So this is interesting.... a new PR blog ranking

I might be a bit late to this, but I noticed today that Cision, the media database company, is now providing PR agencies with handy "top 10" lists of blogs in various sectors including PR, finance and parenting.

Nothing new about a new "top 10" list, I know - but what's interesting about this list is the lack of details about how exactly Cision came up with the rankings. A quick dig around reveals that Cision bases its index - which is updated every week or two - using what Cision describes as a combination of "in-house expertise" and...:

"...an algorithm to reflect two key measures of web popularity, inbound links and traffic measured in monthly unique users. For each blog these elements were weighted to achieve a balance between measurable impact to date (traffic) and likelihood of future impact (links as a proxy for search visibility). The longlist was then reduced down to a Top 50, with each entry re-evaluated according to additional metrics, notably update frequency and total number of posts."

Obviously, I'm not opposed to a good index, particularly given that this blog is in a couple and I write one myself. But I have a few questions about this particular set of indexes, not least how is Cision accurately measuring unique users on third party sites? And what the devil is "in-house expertise?" Doesn't sound very - well - rigorous.

In my experience, the indexes that have most credibility and longevity are those with hte greatest transparency - look at the About page of the AdAge Power 150 for a superb example of how they've opened up the metrics to scrutiny and debate.

Why isn't Cision doing something similar? In my experience, Cision has always been a pretty open company to deal with, and very open to debate, so I was a bit surprised by this.

While it's nice to see the media database companies starting to look creatively at how they can capture the blog sector, and package it for their customers (FeaturesExec seems to be building a blog database, for example) surely we're used to being able to see the strings these days, aren't we?

Comments

[NikkiPR]

You would expect so Sally but alas, this is a measurement company - they wouldn't want to give away methodology surely LOL. Shroud it in secrecy and this allows them to allocate ratings as they see fit. Hmmm - transparency ethics have clearly not reached them yet then....

[Chris Norton]

Interesting post Sally, I don't think any of the measurement systems that are out there at the moment are 100% accurate.
I also think that these companies should have some level of human interpretation as often that can make a big difference. If companies are transparent about how they are compiling the lists (aka Advertising Age) then at least that is nice and clear.
Unfortunately, there are just too many smoke and mirrors in our industry making things seem much more complicated than they actually are.

[Michael Cooper]

Good post Sally.

While I agree with Chris about no measurement system being 100% accurate, I'd be keen to see further discussion about these rankings before measurement companies run off and develop their own algorithm leaving in their wake a bunch of confused agencies and clients.

Personally I like the AdAge150 and other ranked lists including the Tots100 which earn extra marks for showing their working out.

Blog ranking is a nice warm blanket for many PR practitioners where a solid figure can provide the reassurance that they are indeed speaking to the correct people without having to wade through the big, bad, world wide web. However, Top Tens invariably lead to lazy PR and bloggers being spammed in the same way journalists have been for years with inaccurately targeted press releases.

I'd hope any PR out there would support this short cut with some quality research around the listed blogger including previous posts and their main topics of interest and stop themselves before firing out a generic release. After all, you wouldn't submit a story to a print publication journalist without reading their previous work first would you? Ah. I see the problem.

[Sally]

As I suspected they would, Cision has contacted me and offered to answer questions about their methodology, which is great.

They’re provided a wee bit more detail on the methodology, by saying it’s based on inbound links and unique monthly visitors, sourced via “our Cision Social Media Platform and our various data providers.”

I’m still a bit confused and have asked how this works, exactly. I know Cision works with Radian, which in turn works with Compete.com, but I didn’t think either of those could provide traffic stats – only an approximation based on a 2m sample group of (US) web users. I could be wrong though, so I’ve asked Cision about this. Can you really source traffic stats from someone else's server???

My point remains though - if you want an index to have credibility, surely this information should be provided upfront – and in the open. I’ve had a few people (well two people, and both their names are on ‘the list’ believe me) tell me the Tots100 index is pointless because it doesn’t include this metric, or that metric is unreliable.

My response is that no metric or algorithm is going to please every reader, every time, and I’m not about to kill myself trying to achieve that. But I supply the data so people can see what I’ve done and, crucially, suggest ways it might be improved.

I'd like to see Cision doing the same, but perhaps it doesn't matter, since the lists are primarily going to be used by PRs looking for new people to spam, sorry "engage with".

[Christian]

Inbound links and visitors isn't a bad place to start, but I've yet to come across many sites which make the latter metric publicly available - unless I'm really missing something. I think there are a lot of metrics that you can use, and I doubt two companies will do it the same way. It would be good to make it publicly available, but I can see why they wouldn't - it's their IP and if they revealed it, presumably you could wander off and replicate it?

One of the other dangers of using these kinds of services at face value is that you end up measuring power / influence without any kind of indicator of relevance. Sure, if you work with a financial client, it's great to have a top ten of financial blogs, but what if you only want to look at financial bloggers who deal with M&As, or consumer banking? Whilst I get that the blogosphere is huge and a potential nightmare to evaluate, you do run the risk of using measures so generic that they become worthless...

[Miss Thrifty]

I rank 3rd in Cision's top ten personal finance blogs - and I'd love to know how they do it, too!

If they are using Compete, it can't play *that* big a part as for some reason the Compete stats for the Miss Thrifty blog are much lower than they should be. Also, my blog was ranked above Martin Lewis' - which I am sure has far more traffic than mine. (Not complaining though!) My guess is that the additional factors taken into account (frequency of updates, maybe reader engagement too?) also count for a lot.

[Sally]

@Christian - my understanding is that you CAN make Google Analytics data public, but the default setting is private, and I can't imagine most people sharing that data. Which is why I'm interested that Cision says it's measuring unique users - I'd love to know how. You also make a good point about relevance - as ever, PRs need to read the blogs to assess relevance - it's the same argument as ABC circulation versus audience relevance in print, of course.

@ Miss Thrify - well done, but an interesting point you make about traffic on Compete - I'm sure your blog is great, but Martin Lewis?? Seriously? This makes me wonder if they are relying on the Compete US stats, which would be totally pointless in an index of UK blogs...

Interesting issue to track, at any rate.