Categories
Web 2.0

Building the 80s – a multichannel longitudinal exhibition web presence

You may have noticed that the posts on Fresh & New(er) have been a little scarce. That’s been because the team has been very busy.

The 80s are back

We’ve first been building, then running, a WordPress-based magazine-styled website as the final component in the overall exhibition web presence for the Powerhouse’s latest exhibition, The 80s are back.

Introducing a new ‘integrated’ model, this exhibition had a web presence even before it was finalised. We started a curator’s blog in November 2008 whilst the exhibition was in the very early stages of development. Then, as the themes for the exhibit started to coalesce we began relevant groups on Flickr and Facebook, both in February 2009. These were created to begin conversations with the community in order to explore potential themes and content before they were solidified into the exhibition itself.

In December 2009 the exhibition opened.

The pre-exhibition presence
The curatorial blog worked well in the early stages of the exhibition process especially – prior to exhibition opening the 24 posts generated 213 comments and around 15,000 views. These comments and conversations helped the curatorial team refine the content of the exhibition early on.

The Flickr and Facebook groups were less obviously successful in the early stage. Although they both grew in size the quality of conversation was far lower than on the blog. Perhaps because, as groups, they were largely undirected – and the community had no clear idea of ‘what they were supposed to do’ in them. (Interestingly the activity on the Facebook group has changed as the exhibition has launched – now that there is a focal point and more clear purpose).

During this time, too, the curatorial team were present in a number of online communities – subcultural community forum websites especially – relevant to the major themes of the exhibition. Tangible outcomes here are in the diversity of loan objects and the ‘authenticity’ of selections within the subcultures section of the exhibition itself.

The integrated post-launch presence
As the exhibition moved closer to launch a standard static exhibition page went up on the Museum’s main website in October 2009, then, just before opening in December 2009, we launched the fully blown magazine website and accompanying multi-channel social media presence.

On the magazine site, over the twelve months of the exhibition the web team is acting as ‘magazine editors’ whilst the curators, and a growing bunch of community contributors are adding content and supporting conversations. There are also a range of activities taking place elsewhere online and spread over other websites – depending upon where it is most relevant.

This is a commitment we haven’t previously done and for us this is a new way of working – a “post-social media exhibition web presence” so to speak. And with this new way of working has come plenty of challenges across the organisation.

The main website
The main exhibition website operates as both a promotional site and a magazine portal in the 80s memories section. There’s also space where the ‘making of the exhibition’ has been documented and where related public events are documented as they happen and are then archived. There’s behind the scenes footage, stop motions, and more.

We’ve even managed to get almost all of the recorded AV content that you get in the gallery up onto the website – with transcripts – and with the ‘extended versions’ still to come.

Over in the 80s memories & essays section we have a growing list of Q&A interviews with various people of the 80s as well as movie, music and video game reviews. We’re also bringing together community and curator generated ‘exhibition essays‘ around the key themes with new series being published over the year – a kind of evolving online publication.

We decided to base the site around a (low cost) commercial WordPress theme to build the site in order to keep it flexible and allow for growth with a variety of widgets. We’ve used the concept of WordPress ‘pages’ for static content, and used ‘posts’ for the dynamic areas combined with a mix of hierarchical categories for site navigation. This hasn’t been without its own issues but the large user WordPress user community has been invaluable in resolving the inevitable glitches. (Caveat – if we had been building a more static exhibition site we wouldn’t have necessarily gone down the WordPress route.)

Twitter
We chose Twitter as a useful way to promote new content published in the magazine site, as well as highlight quirky relevant content on other websites – 80s memorabilia on YouTube, quirky posts by other bloggers, trivia – and also to engage in short low-impact conversations around content and exhibition feedback. In order to better tweet links to music videos we’ve been experimenting with Blip.fm.

YouTube
With an exhibition like this there’s an obvious wealth of video content. We made a decision to keep the longer form interviews on our own site for the time being, but quick single-take handheld video voxpops we are putting up on YouTube. These are complemented by vox pops recorded in the gallery through an automated ‘visitor feedback kiosk’ based on the Brooklyn Museum’s example. As Renae explains later, this hasn’t quite worked as expected and we’ve had to use the ‘featured videos’ on the YouTube page as a way of making the live content a little harder to reach . . .

Facebook
We’ve kept the Facebook exhibition group going and we’re keeping active publishing links to new content through it. Not surprisingly, the interactions on Facebook tend to be more low-level than on the main site, but we’re expecting that this will change as the exhibition’s public program roster rolls out over the year.

Why do this?
When we were proposing this approach we argued that the extended resourcing required to build and maintain an magazine-style website was justified because it has multiple aims and outcomes. These included a need to:

– promote the exhibition and public programs attached to it

– provide extensive pre- and post-visit resources for three different types of visitors: the casual, the specialist/enthusiast, and those from the education sector

– crucially, for what is ostensibly a pop culture & social history exhibition the rich content on the site also serves to deepen and extend visitor engagement with the exhibition content and themes

– scaffold public programs and education visits with background and contextual materials

- and finally, provide long term historical resources for the education sector.

