How we surf in NZ: Time online

There are lots of ways of measuring how popular a website is. The industry started with ‘hits’, before realising that a page could generate countless hits. The local industry moved to ‘Unique Visitors’ and, once the number of Unique Visitors exceeded the population of New Zealand, to ‘Unique Browsers’. Many sites and advertisers like using ‘Page Impressions’, as it shows, in theory, how many times those advertisements have been seen.

My favorite right now is ‘Viewing Time’.

‘Viewing Time’ is the amount of time a person spends in front of a particular website during a period.

Let’s look at some numbers. In February 2007 there were 5.8m domestic unique browsers looking at the 314 major NZ websites covered by Nielsen NetRatings. Notable exclusions are Google, Yahoo and Bebo – and all other international websites.

With 4.1m New Zealanders clearly there is more than one browser per person – so let’s say there are 2.5 browsers per person. (I completely made that up). That would mean there were 2.3m people in NZ that used the internet in February, and they used it for an average of 8 hours (excluding the foreign sites) in the month, or 2 hours per week. Big numbers.

Now let’s see where peoople spent their time. .

NetRatings data

That’s right – almost 60% of the time spent on local sites by Kiwi’s is spent on Trade Me.

Second placed XtraMSN just blew up their site, so their numbers will divide between the new msn.co.nz and Yahoo!xtra. NZCity performs well, as do NZHerald and Stuff, while AirNZ manages to be NZ’s biggest ecommerce site with just 1.4% of the viewing time – efficient and effective.

The tail is very long – 20th place National Bank has just 0.3% of the traffic, while 53rd placed NZGirl has just 0.08% – I guess all their members are on Bebo.

Let’s look at the absolute numbers. The amount of time people spent looking at tracked websites rose by 29% from last Feb to this Feb (some additional sites were tracked, more people use the internet and average time per person went up). I converted the browsing time (which equals Unique Browsers x Frequency x Average Session Duration) into Years, just to make the numbers easier to imagine.

NetRatings data

So 513 years worth of browsing time were spent on Trade Me in February 2007, up from 380 years in February 2006. That is 35% year on year growth. Also showing strong growth were APN with 27%, Fairfax (41%), Seek (51%) and realestate.co.nz (a staggering 297% – they had a big relaunch).

Trade Me was responsible for two thirds of the market’s y/y growth in the total viewing time.

XtraMSN grew at 8%, much less than the average growth rate, and NZCity’s properties actually lost viewership, dropping time on site by 5%.

In theory the relative amount of money received from display advertising by each site should approximately follow the charts. Some theory…

Scoopit!

eBay Blogs

eBay Blogs: Who knew. Also available now in the UK, which is how I found it.

Right now it is early days, but eBay seems to be tapping into a group of people that are fairly new to writing blogs. Time will tell whether this works or not – I just see lots of opportunities for both increasing perception of trust for potential buyers, but also for creating havoc.

Interestingly the eBay content policy states:

“Members publishing Blogs may include links to sites that offer goods for sale off eBay, as long as they do not promote outside-of-eBay sales or prohibited items”

There’s lots of room within that statement, and it is going to be awfully hard for eBay to police.

I wonder what this will do to the community message board? Blogs are in one sense an improved MB, so while I’m sure there will be a reduction of volume of message on the MB (assuming blogs work out),  one future could see the integration of the two, with all or selected MB comments appearing on ones blog.

Mobile Broadband Pricing Still Stupid

Since the 23rd of Jan I have used a paltry 1.48 Gb on my home account. (well I was away for a bit)

That would cost, in Telecom’s mobile Broadband calculator, about $650 on the ‘Mobile Broadband 400 plan’ (that’s the cheap plan – the casual plan would cost me $12,000).

That’s $600 for 8 days, and I was away for 3 of them, so it is really $600 for 5 days, or $120 per day, or $3,600 per month.

Oh – and if I am outside NZ, as I was for a day and a bit, it would cost me $8,000 per Gigabyte. Bargain.

However looking at the Telecom list of plans, I see there is a plan, hidden at the bottom, that is not included in the calculator – ‘Mobile Broadband 1GB+’. That plan costs just $60 per month, and the next GB is only $10! Sadly after that the following GB’s are $500 each. But still – why isn’t this data plan being pushed all over the Telecom website? It really is buried in there…

(What is strange about this plan is that it is actually cheaper than the 400 MB plan, so I hope (ahem) that all people on that plan have been automatically upgraded….)

