http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/x-greater-than-y.png

Reverse the sense or swap the operands of one of the greater-than operators.

Kapish?

Medir el engagement sin embargo es difícil porque a diferencia de click o la página vista, que suceden en nuestro site, esto otro ocurre en el usuario, en sus sentimientos y actitudes.
[...]

In step one it does not need to be a single behaviour. It can also be a composite of equally or differentially weighted behaviours.

Having defined when engagement and when disengagement begins, it is possible to take action, say by trying to re-engage disengaging customers.

Err, the formula’s still a bit abstract Theo. Any chance you could get a bit practical? Or just tell me if my paraphrase captures the essential.

1) You set a behaviour as your proxy for engagement.

2) You set a level of performing the behaviour as as average engagement. This refers to degree, of course, not kind.

3) If you perform the behaviour more than said level (step 2), you have a high degree of engagement.

4) If you’re doing less of said behaviour than the average level, you have a low degree of engagement.

Was that it?

“By inserting relative statements such as ‘x is more engaged than y if and only if x does z and y does >z’ into a continuum that is based on website \ competitor \ industry benchmarks…”

It should read ‘y does

Thank you very much for pointing this out!

However this made me think as to how to rephrase the formula when we have identified and defined the benchmark, hence giving the statement a fixed reference point.

Defining the symbols:

z= (number) – this number expresses degree of engagement according to a particular action. Any number greater than this number expresses an above average degree of engagement and suggests the customer is engaged whereas any number lower than this number expresses an above average degree of engagement and suggests the customer is not engaged.

G= does (behaviour) more than z – slot in whatever behaviour you want in the bracket.

H= does (behaviour) less than z – slot in whatever behaviour you want in the bracket.

F = is engaged

J = is not engaged

The formula: If (Gx & Hy) then (Fx & Jy)

In predicate calculus: (Gx & Hy) -> (Fx & Jy)

This formula says: if x does G and y does H than x is F and y is J.

First off, please excuse my delay in getting back to you.

My most refined thoughts about a typology of negative engagement has prior to this discussion been defined by the way I see engagement: the subject (customer or non-customer) and degree of engagement (take a look at the table I ve posted here to see how i feel these two variables interact http://agoraplace.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/defining-customer-engagement/). This table shows 2 kinds of negatively engaged customers:

- negatively engaged customers: These people buy from you but don’t like you . These people who, according to what many marketers believe, and customer defection rates prove, compose the majority of the customers of the majority of organisations, will instantly defect to a competitor as soon as a better product\service, cheaper price, promotion is available. These customers may appear positively engaged from a visits metrics (recency, depth, duration etc) as well as from the fact that they do purchase IF we misunderstand their degree of engagement for kind of engagement. I think this is exactly what Gab is talking about in relation to his relationship with Google.

- negatively engaged non-customers: These people don’t buy from you and don’t like.
This is a category of negatively engaged subject I think no company will ever eliminate. In so far a company does not pursue a ‘please all’ mass marketing approach (if that is at all possible nowadays in mature markets and in our heterogenous society) there are bound to be parts of society who will react negatively to these products/services on the exact same grounds the target customers will love those selfsame products/services. The Tahoe is precisely such an example. If you are out to please those people who want a powerful, plate-armoured, gas-guzzling tank-of-a-car, a very real need irrespective of whether these people want to drive it in the city or in the most adverse off-road conditions (I believe psychological and utilitarian needs are equally real – which is not to speak of justification) then you are definitely going to upset those people that are conscious of the mark their footsteps leave on this planet. Similar things happen in fashion, the fast food industry, entertainment etc

I’m very happy you guys think there is something of value in this post.

“By inserting relative statements such as ‘x is more engaged than y if and only if x does z and y does >z’ into a continuum that is based on website \ competitor \ industry benchmarks, it is possible to provide a reference point which although relative in itself (historical performance) is sufficiently stable and pertinent to business performance, to provide with useful insights into visitor behaviour and business\campaign success.”

Besides that, I learned a boatload from this post. Interesting to see that largely what at stake here is degree and not kind of engagement.

On a related note, Scoble had something on this with a great discussion in the comments, imho. Lots of his readers proposed interesting solutions to measuring engagement. The discussion here too has been sweet, so let me respond…

@ Ned, from my own personal experience being hostile-ly engaged with Google, especially after having previously had positive engagement, I have to contradict this:

“And then there is the hostile engagement. It is into this category I would put the overtly negative reviews and the social network backlash from the likes of subvert ads etc.. It is my contention that in many cases, folks involved in hostile engagement are really not your customers. They are either professional critics or just get a kick lambasting brands or are front-ends to lobbyists or the like (going”

First, you’re not getting the persona right, imho, or at least not for all the hostile engagees. I’m not a professional critic or lobbyist, but I am passionate about the companies I deal with. For example, I wrote recently about 4 cases of reputation management I was involved in or had some relation to: http://seoroi.com/case-studies/reputation-management-adviso-dreamhost-1and1-network-solutions/

Second, I rank for ‘Google sucks.’ And I’ve bought ads from Google, and will likely continue to, because that’s where the volume of search is. I was also very happy to imitate my friends and have Google as my homepage back in the day (before I learned SEO to any serious extent). To an extent I’m contradicting myself here, because I know that some people who need SEO will google that, so it’s in my own interests to rank for that (so perhaps your personas weren’t so off after all). On the other hand, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms there of things Google does that rankle with me.