Analytics Avenue

Back in August I wrote a post about using Yahoo's Assist attribution metric to help advertisers lower their CPA. This morning I came across a case study that showed how one marketer used assisted attribution to reduce their cost-per-acquisition 25.6% while also increasing sales for non-branded key terms by 15.2%!! AWESOME! Here's the link to the case study: http://www.marketingsherpa.com/article.php?ident=31487 Here's the link to my August blog post: http://mattlillig.blogspot.com/2009/08/want-to-lower-your-online-cpa-then.html

Just an update to this post: http://mattlillig.blogspot.com/2009/12/use-yahoo-web-analytics-to-geotargeted.html I made the images clickable so you can view are larger and more readable. I also changed the 2nd image so you can see the steps I used to create the Custom Report.

I just finished reading an article titled: Forecast: Geotargeted display ads to reach $1.9 billion http://www.bizreport.com/2009/12/forecast_geotargeted_display_ads_to_reach_19_billion.html In the article it stated: "By geographically targeting ads to consumers marketers can substantially increase their ability to reach in-market consumers. For example, an auto dealer can now target consumers in specific zip codes or regions rather than blanketing an entire state or block of content sites." As I read this, I thought why not just get this geographic data out of your Yahoo! Web Analytics reports? After you've set up Yahoo! Web Analytics to track your campaigns, you can set up a simple Customized Report to see the traffic to those campaigns via zip code (click on image below). In the image example above, I simply selected the 'Demographics' report (from the left hand nav menu) and then selected the 'Zip Code' report in the dropdown menu. After that, I selecte...

I seemed to have drawn some interest in my last post titled "Why you should choose Yahoo! Web Analytics Over Google Analytics" . I checked my ClickTale traffic and noticed that post was definitely the most popular of late. It's simply a post that redirects visitors to a couple nicely developed presentations on the topic. But to be fair, I must say that Yahoo! and Google each have their own uniqe business strategies for their own solutions, so they probably shouldn't really be compared at all. But for those out there who enjoy comparing the two solutions, I say go for it because it never really hurts to get a little extra press, right?!?!?! :) And the more we hear about the topic of web analytics in general, the better for everybody!

Two new presentations are available that discuss why Yahoo! Web Analytics should be your free web analytics solution of choice. 1. Published by Insightr (Oct. 30 th , 2009): The most comprehensive comparison http://www.slideshare.net/insightr/insightr-insite-comparing-free-analytics-visual 2. Published by SallyKnows http://www.slideshare.net/SallyKnows/why-choose-yahoo-web-analytics-over-google-analytics?src=related_normal&rel=2381841

According to Dennis Mortensen's blog... http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2009/11/expanding-yahoo-web-analytics-consultant-network.html

For most search and display advertisers, reaching a low CPA (Cost Per Acquisition) goal is the holy grail of a successfull online campaign effort. But as most advertisers know from experience, it's easier said then done. Getting more visitors to convert for less money is not an easy task by any means. There are a lot of factors that have to take place in order for CPA to drop. For example, search and display ads can't be too expensive, the ads need to drive quality traffic and be relevant, the landing pages have to be relevant, there can't be any roadblocks on the site's path to conversion, visitors must be engaged with your product, sign up forms need to be easy to navigate, shopping carts need to flow, etc., etc., etc. As you can see, driving a lower CPA takes some effort. Too bad there isn't an easier way to lower that CPA dollar figure. Ahhhhh.....but wait. There actually is a way and it all boils down to how advertisers measure a conversion. If we take a step b...