To find out what is going on, check out the Vodaphone plans. Not only are they simpler to understand, but Vodaphone seem to have lowered their fees a lot. That 1.48 GB would cost me, on the ‘Broadband Everyday’ plan, $60 for the first GB, and an extra $10 gets you that second GB. It is $500 per GB after that.

Sound familiar? yup – Telecom’s hidden 1GB plan is a direct response to Vodaphone’s plan. It’s great to see some competition, but how about some publicity Telecom?

Meanwhile Vodaphone will also steal from you if you happen to use broadband overseas – charging $10,000 per GB in Australia and any other country with a Vodaphone (or Vodacom). However connect to the wrong carrier, or be stuck in the USA (big place, kind of important) then you’ll be up for $30,000 per GB.

So a word, if I may, to Telecom and Vodaphone:

Hi guys.

It is good to see you have moved a bit on the domestic data pricing – I’d almost consider it now. However the international roaming prices are stupidity defined. Your target market for this stuff is the mobile professional, and you can bloody well assume that they travel internationally as well as domestically.

Thanks.

Scoopit!

The lying profession…

So by 138 votes to 124 an audience to a PRWeek ethics debate decided against the motion that ‘PRs have a duty to tell the truth’.

3 comments.

Firstly there is a great discussion about this at blogHerald and Strumpette (great blog name)

Secondly – PRWeek just isn’t great at PR. I cannot actually see the source article without subscribing to the (UK) PRWeekly magazine – something of dubious value to me without the ability to see what I am buying, and certainly not something worth  £120 per year.

Thirdly is the obvious – if PR firms and the businesses they represent persist in lying, then they will lose all credibility and people will just learn to ignore their messages. Does anyone actually believe that the piffle that Cheveron writes on the environment bears any relation to how they run their business?

The companies, brands and people that we respect the most have alignment between what they say and what they do. Apple. Toyota. Ghandi. Mandela.  Warren Buffett.

PR firms would do well to council their clients to be the same.

“now you (Sony) know how you killed your brand”

Via Church of the Customer Sony’s PS3 is a technological marvel but a piece of encrypted isolated expensive junk when compared to the Wii (non-gamers) and XBox360 (gamers). What a travesty – and one which has now been put into song..

At 400,000 views and 2200 comments you’d think Sony would wake up, and when they did kill the Blueray, kill the DRM, launch a decent and free online service and drop the price….

dating and ‘good catches’…

Some thoughts from the economist blog on dating…

 “Assume there are better and worse catches in the dating market.  Part of the dating process, a rather big part, involves determining whether you are, or are not, too good for the other person.  So the people who pursue you the most persistently may be the people who are not as good catches as you are; hence your relative lack of interest.  Conversely, the people you want most are the ones who are probably better catches than you are, and therefore you are probably more likely to do the pursuing.”

You know – better and safer not to comment on this…

…But whatever… I feel he has an interesting point here, but it is a fairly self-centered way of thinking about it all. It’s nice to be pursued, it’s entertaining to pursue, but does this mean if I am the pursuer then I should give up? Does this mean I should ignore those pursuing me? What room does that leave for romance?

It may be interesting to break it down a little, and define exactly what a ‘good catch’ is, and what are the dimensions that we use for defining ‘good catch’? Thankfully this has a different answer for each of us, but some of those dimensions may be beuaty, social skills, intelligence, wealth, age, fitness, experience, height, weight…. and what do you know – we are ending up with a online dating profile.

One of the issues with online dating is that the best profiles get an inordinate amount of enquiries, while the less good ones get very little. Those ‘great catch’ profiles are getting pursued by (mainly) people with profiles that portray ‘not so great catches’. As a result the ‘great catch’ profiles are not in control – it’s like they walked into a bar and everybody turned and talked to them at once. My advice to such people is to be far more proactive, to contact other ‘great catches’ themselves, selectively showing their photo only to them, and to mainly ignore an unsolicited messages they receive.

