<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What is a good conversion rate ?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oninternetbusiness.com/2009/12/what-is-a-good-conversion-rate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oninternetbusiness.com/2009/12/what-is-a-good-conversion-rate/</link>
	<description>Michael Conway’s tips, views and information for entrepreneurs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:56:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.oninternetbusiness.com/2009/12/what-is-a-good-conversion-rate/comment-page-1/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oninternetbusiness.com/?p=926#comment-109</guid>
		<description>Slightly misleading figures in many ways, as they are based on visitor conversion rates rather than session conversion rates. For example, if I visit a site 20 times in a month and make 1 purchase, my actual conversion rate (in the usual sense) is 5% but under the above rules I would come out as having a conversion rate of 100%. The figures are also taken from a limited panel of visitors, rather than a complete set of actual data.

It was interesting to see that in the figures for June 2009, Schwan&#039;s didn&#039;t even make the top 10 (the 10th site on June&#039;s list &quot;converting&quot; at 16.4%) which shows how much figures can vary with this method. 

So, for me the Nielsen figures are useful as a basic month by month comparison (and as PR if you can get your site in there) but not much else. There&#039;s just far too much real world visitor activity not factored into these figures to be able to compare them to your own e-commerce site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Slightly misleading figures in many ways, as they are based on visitor conversion rates rather than session conversion rates. For example, if I visit a site 20 times in a month and make 1 purchase, my actual conversion rate (in the usual sense) is 5% but under the above rules I would come out as having a conversion rate of 100%. The figures are also taken from a limited panel of visitors, rather than a complete set of actual data.</p>
<p>It was interesting to see that in the figures for June 2009, Schwan&#8217;s didn&#8217;t even make the top 10 (the 10th site on June&#8217;s list &#8220;converting&#8221; at 16.4%) which shows how much figures can vary with this method. </p>
<p>So, for me the Nielsen figures are useful as a basic month by month comparison (and as PR if you can get your site in there) but not much else. There&#8217;s just far too much real world visitor activity not factored into these figures to be able to compare them to your own e-commerce site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

