Useful analytics tools for your institution’s new media report

Photo by squacco on Flickr.com.

To compose our quarterly new media report I rely heavily on online (free) analytics tools. Their numbers and some proficiency make nice graphs about ups and downs of our online presence. As much for you as for me, here’s a list of the analytics tools I use most often. Maybe they can help you in your reporting.

Do you use other tools that you find particularly useful? Please add them.

Also, remember that bare numbers hardly say anything and should only be used to impress management. Much more important are trends and comparisons. See point 10 and 11.

1. Google Analytics
   A tool I use almost daily, for all our websites. Some of the stats, such as referring sites, keywords and popular content, are directly useful. Most of GA’s strength, however, is in its advanced segments, custom reports and the perpetually beta intelligence reports. Combinations of advanced segments can give an insight in things as complex as engagement, etc.
2. Google Advanced Search
   Google’s search options are getting richer by the day. I especially use the option to limit results to a certain date range. For instance, to see how often a press release was republished online. Usually, I pick the publish date + 6 days and search for the title to do so. Remember that although Google’s great at the first 10 results, the total number of results is usually far off. Click to the last result page (or try to) and you will get a more accurate number.
3. Twitter counter
   This tool keeps track of your (anyone’s) followers, following and tweets. I use it so see the impact of certain events, such as #askacurator or the opening of an exposition, on our follower count. (See also point 9.)
4. Tweet reach
   This little tool gives the total reach of a link you tweet and that gets retweeted a couple of times. The number of “impressions” is the number of times your link showed up in a timeline. Although the number (easily reaching incredible heights) says little in my opinion, it’s a good way to compare the impact of individual tweets. Read the rest of this entry »

Growth of mobile visitors and the phones they use on innl.nl

Photo by JD Hancock on Flickr.com

Today I began working on the quarterly report of my museum’s new media activities for Q2. People who follow this blog will know I usually find something useful in the huge pile of data we gather and process. This time, a somewhat higher percentage of mobile visitors to our website motivated me to take a closer look at their stats.

The first graph shows the percentage of mobile visitors to our website. Although there’s little difference on a per-month basis, and even a small decline in the early months of this year, the trend (orange line) shows a continuous growth.

Graph 1: Percentage of mobile visitors to innl.nl

Read the rest of this entry »

Using the Netherlands as a museum – launch of “x was hier”

The xwashier marker at Schokland.

Last week we silently launched our new project xwashier, or “x was here” in English. In many ways, it’s the pinnacle of our view on museums, media and technology. And, unlike most of our projects, xwashier is also available in English. Partly.

Xwashier gives physical and digital access to locations around the world that are relevant to Dutch history. It does so with physical markers at the actual locations where history happened, with an iPhone app and a website. For each location we work together with local partners, connect with local activities and team up with education to get a wide audience to enjoy the tangible history available in your neighbourhood.

The full website www.xwashier.nl now gives access to 45 locations. The English one, www.xwashere.nl for now only to Manhattan, but it gives an OK impression of the project. Each location is presented with a movie, presented by Hans Goedkoop. Also, on the Dutch website every location has a unique cartoon, specifically drawn for the occasion (the Manhattan one is embedded below). Of course, the website is connected to the INNL network of historical communities and collections. Read the rest of this entry »

What to do if ‘they’ are not online? – 7 actions to promote new media in your museum

Photo by Ally Oop on Flickr.com

“My organisation does not see the importance of social media.” Does this line sound familiar to you? Or, “I’m the only one doing new media, the curators simply don’t care.”

I often hear this line. It was one of the leading themes of questions people posed between sessions at MuseumNext. I believe it’s the responsibility of the new media department to get the rest of the organisation to become active on social media. If ‘they’ are not online, ‘you’ should do something about it.

In this post I’ll address some simple things you can do to make your curators, marketing team, mother and small pets go online. Please add your secret recipes to the comment section.

1. Make social media useful to ‘them’. Figure out, in open conversation over coffee etc., what your colleagues are looking for personally. An old friend from primary school (Facebook), the e-mail address of an old colleague (LinkedIn), a cheap car (eBay). Surprise them with an email with a link. “I googled around and found this for you.” This will introduce them to the power of new media.
2. Subscribe to blogs related to expositions and projects your institution is working on, and share links you find online with the people working on the projects. Doesn’t have to be tech-related. Merely the fact the internet can provide stuff ‘they’ didn’t know about increases trustworthiness of the medium. Read the rest of this entry »

How to measure engagement and participation? An experiment with Google Analytics

Photo by filmingilman on Flickr.com

Every now and then someone asks me how our new media activities influence people’s engagement and participation with our museum. In a quarterly internal report we try to quantify these intangible concepts for the sake of decision-making and project design. For instance, it helps us talk about ROI of different media efforts. In this post (and probably some future ones) I’d like to share some of the experiments we did in measuring engagement, participation and other tricky statistics. They’re by no means perfect, and with your comments I hope to further develop tools to measure online success.

A model to determine different levels of interaction

Not every hit to your website or online collection is similar. Some visits have more interaction, and others less. To make a distinction between different levels of interaction I use a simple model I was first introduced to by Marco Derksen (see below).

At the far left are all visits to your website. ‘Reach’ I define as true visits (not the ones that bounce within a couple of seconds). Good content gets people engaged, and an invitation has them participate. Finally, when participation is acknowledged, some visitors will become enthusiasts about your website or institution and spread the word.

Although you might use different terminology, you probably recognize the rationale behind this model. Every step to the right means more interaction as well as a smaller number of people who actually reach that phase. For a handful of enthusiasts you might need to welcome thousands of visitors.

Read the rest of this entry »