• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
E Metrics Summit May 2006
 

E Metrics Summit May 2006

on

  • 295 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
295
Views on SlideShare
294
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • . [Next]
  • [Next]

E Metrics Summit May 2006 E Metrics Summit May 2006 Presentation Transcript

  • Form improvements Patricia Gildea, e-Delivery Manager, npower.com E-metrics Summit, London, May 5, 2006 e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06 Web analytics in every decision: from micro to macro
    • npower - one of top UK utility companies
    • Serving residential & business customers
    • Website content & functionality includes:
      • Brand engagement, sponsorship, etc.
      • Corporate info
      • Marketing & sales
      • Customer service
      • Social action programmes, education, etc.
    Overview e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
    • Over 5 year life of this brand & site, we ’ve moved from:
      • Log files, to
      • Basic web trends package, to
      • [unnamed] analytics package to
      • Red Eye managed service
    npower & web analytics e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
    • Why a managed service?
      • Very small team at the time
      • Little expertise in e-metrics
      • Business required extensive support in learning curve and ongoing reporting
    • New vendor selected with managed service one year ago
      • Red Eye been instrumental in moving us forward
    npower & web analytics e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • npower & web analytics
    • So how is it used now?
      • On average 3-10x week
      • Daily micro-decisions by web delivery team
      • Meso-design considerations on site journeys, sections, commercials
      • Macro-decisions on strategy & site structure
      • All examples here will be residential
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • At the micro level e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
    • Examples - micro-decisions using analytics:
      • - Prioritising bug-fixing
      • - Prioritising browser support
      • - Retiring v. updating pages
      • - Navigation exposure
  • At the micro level
    • Circular journeys, frustrated feedback
      • Case study: Contact Us
    • Minor text changes for increase in conversion rates
      • Case study: “just skip it”
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: Contact Us
    • Noticed increase in website feedback asking for information that was already in Contact Us section of site.
    • Analysed most popular paths - found circularities
    • Then identified key area of user confusion
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: Contact Us
    • Before
      • “ Electricity and Gas contacts” link not highly used, but should be
      • Details unintentionally buried one level down
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: Contact Us
    • Redesign:
      • Move these contact details up a level
      • Reorder link lists and hierarchy of customer service section to reflect most common areas of usage
      • New wireframe prepared, pages rebuilt
      • Section streamlined
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: “just skip it”
    • Focus on attrition rates through application form ahead of planned significant increase in e-marketing spend
    • Plug holes in “leaky bucket”
    • Application form: 7 steps
    • Largest page-to-page attrition: step 4 to 5
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: “just skip it” e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06 Supply Number is not mandatory. Meter point reference number is not mandatory.
  • Case study: “just skip it” e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06 Added: “ Don’t know this? Just skip it. ” Added: “ Don’t know this? Just skip it.”
  • Case study: “just skip it” e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
    • Results
    • 3% improvement on this step alone due to just this tiny change
    • Cautionary note!
      • Use judiciously as similar use may increase deletions, churn, increase back-office costs.
  • At the meso-design level
    • Case study: connecting journeys
      • Core acquisition journey for residential supply signups
      • Savings calculator compares npower prices against existing supplier
      • Application form (electronic contract)
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: connecting journeys
    • Part of attrition rates study ahead of increase in e-marketing spend
    • Proposal: Connect application form to savings calculator
    • Purpose: reduce attrition, increase conversion through reduced user inputs, reduced opportunity to exit journey
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: connecting journeys e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06 % Users moving between: After connection Step 1 to 2 Increase of 28.84% Step 2 to 3 3.72% Step 3 to 4 2.13% Step 4 to 5 20.98% Step 5 to 6 2.54% Step 6 to 7 3.09%
  • Case study: connecting journeys
    • Looks pretty good, right?
    • Sales crashed by over 50%!
    • Why??
    • Two reasons: price and required data
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: connecting journeys
    • Price issues:
    • All users then forced through calculator
    • At that time, we were not aggressively competitive on price in this channel
    • Therefore all users (= prospects) were exposed to pricing strategy
    • Only small numbers of areas/payment methods/consumption journeys completed
