I recently took a readership survey on the Digg site and realized there were some fundamental flaws in the way we are trying to understand online behavior.  And this is by no means solely a problem at Digg, it speaks to a deep seated bias we have when trying to probe media behavior.

Some examples from the Digg survey:

Question: How often would you say you go online?  Many times a day, daily, weekly, etc.

Between my home computer that I never turn off, my work computer I turn off once a week, my cellphone and my Ipod Touch, I don’t think I am never NOT online.

At some point the distinction between online and offline blurred to such a degree that there is now no meaningful demarcation.   I can certainly ‘disconnect’ myself, and do.  But even then, I am conscious that my online presence still ‘exsits’ and perpetuates itself without my direct involvement.

In this sense, the more important measure is how integrated my ‘online’ and ‘offline’ lives are, not how often I switch between the two.

Question:  Which of the following do you visit at least once a month?  <list of websites>

What exactly is a ‘visit’?  I have a iGoogle home page that streams 10 different RSS feeds, am I ‘visiting’ each of those sites every time I read the feed?  Do I have to click through to them for it to count?  What about my RSS reader where I look at the BBC news, is each article a visit?  What about the CNN Breaking News emails I get?  Are those ‘visits’?  If I never turn off Twhirl, how many visits is that a day to Twitter feeds?

Again, ‘visit’ is a remnant of an earlier online experience and one with roots in TV and radio - where the only way to get to the information was to physically change the channel.

We need to think about ‘consumption’ not ‘visitation’ when thinking about online media.

Question: Rank these reasons for spending time online - entertain, research, manage my life, etc.

Why do I go online?  What’s most important?  This question loses all meaning when you think of your online life as an extension of your offline one.  ’Online’ is not a destination with a cause and reason to visit, it’s a fluid extension of real needs/wants/desires.

‘Needs’ is the real issue here - what needs does your online life fulfill?

The survey continued in the same vein with subsequent questions.  Websites were treated as destinations and ‘visits’ and the online experience had reason and purpose.

I think it’s time to rethink a lot of how we measure ‘online behavior’.  Rather than assuming individuals online are ‘destination’ seekers, we need to think about how individuals aggregate and move between the nodes of the network they create.  It doesn’t mean destination seekers don’t exist, it just doesn’t adequately explain the complexity of their online world.

Bottom line, why measure online behavior like we used to measure offline behavior?  A mouse isn’t simply a different way to navigate, it’s a paradigm shift in your relationship to information.

I thought Digg, of all companies, would have understood that.

There has been a bit of a flutter lately about the whole issue of Corporate Blogging.  A recent post from Forrester Research on their Groundswell blog highlighted some data that showed only 16% of people trust Corporate Blogs.  

“Company Blog” is way down the bottom there.

I am only going to make two comments about this.

Firstly, I think it’s right.  Not that all Corporate Blogs are disingenuous, consumers simply have no way to sort out truth from fiction.  We find it hard to trust things that have no transparency mechanism built in.  We trust online reviews because of the power of consensus - not because we trust an anonymous individual’s single experience.  We trust email from people we know because they probably have a track record with us.  Just like we trust individual bloggers we know are experts in a field.

We don’t trust social networking profiles because just how sure are you that that cute girl who is a friend of your best friend’s best man really does LOOK that cute in her picture?  We all try to add a little pizzaz to our profiles, right?

My point being that it is very tough for a corporate blog to reach a high level of trust with no transparency mechanism.  With no way for readers to easily sort fact from ‘fact’ (the corp comm. version of ‘fact’).  

I think the only way for a blog to do this is to be genuine.  One of the best corporate blogs I read is from Joel Spolsky - the CEO of Fog Creek Software.  He writes in a genuine way that invites trust.  He also writes more about ‘how’ his company does things rather than ‘what’ they do.  About human things rather than corporate things.  

The second point (ok, so maybe it’s the third) is that this is an awful survey question.  Context matters in surveys.  If you include items such as ‘personal email’ along with items such as ‘company blog’ on a scale of trust, you are dooming the company blog in the results.  Why don’t we just add ‘the person who bought you into the world and taught you all you know - usually your, Mother’ to the list?  Then we would really see ‘company blog’ sucking the pavement!

We have spheres of trust that don’t overlap.  How I think about a company blog in the world of communications from brands is vastly different to how I think about and use personal email.

There is no way you can interpret this result as only 16% of people trust Corporate Blogs.  There is actually no valid interpretation of what that 16% represents given the vastly different items in that list.  But alas, I can feel it making its way around the web as I write…