 |
|
| CURRENT SECTION :: News |
The No. 1 Resource for UK IT Contractors: Comprehensive guides - Daily news IT contract jobs - Market rates - Forums - IT contractor network - Calculators |
|
 |
Contractor UK, a niche site for IT contractors has had a complaint upheld against it by the Advertising Standards Authority Council for not being able to substantiate their advertised traffic figures of 249,346 unique visitors for March 2008, thereby breaching the code for substantiation and truthfulness. The ruling is particularly relevant for the thousands of websites that rely on being able to attract advertising revenue through promoting their traffic figures. Google Analytics was the software used to measure all traffic for the site in 2008. Contractor UK chose Google, as a trusted authority on the internet, for measuring traffic via cookies which is perceived as offering the most accurate means of measuring unique visitors from the measurement options available. While there were nearly 250,000 visitors in the month in question, only one complaint was made to the ASA, and that was by a competitor site whose audited figures in a recent promotion showed less than half the number visiting Contractor UK's website during the same busy month of the Budget 2008. Despite providing comprehensive information, including reports for the month in question from Google Analytics to demonstrate GA’s accurate implementation by Contractor UK, the ASA ruled the traffic figures to be "insufficiently robust". The reports [demonstrating accurate implementation] clearly show that over 99% of the traffic reported derived from the Contractor UK website (the remaining 1% being versions of the site cached by Google or translation sites) - meaning that tracking code was not added to other sites to falsely inflate traffic reports. Nevertheless, final adjudication by the ASA states: “We understood that the software used by CUK could deliver unique user figures to JICWEBS Industry agreed standards if it was correctly implemented; however, we understood that, because the figures had not been audited, it was not possible to know if the software had been correctly implemented. We considered that, because of those problems in the measuring of the data, the evidence CUK had sent was not sufficiently robust to substantiate their unique visitor claims.” It would seem then, that even though businesses are not required by the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice) code to audit their figures before advertising them, providing conclusive proof that they have used industry renowned measurement software and are able to demonstrate which domains were tracked to arrive at those figures, is not deemed robust enough, unless they pay a substantial sum to have those figures audited by ABCe in addition. Indeed the push for auditing was prevalent throughout the final adjudication. An earlier paragraph reads “we also understood that the figures CUK referred to had not been independently audited and did not therefore ensure traffic claims adhered to industry agreed standards; we understood that, because they had not been audited, it was possible that CUK's figures could include double counting and could report invalid traffic due to spiders, robots, or internal usage. We understood that figures could be audited by ABCe, the industry owned auditor, which audited systems and data to standards defined by the Joint Industry Committee for Web Standards in the UK and Ireland (JICWEBS). Contractor UK said “Based on the evidence we provided, the Council noted that the data showed we did indeed receive the visitor numbers we advertised so the ruling on substantiation is incredibly frustrating and frankly doesn’t make any sense. Cookie-based tracking is approved by JICWEBS. ABCe themselves informed us that cookie-based tracking is the preferred method in terms of accuracy. As visitors are uniquely identified this rules out double counting and GA specifically excludes robots and spiders from its reporting. All of this plus proof of correct implementation was conveyed to the ASA Council to no avail. The decision is deeply flawed in our opinion. “This ruling will strike fear into the many other businesses who also depend on being able to advertise their traffic. Few online businesses currently audit and with the cost of just one month’s auditing (including a registration fee) being a minimum of just over four thousand pounds, this is extremely prohibitive for the world outside of national newspaper sites, especially in today’s tough climate.” Contractor UK was established ten years ago, notching up readership numbers, a trusted brand and a healthy business in the process, but it remains a relatively small business to this day. It’s a niche website for UK IT contractors, offering tailored news, features, guides, market rates, a forum, jobs and plenty besides. As with all online businesses, its success has been earned through significant investment in building relevant services and content for its audience, as well as all the technical resources and of course, the all-important optimisation of the site. Contractor UK said it remains undeterred by the ruling saying “Our advertisers are the best judges on not only the volume but also the quality of our traffic and the new clients it generates for them. We remain to be convinced as to exactly what ABCe auditing offers a company like Contractor UK, to our mind it just doesn’t generate any real return”. Jan 14, 2009 Email this article Printer friendly page Previous Page
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| All content © Contractor UK Limited | [Register for News Letter] | [Privacy Statement] | [Terms of Use] | [Top of Page] |