Ideally this sort of exercise would be baked into the exhibition development process but we’re still figuring out how to completely integrate and plan a digital content schedule right from the start – objects, audio visual material, ‘extras’, the lot.

That was the plan with the curatorial blog but as the exhibition deadline drew closer and closer the role of the blog diminished as curators worked on object lists and the exhibition itself. And with an exhibition like The 80s are back which has hundreds of individual objects and hundreds of loaned objects – toys, records, especially – the final list of included items wasn’t finalised until a few weeks before opening.

The pressure of marketing the launch of a summer exhibition, too, meant that the more traditional content for an exhibition website – the basics, the public programme listings – all took over in the final two months as well.

But now, post launch, we have been in a position where curatorial staff are still maintained on the exhibition content and can be utilised to create and augment web content, and, importantly we can continue to grow the content that ‘didn’t quite make it into the exhibition’. Equally, we’re able to better listen and respond to visitors who have been coming to the exhibition and asking questions or taking the content off in tangents.

Matching the audience
Clearly as the exhibition is aimed squarely at Gen Xers, there is an almost perfect match between the kind of social media use we are undertaking and the types of uses Gen Xers in Australia use social media for (compared to other age groups). As we are focussing on asking visitors to contribute and create content, as well as follow and spread trivia, social media is perfect for eliciting and amplifying the memories of Gen X for their formative years in primary and secondary school – whereas for younger or older audiences it may not be so successful.

Similarly, by aggregating the best quality content pulled in from other channels onto the Museum’s site itself, we are aiming to present the kind of authoritative ‘curated’ resource for the education sector that will last into the future.

Keeping it flexible
We’ve got a dedicated online producer, Renae Mason, working on the magazine side. This allows us to go with the flow a little bit more and be responsive to the types of content that resonates best with our visitors. Renae is pulling together content, finding and working with contributors.

Renae is also one of three people tweeting.

F&N: How does the site work with niche communities to match them with public programs?

Renae: Like public programs, the website affords the opportunity to expand on the themes in the exhibition and engage diverse communities around the extra content we produce.

Our general approach is to provide a variety of content on all sorts of topics – films, music, games, toys, fashion, history and trivia – and then specialise around topics that match the public program events or inspire the most interest from our audience. All of this material will remain online, serving as a nice social archive for future reference.

The best example of synergy between the exhibition, public programs and the web presence happened for our Retrogaming Weekend.

The museum was packed with classic arcade games and table tops, game-inspired Dj-ing, presentations & panels by experts in the field and a 48-hour lock down competition for Global Game Jam, an event that seeks to stimulate the local game development industry.

Our online strategy to support this particular audience and event focused on developing original content during the lead up, including reviews of 80s games and machines. This content went out through our social media platforms, particularly Twitter.

On the opening night of the event we gathered video voxpops and responded to tweets in realtime. It was really rewarding to see the network of people all chatting about the event on Twitter. This discussion continues online – we even ended up posting the setlist from the DJ as a result of an online request.

F&N: How have you found content creation, the vox pops, being a ‘roving reporter’?

I realised early on that I’d need to learn more about the 80s than I’d ever thought possible but it’s actually been a lot of fun. There’s so much material to draw upon, and it’s almost possible to find something to please everyone. It’s also been incredibly interesting hearing other people’s stories about what the 80s means to them and the vox pops that we’ve been soliciting have been great for that – personal and short enough to cater for the online attention span.

There’s great value for me in getting to know who our visitors are in person, rather than relying solely on my own assumptions or web analytics. I’ve noticed that most people proudly share their voxpops with their friends online, so they must be enjoying the process too!

F&N: What sort of feedback is coming in?

In general, an overwhelming amount of positive feedback including lots of shout-outs on Facebook, Twitter and personal blogs to let us know that they enjoyed the exhibition.

In other cases, we’ve had constructive criticism that helps us to make minor tweaks and fixes both online and in the physical space. For example, one visitor let us know that our toy Voltron wasn’t entirely transformed, (our curators had neglected to open the tiger’s mouth to reveal Voltron’s face) something that passionate fans would notice.

Other fans are making their own videos of their experience in the exhibition.

We’ve had mixed results with our YouTube kiosk channel but as a result of that we’re putting serious thought into improving the exit experience, which is where our YouTube kiosk is currently located. Although we’d adopted the Brooklyn Museum’s tried and tested Scrappy Doo model, the physical location of the kiosk meant we’ve been inundated with poor responses – mostly people fooling around or not knowing what to do.

Curiously the best on topic ones seem to have come from British tourists, not locals!

More positively, something that really inspires me right now is finding out that teenagers are actually dragging their parents along to the museum, and not the other way around. Brilliant!

F&N: How are you tracking these channels?

There are some great simple online tools available to help make sense it all. I’ve set Google Alerts and subscribe to custom Twitter searches. We monitor all web traffic using Google Analytics as well as using Bit.ly for URL shortening and tracking. Critically, though, it has been about understanding what each of the ways we are engaging with audiences are trying to achieve and then matching the tools as appropriate.

Of course, there is still a lot of manual work.

It’s important to stay logged in to our social media channels and be timely. That necessarily means working slightly outside of the 9-5 day structure.

Another thing I’ve been looking at are Twitter lists – it’s revealing to see what kinds of lists we’ve been included in. One of our followers added us to their ‘fun’ list, so I think we must be doing something right for at least one person out there! Of course, there are also specific tools to monitor your performance on Twitter ( but I don’t place too much emphasis on them as raw numbers. I think it’s much more important to develop your own goals and style and then apply them to the tools.

F&N: How did the 80s social media presence make you think about and react to your own social media identity?

In my personal life I’m pretty flippant about social media. If I don’t blog for a month, or tweet for week, it doesn’t matter. I dip in and out of the stream of conversations when I feel like it or have time to kill and I’m always signing up for new things so that I can understand why other people might find them useful, if not myself.

But doing social media on behalf of your employer is slightly different. For starters, metrics are important, timeliness is essential and everything you communicate has to be relevant. The biggest drama for me was finding my voice, balancing the need to be authentic whilst representing the museum ‘brand’.

Privacy on Facebook was another concern of mine. I got around this by creating a new profile for myself, that I can use exclusively for work. I treat it in much the same way as my personal account, except that I identify myself more clearly as working for the Powerhouse Museum on ‘The 80s Are Back’ exhibition and I join groups that relate to our 80s content that the other ‘me’ probably wouldn’t. Occasionally my two profiles get invited to events together, which is kind of amusing. Should I RSVP twice?!

The 80s exhibition also has more traditional e-marketing channels. Whilst the key demographic are heavy users of social media they have also not abandoned email – and for this reason a combined approach has been used. Kathleen Evesson in the Marketing Department describes how the email list has functioned

F&N: How does the email fan club work? What is it trying to achieve?

Kathleen: People subscribe to the 80s fanclub by signing up on the 80s website (the subscription form is prominent on the homepage) or by opting in when they purchase a ticket to an 80s-related event. The aim is to encourage visitation to the exhibition (and repeat visitation during the year of the exhibition), to promote special events and to assist in building a community of ‘fans’ of 80s content.

Before the exhibition opened, we promoted the fanclub through our existing email lists, on Facebook, on our website, and in paid advertisements. Pre-launch, the fanclub provided us with a way to build awareness of the exhibition. We got the fanclub involved in the exhibition itself: before the launch, we invited members to come in and help us ‘build’ our entrance wall to the exhibition (made up of over a 1,000 cube puzzles). About 35 fans came in to help, ranging in age from 6 years old to 70. With their initials written on the back of each cube, these fans literally became part of the exhibition itself – a great example of how engaged they were with the exhibition and its content – before they had even seen it!

Making the title wall. (c) Powerhouse Museum.

We also pre-sold tickets to the opening night party to this group of enthusiastic fans, and gave them special offers and giveaways. By the time the exhibition opened on 12 December, we had a database of about 400.

F&N: How is it going post-launch?

We have been steadily growing the database in the first two months of the exhibition, and now have 1,000 members of the (email) fanclub. This slow and steady growth has been encouraging, as the growth of the database has not been at the expense of reader engagement. Often when email databases grow, the open/ click through rates drop proportionally. In this case though, we have stayed consistently around 50% open rates (with emails going out about once a month; every fortnight in December and November).

In terms of content, there are strong links back to the 80s website and coming events. 80s trivia has been the very popular as have events where visitors can get involved (eg building the entrance wall; voting online).

F&N: How does it compare to previous email marketing initiatives?

Maintaining engagement with this audience over a long period of time (a year) is the unique challenge for this campaign. Previous campaigns (for example, we developed a very successful ‘Star Wars priority list’ for 2008’s Star Wars exhibition) were more focussed on pre-sales for exhibitions, and promotion short duration events.

As a result, in the 80s fanclub, we’ve focussed more on including engaging content – pulling out and highlighting info from our 80s website and discussions happening in social media (flickr, twitter and facebook). We also cross-link between our enews, online (website/ social media) and print advertisements, so that our 80s fanclub emails are integrated with our online and above the line campaigns.

The main website: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/the80sareback
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/the80sareback
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/powerhousemuseum80s
Facebook: http://from.ph/80sfacebook

Main site content statistics: to date we’ve put up 100 posts containing 54148 words generating 101 comments of 5727 words in total. On top of that there are 39 static pages.

Categories
Developer tools QR codes

Roll your own URL shorteners for your museum

Last week I got a tweet from Te Ara asking about URL shorteners as their favoured one, tr.im, had stopped accepting URLs.

So I’m happy to announce that we’ve implemented our own URL shortener – from.ph – for internal use only. Luke had been thinking about this for a couple of months and we’ve been lining up all the ducks before making it live.

