Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History, 4th edition

It’s with great pleasure and a little pride that we announce Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History, 4th EDITION.

Reading Virtual Minds V1: Science and History, 4th edThat “4th EDITION” part is important. We know lots of people are waiting for Reading Virtual Minds Volume II: Experience and Expectation and it’s next in the queue.

But until then…

Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History, 4th EDITION is about 100 pages longer than the previous editions and about 10$US cheaper. Why? Because Reading Virtual Minds Volume II: Experience and Expectation is next in the queue.

Some Notes About This Book

I’m actually writing Reading Virtual Minds Volume II: Experience and Expectation right now. In the process of doing that, we realized we needed to add an index to this book. We also wanted to make a full color ebook version available to NextStage Members (it’s a download on the Member welcome page. And if you’re not already a member, what are you waiting for?)

In the process of making a full color version, we realized we’d misplaced some of the original slides and, of course, the charting software had changed since we originally published this volume (same information, different charting system). Also Susan and Jennifer “The Editress” Day wanted the images standardized as much as possible.

We included an Appendix B – Proofs (starting on page 187) for the curious and updated Appendix C – Further Readings (starting on page 236). We migrated a blog used for reference purposes so there may be more or less reference sources and modified some sections with more recent information.

So this edition has a few more pages and a few different pages. It may have an extra quote or two floating around.

You also need to know that Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History is a “Let’s explore the possibilities” book, not a “How to do it” book. As such, it deals with how NextStage did it (not to mention things that happened along the way). It does not explain how you can do it. This book’s purpose is to open a new territory to you and give you some basic tools for exploration.

There are no magic bullets, quick fixes, simple demonstrations, et cetera, that will turn you into jedis, gurus, kings, queens, samurai, rock stars, mavens, heroes, thought leaders, so on and so forth.

How to Do It starts with Volume II: Experience and Expectation and continues through future volumes in this series. We’ve included a Volume II: Experience and Expectation preview with a How to Do It example on page 302 so you can take a peek if that’s your interest.

That noted, I’m quite sure that you won’t get the full benefit of future volumes without reading this one because unless you’ve read this one you won’t understand the territory you’re exploring in those future volumes.

Reading Virtual Minds V1: Science and History, 4th edThat’s Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History, 4th EDITION. It’s so good and so good for you! Buy a copy or two today!


Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brad Berens on “How Big Can the Web Get?”


Brad Berens commented on my How Big Can the Web Get? post that online to offline isn’t as interesting a question as heavy versus light use. I responded that I agree that the yearly dropoff rates are a relationally small number. He mentions the Nielsen Media findings of a few years back that the average American has 96 TV channels at his or her disposal but only watches about 15.

His thought is that it might be pre-emptive media filtering to me and I asked if that information had generational boundaries and took into account sites like ManiaTV.

If generational, we could be witnessing voluntary simplification on the web. This is something NextStage has been seeing for a bit and there’s not enough real evidence for it to be anything more than an interesting anecdote at present.

I agree with Brad that an interesting research venue is heavy versus light use, what Brad writes as “…an increase in the number of websites visited per session/day/week versus a more static number, etc.” This is something I think is going to be directly addressed by portals and especially portals where the visitor can place “browser windows” where they want, something alluded to in my recent IMedia piece on the death of the webpage.

Also, I think another question moving forward is what impact internet television is going to have on what people watch and how they watch it. I’ve been having some interesting talks with Drew Massey and Jason Damata of ManiaTV in preparation for an IMedia column. Interesting things are happening and, you betcha, what gets measured and how it gets measured is going to change.

What does this do to quorums? Not much, I think. The joy of quorums and quorum sensing is that they are elements of The Village (hate to harp on that concept and I do think it’s a powerful one). They come and go as required and are psychologically mobile, fluid, dynamic. Their size is more dependent on what the quorum needs to get done than the number of people willing to take part. Too large a social construct for a given function and it fractionates. Subgroups form which take on specific subfunctions, each group growing or fractionating until the optimal size for performing its function is reached. Bandura’s work pretty much confirms this, I think; quorums (groups) will form and dissolve based more on the group’s belief it can achieve some goal it defines for itself.

Quorum will sense they can form or not and that will continue. New media and new technology will only provide different petri-dishes, if you will. Society as a whole will only recognize the quorums have formed once the quorums begin to crawl out of the dish.

Links for this post:


Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Canoeing with Stephane (Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 2))

The iMedia Brand Summit has kept me a little busy, and I do keep my promises.

One of the folks I asked about Sentiment Analysis prior to writing Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 1) was Stephane Hamel. I asked Stephane for a site I could analyze without my knowing anything about their strategy, demographics and such. Stephane suggested canoe.ca since it’s a well known Canadian site that receives lots of traffic and has lots of diversified content.

Canoe French homepage

The Canoe.ca site has an English and a French version so we analyzed the homepages of both versions to demonstrate the differences in cultural cuing. This image is the Canoe French homepage. Below is the English homepage. The information I’m sharing comes out of our tools, specifically the one I described in Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 1).

Canoe English homepage

This image is the Canoe English homepage. I’ll share at this point that the tool I’m using reads whatever digital information you give it exactly like a human of the intended culture would read it, provide it material in French and it thinks in French, provide it material in Gaelic and it thinks in Gaelic (we get a lot of calls for that, you betcha. The first language our technology understood was Gaelic because if you can do Gaelic you can do anything. Now we’re teaching it Etruscan because you never know when you might want to sell sandals to a dead gladiator). What makes the tool different from the standard human is its ability to report on what will or would happen in the reader’s mind at the non-conscious and conscious levels. Most people don’t have that kind of training, our technology (Evolution Technology or “ET”) does.

Age Appeal

Both homepages are designed for (not necessarily intended for. We’re not talking about who the desired audience is, we’re talking about who this material is going to work best with) relatively tight demographics. The French homepage will appeal to about 71% of the 25-34yo native French speakers who see it, the English homepage will appeal to about 60% of the 35-44yo native English speakers who see it.

