Digital Marketing

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Tracking Website Engagement

Guest post by Petri Darby, APR, the director of brand marketing & digital strategy for the Make-A-Wish Foundation of America.

In Douglas Adams’ “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” a computer known as Deep Thought spent seven and a half million years contemplating the great Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. Seventy-five thousand generations passed before Deep Thought revealed that the answer was “Forty two.”

Responding to the confusion and backlash of the crowd, the computer said, “I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is.”

The concept of “engagement” follows a similar storyline and is quickly becoming one of those words that makes you throw up a little in your mouth. Like “buzz,” “leverage,” “ROI,” and “word of mouth” before it, engagement has become the word du jour for marketers. But few are measuring it and most aren’t asking the right questions to define it.

Everyone wants to know what the magic metric or metrics are to track website engagement. But here’s the secret (and it’s not 42):


Sorry. It’s not that easy. And here’s why:

1. Your brand is different than every other company’s.
2. Your website is different than other websites.
3. Site visitors interact and transact differently with your company’s website than with other websites.
4. Different actions may represent bigger steps by a visitor toward a likelihood to buy or donate through your website versus others.

A Practical Case Study of Tracking Engagement

The Make-A-Wish Foundation of America’s engagement approach, metrics, and dashboard remain a work in progress, but I’m happy to share with you how we are approaching each of them. We do track our marketing and communications channels individually and in integrated fashions – this discussion is only about website engagement.

Our team spent several months talking about what engagement means to the Foundation and how to measure it. We define engagement, as it relates to our website, as the leading indicators of our ultimate success metrics. We define leading indicators as the short-term actions visitors take on our website that influence the longer-term business goals.

Our success metrics or business goals for the website center around:
• Donations
• Volunteers
• Wish referrals

Let me be clear – engagement is about the relationships that impact the return-on-investment (ROI) that your leadership cares about. Engagement, relationships, and ROI are not mutually exclusive and some relational efforts reap immediate rewards. But too many organizations only focus on immediate sales and donations. Engagement is often a courtship. It is not appropriate, nor advisable, to treat every channel solely as a direct response tool. When it comes to relationships, you earn your success over time.

You need to identify the short-term activities that impact longer-term business goals. We initially identified the following as possible influencers:

Visitor Loyalty: direct or bookmarked site visits (as opposed to visits from search engines or ads)

Subscriptions Initiated: email, print, and mobile signups through

Content Shares: pages, stories, videos shared to social networks or emailed from

Visitor Promotion: downloaded banners/badges or creation of personal fundraising pages

Page Views of Mission-Centric Content: wish stories and videos


We believe that this group of behaviors leads to other behaviors that are desirable at the financial, business level.

Other Possible Action Metrics We Discussed

Return visits initially seemed a logical metric to factor into the Visitor Loyalty category. About 75% of our site visits are by first-time visitors. However, better minds on our team pointed out that as a nonprofit, we need both loyal fans and new visitors – otherwise our donor acquisition pipeline dries up. Plus, the return visitor metric can be influenced by our social media efforts and other outreach and marketing campaigns. They didn’t disagree that return visitors are important – just that choosing whether the balance of return vs. new visitors is better or worse over time and assigning a value to one or both seems to muddy what felt like a clear measurement approach to this point.

We started integrating the Facebook “Like” button to pages and content on earlier in the year. We also recently added reaction buttons that visitors can use to indicate how a wish story made them feel – Hopeful, Reflective, or Inspired – and then post that reaction and link to their preferred social network(s). Both of those will be added to our pool of metrics soon.

Converting Actions Into Engagement Metrics

Stephen Hawking, the late Carl Sagan, and other physicists and cosmologists who have pursued a Theory of Everything – a set of rules that govern the activity of particles large and small throughout the universe – agreed that one criteria for judging the validity of such a theory is that it be simple. That being the case, surely measuring engagement on the Make-A-Wish Foundation’s national website, and your website, should follow that model.

We calculate engagement rates for each individual activity as well as in an overall site engagement metric. Individual engagement rates are arrived at by adding up the daily instances of each action, then dividing it by the site’s total daily unique visitor counts. In some cases, we multiply that by a weighted measure to bring it to scale (again, for elegance and simplicity’s sake), and that gives us a score for each item.
Hitchhiker's guide to tracking web engagement

To calculate the total site engagement rate, we apply those weighted averages to arrive at a total site engagement score for any particular period of time, whether a day, a month, or a year. In and of itself, this number is meaningless. It only is relevant when applied to a trend horizon to determine whether your engagement levels are moving up or down.

Now we can chart each site visitor activity and total engagement scores against our success metrics to identify whether there are clear correlations and which ones have little to no impact over time. This is the part that I like. While I love what numbers represent and the stories they tell, spreadsheets make my eyes crossed. I need a graphic – preferably popup books, but charts suffice too.

