FREEDyourMind

A Critical Time For The State of Michigan

Get Out And Vote

This Tuesday, August 3^rd, is the primary election for the State of Michigan. There has never been a more critical time for our State. Facing high unemployment, few prospects of jobs for our college graduates and a difficult business environment, we as citizens of the State of Michigan need to make sure our voice is heard and vote in this critical and highly contested primary. I strongly encourage each of you to make sure your voice is heard and vote in the primary. In order for the State to move forward we need strong leadership by our future Governor. The Governor’s race is one that is highly contested and promises to be a very close vote – every vote counts. Our primary in Michigan is an open primary, meaning that you do not need to be registered with a party affiliation in order to participate. A voter can choose which party ballot to vote during the voting process. This election is not about Democrat vs. Republican, but rather getting the right person to Lansing to get this State moving forward.

 

 

Rick Snyder

Personally, I have never before publically supported a political candidate. In this primary election, I am fully supporting and voting for Rick Snyder in his run for Governor. I have known Rick for about 6 years and my oldest son Josh has been volunteering on his campaign. I have first hand seen Rick in action and I strongly believe that Rick is the right guy for the job of Governor for the State of Michigan. Rick brings great leadership, a great history of creating jobs, intelligence and a plan. Most importantly Rick brings great passion to make this State a better place for the citizens and the next generation. Rick is running for Governor for the right reasons, to make a difference, not simply looking for his next political job like so many other politicians are doing. Rick brings a plan that lays out what we need to do to reinvent Michigan and get our economy growing again. It is refreshing to hear a plan instead of sound bite politics where we hear we need change, but no plan on what we should change to. You can find out more about Rick at www.RickForMichigan.com.

 

 

Your Vote Counts

Regardless of your personal choice, it is important to make sure we all have our voices heard. Please make sure your voice is heard and vote in this critical primary election on Tuesday.

Fox Rocks the Socks Off of...Just About Everybody

by Eric Feinberg

The release of the American Customer Satisfaction Index on Tuesday was dominated by one finding: people don’t like Facebook. It was covered by virtually every news outlet you can think of, from national newspapers to magazines to television to radio to blogs…it was everywhere.

But the ACSI report didn’t measure only social media sites. It also covered news websites like ABCNews.com, CNN.com, FOXNews.com, MSNBC.com, NYTimes.com, and USAToday.com. The Facebook story was pretty interesting, so I think maybe people didn’t see the big news in news:

FoxNews.com beat the pants off all the other news sites, in almost every imaginable way. 

It was FOXNews.com’s first year being measured in the Index. They got an 82 on the ACSI’s 100-point scale, the highest score any news site has ever received in nine years of measurement by the ACSI. This is huge, right? Especially considering all the grief FOXNews often gets about the slant on their reporting.

Not only did FOXNews.com get the highest ACSI score that any news organization has ever received, it killed the other cable news networks: MSNBC.com got a 74 and CNN.com got a 73 (eight and nine points behind FOXNews.com, respectively). It also killed ABCNews.com, which got a 75. And though FOXNews.com beat out print by a slightly smaller margin, it still killed the print websites that were measured: USAToday.com (77) and NYTimes.com (76). 

Here’s the real kicker: each and every one of those websites improved satisfaction since last year: ABCNews.com has increased almost 6% since last year. And FOX still left everybody in the dust.

 
What other news sites do you want us to measure? Next year, we’re considering HuffingtonPost.com (which actually has more visitors than FOXNews, according to EBizMBA.com). Thoughts? Please post in the comments.

Okay, so now that I have breathlessly heralded the total domination of FOXNews.com in the news and information category, why did it happen? 

• We survey only site users. Before anyone takes a survey, we ask them which news sites they have been to in the last three months. Then they get a survey about that news site. The result is an accurate assessment of customer satisfaction. FOXNews’ survey results reflect how their own users feel about FOXNews.com; MSNBC.com’s survey results reflect how their own users feel about MSNBC.com. Customer satisfaction scores are always a bit higher than general population satisfaction scores about any given website, because they have to have a decent level of satisfaction about the site if they’re already going there. If they hated it, they wouldn’t be going there. Imagine if we surveyed FOXNews.com readers about MSNBC.com and vice versa. The results would have been quite different. In real estate, it’s all about location; in web analytics, it’s all about segmentation. When reliably measuring satisfaction for our clients on a continuous basis, we purposefully take the aggregate insights and then segment them down to the nth segment (by visitor frequency, gender, age, intent, success, and more) so that we can bring clarity to varying satisfaction levels across differing audiences

• FOXNews users spend most of their time with FOXNews: More than two-thirds (63%) of survey respondents (site users) see FOXNews as their primary news source while FOX’s ideological counterpart, MSNBC.com, serves as the primary news source for less than half (49%) of its website visitors, online or offline. The site whose audience was least likely to consider it their primary news source, however, was USAToday.com (39%). Further, FOXNews.com visitors tend to rely solely on FoxNews for all of their news and information (inclusive of the FOXNews TV brand) whereas visitors to other sites tend to seek out multiple sources for news and information. For example, more than half (52%) of FOXNews.com users frequent fewer than two news websites on a regular basis. Compare that with NYTimes.com: only one in three NYTimes.com users looks at two news websites or less on a regular basis.

• FoxNews.com visitors may have lower site expectations: The simple definition of satisfaction is a combination of what you get and what you expect. FoxNews.com visitors’ expectation levels are calibrated by the fact that they visit fewer sites than do other survey respondents. Since they visit fewer sites and thus have less experience with other news and information sites, they could have different and potentially lower expectations. The research also shows that FoxNews.com readers are slightly older, on average, and have lower income and education levels, all of which often correlate with lower expectations, according to our research.