<ET Tool Training Alert>
When I originally presented this analysis to Stephane for comment I thought that a possible reason for the different age appeal targeting was that the canoe.ca site was a Quebec specific site, hence English might be a second language — meaning learned via education or life experience — for Canoe visitors (ET will interpret higher levels of education and life experience as “more mature” hence add a few years to its age appeal estimates).

Stephane explained that canoe.ca was created in Toronto then moved into Quebec, and that the English site is still done in Toronto and the French site in Quebec.

In any case, what’s most interesting is the relative spikyness of the Appeal charts. This material — regardless of the intended audience or its origins– is designed to best appeal to a limited age demographic.

<Stephaneism>
Stephane noted:

Another thing… your classifications aren’t equal… why 15-19 (5 years), 35-44 (10 years), 55-59 (5 years)… Does each of the graph age ranges have the same “population size”?
The age groupings are based on neurology more than much else. The five year groups occur when the brain starts to change, the ten year groups are when the brain is relatively stable neurologically.
Usually, I think each segment should be the same range (number of years). If population is different sizes for different ranges it usually mean the number of classes should be reviewed. Am I wrong?

Excellent catch. The age breakdowns are based more on the most recent and most well documented neurology studies than anything else. As such, they can fluctuate from time to time. ET’s basis for understanding and decision making is neuroscientific, not marketing demographics per se. Originally we tailored the age breakdowns to match the US Census bureau’s breakdown and do our best to match those the best we can.

That offered, if you can define the age breakdowns of greatest interest to you (maybe 15-24, 25-39, 40-54, 55-74, … work best for you) we can tell ET and have the results appropriate to your needs.

</Stephaneism>

</ET Tool Training Alert>

Clarity/Understandability

Readers of Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 1) or Websites: You’ve Only Got 3 Seconds will remember that there are three “age” levels designers really need to be concerned with; Appeal, Clarity and Actionability. The brain-mind system doesn’t “think” in terms of a chronologic age, it “thinks” using one subsystem to determine “Is this going to be important?” (that’s Appeal), another subsystem to determine “Do I understand why this is important?” (that’s Clarity, Cognition, Understandability, call it what you will, god knows we have) and yet another subsystem to determine “Shall I do something about this?” (that’s Actionability).

The chart above shows that both English and French homepages will be best understood by a broad demographic, yes (the curve doesn’t spike), as well as a large population (its position on the chart).

<ET Tool Training Alert>
There is a possible problem when the Appeal and Clarity charts are taken together. The ideal is that Clarity peak at an age demographic just shy of the Appeal peak. This is necessary because humans, once you’ve got their attention, want to quickly determine if something is important or not. This desire to quickly understand something’s importance means less neural activity is required and ET reads that as a slight drop in neurologic age requirements.

However, the Clarity here is above the Appeal of both English and French audiences, meaning both audiences will need to work (as in “think about”) what’s on each page in order to understand its importance to them. If these pages truly are designed for the Appeal spikes, then they will not be easily understood by those age groups, hence Actionability (click through, conversion, whatever) will be lower than it could be.

On the other hand, if the target audience is 35-59yo, this Clarity is fine. Now the problem is that the age group will not find the homepages appealing enough to devote time or energy to them (except possibly some percentage of native English speakers), meaning “your conversions/clickthroughs/… would be higher with a judicious redesign”.
</ET Tool Training Alert>

Actionability (conversions, clickthroughs, …)

Both sites are designed to be actionable by 35-44yo. This is great for the French site (and assuming it is correctly designed for its intended audience) and not so good for the English site. Actionability needs to be a tad more than the Appeal because action requires effort and ET reports this as an increase in neurologic activity, hence a shift to a more mature age group.

<ET Tool Training Alert>
The good news for the French site is that the Actionability spike is pretty much as the same height as the Appeal spike and it’s in the correct demographic. This means every native French speaker who comes to the French homepage will act on it.

Unfortunately, the Clarity value is way off from where it should be. Native French speaking visitors may find the site appealing and be able to act upon it but they will not understand what it is they should do, hence numbers could be higher with some redesigns.

The English Actionability is acceptable and is also quite the spike. It almost matches the Appeal spike, but the page also suffers from the Clarity issue.

</ET Tool Training Alert>

Gender

Both sites favor a male audience design wise and in roughly equal measure.

Rich Personae, {C,B/e,M} Matrix

Often this is where real cultural design differences make themselves known. The English site is designed for an A9 Rich Persona (I’ve written about Rich Persona on this blog and in iMediaConnection), the French site for a V16 Rich Persona.

The A9 Rich Persona has the following attributes when it encounters web based information:

  • These people focus on the negative, they make decisions based on what might go wrong
  • They are motivated to take action when things are phrased in the negative
  • They often need to confirm their beliefs with visual information
  • They’re motivated by avoiding trouble and are strongly influenced by the possibilities of difficulties down the road

The V16 attributes are:

  • These people need to have information presented to them in pictures, charts or graphs
  • They finalize their decisions by using internal dialog
  • They need information framed in a positive manner before they can accept it
  • They have no sense of time or process

So we immediately see that the French homepage is designed for happier people than the English page.

<ET Tool Training Alert>
The fact that the two sites target completely different personality types can be a plus or a minus based on how much of the Canoe visitor populations match these psychological profiles. What is most important is that what is essentially the same design will target very different psychologies based on the native language of the visitor.

Which personality profile is better? Couldn’t tell you without knowing more about the goals for the site.

</ET Tool Training Alert>

10 Must Messages

10%20must%20messages%200906081039-small.jpg

The basis for communication and relationship are what NextStage calls “The 10 Must Messages”, meaning unless your site is communicating this messages well your site won’t work at all.

<Aside>
Interestingly enough, during the iMedia Brand Summit Master’s Class I taught earlier this week I asked all the attendees what the basic function of a website was. There were lots of answers and none of them were the most important one; to establish a relationship between the visitor and the brand. Regardless of intent, a relationship is being established and the success of that relationship is going to be based on how well the site communicates these messages to the visitors.
</Aside>

What we see here is something I mentioned in Sentiment Analysis, Anyone? (Part 1), that Canadian based companies tend to shout “We’re a Leader”. The fact that the two lines have roughly the same shape is to be expected (my guess is the same design group handled both homepages or a single template was used for both). Again we see some cultural based differences in the strength of the messaging.

<ET Tool Training Alert>
Take each line separately and the values are fair, there’s not a lot of shouting. What is a problem for both sites is the “This Is Important” message’s relative weakness. It is so low compared to most other messages on either site that visitors will feel no sense of urgency, no impulse to act, and in any case nowhere near as strong as it could be. The ideal would be for the “This Is Important” message and the “This Is Important To You” message to be high with the latter just enough higher to have visitors non-consciously recognize the difference.

I tend to liken the difference between these two messages to hearing the newscaster tell you about some news story then call in their talking-head to explain specifically why this news story is important to the viewer. Another way of thinking about their difference is the recognition that something may be important but not relevant to the individual versus important and relevant.

In any case, you can’t convince people that something is both important and relevant unless you first convince them that it’s important, period.

</ET Tool Training Alert>

Suggestions

That brings us to the last thing ET will report on, what to do to change the design for the target audience. I don’t know who the target is so any suggestions would be irrelevant, me thinks.

<Stephaneism>
After reading this analysis, Stephane commented:

I think what’s also interesting is ET gives you the data and the charts, but you still have to know that “Actionability needs to be a tad more than the Appeal because action requires effort”. The next stage of ET (no pun intended!) could involve bringing this “higher intelligence” (your intelligence!) to a rule engine that would gradually integrate this additional knowledge.
Let me take an example… web analytics tools today collect, analyze and provide the data, but they don’t provide any insight. Yet, some rules are readily applicable if we see high traffic from a specific campaign but a lower conversion rate than average: incoming traffic is less qualified, the campaign might need to be realigned. This intelligence could be integrated directly into the tool to raise “alarms” when things like this happen. The system would need to be trained and the architecture should allow to include new rules easily.

This is an excellent thought and yes, we’ve got it covered. People who’ve heard or seen my presentations know that one of ET’s differentiators is its ability to make suggestions. The tool that produces these reports — the one that doesn’t need a tag on a client’s site to generate actionable results — provides suggestions that incorporate “my intelligence” and additional knowledge (the system borrows heavily from knowledge management systems I worked on several years back) into its analysis. If I understand the rules system you’re describing, it’s already in there.

Anyway, we’re currently in the process of looking for alpha clients to help us integrate those rule engines into the product that does these analyses. [[(Already done and in NextStage OnSite, NextStage Experience Optimizer, NextStage Immediate Sentiment and NextStage Veritas Gauge)]]

</Stephaneism>

And there you go, Stephane. Hope it’s useful.


Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Complete “What is an A6 or A11 or V6 or V21, etc. decision style?” Arc (Originally “Do McCain, Biden, Palin and Obama Think the Way We Do? (Part…)”

Note: this content was originally a four part arc.

Do McCain, Biden, Palin and Obama Think the Way We Do? (Part 1)

I suspect this post is going to cover a lot of ground.

It’s going to start with a response to reader Dwight Homer’s question “What is an A6 or A11 or V6 or V21, etc. decision style?” in his Did Americans Always Think This Way? (Responding to WindKiller’s comment on “What McCain said about Obama and Palin to Hillary and Biden”) comment [[(Alas, the post remains but the comment is gone)]]. From there we’re going to analyze some interviews and the debates to get an idea of how the candidates think. This is a follow up to something Tex and WindKiller have been asking about and hinting at in their comments on “Hillary is piloting the space shuttle and Sarah Palin is riding a bicycle” and Designing a Political Language Engine (WindKiller’s PWB comment) and What’s Happening Up North? respectively [[(As before, the posts remain and the comments are no more. From this we learn that nothing lasts forever, what could be found one day is lost on another, and what is remembered depends on what bills are paid…)]].

First, Thanks to all of you for reading and commenting.

Second, and starting with Mr. Homer’s question…

A6, A11 and so on are classifications NextStage uses to designate decision, learning, cognition, etc., styles. They are shorthand notation for some very long and very detailed explanations of what triggers different reactions and responses in different individuals and groups of individuals and why these individuals and groups act and will act. Very briefly, these classifications are shorthand notations for

  • how people think,
  • how they behave,
  • how they demonstrate that behavior and
  • what motivates their behavior.

For example, the A6 definition includes:

  1. are more emotive than most

  2. become emotional during conversations
  3. are more apt to make decisions when there’s some emotional values involved
  4. are more apt to learn something when the lesson appeals to the emotions
  5. tend to focus on what’s in front of them work-wise
  6. tend to live “in the day”
  7. base decisions on positive influences
  8. are good listeners
  9. don’t rely on future rewards much if at all
  10. tend to ignore past successes and failures
  11. make a final decision based on whether or not they can see an immediate advantage to the decision
  12. are swayed when allowed to take part in activities
  13. tend to have a positive outlook on life

An A11 definition includes:

  1. base their decisions on whether or not their recent past contained any negative aspects

  2. learn most readily when the lesson references a recent past, negative event
  3. often experience negative memories which are triggered by some sound (a voice, a word or phrase, music, etc)

  4. often experience visual memories which bring up painful past experiences
  5. tend to be loners or dissociative with others
  6. willingly avoid social situations
  7. base decisions on avoiding pain or discomfort

  8. learn most rapidly when the lesson has a threat (real or imagined) of pain or discomfort
  9. are strongly influenced by references to past failures and associated uncomfortable memories
  10. rarely make references to past, present or future successes

  11. are not influenced by references to past, present or future successes
  12. ignore making decisions or engaging in activities which are guided towards present and future pleasures/successes

  13. ignore advice and/or counsel which directs their attention to present or future pleasure/successes

These notation bear their legacy as most of them are named after different brain regions.

Before the break I mentioned that these classifications are shorthand notations for

  • how people think (Cognitive),
  • how they behave (Behavioral),
  • how they demonstrate that behavior (/effective)and
  • what motivates their behavior (Motivational).

A further shorthand notation for these is {C,B/e,M} matrix or {Cognitive, Behavioral/effective, Motivational} matrix (there are some links to richer explanations at the end of this post).

