tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28003945.post3906796646494926448..comments2007-10-31T09:55:02.429ZAlec Cochranehttps://profiles.google.com/107941199808074768018noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28003945.post-31948468572866644092007-10-31T08:31:00.000Z2007-10-31T08:31:00.000ZHi Alec,<BR/><BR/>Good post and I largely agree with you (FURB aside, I respect Avinash's work, I just think he was misleading the world and his forum needed to be told ;o). I have to comment though that the engagement index I used was an index of visitors that we classed as engaged.<BR/><BR/>In other words we were using an HBX Active segment to filter out those visitors we called "engaged". We were also measuring engaged visitors in context with other KPI's. So for instance reach was measured against an engaged segment and activations compared. This meant that we could optimize the campaigns we were working on based on activations/conversions *and engagement*, hence the millions in savings we made by re-directing marketing funds.<BR/><BR/>I just presented this at the eMetrics in Stockholm and it was largely accepted by Jim Sterne and co. So I think I was right. It's purely a semantics thing. What one man calls engagement I call visitor lifecycle measurement. I will be writing more about this later in the month after I've thoroughly examined Eric's engagement index formula.Steve Jacksonhttp://blackbeak.conversionchronicles.com/noreply@blogger.com