Since the late 1990’s, Unique Vis­i­tors has often been viewed as one of the most strate­gic web met­rics. Count­less com­pa­nies and site oper­a­tors have insisted on know­ing how many unique vis­i­tors came to their site on any given day. Most still do today. In gen­eral, they are moti­vated by the belief that Unique Vis­i­tors rep­re­sents how many “peo­ple” they are reach­ing. Taken a step fur­ther, they believe this allows them to mea­sure how many unique “prospects” or “cus­tomers” they may have.

By con­trast, Vis­its has largely been the neglected stepchild of web met­rics. Most folks know it’s there, but many pre­fer to ignore it in favor of the more pop­u­lar Unique Vis­i­tor met­ric. Gen­er­ally speak­ing, a visit starts when some­one reaches your web­site, and is con­sid­ered com­plete after 30 min­utes of inac­tiv­ity. It is also com­monly referred to as a “session”.

Now for sake of argu­ment, let’s say you can only report one of these met­rics to your exec­u­tives — which is it going to be? Unique Vis­i­tors? or Vis­its? When work­ing with clients, I’m often asked this ques­tion, par­tic­u­larly in the Media and Retail ver­ti­cals. And my answer?

Vis­its…always. Sure, call me crazy — but my logic is actu­ally quite simple.


Here are my top rea­sons for using visits:

1) Vis­its are more accu­rate than Unique Vis­i­tors.
2) Every Visit rep­re­sents an oppor­tu­nity to per­suade or con­vert a vis­i­tor to a cus­tomer.
3) Mea­sur­ing vis­its is based on fairly estab­lished indus­try standards

Now, here are the top rea­sons I would not use Unique Visitors:

1) Unique Vis­i­tors are less accu­rate than Vis­its — Most ana­lyt­ics pro­grams, in the absence of cookie set­ting, fall back on IP address and user agent. This intro­duces sig­nif­i­cant vari­abil­ity in your Unique Vis­i­tor counts and can skew your true site per­for­mance and reach.

2) Unique Vis­i­tors mask your true con­ver­sion oppor­tu­ni­ties — Unique Vis­i­tors are a super­set of Vis­its and may rep­re­sent mul­ti­ple oppor­tu­ni­ties to con­vert a cus­tomer. As such, using Unique Vis­i­tors as the denom­i­na­tor in most per­for­mance cal­cu­la­tions is actu­ally over­stat­ing the effec­tive­ness of your site. For exam­ple, if I visit a retail site 4 times in one week, and pur­chase twice — what is my con­ver­sion rate? If you use weekly unique vis­i­tors, my con­ver­sion rate is 200%. If you use vis­its, my con­ver­sion rate is 50%. Which is a bet­ter rep­re­sen­ta­tion of site effec­tive­ness? Clearly the 50% is much more valu­able in under­stand where your site may or may not be per­form­ing opti­mally. With the 50% con­ver­sion met­ric, I have the oppor­tu­nity to ana­lyze which vis­its did not convert…what hap­pened? Is it a nav­i­ga­tional issue? A cross-sell prob­lem? Or per­haps a remar­ket­ing oppor­tu­nity? If you used Unique Vis­i­tors, you’d never get this visibility.

3) Unique Vis­i­tors are sub­jec­tive — At the end of the day, what is a unique vis­i­tor? Is it some­one who comes daily, weekly, or monthly? How do you decide on a time frame for unique­ness, and why is this time frame bet­ter than any other? Tying into my ear­lier point about mask­ing your true con­ver­sion oppor­tu­ni­ties, the longer your unique vis­i­tor time­frame, the more you effec­tively over­state success.

4) Unique Vis­i­tors aren’t really vis­i­tors — Let’s be hon­est for a moment. Unique Vis­i­tors can rep­re­sent sev­eral things. Opti­mally, a Unique Vis­i­tors rep­re­sents an indi­vid­ual that comes to your web­site. If you have a strong reg­is­tra­tion process, like say an Apple iTunes, you could actu­ally achieve this high level of accu­racy. How­ever, few sites — even in the media space — have such a lux­ury. Rather, most sites rely on cook­ies to mea­sure unique vis­i­tors. Well, we’ve all heard about the issues with cook­ies replace­ments and dele­tions, and some cook­ies are cer­tainly more resilient than oth­ers (did you know there are at least 5 dif­fer­ent cookie types you can use to track visitors?)