Sometimes similar themes appear in different notations. Let me offer that it’s not that they show up, it’s where they show up. The order in which a item appears is an indication of how great a role that item plays in that individual or group’s learning, decision making, memorization, etc., style.

What goes into a NextStage {C,B/e,M} matrix is both a summation and synthesis of information that’s been in the literature (linguistic, psychology, sociology, anthropology, neuroscience, and lots of subdisciplines) for the past 20-150 years. I believe the term “{C,B/e,M} matrix” originated with NextStage although the much of the science behind it didn’t.

Adjusting the sieve

How many different ways do people think? That depends greatly on how fine a sieve you want in place when you answer (much of this is detailed in Reading Virtual Minds). You can correctly state that most native English speaking countries (with the exception of Australia) promote three different ways of thinking. Do you want to involve southern Europe excluding the eastern Mediterranean? Then you have four. Include northern Europe and you have between five and seven. Go to eastern Asia and you still have five to seven but they’re a completely different five to seven than in Europe as a whole.

What makes this a powerful (to us) concept is that we’ve learned certain types of individuals fit into certain groups extremely well. For example, what makes an individual a good researcher (ahem)? What makes someone an excellent business leader (say C level of a large business)? Are different qualities necessary to be an excellent business leader of a small business? Is one an A32 and another a B17?

Marketing and “Knowing How They Think”

Clients use our designations to better understand how to market to different individuals and groups. For example, people doing extreme sports tend to think in certain ways. These ways of thinking permeate everything in their life, not just extreme sports. Our experience is that most marketers don’t have the tools or background to make use of distinct {C,B/e,M} matrices in their creative, nor do most businesses know how to adjust their marketing material to more precisely target (ie, get a larger portion of a target) audience. To that end, standard lifts using our methodology are documented in our case studies.

You’re Marketing. It’s in Your Blood and Wired into Your Brain

[[(sorry, we didn’t keep an image)]]

I don’t know if anybody’s told you, but marketing appeared long before humans were humans. Ever seen a peacock’s beautiful plumage? That’s marketing. Ever heard a lion roar? That’s marketing. The great ape beating its chest is marketing and we’ve learned from our evolutionary ancestors well. Ever wonder why you’re attracted to some people and not others?

bmw car ad.jpg

Sometimes the marketing is obvious. The woman wearing a revealing clothing (whatever that means. It’s different in every culture) is marketing, the man with the sports car (this is becoming prevalent as western cultural values become more and more ubiquitous) is marketing.

Marketing and advertising is so a part of our neural makeup that we do it without thinking and — more to the point of this discussion — use it without thinking. I could offer that we’re now about to get into something akin to horoscopes (“You get along well with Libras and Virgos”. In truth, some companies use our technology on what I call “matchmaker” sites) except that it’s much more like mRNA and DNA signalling (because that’s what we based this part of Evolution TechnologyTM (ET) on). We demonstrated and published ET’s abiliity to find job candidates that would immediately fit in and perform well in an existing group via these principles at a Boston KM Forum meeting in Aug 06.

What I mean by the above is that someone who’s (for example) an O12 will get along incredibly well with some other Os, some Vs and a few As. Have you ever had the experience of just meeting someone and feeling like you’ve known them all your life? Or maybe you’ve heard someone talking or lecturing and what they said, the things they shared and the pictures they showed gave you the impression they were speaking directly to you at this moment in your life?

Congratulations, your {C,B/e,M} matrix was vibrating at just the right frequency to be in harmony with that other person’s or that speaker’s (and yes, the math behind some of this is based on …oh, let’s face it, I’ve probably already gone too deep for most folks reading this).

So Politicians Can Win Elections by…

The logical outcome of this is that anybody who vibrates at the right frequency or has the {C,B/e,M} mRNA that binds to the largest population will be most trusted, most favored, so on and so forth.

Recent politicians who did this best included Presidents Clinton and Reagan.

My next blog post will investigate the personal communication styles of the 2008 Presidential candidates based on their recent interviews and debates.

Do McCain, Biden, Palin and Obama Think the Way We Do? (Part 2)

I suggested previously that politicians win elections by “vibrating at the right frequency”, ie, having a {C,B/e,M} that is most easily accepted and identified with by the largest percentage of the voting population. The colloquial concept of “vibrating at the right frequency” is well known in marketing and advertising; the use of people in ads and creative that your target audience can identify with. IE, you probably won’t see too many spindly academic types in driving pick-ups in truck commercials. Much more simply; count the number of people wearing eyeglasses driving pick-ups in truck commercials versus the number of people wearing eyeglasses in commercials for upscale cars. Why the difference? Eyeglasses indicate intellectual, managerial and executive capabilities. That’s not the traditional pick-up truck market. Want to hear marketing types going nuts? Listen in on conversations about whether or not actors in SUV commercials should be wearing glasses (see What do kids think about kids in eyeglasses? for more on this).

<PLUG>
What this dips into and one of the ways NextStage makes use of these {C,B/e,M} matrices is in our Rich PersonaeTM. Rich PersonaeTM take the personae most clients come up with and imbue them with very real, very “mindful” reasons and motivations for their thoughts and deeds. You can find some links to information on NextStage’s Rich PersonaeTM at the end of this post. The most germane for this post might be Romney, Mitt Romney, Governor Romney, Social, Social Networks, Social Media, Video, Multimedia, TV, Advertising.

</PLUG>

Websites, etc., work very hard at vibrating at the desired audience’s frequency. The reason for this is that it creates a trust relationship very rapidly. Politicians want you to trust them, hence analyzing how a political website vibrates is a good indication of who they think their audience is.

Maybe.

Because if you’ve been following along with this series of posts, they websites aren’t doing a very good job of vibrating at the frequency of the largest audience. A strong case could be make that they’re not vibrating at the right frequency of some kind of glommed audience (see What McCain said about Obama and Palin to Hillary and Biden).

So I analyzed the debates

Thinking that the candidates would communicate differently in the debates, we analyzed the videos of the debates. What did we find?

Well, strangely enough (at least to me). Biden, McCain, Obama nor Palin were vibrating to the tune of the largest audience or even the largest audience glom.