So how do we match the ‘above average’ with the ‘above average’, and not the ‘above average’ with  the ‘great’?  (nobody is below average right?) Most methods of determining whether someone is a match are either absolute (religion = X) or one-way (income > Y). A more honest matching system would match like with like, but that is really tricky as most people, it seems, have a self-image of themselves as looking like they did at 20, with the career track of when they were 30, the experience of 40 and the income of 50.

The next question is whether matching needs to be by category or not? Do beautiful people only want to be matched with beautiful people? What about Anna Nicole Smith? :  Does a large income therefore make up for a lack of beauty? Does beauty make up for a lack of intelligence? So do the categories balance out or is it better to be evenly matched in each category?

Obviously it is much harder to find someone who is a match in each category – so is dating  really about figuring out what you need, what you are willing to forgoe and what you offer?

Whatever it is, it isn’t easy, but if it was then where would the fun be?

Who on earth is designerexposure?

Whoever they are they managed to beat heavily advertised Ferrit into ‘2nd biggest retailer‘ spot. It’s not much of a spot – after all Trade Me has about 100% of the retail pageviews. (or 197.1m out of 198.5m total retail for ‘total traffic’ week ending 25 Feb, 2007)

From the article

” Trade Me has come out on top in a list of the country’s most visited online shopping websites.

AC Nielson/NetRatings figures show Trade Me had more than a million visitors last week, from New Zealand and overseas. designerexposure.com was the next most visited site with nearly 37,984 hits, with ferrit.co.nz in third on 31,755.

Top ten shopping websites (19-25 February 2007)

1. trademe.co.nz

2. designerexposure.com

3. ferrit.co.nz…..”

<Update:> I should have guessed – NetConcepts designed the site. Nice one.

Measuring Yahoo!Xtra and msn.co.nz

From what I see (from the page sources) it appears that msn.co.nz is measuring traffic using Nielsen NetRatings, but that Yahoo!xtra is not. (I may be wrong).

This will make things very “interesting” for Yahoo!xtra advertising sales teams. Corporate Yahoo! may not realize that the advertisers in NZ demand tracking from NetRatings, and the locals will pay dearly if they do not join the club.

Complaining about advertising stats

Lots of complaining about the advertising stats.

The (Direct) Marketing association says it spent $400m on creative and the reported $100m was just postage, the Internet Advertising Bureau says the $65m online spend excluded search (i.e. Google) and the long tail of smaller sites, and MediaEdge said that un-addressed mailouts were under-reported.

The Direct Marketing production costs are not included, I guess, as the cost of producing other advertising is also not included: newspapers, TV and their ilk only report how much money they earn from advertising, not how much the client spent on production costs. It would be really interesting to include those costs, but hard (and scary) to count. Advertising agencies would have to be the source, so how about it?

The Internet Advertising Bureau has only itself to blame for the under-reporting of online spend. Every other industry with more than 3 players manages to self-report, so why has the most technologically advanced industry failed?

Same with un-addressed mailouts – all of the industry just has to report the results, and if there is a surge then we should see it in the numbers.

Interesting the the NZHerald chose to headline the article ‘Media Feel the Pinch from Advertisers‘, when the real story was ‘TV and Newspapers Lose out to Online and Radio‘.

Xtra Retardo Mail..

Jama weighs in on Xtra mail. Xtra didn’t integrate their ISP mail with Yahoo! mail, which is terrible for consumers, but the logical move for a monopoly seeking to slow its demise.

If Xtra members were switched to Yahoo!, then even less would hold them to Xtra as an ISP. Given Xtra’s terrible performance at providing their promised service that could lead to mass exodus to the smaller ISPs.

I wonder why anyone would ever (and strongly advice against) use an ISP for email. I change ISP’s frequently as I move cities, countries and deals, but my Yahoo! mail address has remained with me since 1996.

yahoo!xtra versus msn. Overall impact

MSN’s offering is woeful. The search is embarrassingly unusable and takes you off-site, the site itself looks like it was slapped together at midnight last night and the lack of advertising makes you feel like there is no local team nor reason for existence. About the only thing that MSN did well was getting their site up at 00:01 or thereabouts – before Yahoo!xtra. I see no reason to add msn to the (extensive) list of sites that I visit every day. Hopefully we will see PBL flex it’s considerable muscle and improve the site, but there is a long road ahead.