Let’s assume 5% of your vis­i­tors delete cookies…that would imply a 5% level of inac­cu­racy around uniques right? Wrong. The fall­back method for unique vis­i­tor deter­mi­na­tion is most com­monly IP and user agent string — a *much* less reli­able approach than cook­ies. This was actu­ally a key rea­son log file solu­tions fell out of favor — because most relied on IP and user agent and hence were highly inac­cu­rate. Because of the inac­cu­racy of user and IP agent, your 5% of cookie reject­ing vis­i­tors can actu­ally skew your traf­fic num­bers by many times over. So you may find that your 5% is actu­ally 15% of your unique vis­i­tors. And because it’s nearly impos­si­ble to rec­on­cile this num­ber (out­side of tri­an­gu­lat­ing with reg­is­tered user counts), you have lit­tle hope in rely­ing on unique vis­i­tors as a true mea­sure of “visitors”.

Fur­ther­more, assum­ing you can set a per­sis­tent cookie, you’re only mea­sur­ing a com­puter — not a per­son. Mul­ti­ple peo­ple use sin­gle com­put­ers. Sin­gle peo­ple use mul­ti­ple com­put­ers. So what is your true unique vis­i­tor count?

To summarize…embrace Vis­its, steer clear of Unique Vis­i­tors
Amidst all this uncer­tainty around unique vis­i­tors, the fact is that I rarely use this met­ric in my web analy­sis and opti­miza­tion efforts. In fact, beware the ven­dor that says they can pro­vide a “more accu­rate” unique vis­i­tor count than your cur­rent ven­dor — until they can solve for the above issues, it’s use­less. Now, there are sit­u­a­tions where I do use unique vis­i­tor counts — and I’ll talk about those in a future blog entry. In the mean­time, my rec­om­men­da­tion is always to use Vis­its — no mat­ter how neglected it may be in your orga­ni­za­tion! And as always, if you’d like assis­tance under­stand­ing how to lever­age web ana­lyt­ics to drive ROI, please do not hes­i­tate to con­tact the Omni­ture Best Prac­tices Group.

Tagged with →  
  • http://rona.ca Fred­eric Gilbert

    Hi Matt,
    Sorry for being late at com­ment­ing about this sub­ject but…

    I totally agree with your argu­ments about the value of a visit met­ric over that of a unique vis­i­tor, spe­cially today with the avent of Web 2.0. I have used vis­its as a valu­able met­ric for the last 2 years in order to asses our online results.

    Because of that, I am always con­fronted with peo­ple around me that are bended by the old rules inher­ited of mass media mar­ket­ing as impres­sions, hits and pageviews,…

    Thanks for pro­vid­ing me with the cred­i­bil­ity of your analy­sis.
    Ques­tion: are they any chages in your views lately?

    Bye.

  • http://blogs.omniture.com/author/mbelkin mbelkin

    I feel your pain. It’s been a long, emotional-charged debate around the cred­i­bil­ity of uniques and I’m glad to hear that you’re fight­ing the good fight. While there are no sil­ver bul­lets in win­ning this debate, I can say that I’m most suc­cess­ful when I chal­lenge peo­ple to take action on unique vis­i­tors vs. vis­its. Once they start ana­lyz­ing the data in the con­text of vis­its, they quickly real­ize how much more action­able and depend­able this met­ric actu­ally is.

  • http://davita.com James

    If unique vis­i­tors are a sub­set of vis­its, how would it be pos­si­ble to have more unique vis­i­tors than vis­its for a given month?

  • http://travel.internetndia.com Jes­sica

    Hi Matt,

    Being an ama­teur in ana­lyz­ing an ana­lyt­ics report, I would like to thank you for shar­ing such an infor­ma­tive post with us.

    Cheers.

  • http://www.nipponautomotive.co.uk Gary

    Hey Matt,

    Thanks for the inter­est­ing read. I used to count uniques, but of course i also realised i need to ulti­mately aim for higher ‘visits’.

  • http://www.carbonretirement.com/ dan

    I entirely agree. Vis­its have always intu­itively struck me as the best met­ric for traffic.

  • http://www.webanablog.com Andy Bat­ten

    I’m late to the party here, but just want to reit­er­ate what every­body else is say­ing. Great post! I found your exam­ples to be quite effec­tive in get­ting your point across. Thanks for the post!

  • http://www.goldman.pt João Real

    It´s a very good post