In fact, I was shocked to learn that Biden, McCain, Obama, Palin, Lehrer and Ifill were all communicating with an A13 style. They were having a heck of a time being understood and understanding each other but what about the rest of us? I mean, during the exact time periods that the debates were going on, were the majority of people thinking and making decisions in an A13 style? At one point in time 14% of the BizMediaScience audience was A13 (see Do You Know How to Persuade, Influence and Convince Your Visitors? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog) Again).

Right now (as I write this) the A13 personality comprises only 5.21% of BizMediaScience audience. I am reaching a more varied audience though. I was only reaching 12 personality types when I wrote Do You Know How to Persuade, Influence and Convince Your Visitors? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog) Again, now I’m reaching 34!

So what is an A13 Personality?

  1. These people strongly prefer to be taught via negative reinforcement
  2. They make final decisions based on the immediate outcomes, they aren’t persuaded by appeals to long range goals
  3. They look to those emotionally close to them for guidance and leadership
  4. They base their decisions on the negative aspect of arguments

Well, wow. I especially like #2. To heck with long term and down-the-road consequences of our decisions, legislation, et cetera.

How much of the viewing public was vibrating at this frequency during the debates?

You’ll be shocked (at least I was mildly amused) to learn that the personality types prevalent during the first McCain-Obama debate on 25 Sept 08 were the same as in the graph above. However, things changed during the Biden-Palin debate on 2 Oct 08 as shown in the chart below.

What caused this shift in popular thought processes from 25 Sept to 2 Oct 08? This is more than a shift of a few points in the existing personality styles. Old styles are gone, new styles are taking their place, there were 7 and now there are 6. Hmm. The ranks are tightening, me thinks.

McCain-Obama, Biden-Palin US Decision Pattern Differences 080925-1002

The linking element of the decision/personality styles extant on 2 Oct 08 is simple; things are looking bad. Anyone want to take a guess why the nation as a whole would be thinking things aren’t looking too good at this point in time?

Do McCain, Biden, Palin and Obama Think the Way We Do? (Part 3)

Some quick notes before I get into the meat of this post:

This post will be covering

Here we go…

The Palin-Gibson Interviews

Charles Gibson was using an A13 communication style during the 11 Sept 08 interview. You may remember from the above that Biden, McCain, Obama, Palin, Lehrer and Ifill all used A13 methodologies during the debates so perhaps Charles Gibson’s use of A13 had more to do with experience and training than anything else (could it be that A13 is the best communication methodology for people reaching out to a television audience? Food for thought and research, that).

Governor Palin, about a month before the VP debates, was using a K13 communication style. This style’s key elements are:

  • These people prefer to experience things first-hand
  • They base decisions on immediate experience and tend to be negative in nature
  • They tend to ignore positive-based information as either unreal or unsubstantiated
  • They are attracted to and will focus on demonstrations of problems or difficulties

During the 12 Sept 08 interview Charles Gibson switched to an A9 style and Governor Palin went to an A5. The A9 style can be likened to a more conversational, more intimate form of the A13 style. A5 has

  • These people are strongly emotive and can become emotional during conversations
  • They are more apt to make decisions when they’re based on absolutes (right/wrong, good/bad)
  • They tend to have a negative outlook on life and dwell on past failures
  • They are very hands on

Thus in both interviews Governor Palin prefers to do things herself (the “first hand” and “hands on” aspects) although she didn’t demonstrate as strong a in the second interview as she did in the first, and she prefers to see the negatives rather than the positives (again with a slight shift in the second interview).

The “…make decisions when they’re based on absolutes (right/wrong, good/bad)” element is often found in individuals with definite religious beliefs.

The Palin-Couric Interviews

As goes Gibson so goes the Couric. Katy Couric’s communication style on 24 Sept 08 was A13. Unlike Charles Gibson, Ms. Couric stayed with an A13 style for the 25 Sept 08 interview.

Governor Palin’s communication styles for these two interviews was A13 followed by A5, thus Governor Palin once again in the second interview demonstrated a tendency towards absolutist views.

Gender Communications

One thing we learned in our studies of the 2004 election cycle (see NSE Case Study – Using NextStage’s TargetTrack in Political Campaigns, Predicting Election Outcomes Via NextStage’s TargetTrack and Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History Chapter 4 “Anecdotes of Learning: Politics Aren’t HorseRaces Any More”. We also offer our complete 2004, 2008 and 2012 Campaign Analyses for $25kUS each. Contact NextStage if you’re interested) was that communication styles — especially when they’re not capturing a large audience — are sometimes not as important as understandability, gender communications, education level and other demographic factors.

That recognized, Charles Gibson was reaching pretty much an even mix of males and females in the two interviews; 51/49 M/F on 11 Sept 08 and 53/47 M/F on 12 Sept 08. Likewise, Katy Couric reached 52/48 M/F on 24 Sept 08 and 48/52 M/F on 25 Sept 08. I would credit this to their training and experience as reporters and being on the anchor desk.

Governor Palin’s performances were 39/61, 42/58, 49/51 then back to 39/61 on the four days in question. Whatever was going on or being discussed on 11 and 25 Sept 08, Governor Palin intentionally or otherwise wanted to be sure women would take or be on her side.

Me, Politics, Adam Zand’s Really Big Shoe, How Obama’s and McCain’s sites have changed when we weren’t looking

Note: This section had a great deal of front matter dealing with Adam Zand interviewing J for a podcast on politics. We’re cutting that and going straight for the post’s jugular…

And now, How Obama’s and McCain’s sites have changes when we weren’t looking.

The sites, they are a’changin’

The last time I commented on the actual campaign websites was in Designing a Political Language Engine (WindKiller’s PWB comment) and What’s Happening Up North?. What’s happened since then?

Oh…just a little.