From.ph is based on a modified version of Yourls, an open source PHP-based URL shortening solution. Implementing it was pretty straight forward and you’ll start seeing shortened URLs of the from.ph sort popping up form time to time if you encounter Powerhouse links out in the world.

In fact the biggest challenge was finding a sensible domain to use. Some of the best options we had were stymied by registrar requirements but I think we’ve found a good one that makes sense to human readers – whilst still being short enough to be useful.

All our collection records are now accessible in the form – http://from.ph/[object number]. For example, the 3830 steam locomotive can now be reached quickly and easily via http://from.ph/85075.

This is especially useful as we rethink the way in which we continue to roll out URLs in the galleries. Not only does the shortened URL make their inclusion on labels a little less intrusive, it also makes for simpler 2D barcodes (QRs etc).

Our upcoming Frock stars exhibition can be tweeted as http://from.ph/frockstars and The 80s are back is simply http://from.ph/80s.

And of course this blog is now easily reached at http://from.ph/sebchan.

Categories
Digitisation Powerhouse Museum websites

It was only ten years ago – bringing back to life content from an old website

Ten years ago, one of the first digital projects I had the privilege of working on in a very junior capacity was for the exhibition 1000 Years of the Olympic Games: Treasures of Ancient Greece. Timed to coincide with the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000, the heavily sponsored digital component included a virtual reconstruction of Ancient Olympia which was available in 3D (with polarising glasses) in the gallery as well as in 2D online alongside a huge amount of supporting material. A little later there was even a CDROM version (remember them?) that was sent out to schools across the country.

One of the early works by Sarah Kenderdine, now at Museum Victoria, the project was amazing for its time and went on to win awards and a BAFTA nomination.

Up until about 2005 the Powerhouse managed to keep the server that the online component was running on alive. It was built on rudimentary ASP, lots of Flash, some Quicktime VRs, and critically required Zoom Image Server to serve the detailed panoramic images in the FlashPix format. Unfortunately as time passed the ability to keep the site running with all of its content intact diminished and in 2007 we had to turn the whole site off. By 2007 we’d migrated other FlashPix (FPX) content over to Zoomify and the Greek site was the only remnant using the technology and it with server upgrades the older version eventually just stopped working.

After it was switched off the historians, digital archaeologists and museum studies people who used the site as a reference or teaching aid started making contact wondering when the site would come back. Even 7 years after launch it still had a dedicated audience.

So last year we dug up one of the last remaining archival copies of the CDROM and ripped it. We were about to release it as a free downloadable ISO image file – except that when we tested it we found even it had started causing problems on Windows Vista. And of course, back in 2000, no one had seriously considered making a Mac-compatible version.

So we gave up and finally just ripped the videos and the educational PDFs from the CDROM version and popped them up on Vimeo with a basic backgrounder page.

It isn’t the most elegant solution and it is more than a little troubling to think that here’s something that cost a lot of money to make – a mere ten years ago – and only a tiny fragment of it remains usable.

Could we have made better technology choices that would have enabled more effective digital preservation?

Looking back I’m not so sure.

The key components of the site that made it so engaging and bleeding edge at the time didn’t have many (if any) alternatives. Although we’re travelling a much more platform agnostic path at the backend nowadays there’s still many early adopter technologies that we’re experimenting that almost certainly won’t work 5 years from now.

Should we be more vanilla and hold back? Or take calculated risks that some content won’t be able to be preserved?

If you’re interested in seeing what the future was like 10 years ago take a look at some of the videos that took a university render farm days to render . . .

Categories
Social media Web metrics

What are your Facebook fans also fans of?

Museums have been pretty good at setting up camp in Facebook. Most have fan pages and groups (and there are many ongoing discussions as to whether groups or pages are ‘better’).

But what matters about all of these activities is whether they are reaching and engaging people who otherwise wouldn’t be. Or are you engaging with the same people in new ways?

Pete Warden’s work has been getting a lot of coverage recently – especially now that he is on the cusp of releasing a huge mountain of Facebook data for academic analysis – and his Fan Page Analytics tool is quite a useful way of quickly seeing how diverse your fans really are. It uses anonymised preference data from 100 million public Facebook profiles – which will skew towards the ‘average Facebook user’ – probably excluding tech-savvy privacy-aware readers of this blog!

Whilst it is early days there’s a lot of promise in tools that look at fan data in these ways.

If you can identify similarities between the fan membership of your own institution and those of others you can start to think of new partnerships and collaborative opportunities.

The Powerhouse Museum has several fan pages so let’s see what the overlap is between the fans of say, the Powerhouse Museum, and one of the festivals that we run – Sydney Design.

Here is the data on the fans of the Powerhouse Museum and the fans of Sydney Design.

We can see that fans of the Powerhouse are more likely to also be fans of other museums but that Sydney Design fans are a more diverse bunch in their fandom – magazines, events, festivals. This reveals opportunities and possibilities.

