This is a late posting on Hitwise...

They have started up in Australia and we are very familiar with their methodoloy. The biggest criticisms they have been getting are:

:: they cannot track overseas traffic because they work with the log files from local ISPs, and

:: their scope of measurement is dependent on their ISP coverage.

Of couse with their international expansion, one may claim that this issue would be slowly disappearing. However, it will take a while for them to span across a representative collection of ISP worldwide.

On the positive side, they can measure the user activity data from all internet protocols such as chat, email, instant messaging and file transfer, not merely HTTP that can be measured by server or browser-based measurement solutions.

Also the company provides what I call as "where-from-to" analysis. This is a great tool to spot shoppers in e-commerce sites because with this analysis you can find out what the customers looked at just prior to and after visiting your site. This is definitely more compherensive than just looking at the referrer logs.

Hurol Inan
Author of Measuring the Success of Your Website
www.hurolinan.com

On 19:25:59 6 November 2001 Barney wrote:
>I was pitched an interesting web analysis tool this week.
>It is called www.hitwise.com . They buy log files from a
>selection of ISP's and then analayse the data. It seems a
>very good way to get a snapshot of your own and other
>people's business.
>
>You can see where your traffic comes from.... and where it
>then goes to.... And the same for your competitor's sites.
>You can also see what proportion of the online traffic
>your site is attracting; this info can be segmented into
>market categories, the UK universe and the "all
>site" universe. It's very interesting.
>
>
>
>Barney
>
>
>On 11:56:39 4 October 2001 Ashley wrote:
>>Hi Graham
>>
>>There is actually a fair bit on this site already
>which
>>might help you – especially in the forums and
>white
>>papers sections. Try searches on ‘log
>files’,
>>‘clickstream’, ‘webtrends’ or
>>similar and you should get some useful links back.
>There
>>was a thread in this forum a month or two ago (scroll
>down
>>this page) about methods of click stream analysis
>which
>>discusses in quite some depth some of the
>“accuracy
>>of statistics” issues you raise.
>>
>>I know less about site monitoring products, though
>there
>>is a company called SiteConfidence
>>(www.siteconfidence.co.uk) which does what you say and
>>does not cost too much (<£10k on the whole).
>They
>>are relatively new to the market but seem to be
>>successfully filling a need in that space. The limited
>>experience I have had of them has been promising. At
>other
>>ends of the monitoring spectrum you have everything
>from
>>loads of freeware at one end up to the likes of
>Mercury
>>Interactive whose enterprise-level products and
>services
>>will set you back £100ks.
>>
>>Of course, any serious e-commerce, CMS or eCRM
>application
>>will give you advanced reporting and monitoring
>>capabilities – at least for what it is doing.
>This
>>would be the likes of Vignette, Broadvision, ATG,
>>Broadbase, E.Piphany, eGain, MicroStrategy, Blue
>Martini,
>>Net Perceptions, Interworld, Personify, Interwoven
>etc..
>>In many cases, if you have something like this in
>place
>>you may not need a separate stats package.
>>
>>If you are talking about companies that position
>>themselves as pure reporting tools then the usual
>suspects
>>would include: NetGenesis, Accrue, Engage, Webtrends,
>>Mediahouse, RedEye, RedSheriff, Nedstat, Visual
>Insight,
>>Macromedia. My impression is that Macromedia are
>moving
>>back away from content management and eCRM type
>>applications back to development tools so, personally,
>I
>>would discount them (their product, which they
>acquired,
>>is/was LikeMinds). The others mentioned you might be
>>grouped as follows:
>>
>>1. The bigger, more expensive, feature-rich,
>>integrate-with-other-things, analytic platforms:
>>NetGenesis, Accrue, Engage.
>>2. Log file analysis tools: Webtrends, Mediahouse
>>(LiveStats)
>>3. Data/page tagging analysis tools: RedEye,
>RedSheriff,
>>Nedstat, Visual Insight
>>
>>*If you want to know the difference between 2 and 3
>above
>>then you should refer to the “click stream
>>analysis” thread that has appeared in this forum
>>before (search on ‘click stream’ to find
>it).
>>
>>Briefly responding to your criteria headings:
>>
>>>Ease of use
>>I am much more in favour of groups 1 and 3 above as
>they
>>provide the means to create meaningful,
>marketing-friendly
>>descriptions of data or data groups. The file names
>and
>>query string paths that you tend to get from group 2
>are
>>often useless without more time-consuming analysis.
>>
>>>Usefulness of stats provided
>>To some degree usefulness will be in the eye of the
>>beholder – what is useful for some may not be so
>>useful for others i.e. you should know what you want
>to
>>know before you decide on a package. Despite the
>>cleverness of many of these applications, in my
>experience
>>they all need a fairly highly level of human
>intervention
>>to configure and analyse the results they produce.
>>Different people need different sorts of management
>>information too. Senior management may just want a top
>>level “management dashboard” type report,
>>whereas the marketing people will want the detailed
>>analysis of a particular marketing campaign.
>>
>>That said, I would again favour groups 1 and 3 for
>>usefulness of stats. Group 1 because of the
>integration
>>with customer information that is possible and group 3
>>because its method and accuracy of click stream (path)
>>analysis is superior to how group 2 does it.
>Otherwise,
>>they all cover the same basic stats that you can get
>from
>>log files, using cookies and Javascript i.e. page
>>impressions, unique visitors, unique users sessions,
>page
>>durations, session durations, visitor frequency, path
>>analysis, user technologies, referring URLs and
>domains
>>etc.
>>
>>>Presentation of information
>>There are some differences in the interfaces and
>reporting
>>modules (especially Visual Insight which, as its name
>>suggests, tries to graphically represent how the site
>is
>>being used), but not such that I have particularly
>noticed
>>either way – they all do a pretty OK job.
>>
>>>Accuracy of statistics provided
>>
>>As I’ve said, I prefer the data/page tagging
>method.
>>As with any data analysis job, the bottom line is
>>‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ i.e. it is not
>the
>>reporting package that is likely to be at fault but
>the
>>source data.
>>
>>>The issue of ABC auditing
>>
>>It looks like everyone who needs to go that way (big
>>online publishers and software vendors) is going that
>way.
>>A good thing for the credibility of the industry I
>guess.
>>NB see article at end of this post for more on this
>>subject.
>>
>>>Availabilty of realtime figures
>>
>>How real do you want your realtime ;) ? There’s
>real
>>realtime and near realtime. A bit like Sky’s
>>not-actually-on-demand Video/Films on demand. Doing
>real
>>realtime takes a lot of processing power and that
>costs
>>money. I’ve found that, actually, despite the
>thrill
>>of true realtime, near realtime is perfectly good
>enough
>>for most standard stats purposes– usually next
>day
>>to allow processing to occur overnight. Where it is
>good
>>to have realtime is when you’re running an
>online
>>marketing campaign – especially e-mail or SMS
>>– as the response times are in the 10 sec
>– 4
>>hour range. Here next day is not good enough. On the
>>whole, though, you’ll probably be using a
>digital
>>marketing/eCRM application that will do this reporting
>and
>>analysis for you anyway.
>>
>>>Associated costs
>>
>>Very roughly… Group 1 will be upwards of
>>£100k, Groups 2 and 3 are significantly less
>>expensive ranging typically between
>£3k-£12k.
>>
>>
>>A few further points I would make on the subject:
>>
>>1. Basic stats reporting (particularly of groups 2 and
>3
>>above) is only a start. It tells you very little about
>>actual customers – they exist only as IP
>addresses
>>or cookies. Things get a lot more interesting and
>useful
>>when you’re reporting on customer activity and
>>propensity by segment or attribute. This is moving
>very
>>much into the eCRM space which requires more customer
>>focus and interaction, more advanced analytics etc. I
>have
>>found that once you get your hands on customer-centric
>>reporting the basic stats stuff becomes really very
>>uninteresting – useful as a basic barometer but
>not
>>much more.
>>
>>2. Before worrying about stats packages, companies
>should
>>spend more time thinking about *what* they want to
>know
>>and why. They also need to think through who is going
>to
>>do ongoing analysis and reporting. A Performance