Here’s how Senators McCain’s and Obama’s website has changed their communication styles over time:

Date McCain Obama
(splash, main) where appropriate
10 Feb 07 V16 V15
6 Mar 07 K9 V15
22 Mar 07 V16 V15
24 Jun 07 V15 V12, K15
13 Aug 08 V16 K8, K1
25 Aug 08 V15 K8, K1
27 Aug 08 V16 V11, A8
29 Aug 08 (pre Palin announcement) V15 A7, V8
29 Aug 08 (post Palin announcement) V15 A7, V8
2 Sep 08 V15 V16, V8
3 Sep 08 V15 V16, A8
4 Sep 08 K16 K11, A16
10 Sep 08 K16 K11, K8
18 Sep 08 V16 K11, V8
23 Sep 08 V15 K15, K8
28 Oct 08 K15 V15, A8
30 Oct 08 V9 V15, A8

Forget what the Vs and As and Ks mean, just notice how often they’re changing. My guess is they’ll continue to change daily as the election gets closer. Senator McCain’s website’s relative communicative stability over the time period detailed is (I believe) a kind of equation that looks like

Candidate + Audience + Message = 1

What I mean by this is that for the longest time Candidate McCain pretty much gave one message to his audience. There were minor shifts and alterations, and pretty much it was one message. Now things are tighter and Candidate McCain is changing his message and his messaging as the days grow shorter and his campaign works to find the magic bullet that will stop the Obama machine.

Senator Obama’s website comes in two parts, splash and main with splash being variations of the join/learn page shown here [[(sorry, we don’t have a copy of that image)]]. The variations here show something that (I’ve heard) the Obama campaign does very well; respond rapidly to changes in its audience base.

Some readers might take that as “Obama changes his story as it suits him” and that’s not what I’m suggesting. How the message is delivered (the images, words, …) changes as their audience shifts. What the message is stays (I’m guessing) the same.

I will offer that if the site is an echo of the man, then Senator Obama has the ability to rapidly and easily change his approach to problem solving.

Again, I’m neither implying nor stating that Senator Obama changes his opinions on things (he may, I don’t know). I’m suggesting that if (IF!) his site is a product of his beliefs and methods then he has the ability to change how he solves problems when he recognizes that a present strategy isn’t working. The problem doesn’t change nor does the desire to solve it, only the methodology changes. This is what all that {C, B/e, M} stuff was about above and et al.

Links for this post:


Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Complete “NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle” Arc

Note: this was another monster arc, provided here in full, thanks to your friendly neighborhood mice, Calum&Eois

NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 1: Are Visitors Getting Good Value?

First, as I wrote near the end of Keywords, Search Engines, SEO, Learning, Placement, I’m attempting to craft blog titles that incorporate human syntactical elements and are still search engine friendly, meaning they appear near the top in search engine listings. Cleveland search engine optimization firm Keyphrase-Marketing‘s Jan Limpach explained to me that my previous posts were examples of keyword stuffing.

I’ll admit the revelation made me laugh. Business logic tells me that, if you want people to use your service or product, make it as simple to use as possible. I guess that rule doesn’t apply when you’re at the top of the food chain (as I wrote in Google’s Vulnerability).

First part b, this post was originally very long and, as Eric Pfeiffer, my editor at AllBusiness.com would say, dense, meaning, I think, information rich.

This also makes me chuckle. Long before there was the concept of social media, social networks, viral marketing and such, I wrote a paper entitled “Semantic Information Mechanics”. It dealt with viral fields, Jordan Conjunctures, lots of things and threaded throughout are the concepts of information density. Put all these things together and you get an idea of how much information you can pass through a system (“a person”) before you cause an information shutdown (“overwhelm them”).

Lots of folks have asked for that paper and now that I have more time on my hands I’ll probably revisit it and update it for what NextStage has learned since it was first written.

Anyway, this venue isn’t my AllBusiness.com venue. As I’m learning to modify my writing style there so am I learning to modify it here.

Do BizMediaScience visitors believe their time is well spent?

Looping this back to “First part b”, I was going to share lots of information NextStage Evolution’s reports are telling me about you, the readers of this blog. One of those reports is shown here. I’ll go into details of what this report is indicating (one report per post) in another post. Right now I’ll share that it’s indicating

  • you, the readers of this blog, think you get good value for your time reading my posts (the blue bar and accompanying dots on the right of the chart, and thank you!)
  • that the amount of information contained in most of my posts is overwhelming (the right bar and accompanying dots on the left of the chart, and I’m working on it)

So a tip of the hat to Eric and to you.

Are Visitors Having a Good Experience? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 2)

My quest for understanding the machiavellian world of SEO and SEM seems to be working. I did a search for “behavioral analytics” on Google and “NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 1: Are Visitors Getting Good Value?” came up #1. For that matter, it came up #1 when I searched on “web analytics, behavioral analytics, marketing analytics”, “behavioral analytics, marketing analytics” and as #6 searching on just “marketing analytics”. These were all blog searches.

Anyway, this post is part 2 in an arc on NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology reports. This time we’re considering Experience.

This arc got it’s impetus from an email exchange I was having with a frequent reader that also had its origins in the Why my Juanita Bynum post failed to get traction post and the resulting correspondence between WindKiller and myself.

Funny how many things are growing out of that post.

The reader wrote “Maybe it is my lack of analytics knowledge, but if I am on the main page for your blog, can you tell if I am a visitor reading the Bynum posting or a visitor reading a different post? If not, how would you differentiate between which posting attracted the most readers?”

I responded that I don’t know how web analytics handles this. NextStage’s Evolution TechnologyTM (ET)handles it with no problem.

The reader then wrote

“My guess would be they tell you to make sure every article has a click through requirement, so they can measure/tally that (or tally the subsequent page view).  I feel a little silly calling a “+1″ a measurement.  That’s why my guess was that if your blog was not using ET, the ‘measurement’ may be less informative than those to which you are accustomed.”

This is both accurate and goes to something I’ve been pondering for a while. I was once told it’s better to have posts that require the “Continue Reading” link than not because doing so “will increase traffic”.

Really?

I suppose this strategy works if the definition of “traffic” is “pageviews” because the system would count a visitor following the “Continue Reading” link as opening a new page (I’m guessing that’s the case).

The reader is also correct that I find the above concept and the numbers it may provide less informative than the information to which I am accustomed. What I’ll do at this point is share some of the things Evolution Technology tells me about visitors to the BizMediaScience site. You’ll need to decide for yourself how useful this type of information would be to you (and no, I’m sharing everything ET tells us. I’d like to keep my competitive advantage, if you don’t mind).