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: connecting journeys
    • Required data issues:
    • All users forced through calculator
    • Therefore, to sign up, user (= prospects) must now have to know current supplier, current tariff, current spend/consumption
    • Also, users/prospects who wanted to sign up not on savings but values, brand, sponsorship were forced through irrelevant savings journey
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: connecting journeys
    • Since then, Sign Online tariff was introduced (very competitive)
    • Journey options further developed where benefit of connection maintained for reduced burden on user, but calculator usage not forced
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: connecting journeys e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06 Increase in % Users moving between: Connect Disconnect Step 1 to 2 28.84% 3.17% Step 2 to 3 3.72% -1.56% Step 3 to 4 2.13% -1.85% Step 4 to 5 20.98% -2.15% Step 5 to 6 2.54% -0.26% Step 6 to 7 3.09% 2.76%
  • Case study: connecting journeys
    • Total volume of sales increased
    • Decrease in user complaints about wanting to sign up on brand/values (e.g. green) but being forced to calculate savings
    • Also decrease in complaints about not having arcane details to hand (e.g. tariff)
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • At the macro-analysis level
    • Largest ‘leaky bucket’ holes plugged (ongoing development project)
    • Time to start pumping volumes into site
    • E-marketing campaigns: banners & skyscrapers, email and PPC
    • First significant campaigns launched
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: early campaigns
    • Typical banner campaign set-up
    • Commercial success measurement of Cost per Contract (CPC) plus volume
    • Results include low cost per arrival, high click-through to first step of calculator or application form (disconnected journeys) BUT poor CPC and volumes
    • Anecdotal evidence - post-impression issues
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: later campaigns
    • Subsequent campaign trials included post-impression, post-session behaviour measurement
    • How do consumers actually buy electricity & gas online?
    • The “considered purchase” debate
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: later campaigns
    • Banners
      • <1% of ads served resulted in a click. <1% of arrival converted.
      • However , ‘post impression’ customer acquisition increases by 500%
    • PPC
      • 3.7% of arrivals result in a contract
      • However , the lifetime of the visit result in a 4.5% conversion rate and increased sales of 22%
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: later campaigns
    • Now challenges are to further understand measuring post session behaviour
    • Issue of integrating RedEye metrics with multiple other campaign vendor tagging & measurements (e.g. MSN)
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: homepage strategy
    • npower.com serves B2C, B2C and corp
    • Homepage had become a free-for-all; no clear strategy, no clear priorities in use of real estate
    • “ Squeaky-wheel” design
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: homepage strategy
    • Strategy project affirmed:
      • npower.com is retail-level asset
      • Homepage need balance & simplification in structure
      • ‘ Challenger’ brand campaign required re-branding
      • Significantly reduced real-estate allocations required set of decision-rules to manage
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: homepage strategy
    • Decision-rules
      • Every campaign, new product, promotion or initiative should have a predicted NPV and predicted web usage (from business case).
      • Replacement rules are based on a comparison of predicted NPV and usage with adjusted NPV and usage, and then against predicted NPV and usage of the new initiative.
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: homepage strategy
      • For example:
      • Campaign A has an NPV = 10 & usage =1000/wk.
      • >Launched on day 1.
      • +10 days, Campaign B briefed in for launch on day 30.
      • Campaign A ’s NPV and usage is then adjusted based
      • on actuals from day 1 to 15, projected to day 30 and
      • compared against predicted NPV and usage for B.
      • To replace A, B must be predicted to outperform A.
      • If yes, then B replaces A. However, B is monitored and if B doesn ’t outperform the predicted A metrics, then B could be pulled and replaced with A.
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: homepage strategy
    • Decision-rules
      • Web analytics critical to analysis on predicted and adjusted usage
      • Web analytics become the lens on reality, combating “audience of one” decision-making
    • Measuring success of new homepage
      • Benchmarks and comparison reports of before and after
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • Case study: homepage strategy
    • We will be measuring:
      • Immediate exits from homepage including duration
      • Top 10 journeys completion rate
      • Customer frustration level
      • “ Wandering journeys”
      • Split click-throughs of B2C v. B2B
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06
  • The future
    • Challenges will include
      • Measuring segmented journeys with targeted content: “Conversion Enhancement”
      • Converting to dynamic content management system and measuring dynamic pages
      • Measuring multi-channel experiences & journeys
    e-DeliveryTeam@npower.com 05-May-06