Yahoo!Xtra is much better, but still has plenty of scope to improve. They at least have a working revenue model, and the search, while not as good as Google, is better than the hapless MSN. The layout is pleasant and proven – very similar to the other Yahoo sites, and the site hangs together better than MSN. They do appear not have many business partnerships, aside from Seek, and there are spare ad slots, so there is some scope for revenue increase. I use Yahoo! mail so will no doubt see a bit of the site, but not a huge amount.

Both these sites need a healthy dose of localization, which means boots on the ground, including sales, editorial and tweaking the technology and searches.

Neither of these sites approaches NZHerald or Stuff as a news source, and their other offerings are easily googleable. Video on both is unworkable for me.

Overall a combination of the two big news sites, Trade Me and Google will still be the preferred option for most Kiwis, and indeed by splitting such a huge site (xtraMSN) Telecom may have encouraged more of their users to look elsewhere.

Overall I’d give Yahoo!xtra 7/10 and msn.co.nz 2/10 when comparing them to other domestic sites.

Scoopit!

Online ads up,newspapers, TV, mags down.

So the NZ Advertising stats are out for 2006. Here’s the chart:
asa

and here is the market share chart – note that 2003 saw several new categories tracked for the first time. ASA

3 things are interesting
1: TV (-2.3%), Newspapers (-3.8%) and Magazines are all down (-3.5%). They are down a collective $54m, which has got to hurt.

2: Overall spend is flat – from last year to this year.

3: The switch of spend is to online (+$21m), Radio(!) (+$13m) and outdoor (+$7m).

Online growth was healthy at 48%, but pales versus the previous year’s 193%, which was the highest in the world.

There is still a lot of growth coming, and at that same 48% growth rate online would be $96m in 2007, and $142m in 2008. With the lions share of that coming from TV and Newspapers it is no wonder that those industries are undergoing massive changes and are desperately trying to get their online offerings sorted.

yahoo versus msn. Advertising

Yahoo!Xtra has a few advertisers, including ANZ, ACC, Qantas, Sorted (relationship), Visa, Pacific Blue, ipod+itunes (cool) and the realestate link goes (slowly) to a yahoo!xtra stamped realestate.co.nz. There are plenty of open advertising slots in many of the less trafficked sections, and the site is well set up for advertisers.

msn.co.nz has Seek, which is part owned by JV partner PBL and that is it. The news links go off to TV3 who have their own ads, but at launch it seems that msn.co.nz has no revenue.
(oh msn and TV3 – those links to TV3 are timing out right now.)

Hands down victory to yahoo!xtra. I expected and do expect much more from the owners of nineMSN.

yahoo versus msn. searching for work

Both sites have tied in with Seek, so even points there. It would have been interesting if one had linked up with rising star Trade Me Jobs, but I guess blood is thicker than water in Australasian media. Seek is part-owned by PBL, who are behind the msn effort, and most likely the legacy Seek deal with xtra folded over to the Yahoo!xtra site.
So let’s try searching for a “job”.

It’s probably a bad search term – Yahoo! puts partner Seek at #3 and Trade Me at #5 (these are the 2 biggest sitesby traffic). Google gets Seek at #1 but puts Jobstuff at #3, which at least links through to Trade Me Jobs. msn is pathetic again.

I tried a bunch of other search terms, but sadly there were none better. All big employment sites could improve their SEO it seems.

(A mini-rant on msn search (live)- you cannot even constrain your search to NZ from the msn.co.nz page. The search results are so bad that they seem almost random. There is no link back to the originating msn.co.nz site. It’s just unusable.)

this round to Yahoo! (or actually google, but they have not just launched a new site)

yahoo versus msn. Video

Yahoo!Xtra have some TVNZ videos available. The videos play in an enormous player mostly filled with advertisements. Playing over the (genuinely) high speed connection here in Australia is not great. The image is murky, jerky and prone to pauses. (i.e. over-compressed, very low frame rate and the streaming stops periodically)

Meanwhile, msn’s video player is also full of ads, but the video quality (compression) is far higher. Sadly once again despite a big pipe the transmission is full of pauses and unwatchable.

So this round to msn, but nobody is winning here.