The important thing to know is that ET doesn’t ask questions, ask visitors to fill in forms, poll other internet databases, use permanent cookies, etc. ET works like any good cultural anthropologist does; by observing. You can read more about how ET works in Reading Virtual Minds.

And with that paid political advertisement out of the way, here we go with Experience

BizMediaScience visitors enjoyed their time on the site

The image on the right is one of our results charts (the actual chart is much bigger). What this chart is showing is that most people are enjoying their time reading my blogs (the green) over the past seven days. A small number of visitors aren’t having a good experience (red) and a slightly larger number are indifferent (yellow).

BizMediaScience visitors enjoyed their time on the site

It’s nice to know you work is appreciated, better to know that appreciation is growing. This image is last week’s chart of the same information. Yes, readers seem to think we’re looking better all the time.

People will ask, “How do you know this if you don’t ask visitors, use focus groups, have them fill out forms, have them in some behavioral index, …?”

My response on a good day is a detailed explanation of what NextStage does and the sciences involved. On a mediocre day it’s “What? You mean you can’t do this?”

Measuring experience — for that matter, measuring just about everything NextStage measures to generate its reports and advise clients — is remarkably straightforward. Some of it was explained in the Noisy Data arc, some of it’s explained on our website on the FAQs page

Do you have more men or women visiting your site? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 3)

This time we’re considering Gender.

I explained above that this arc grew from an email conversation with a reader spawned by the Why my Juanita Bynum post failed to get traction post.

Joseph is attractive to women

What I’m going to share in this chart and the next is a demonstration of my masculinity, my animal magnetism, my virility, …, yeah, right! Okay, I’m kidding. This image shows that BizMediaScience was visited by more women (pink) in the given seven day cycle than by men (blue). Does this mean I, Joseph, became more attractive to women in the past week? Of course it … I mean, no, not really. Other reports in our system explain why this was the case and how to duplicate it, if desired.

Last week, Joseph was loved and admired by everyone equally

This image is a seven day stretch from a week ago. Evidently my posts appealed to men and women much more evenly last week than they did this week. Again, other ET reports would explain why this happened and how to duplicate the results.

Returning Visitors and How Many? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 4)

This time we’re considering Returning Visitors. What NextStage is reporting on is probably not what others’ report on when using that term. We’re reporting how many visitors, while they’re on your site, have it in their mind that they’ll return at some point in the recognizable future.

What is recognizable future? The brain isn’t good at understanding time concepts beyond “now” and, when pressed to do it, can understand a 48 hour window around this current moment in time. This means that at whatever time you’re reading this post — let’s say noon — your brain can easily and rapidly work well with information from noon yesterday through to noon tomorrow. Beyond that you’re in the realm of the mind and how time is considered there is very different. I wrote about this in Making Visitors Want It Now.

Recognizable future is the line where the brain’s and mind’s concepts of future meet. Basically about 1-2 days out, so this NextStage report is an indication of how many visitors currently on your site believe they will return to your site within 1-2 days.

Considering the charts I’m sharing in this series are about this blog and I post to it pretty much daily, that could be an important metric. Especially if they don’t return, because then you know something interrupted a planned and desired activity. It’s not the blog itself because a strong influencer for their return is a satisfactory experience, therefore indications of non-returns mean there’s environmental factors that got in the way. Some you can’t control or deal with. Others you can, and knowing how to deal with the interrupters is one of those things NextStage does regularly.

What percentage of visitors will return to BizMediaScience

Next up is what percentage of visitors are likely to return. Remember, this isn’t a metric of how many did return, this is a measure of how many, while they’re on the site, are thinking of returning. The large black block on the chart is showing that about 90% of this blog’s readers will return. Look at the left of the chart and you’ll see a small, yellow dot. That dot and its position indicate why the actual number of repeating, returning visitors might be less than 90% and what you can do about it.

Knowing how many return is nice, knowing how many want to return means you can prepare, knowing how many want to return then don’t could mean your competition is doing something in the market and you may want to investigate.

How Many Real, Live People Are on Your Site? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 5)

This post is part 5 in an arc on NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology reports, this time considering Real Visitors per Session.

Real Visitors per Session and Real Visitors by URL are two answers to the same question. The question is “How many real, live human beings are really visiting my site?” I’m not sure and I think most others answer this question with either cookies, session-ids or something similar. This method has always been flawed to me. What if I see something on a website and call over someone else, “Hey, look at this!” and they sit at the computer, either beside me or taking over my seat? There’s only one cookie and one session-id, but now two people are using the same session-id and cookie to look at a webpage.

Back when NextStage was developing its technology this report truly noteworthy for the simple reason that not everyone had a computer at their desk and not everyone in the family had their own computer. Knowing that someone in a company called over a co-worker was a sure sign that the information on the page was interesting, hence valuable, hence actionable. Ditto for calling over family members. Knowing that mom called dad over, etc., meant there were conversions to be had (probably).

Now that computers are more common “per Session” gets paired with “per URL”. Now a more often occurrence is seeing the same person move amongst several computers at a given cookie-sessionid-location.

In any case, Real Visitors

visitors%20per%20url.jpg

The yellow and blue bars on the chart show number of sessions and number of real visitors per session. When the two don’t match you know that either someone called over someone else and they took over the computer or a single individual moved between two or more computers at a single physical location to view the same site.

How does ET know that more than a single user was involved in a single session? How much time do you have for me to explain it to you? The truth is, it’s not that difficult to understand and makes use of NextStage’s Rich Personae system, something I’ve written about in Mapping Personae to Outcomes.

NextStage’s standard Rich Personae system recognizes 72 different personality types and this is more than adequate for commercial purposes. It is capable of recognizing several thousands so even the most heavily trafficked sites can be analyzed along these means for reporting purposes.

This also handles the question of “What if I call over someone but they don’t sit down at the computer?” Excellent question and yes, when we up ET’s sensitivity it can determine that person B wasn’t sitting at the computer but that they were telling person A what to do. As Angie Brown, Strategic Services Consultant for Coremetrics (at the time) said, “I kept waiting for the “We expect this technology to be available in a few years” part, so it took a little while for it to sink in that you’re doing this NOW.”