Obviously fans don’t necessarily reciprocate. Whilst Powerhouse Museum fans are somewhat more likely than most to also be fans of the Australian Museum, fans of the Australian Museum are far more likely to be fans of the Powerhouse!

What can you discover?

Categories
open content User experience Web 2.0 Wikis

Why Flickr Commons? (and why Wikimedia Commons is very different)

The Powerhouse is coming up to the 2nd anniversary of our joining the Commons on Flickr. Back when we joined there was only the Library of Congress and we trusted that we were making the correct decision back then. (I’ll be blogging an interview with Paula Bray around the time of the anniversary.)

A lot has changed at Flickr in the intervening time but I’m still confident that the Powerhouse made the right choice. In fact, the impact that joining the Commons on Flickr has had on the organisation has been unexpectedly significant. We’ve even started to move some photographic collections that were acquired as ‘archives’ into ‘objects’ in their own right. And photography is becoming an important marker of what we do at the Powerhouse. We’re delving into photographic competitions much more too and we’ve changed how we approach visitor photography too.

A couple of days ago Mia Ridge, Lead Web Developer at the Science Museum in London blogged a question – “Why do museums prefer Flickr Commons to Wikimedia Commons?”.

This was responded to by Liam Wyatt of Wikimedia Australia who outlined a case for why Wikimedia Commons might, in fact, be a better fit than Flickr – especially now that the Commons on Flickr is currently not taking new requests to join whilst they process the volume of existing applications.

For the Powerhouse the aim of placing some of our “no known Copyright” photography into the Commons on Flickr was to seed these photographs to a large, broader and interested audience who, in return, could add value to the collection by commenting and tagging the photographs.

Later, we’d find that other value would emerge.

The well documented Flickr API allowed for the construction of a good number of mashups and other applications to be built upon the photographs both by others and by us. We published a book, made easily and relatively quickly using the data.

For us the Flickr Commons is currently different from the Wikimedia Commons for a number of reasons –

1. Context matters a lot.

There is a reason why the Commons on Flickr has focussed almost solely on photographic collections, and that is because Flickr is a site that has been and continues to be designed for people interested in photographic images. As the Library of Congress stated in their initial rationale for joining Flickr, it was to “share photographs from the Library’s collections with people who enjoy images”. And where is the largest community of people with such an interest on the web? Flickr.

2. User experience and community

Because of this known user base Flickr has a well developed user interface and user experience which purposefully creates and helps encourage certain social norms and acceptable behaviours. The requirements of verified user accounts and personal information all work to reduce the negative effects of anonymity – critical in building a positive sense of community, even if they exclude some users as a result.

3. Managing that community

Flickr has a well developed set of community management tools and community managers who are employed specifically to ensure the community ‘plays nice’ and there is a hierarchy of escalation should it become necessary. The cost of US$25 per year is incredibly cheap for this.

4. A sense of content control

Uploaded images as well as any user generated content such as tags or comments can be removed at any time.

5. Statistics

Flickr has good enough tracking and measurement tools which are useful for checking where users are coming from, what they are looking at, and what they do. Ideally the statistics that we could draw from Flickr would be more useful and able to be downloaded in raw form and segmented – but even in the rudimentary state it is possible to see ascertain why there are sudden spikes of traffic to particular images, or when an image gets lots of comments.

The Wikimedia Commons is, currently, a pool of images which can be used for many purposes. However without visibly active community around the images they exist without a clear ‘intended purpose’. In fact they only encourage viewing or takeaway (download). For some people this is liberating – a resource without obvious legal or social constraints. But much in the same way a museum is neither a library or a “shed full of stuff”, the ability to have known manageable social constraints is in fact quite valuable.

I am pleased that Liam mentions the Wikipedia Usability Iniative and once this is completed the Powerhouse and others will no doubt explore the opportunities.

Even without direct participation in the Wikimedia Commons the Powerhouse has been interested to see that many of the images have been copied into the Wikimedia Commons. And then used to illustrate various articles in Wikipedia. This has been a fortuitous outcome but it was never a primary aim of the Commons on Flickr project – nor would it be one today. Other Commons institutions have not been as positive about this migration of content to Wikimedia.

For us, the overall community effect of Flickr and the deep engagement by a small but passionate group of Flickr users, has been the most positive result for us.

Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia are, in themselves, exciting projects, their structure, design and combative social norms do not currently make them the friendly or the protected space that museums tend to be comfortable operating in.

Whilst Liam (especially! 1 & 2) and many others are working hard to make Wikipedia and Wikimedia a better place for museums and their content, these are very difficult structural issues to resolve.

It is worth remembering that when the Commons on Flickr started it was the brainchild and passion of George Oates. She was able to ‘make it happen’. Now Liam Wyatt might be in a similar position – if Wikimedia were ‘less democratic’ (some might say dysfunctionally democratic). Except the structure of Wikipedia/Wikimedia makes that nigh impossible.

