But I guess you’re right. I shouldnt have said it was “easy”, I guess. I just meant to say that it wasn’t “rocket science” - whatever rocket science is hehe.

I think we argued this in the past, and this is just semantics I suppose, but I just don’t think that the skills you outline (web analytics, shooting a basketball with the right form) are “easy” skills to acquire.

Not being much of a basketball player myself (but a rabid fan to be sure) I can only comment on web analytics. But I think if you look at the kinds of requests for information that are published in the Yahoo! group the more logical conclusion is that web analytics skills are actually pretty hard to acquire. Otherwise, why would there be so many “newbie” questions all the time (which are inspiring a series of RTFM responses from old-timers)?

Perhaps we’ve moved on from debating the definition and use of the term “easy” to debating the definition and use of the term “acquire” …

Either way, the whole debate was more or less over until the guy from Omniture decided to (poorly) defend his boss … c’est la vie!

Thanks for setting the record straight!

My name is Patrick. I’ve posted on your blog before. I love playing basketball and use it as an analogy between basketball and Web Analytics (or SEO or…) every other day. And I think in an earlier comment (underneath another post) I said something similar as this anonymous poster:

That there are skills where you have a high barrier to entry, because simply acquiring that skill is tough (getting a degree, perhaps even a PhD in mathematics) and there are skills that are rather easy to acquire: such as web analytics or shooting a basketball (with the right form).

But just because you know how to shoot a basketball properly (even with perfect form), doesn’t mean you can make 90% of your midrange jump shots in practice. And it sure doesn’t mean you can go to the NBA and hit 3-pointers regularly in a game situation against some of the best defenders in the world.

Running with the right form is also a skill that isn’t very hard to acquire, but that doesn’t mean everybody who knows how to run (with the right technique) can run the 100m dash with the top sprinters in the world. So just because the skill itself isn’t overly difficult to *acquire* doesnt mean it is very easy to become really good at it.

Anyway, sorry for repeating what I’ve said before, I really just felt like saying that this wasn’t the other Patrick who’s posting around WA blogs and the WA forum using basketball as an analogy a lot, too ;-).

How are these statements conceptual?

Matt says verbatim “… Omniture Consulting represents one of the largest strategic consultancies for analytics in the world - and if anything, you’d think I would want to say analytics is hard so we could likewise try to benefit from this perceived complexity. But I don’t. Because it’s not.”

Matt is saying unequivocally that he believes that web analytics is not hard and not even complex! By proxy he appears to be saying that anyone who struggles to be successful with web analytics must be doing something wrong.

Really?

Your comment that “as part of a consulting organization Matt has no incentive to frame Web Analytics as easy” is naive. Every Omniture’s employees success is derived from the success of your software sales organization and ultimately your stock price. If Belkin walked around telling customers that “web analytics is hard” how long do you think it would be before Chris Harrington ran him out of Orme?

I’m guessing about 30 seconds … :)

All of the for-fee vendors have every incentive to proclaim “web analytics is easy” because it moves the buying process along. The problem is that most of your customers don’t have an “easy” experience implementing/using/paying for/communicating the value of/etc. your solutions and thusly Matt’s statements create a conundrum for the customer — if Omniture tells me this is supposed to be easy then why am I struggling?

Why indeed?

The truth is obvious to anyone who has actually done this work for a living, which is all the more interesting that you wrote this comment. Especially since I suspect you either work in consulting or PR at Omniture, didn’t it occur to you based on the comments above that arguing this point is getting you nowhere? It’s as if you believe that by digging the hole deeper and deeper you’re somehow going to emerge on the other side — when in fact all you’re doing is digging a deeper hole, perhaps one you cannot even get out of!

My incentive to tell everyone who will listen that “web analytics is hard” is simple: the statement is true. Want to know why I think so? Read this:

http://blog.webanalyticsdemystified.com/weblog/2008/02/web-analytics-is-hard.html

Your basketball analogy is very good and I hope you don’t mind if I use that in my presentations on the subject this Fall. Basketball looks easy … until you actually put the ball on the court and start dribbling. When you do that, your legs get in the way, someone is trying to stop you, and the hoop is a lot farther away than it looks on TV …

In terms of my trying to make Matt look bad and the implication that “one of the industries best” overlooked such a simple consideration is “pretty ignorant on my part” … I guess I would argue that A) based on the email I got from many of Omniture’s biggest customers responding to this post Matt is doing a fine job making himself look bad, B) I suspect I use a slightly different measure of “industries best” than you do, C) nowhere in his posts on the subject did I see evidence of your “simple consideration” and I hate to assume, and D) maybe I am ignorant, but at least I’m willing to sign my name to my work. Are you?

If you’d like to engage in a real debate on the subject please write me directly from your work account. Otherwise thank you for your comments and I wish you all the best.

Eric, i think your article is a little off base and the intent was just to make Matt look bad and not address any real issues.

Statements can be taken in many different ways, and this seems to me to be a case where you are mixing the conceptual with practical. Matt seems to be saying that conceptually web analytics is easy, which I think is true. Just like if someone were to say basketball is an easy game all you do it but the ball in the hoop. Obviously the practice of making hoops is really hard, especially when you add in all the possible factors that could stop you. Obviously the practice of succeeding in web analytics involves the consideration of a multitude of factors. To imply that one of the industries best overlooked such a simple consideration of practical factors is pretty ignorant on your part.

As as part of a consulting organization Matt has no incentive to frame Web Analytics as easy, while you do have incentive to frame it as hard. :)

As Eric mentions, if you consider “Web Analytics” to be simply thumbing through the collected data and identifying problems. No, not difficult. If “Web Analytics” includes that plus simply specifying what information needs to be collected to answer specific business questions? Still not terribly bad. However, what about both of the above PLUS following up with your development teams to make sure your tagging recommendations are actually implemented properly? Or, better yet, all of that PLUS getting enough actual buyin and commitment from upper management to USE the results of this analysis to drive change in the company’s site and business if the analysis dictates it to be necessary?

I could continue, but there’s no need. I’m hoping it’s clear from my examples that there is little use in information without action, ideas without implementation, or desire without commitment. Unless the total package exists, all the unbelievably valuable analytics tools and packages won’t do any of our companies any good.

my 2 cents.