What’s the Age Breakdown of Your Visitors? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 6)

Age is an interesting thing. For one, often people give an inaccurate value for their age (as I did in Media Free? That’s easy…and scary. Know why? (Part 20). For another, people may not “act their age” and this goes both ways. I was always accused of being mature beyond my years as a child. As an adult I was often told I was “an old soul”. Then there’s the poor sot who just can’t seem to grow up.

People not acting their age often comes from people not thinking their age. The example I often use is the boomer who buys himself an arrest-me red Corvette or Lotus Elan. I gave an example of this in AllBusiness.com’s Chris Bjorklund Interviews Joseph Carrabis on Color Use in Marketing. The mindset that buys the arrest-me red Corvette or Lotus Elan is often not the mindset that’s looking at senior citizen vacations, therefore market to the Buyer-Within, market to the mindset to make the sale.

NextStage recognizes this mindset as Neurologic Age. Neurologic Age can vary greatly from chronological age, and usually only so in specific demographics (ie, those who like to think they’re mature and those who like to think they’re young), in specific verticals or with specific products so course corrections are easily made.

In any case, Age Demographics

age%20breakdown%201.jpg

There are two elements to consider when evaluating age demographics. The first is shown on the right and is “Of all visitors, what’s the age breakdown?” This is answered in a pie chart. This chart is indicating that this blog is very popular among 20-54 year olds along the following breakdown:

Age in years % of Visitors
20-24 28.57
25-34 32.14
35-44 32.14
45-54 7.14

Some quick math indicates there’s 0.01% not accounted for in this chart, probably the 55-59 year olds as I doubt I’m writing much of interest to 15-19 year olds.

age%20breakdown%202.jpg

The second element is confidence in the measurement. This is shown in the chart on the right. The blue that goes above the yellow is high confidence age extrapolation, below the yellow line is low confidence. Here is see that ET is confident that the 20-44 year olds really are 20-44 years old and not as confident that the 45-54 year olds really are that old.

Are Visitors Interested in Your Content? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Part 7)

Here we’re looking at Level of Interest as discussed in Defining Attention on Websites & Blogs.

Yes, I know other folks are suggesting they can correctly determine visitors’ attention on a website. I disagree with their methodology and not just because NextStage does it differently. I would disagree simply because what they’re measuring doesn’t equate to attention or level of interest in any neuroscience, cognitive science, behavioral science, {pick your adjective} science that I’m aware of.

Interest level for this blog for 23-30 Aug '07

Here you see the Level of Interest in this blog’s content over a seven day period. Pretty much this image is indicating that there was lots of interest in my blog from 24-29 Aug ’07 (must have lots of weekend readers) with specific peaks on the 27th and 29th.

Well, what was I posting about on those days?

Date (and in order of posting) Post
27 First Principles of Good Design
27 iPhonics
27 Got a kick out of this
27 Stonewall’s Findings: A New Kind of Community Response Grid
27 Alberto Gonzales from the NextStage Perspective
29 Why my Juanita Bynum post failed to get traction
29 Romney, Mitt Romney, Governor Romney, Social, Social Networks, Social Media, Video, Multimedia, TV, Advertising

What’s particularly interesting to me about this is that the values in the area chart above are not indicative of actual visitors. You could normalize one to the other and the same basic form would show through.

Interest Level across several sites

For example, the chart here is for the same period of time as above but is an aggregate of some 30 randomly chosen sites in our system. Evidently 29 Aug ’07 was simply a day of interest across the board. This doesn’t mean this blog wasn’t interesting in and of itself, only that visitors to sites in general were showing more interest than they were on most other days. How come? Could be people were planning for the long weekend and didn’t feel like focusing on the job. There are ways to know and that’s beyond the purpose of this arc.

Does team standing affect your interest in other things? Oh, yeah...

Interestingly, things like having high levels of interest and attention across the board happen. Tex, one of our researchers who comments on our political research fairly often, noted that New England based people browsing during the 2004 baseball season demonstrated activity closely matched to how the Red Sox were doing in the playoffs.

Does preparing your income tax increase your anxiety level? Darn right it does!

One other time our staff sociologist noticed that people’s anxiety levels closely matched where they were in their tax preparation cycle over a weekend. Fascinating stuff. To us, anyway.

Can You Tell What Posts Are Most Interesting? (NextStage Evolution’s Evolution Technology, Web Analytics, Behavioral Analytics and Marketing Analytics Reports for the BizMediaScience Blog, 7 day Cycle, Finale)

I’ll close this arc by answering the question that got it going, “Maybe it is my lack of analytics knowledge, but if I am on the main page for your blog, can you tell if I am a visitor reading the Bynum posting or a visitor reading a different post? If not, how would you differentiate between which posting attracted the most readers?”

Again noting that traditional web analytics measures traffic volume and NextStage is more interested in interest levels, attention and engagement, this chart shows that during the 7 day period covered by these arcs, the post that generated the most interest was from some time back, Nothing New Under the Sun (Humanic Search Engines, part 1) (the red line at the top of the chart).

What got the next highest level of interest was reading a broad swath of posts (the dark blue and dark red lines two and three up respectively from the bottom). This would cover the posts from The non-locality of Pizza Shops to Keywords, Search Engines, SEO, Learning, Placement.

Next in line of interest are two posts and a topic; Alberto Gonzales from the NextStage Perspective, Is the future of political advertising social networks? and the About BizMediaScience. It seems some readers — probably new to this blog — were attracted by the posts then wondered who the person was who was authoring them.

The next most interesting topic was the MediaFree and Gridless arc. This doesn’t surprise me based on emails I’ve received and phone calls I’ve participated in.

To the reader’s question about being able to recognize the BizMediaScience main page; yes, that’s indicated by the gold line at the very bottom of the chart. What we’re seeing is that the main page on a post by post basis is interesting enough to send people looking at other posts. Guess I’ll have to work on that. We could determine which “main page” was getting the most interest with a flip of a software switch, so to speak.


Posted in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,