Nevertheless I’m excited about the strategic workshop in Denver looking at how museums might work with Wikimedia that will surface many of these issues. They are complex and many.

Categories
User behaviour Web metrics

Segmenting your ‘brand traffic’ in your web metrics

Here’s another web analytics 101 post for you.

One of the important segments for your web analytics are those visitors who come to your website intentionally because it is your website – not just because you have content for Texan monarchists on it.

If you are a museum then this segment is the one that is most influenced by your traditional marketing strategies as well as by what exhibitions and events you have on. In terms of Brownbill and Peacock (2007) these are your ‘visitors’ and ‘transactors’.

So how can you set up a filter to segment this group out in your analytics?

First, in setting up any segment you need to think about how this group might come to your site.

In this case there are five probable ways – directly to your URL, via a bookmark, via an online advertisement, via a third party link, or via a search containing your brand name as a keyword.

Next, you need to look at each of these and figure out how to measure them with the tools you have available.

Direct traffic – easy – they will already be a default segment.

Bookmark traffic – these will be captured as direct traffic and you won’t be able to separate them out as a percentage but that’s probably OK. If you are really hardcore then you might want to segment by landing page here so that those who have bookmarked your funny video of ‘cats in the museum’ get excluded (they’re there for the content, not the brand most probably).

Online advertising – easy. Use your campaign identifiers, track them, and pour in that traffic too.

Third party links – now things are getting harder because in our case the vast majority of third party link traffic (like all our site visitation) is content-related not brand-related. This content-related traffic comes from all sorts of websites, blogs, tweets, Facebook and other places that link directly to a piece of content not because of ‘us’ but because it is ‘good’, ‘funny’, etc. If there are some specific URLs you know have been doing work with then add them in too but I’d recommend not including Twitter, Facebook etc as they are often best addressed as a separate segment altogether.

Search – if you have a relatively unique brand then you can segment out the search traffic containing that brand keyword and add that in. If you are really serious about separating the wheat from the chaff then it might be wise to add another level of filtering which only counts search traffic for the keyword resulting in visits that look at more than one page. (The only problem here will be that you will potentially lose traffic that is coming for simple information like your address – especially if you have tailored a mobile version of your site optimised for mobile traffic.) If you have a generic brand like ‘Australian Museum’ then you are going to need to figure out particular combinations of keyword search as well as landing pages.

Then you want to look at the results further segmented by geography – ideally you’ll find that this segment matches the target geography of your advertising campaigns both online and offline.

If you’ve got a growing brand and you’ve done the segmentation correctly you should see an upward trend as well as significant difference in behaviour of this segment and that of ‘all visitors’.

Ideally this segment should make more conversions (whatever they might be), have a far lower bounce rate and, where relevant spend more time on your site and look at more pages. You also want to be checking that this segment goes to the parts of your site that have been specifically set up for them!

Fingers crossed, eh?

In case of the Powerhouse doing a simple 10 minute analysis on this segment revealed that it made up 15% of our traffic for the past 6 months. We have a site heavy on diverse content so this relatively low percentage is not unexpected – if I was a retailer or I had a museum website with predominantly ‘venue information’ then I’d be worried! Visitors in this segment spent 2x as much time on site, looked at 1.6x as many pages on average, and were 30% less likely to bounce. They were also 3x more likely to begin their visit at the home page and also far more interested in the exhibitions and visit information than the collection than other segments of visitor. They were also 50% more likely to be from Sydney. The time on site and page view ratios for that Sydney segment were even higher!

Categories
User behaviour User experience Web metrics Young people & museums

“Let’s make more crowns”, or, the danger of not looking closely at your web metrics

Happy new year everyone.

I’ve got a bit of a backlog of posts but there is an ulterior motive for getting this out the door – and, well, it has been more than 18 months since I should have written about this.

Make-a-king's-crown---Play-at-Powerhouse screenshot

Over on our children’s website – Play at Powerhouse – we have a lot of content for children and parents to do at home either before or after they visit the Museum.

The website was launched in April 2007 as a way of segmenting off the ‘family’ audience from our main website and improving the user experience for that important group. Prior to its establishment, parents who just wanted to know what was on for their kids would have to navigate through exhibitions and events to figure out what was appropriate.

When the site was designed the main navigation was split into two halves – two very simple sections covering the practicalities of a museum visit, and two section for online and at home play.

And so in setting targets for the site we kept in mind that ideally we’d have a pool of casual visitors who we’d best serve by providing quick information that better helped them plan their visit to the museum; and a second group who we’d hope to build as ‘regular’ users of the site for craft activities, and to a far lesser extent, a few online games.

(Digressing briefly, we decided not to focus much on making ‘interactive games’ because there were already many established websites – in Australia the work of the national broadcaster the ABC especially – doing that as their main online focus and, frankly, far better than we could ever expect to do both in terms of design and also promotion).