>>Measurement/ Management Information strategy is
>required.
>>
>>3. A key criteria that you leave out that would
>strongly
>>influence my decision making would be whether you are
>>buying into a service-centric solution or a
>>software-centric solution. For example, the likes of
>>RedSheriff will be keen to offer services on top of
>their
>>measurement technology, whereas Webtrends is a CD-ROM.
>I
>>would think hard about the levels of support I would
>>require as well – I would not want to have to
>rely
>>on contacting the US during West Coast office hours,
>for
>>example.
>>
>>Ashley
>>
>>P.S. Below is an article from netimperative, which
>>although 6 months old now, points towards the
>increasing
>>interest in measurement and ABC certification.
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Measurement tops list of e-worries
>>by Hannah Sturgeon on 01 March 2001 08:00:00 GMT
>>
>>More than one in three senior marketers are concerned
>>about the credibility of online traffic statistics
>claimed
>>by websites, according to a new survey.
>>
>>As the industry’s attention turns to ensuring
>>website readership figures are scrutinised to the same
>>degree as those for offline media, the new report
>showed
>>that senior marketers are expressing greater concern
>about
>>the lack of accountability sites have for claimed user
>>statistics.
>>
>>The new report conducted at the Marketing Forum UK
>2000 by
>>measurement company ABC Electronic, showed that,
>compared
>>to 1999, marketers are far less anxious about
>creativity
>>and media buying effectiveness than about measurement.
>
>>
>>Only 33% voiced concern about online creativity,
>compared
>>to 43% in 1999, while nearly 40% voiced measurement as
>a
>>major concern compared to 31% last year.
>>
>>More significantly, the report showed that 24%
>>‘strongly agreed’ and 62%
>‘agreed’
>>that third party internet audits and certification are
>>crucial to the media buying decision. Furthermore 33%
>>‘strongly agreed’ and 55%
>‘agreed’
>>that there should be one industry standard for the
>audit
>>of sites.
>>
>>In a statement, ABC Electronic, which aims to be
>>recognised as that one official standard, said:
>>“These findings support the UK media industry's
>work
>>over the last four years, resulting in an industry
>agreed
>>and managed set of metrics being used.
>>Independently-audited data is essential in
>understanding
>>the growth of the internet in the UK, Ireland and
>>globally.”
>>
>>The issue of costs to small businesses of gaining
>official
>>accreditation, however, is still one major hurdle of
>>agreeing to new measurement standards.
>>
>>The results of the survey come after the high-profile
>>sacking of e-district.net CEO Stephen Laitman who was
>>accused of “substantially overstating”
>site
>>user statistics. The Serious Fraud Office is
>investigating
>>Laitman on behalf of e-district.
>>
>>Mark Terry communications director at Rivals.net,
>which is
>>campaigning for the adoption of a single standard
>>measurement service, said: “These results come
>as no
>>surprise to us; in fact I thought they would be far
>>higher.
>>
>>“We are trying to push for accountability; we
>want
>>brands to boycott those sites that do not have a
>regular
>>accredited way of being audited. It should be part of
>a
>>company’s cost of sales.”
>>
>>Terry said that websites should have a quarterly
>>measurement system similar to Barb for TV ratings and
>ABC
>>measurements for newspapers, magazines and radio.
>>
>>“Brands should be most suspicious about what
>they
>>are getting if a site does not have recent ABC
>metrics; it
>>is one of the first questions we are asked,” he
>>said.
>>______________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>On 16:18:24 13 September 2001 grahamm wrote:
>>>Could anybody provide me with some comparisons
>>regarding
>>>the various packages on the market?
>>>
>>>Mainly looking for comparisons in terms of;
>>>
>>>ease of use
>>>usefulness of stats provided
>>>presentation of information
>>>accuracy of statistics provided
>>>the issue of ABC auditing
>>>availabilty of realtime figures
>>>associated costs
>>>
>>>Also, interested to find out about monitoring
>>products.
>>>Does anybody know about any reliable products that
>>offer
>>>realtime monitoring of websites - availability
>>>testing/site down alerts/page download
>>times/competitor
>>>comparisons etc.
>>>
>>>Any information would be much appreciated.