Last week we looked at dif­fer­ent ways to orga­nize your report suites to pro­vide the proper level of infor­ma­tion to your dif­fer­ent stake­hold­ers.  This week I’d like to take a deeper look at the inside of sin­gle report suite and how its lay­out fits into the over­all scheme.

Per­son­al­iz­ing Your Data

All of the reports in Site­Cat­a­lyst cor­re­spond to a data­base table some­where.  Some of these are pop­u­lated out-of-the-box and some are left to the dis­cre­tion of a com­pany to decide what to use them for and how to col­lect the data.

Among these per­son­al­ized vari­ables are props, evars (also here), and events.  That pro­vides a lot of room for cus­tomiz­ing the data you col­lect and mak­ing sure that you’re meet­ing all the goals laid out in your mea­sure­ment strat­egy.

When you orga­nize your report suites into a hier­ar­chy, you have to keep in mind that a sin­gle data point is likely going to end up in mul­ti­ple loca­tions.  A Video Start on the US site will also end up in the global site.  It sounds pretty straight­for­ward, but there are some impor­tant effects that we’ll take advan­tage of.

1.  Some Of Your Data Is Only Impor­tant At The Top Level

There are some reports that are only impor­tant inside the upper lev­els of your hier­ar­chy.  Inside the Omni­ture Suite for exam­ple, we cap­ture Prod­uct in prop4/evar4.  Every time data is sent to the col­lec­tion servers, prop4 and evar4 con­tain a value that sim­ply iden­ti­fies which prod­uct is being used: Site­Cat­a­lyst, Test&Target, Dis­cover, etc.

Within an indi­vid­ual report suite, the value is lim­ited, but at the global level, where all the data is, this is extremely valu­able.  It pro­vides me a sin­gle report that tells me how much usage each prod­uct is get­ting.  Inter­est­ing insights are avail­able from watch­ing this trend over time.

This con­cept will hold true regard­less of whether you’ve orga­nized your hier­ar­chy by coun­try, by prod­uct, by site sec­tion, or some­thing else.  Some of your data is only impor­tant when you look from the top down.

2.  Some Of Your Data Is Only Impor­tant At The Bot­tom Level

We keep track of the usage of bid rules used for ad spend opti­miza­tion, but Search­Cen­ter is the only prod­uct that uses them.  An active cam­paign in Test&Target is its own event and isn’t repeated any­where else through­out the suite.  We obvi­ously want to keep track of these fea­tures, how peo­ple use them, and how effec­tive they are.

We keep track of these kinds of things at the bot­tom level of the hier­ar­chy, but we don’t need to expend the effort to mea­sure them at the top level.  There is no added value in look­ing at this data at the top level, there­fore, there is no need to track it at the top level. In fact there is no need to even turn these vari­ables on at the top level.

Now here’s the neat trick.  Since we don’t roll these val­ues up to the global level, it means that the lower lev­els can re-use the same vari­ables to mean dif­fer­ent things with­out cor­rupt­ing any of your data.

3. Some Of Your Data Is Just Plain Important

This fol­lows log­i­cally from points 1 and 2, but I thought I’d call it out just to be explicit.  Some of your data makes sense and pro­vides value at the top, at the bot­tom, and every­where in between.

Take­aways

When you deter­mine that you need to mea­sure a par­tic­u­lar data point, you must decide where it has value, and at which level you need to keep track of it.

If a data point falls into cat­e­gory 1 (pro­vides value at upper lev­els only), then you must ensure that every report suite under­neath imple­ments that data point con­sis­tently.  This means they must pass the same val­ues (or kinds of val­ues) as every other report suite, and they must remain con­stant over time.

If a data point falls into cat­e­gory 2 (pro­vides value at lower lev­els only) then record it in a way that is con­sis­tent within that report suite, and do not even enable that vari­able at the upper lev­els.  This reduces risk of latency and also ensures that your users do not waste time try­ing to derive value from reports that have none.

Inside the Omni­ture Suite

As an (extremely sim­plis­tic) exam­ple, the dia­gram below shows a lay­out of our vari­ables inside a report suite.  If it’s listed on a report suite, it’s being recorded there.  Orange text is unique to a given report suite and not recorded at a global level.  Faded text are the ones you would pay less atten­tion to on a given level.

Cat­e­gory 1 — Inside the Omni­ture Suite, we have ded­i­cated about half of our vari­ables (props, evars, and events) that must be used con­sis­tently across all prod­ucts.  There are global stan­dards for imple­ment­ing these vari­ables so that the val­ues mean the same thing and that they look the same when they come in.  Prod­uct Name is an example.

Not all 35 data points apply to every prod­uct, but they do apply to more than one.  If a par­tic­u­lar data point does not apply to a prod­uct, we sim­ply leave it alone.  Report Suite ID is one exam­ple.  We obvi­ously want to record that for Site­Cat­a­lyst, Gen­e­sis, Dis­cover, etc., but it just doesn’t apply to Test&Target or Insight. File For­mat is another exam­ple.  We want to know what for­mats are most pop­u­lar when peo­ple down­load and sched­ule reports, but you can’t do that in Test&Target.  So Test&Target just doesn’t set that variable.

Cat­e­gory 2 — The vari­ables that are not used in cat­e­gory 1 get used in cat­e­gory 2.  These are cus­tomized to the needs on an indi­vid­ual prod­uct and are not enabled at the upper level.  Search­Cen­ter bid rules, Dis­cover work­space seg­ments, and Test&Target active cam­paigns are good exam­ples.  Again, note that within this cat­e­gory, I can reuse the same vari­able to mean dif­fer­ent things since they don’t roll up to the global level.

Cat­e­gory 3 — You can actu­ally treat these as a sub­set of cat­e­gory 1 because the same rules apply.  They must be imple­mented con­sis­tently through space and time for all prod­ucts.  Login Com­pany is an exam­ple that pro­vides value at the indi­vid­ual level and at the aggre­gate level.

It was Ben­jamin Franklin that said “An ounce of pre­ven­tion is worth a pound of cure.”  A week or two ago I men­tioned the measure-once-cut-twice phi­los­o­phy that could be restated by a web ana­lyst to say that “an ounce of plan­ning is worth a pound of devel­op­ment.”  Or maybe it’s worth a pound of headache.  Maybe it’s worth more.

  • Jim Humphrys

    Nice post, Ben. This is an area where I’ve strug­gled to main­tain con­trol and your visu­al­iza­tion will help.

  • http://blogs.omniture.com/author/brobison Ben Robi­son

    Yeah, this is one of those things are that really hard to keep track of. I think part of the rea­son is that it’s actu­ally fairly straight­for­ward to say and to visu­al­ize. There’s no prob­lem see­ing the big pic­ture, but the chal­lenge is in fig­ur­ing out how to keep track of dozens (hun­dreds) of indi­vid­ual report suites. I’ve got a spread­sheet to keep track of what we’re track­ing where, that seems to work pretty well as long as I remem­ber to keep it updated.