The ‘craft’ section – Make & Do – was seen as a valuable resource that aligned with the Powerhouse’s reputation as a museum of ‘making things’ in a very crowded children’s web space. Importantly, too, we felt that it was good to support parents in giving them activities from the web that purposely meant doing things with paper and scissors, or out in the garden, anywhere away from a screen.

Over the past nearly three years the site has grown (and is on the schedule for a major UI overhaul!). It attracts a significant amount of traffic – peaking around school holidays as would be expected – and the craft activities, especially, are well linked by sites all over the world.

Internally the site has become integrated with the children’s programming as a whole to such an extent that the site’s Online Producer, Kate Lamerton, is moving over to join the unit responsible for general museum children’s programming. (In many ways this decentralising of content production is a sign of the maturity of the online product).

But that’s not the whole story.

As the site has developed we’ve tried to make user-led choices in the development of new content in the craft area. If the web is good at one thing it is data gathering. Very early on it the thinking of the site we felt that it was important to monitor what was popular and then use that as a means of thinking about what other content should be developed for the site.

Just to give you an idea of the resource burden of content generation – a single craft activity might take two to three full time weeks for Kate to conceptualise, prototype, and then create and instruction set for, photograph and upload. Some take considerably more, others, less.

So obviously we’d want to be choosing those craft activities wisely.

Now not every exhibition at the Powerhouse has obvious choices for craft activities for children, so Kate spends a fair bit of time thinking about ‘events’ to tie activities in with – obvious things like Mother’s Day, Father’s Day [1, 2].

And, because we care about web metrics, we are looking at what is popular and thinking about what I called ‘riffing’ on those – generally making ‘complementary’ thematic content.

But web metrics is a little more complex than that as I’ve said many times here (and in my workshops).

Here’s some data from the last two years.

Let’s first take a look at popular sections by page views for all visitors:

Content type % page views
Make & do (craft) 34.63%
What’s on (events & exhibitions) 24.16%
Play & interact (online games) 15.02%
Visiting (basic visiting information) 6.85%
Home page 15.85%

The first impression here is that the site is doing very much as planned.

The craft activities are generating the bulk of content views whilst the what’s on shows that site visitors are also more likely to be predisposed to visiting the physical museum. As expected with search driving most traffic on the web, the home page is less important as a single entity than each of the larger categories.

Let’s drilldown into Make & Do and see what is popular in there – the top ten by page views for all visitors.

Content type % page views
Craft index 24.63%
King’s crown 15.95%
Outback farm 6.02%
Easter index 3.72%
Knight helmet 3.34%
Princess hat 3.12%
Queen’s crown 3.07%
Masks for the ball 2.53%
Wizard’s hat 2.30%
Witch’s hat 2.14%

Here’s where things get interesting and where the initial thinking became skewed.

The clear leader – by far the most popular bit of craft – is the instructions and templates for making a King’s Crown. And appropriately we went along and made a fair amount of other types of ‘headwear’ – all of which have been popular too.

But are we serving our core audience? Who are these people who are coming to download the instructions for making a King’s Crown?

Let’s re-do those data tables again but this time let’s only look at traffic from Australia and then Sydney.

Content type % page views (all) % page views (Australia) % page views (Sydney)
Make & do (craft) 34.63% 21.06% 15.86%
What’s on (events & exhibitions) 24.16% 30.83% 33.85%
Play & interact (online games) 15.02% 16.12% 16.20%
Visiting (basic visiting information) 6.85% 8.64% 9.38%
Home page 15.85% 19.46% 20.58%

A different story starts to emerge.

Those craft activities are viewed by a far smaller proportion of site visitors the closer we get to our Sydney-based visitors. In fact, for Sydney-based visitors craft activities are even less popular than the online games on a percentage of total page views basis. Not surprisingly, though, by being located in Sydney and thus able to physically visit the Museum, the What’s On section increases in popularity.

Here’s those top ten craft activities again.

Content type % page views (all) % page views (Australia) % page views (Sydney)
Craft index 24.63% 35.29% 41.49%
King’s crown 15.95% 3.31% 1.90%
Outback farm 6.02% 3.97% 4.48%
Easter index 3.72% 7.01% 4.47%
Knight helmet 3.34% n/a n/a
Princess hat 3.12% n/a n/a
Queen’s crown 3.07% n/a n/a
Masks for the ball 2.53% 2.68% 1.96%
Wizard’s hat 2.30% n/a n/a
Witch’s hat 2.14% n/a n/a
Science index n/a 2.83% 3.16%
Easter baskets n/a 2.58% n/a
Speace helmet n/a 2.49% n/a
Mascot colouring in n/a 2.18% 2.68%
Healthy living n/a 2.02% 2.56%
Space index n/a n/a 2.19%

Now this is where it gets really interesting and where the team realised the importance of geographic segmentation. That headwear – the crowns and helmets and hats – wasn’t popular amongst local audiences. In fact, the more local we go the less popular it gets!

So much for putting resources into designing and making instructions for them!

Where was all this traffic for the King’s Crown coming from then?

Here’s the answer.