Remember, the goal is to track indicators that influence success over the longer term. If your overall engagement metric tracks almost one-to-one with your success metrics, then you may draw one of two conclusions, or both:

1. You haven’t effectively pinpointed your true leading indicators

2. You have effectively pinpointed direct response triggers (not a bad thing!)

When we charted individual actions – those for which we had historical data – against our success metrics, much to my surprise we found that direct/bookmarked visits actually had a reverse correlation, so we tossed those metrics.

When we first looked at a combined engagement score over a particular time period and charted it against online donations during the same period, we found a 74% direct correlation between the two. That seemed unusually high. Upon digging deeper, we realized that we were including in our counts those who opted into our email program during the donation process – so of course there was a correlation. Because we really wanted to isolate activities that were not directly tied to our business success measures – in this case donations – we realized we needed to filter better. We were able to segment all email subscriptions that came from anywhere on the site, except through the donation process, to come up with a more accurate measure.

We also decided to scrap print newsletter subscriptions because we could not effectively isolate those that occurred outside of the donation process and there is only one other page, which is not very popular, where they are offered on the site. I suspect we’ll drop more metrics and add others as we learn more going forward.

It’s not that the metrics we dropped hold no value – only that they do not fit within our definition of measurable website engagement.

We do not have historical data for some metrics, so we are applying them going forward. Like many charities, we receive a large percentage of our donations in December – usually the last few days. We believe that what we do the rest of the year helps determine the strength of our holiday donation revenues, so we plan apply our engagement statistics against our success metrics over the course of several months, as well as against our holiday numbers, to see if, and over what time span, they appear to have an impact.

Are We Headed Into a Wormhole Or A Black Hole?

Honestly, I don’t know where this exploration will lead and whether we will know more a year from now about what is driving what on our website. I am eager to hear your thoughts, even if you think we are going about this all wrong, and how you would approach it differently.

I am excited about the process and the conversations our team is having. And I think that Douglas Adams, Stephen Hawking, and Carl Sagan would be proud that we are at least asking the questions.

Facebook Comments


  1. says

    3. Site visitors interact and transact differently with your company’s website than with other websites.

    This is a really great point. Not all web sites were created equal. Engaging with a website can mean completely different things to different web sites. It’s important to create your own metrics of how to gauge your website engagement. Suited for your specific website style

    • darbydarnit says Indeed. It is tempting to go the easy route and pursue a one-size-fits-all model. But it just is not that simple. We realized that we could learn a lot from others, but we had to really spend a lot of time thinking and talking through this to understand where and how people connect with us on our website and then try to see whether those engagements lead to measurable results over the longer term. It is challenging and time-consuming, but I think it will prove to be well worth the effort.

  2. teriel says

    Interesting perspective on metrics and engagement. I completely agree that metrics can really only be evaluated in context to the audience you are trying to reach as well as the relationships you create with that audience. This applies to offline communication as well. Good post!

    • darbydarnit says

      @teriel Thanks for the kind thoughts. I appreciate the feedback. Tracking actions is easy. Tracking the evolution of relationships is indeed a little trickier, and takes time if you don’t have a long history of analytics for each and every interaction point and channel.

  3. kschulman says

    Your chart appears to show a fairly significant negative correlation, which belies logic and the whole point of using one as a leading indicator (causal really) of the other. The problem is a data one, not a theory one. Time lag between cause and effect – engagement as former and “success” metrics as latter. Accounting for and doing the proper “math” on time series data with a time lag is not easy stuff.

    I’m willing to bet there is in fact NOT a negative correlation between repeat visits and your ‘success” metrics, just on overly simple analysis and while the most simple is always best there is a caveat, most simple that faithfully reflects what is going on.

    • darbydarnit says

      @kschulman We are in full agreement that two months (the timeframe of the graph) is not a long enough range to track a correlation between engagement and success metrics. Hence this paragraph a little farther down:

      “Like many charities, we receive a large percentage of our donations in December – usually the last few days. We believe that what we do the rest of the year helps determine the strength of our holiday donation revenues, so we plan apply our engagement statistics against our success metrics over the course of several months, as well as against our holiday numbers, to see if, and over what time span, they appear to have an impact.”

      That chart was just to provide an example of how you can overlay individual engagement metrics and success metrics. We are thinking we need to track it over the course of 8-12 months as opposed to one or two months. Does that make more sense to you? I appreciate you thinking about that and providing your feedback, as it helps us make sure we are thinking through this fully.

  4. letstalkandchat says

    If you’re looking for webinar software, then check out Evergreen Business System. Its perfect for marketers and let’s you automate the scheduling of your webinars, build your list, and even follow up with your webinar registrants. If you’re going to buy Evergreen Business System, then you might as well get a free bonus! So check out and you’ll get a great bonus that tells you how to create a webinar, what is a webinar, and a blueprint for making a successful one. None of the other people offering bonuses are offering this. Hurry in case the guy (some dude that worked on Lord of the RIngs) offering the bonus decides to pull it down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *