fact the most accurate way -- and that the numbers weren’t as high as the website owners said they were.

Manish Bhatia, executive vice president of Nielsen/Net Ratings, said using panel data was the most accurate way of tracking Web-surfing patterns. The alternative is using information collected by a website’s computer servers to track the people coming to the site.

Advertisement

Bhatia said that method led to inflated numbers because, for example, it might count someone multiple times who logged on from different computers. What’s more, he said, computer users often delete the information that is used to track them, so servers count them a few times.

But audited counts from server logs are better than unaudited numbers released by the websites. Their numbers are almost always higher than panel data. After all, the website publishers have a conflict of interest -- the more visitors a site has, the more it generally can charge advertisers.

“You have to take the publisher data with a grain of salt,” said Allen Stern, media director for the San Francisco office of Agency.com, which advises clients on buying Web ads.

He said counts from Nielsen, ComScore and other companies that rely on panels were useful because they could compare sites against one another. That’s hard to do with unaudited server-based measurement because different companies track those data in different ways.

Omniture, an Orem, Utah-based firm that helps businesses including the Los Angeles Times track visitors by using information from their servers, responds that it can provide more specific information than panels can.

“Our customers reference our technology as the de facto measurement standard,” said Christopher Parkin, Omniture’s senior director of product marketing.

Advertisement

Despite the effort to discredit panels, advertisers will continue to rely on them and servers to gauge visitors, said Debra Aho Williamson, an analyst at EMarketer. All in all, she said, the skirmishes are making the industry stronger by making all types of measurement more transparent, which should help advertisers understand where they are putting their money.

“It is all for the greater good of Internet advertising and measurement,” she said.

alana.semuels@latimes.com

Advertisement