Country % visits
USA 53.96%
UK 14.27%
Australia 9.14%
Canada 5.42%
Mexico 1.34%

I’m glad our King’s Crown has been popular with Americans – in fact, predominantly Californians and Texans – but without the geographic segmentation being picked up early on in the life of the website we could have continued down that path oblivious to the irrelevance of that content to our local audiences (and the taxpayers who fund the museum).

Have you checked your popular content recently?
Is it really reaching the site visitors you are intending it to?

(Incidentally, if you are intending to attend Museums & the Web 2010 in Denver and wish to do my Web Metrics workshop then book quickly as it is almost full!)

Categories
Interactive Media

Nina Simon – The Participatory Museum – Powerhouse Museum 9/12/09

A few days ago Nina Simon from Museum 2.0 gave a presentation to staff from the Museum and other cultural institutions in Sydney. Her talk, The Participatory Museum, was recorded live at the Powerhouse Museum and can be viewed below.

She has uploaded her slides to Slideshare too.

A huge thank you to Nina for her generosity in sharing her ideas and allowing us to share the recording with you.

Nina Simon on The Participatory Museum – Dec 2009, Powerhouse Museum, Sydney from Powerhouse Museum on Vimeo.

View more documents from Nina Simon.
Categories
User experience Web metrics

The 2 in 100 who might matter most – your core web audience

As some of you know I’ve been doing a series of deep dive web metrics workshops for various institutions around the world in the last couple of months and one thing I’ve been interested in is estimating the size of a ‘core museum website audience’.

Whilst we all like the big figures of casual visitors we get to our websites many institutions, having flirted with social media, we are beginning to realise that casual visitors, much like casual visitors through the door of a museum, aren’t so useful for building sustained co-creative relationships with.

This ‘core museum website audience’ is the one that is engaged enough with your online activities that they return frequently. The patterns and trends in how they behave in your website is likely to differ significantly from casual visitors, and these trends should be closely analysed for insights into which are your ‘stickiest’ and most ‘interesting’ content areas.

Obviously, in looking at ‘repeat visitation’, though, it is critical to exclude all internal traffic. (I’m always shocked at how many institutions neglect, often through oversight, to stop their web analytics tools from reporting internal traffic!)

If we are serious about ‘engagement’ then our websites need to be actively growing repeat visitation as a proportion of the total.

So, how are we at the Powerhouse doing?

Looking at the Powerhouse Museum traffic for the last 4 quarters (Q4 2008 to Q3 2009) I’ve seen a sizeable number of repeat visitors to our website. Like most websites the vast majority of our traffic is new visitors (80.41%), but I’m pleased to find some interesting figures in our repeat visitors – the other ~20%.

Over the last 8 quarters repeat online visitation noticeably different patterns emerge around our in-gallery exhibitions and around our online-only content.

The ‘2 or more visits in a quarter‘ segment fluctuates most with the blockbuster exhibitions (Diana and Star Wars) showing the impact of return visitors booking online tickets and checking public event information. Here we see a rise from 13.63% in Q4 2007 to a high of 21.45% in Q1 2009 (Star Wars) before dropping again to 18.54%.

The ‘5 or more visits in a quarter‘ segment has grown steadily from 2.11% in Q4 2007 to a high of 5.22% in Q2 2009 and now rests at 4.78% in Q3 2009. This segment contains semi-regular blog visitors and those engaging with our collection online for research and study, as well as some of our high school curriculum focussed content.

The ‘10 or more visits in a quarter‘ segment has grown consistently, unaffected by the seasonal blockbusters, from 0.79% in Q4 2007 to 2.10% of traffic in Q3 2009. This traffic is our most highly engaged – again predominantly around our most consistent blogs (Fresh & New, Photo of the Day, Object of the Week), certain areas of our collection, and very specific curriculum content.

This 2.10% is one that needs a lot more analysis as does the ‘5 or more’ category. How do they arrive at our site? What are they looking for? What do they spend most time looking at?

Just for the record, as I’m using Google Analytics this data excludes RSS subscription-based traffic (critical for blogs), and does contain a low level of error – those who actively clear cookies (who may not be well represented in a core museum audience – but would be on, say, Slashdot). Of course, this data is far more reliable that log-based analytics.

I’m digging much deeper into this for an upcoming paper at Museums and the Web 2010 in Denver and of course my metrics workshop there too.

I’d welcome others’ opinions on this sort of audience segmentation.

Categories
Web 2.0

Calling all curators – a quick survey of attitudes

One of my colleagues at the Powerhouse, curator Erika Dicker, is writing a paper for Museums and the Web 2010 on the impact of some aspects of digital on day to day curatorial practice. Some F&N readers will know Erika is the editor of the Powerhouse’s Object of the Week blog, and her paper uses it as one example of how even simple blogging can impact greatly on traditional practice in sometimes unexpected ways.

To this end she is conducting a survey and would be thrilled if your curatorial colleagues around the world could spend ten minutes and fill it out.