• FoxNews has brand alignment: FoxNews.com seems to have successfully translated the personality of its on-air brand to its website. “Great brands and products must evoke a dynamic personality in order to attract passionate customers,” said Rohit Bhargava, author of Personality not included. I would add to Rohit’s quote “…in any channel at any time.” Whether you agree with the FoxNews worldview or not, it is undeniable that when expectations align with experience, that’s a winning – and satisfying - combination. Think about your business. A tough task for any website, network, company or person is to deliver on your core and key brand attributes in all channels. FoxNews has managed to introduce its corporate personality to its audience in each channel well.

Other thoughts and findings impacting our industry: 

• The 50/50 ad spend screen shifting theory: This study is starting to prove out my long-held belief about TV’s continuing, but loosening, grip on web traffic. We ask the question, “What medium do you prefer most for keeping up with news?” When you tally up personal computer, mobile and tablet access, that total ranges from 22% to 44% (FoxNews.com and CNN.com, respectively). Once that preference shifts to 50% or more across the board, we’ll see the long-awaiting flood of media mix changes that lead to significant online investment away from TV. Our decisions, our lives, our time will be invested more online than on TV and thus we’ll see the ad dollars follow. Follow the money is what they do on Wall Street. Follow the consumer is what they do with ad spend.

 

• Advertising engagement: There is a relationship between visit frequency and likelihood to look at ads on news sites. USAToday.com and ABCNews.com frequent visitors both being more likely to look at ads than CNN frequent visitors. The relationship between visit frequency and ignoring (not paying attention to) ads is less clear. For most of the sites, visit frequency tends to increase the likelihood of clicking on ads. ABCNews.com appears to be better than many of the other sites at generating clicks among visitors who come to the site weekly or more often. For most sites, there is a relationship between visit frequency and ad relevance. This is not the case for CNN, though. Ad relevance is not impacted by visitor frequency. In general, infrequent news site visitors are more likely to perceive ads as interfering their experience than are more frequent visitors.

• Paywalls: NYTimes.com users are most willing to consider paying for content on the site (9% of users would consider paying for content on that site) while only 2% of MSNBC.com users would consider it. Consideration is by no means activation, so let’s keep a close eye on The Times of London and others considering paywalls.

Bottom line: While it’s interesting to talk about the high satisfaction and what caused it, regardless of the cause, FOXNews is sitting on paydirt. Academic studies have shown that high satisfaction as measured by the ACSI leads to more loyalty, recommendations, repeat visits, and more. These kinds of actions translate to dollars for advertisers. After all, as an advertiser, would you rather spend your money on a website with viewers that are loyal, happy, recommenders? It’s great for your brand. 

There’s a whole lot more in the report and in my head. Download the full report at our website and post your comments and feedback below (I’ll respond, I promise). What else did I miss? Why do you think FOX dominated so much, and what does it mean for news and for advertisers? Who should we add to the study next year? Email me anytime to talk more about the content, media and entertainment worlds. Thank you. Be well.

Eric Feinberg is Industry Director for content, media, and entertainment at ForeSee Results. He’s on Twitter at @ericfeinberg and can be reached by email at eric.feinberg@foreseeresults.com. 

The Best and Worst of Facebook

As a follow up to the post I just put up with the latest #ACSI results, Lora Kolodony at TechCrunch gave us the idea to do a word cloud for some of the questions we asked in the survey.

We did some research that was complementary to the ACSI, and we asked people: what do you like best and least about Facebook (and the other companies as well). Here are the results:

What do you like MOST about Facebook? (Grab the Wordle here if you want to use it)

 

What do you like LEAST about Facebook? Grab the Wordle here

What's interesting is that people said "nothing" a lot when asked what they like best and least about Facebook. You can see that what people like best is really the connection. Almost all the words have to do with connection. When it comes to what people like least, the answers are more varied, but the most popular have to do with privacy, functionality, the newsfeed, advertising, navigation, and security.

What do YOU like best and worst about Facebook or any of the other social sites we measured?

Facebook Flops, Google Drops, FoxNews Mops Up the Floor with CNN

So you may have seen by now that the big #ACSI report on e-business was released today (hyperlink to http://www.foreseeresults.com/research-white-papers/ACSI-e-business-report-2010.shtml) with a bang.

We've been doing the analysis for the ACSI since 2002, and there is usually pretty big news in one of the measured e-business categories, but this year, there's a shakeup in all three.

First thing's first: social media. This is the first year the ACSI has measured social media, and what a debut. With an average score of 70, social media has the lowest industry aggregate score of any of online industries measured by the ACSI. Wikipedia leads the social media industry with a score of 77, and YouTube comes in at 73. Industry darling Facebook registers a score of 64, only one point above MySpace (63). Facebook and MySpace have scores so low, the only other companies measured by the ACSI with such low scores are airlines and cable companies. Facebook seems to be suffering from concerns about privacy, frequent changes to the interface, and advertising.

	2010
Social Media Aggregate	70
Wikipedia.com	77
YouTube.com (Google Inc.)	73
All Others	72
Facebook.com	64
MySpace.com (News Corp.)	63

As for News and Information Sites, the big news in this industry is the debut of FoxNews.com at the top of the heap with a score of 82, which is five points above nearest competitor USAToday.com (77) and well ahead of other cable news providers MSNBC (74) and  CNN.com (73). NYTimes comes in at 76. FoxNews registers the highest score ever received by any news organization in the ACSI.Our data shows the high score could be in part because their viewers are very loyal and don't follow as many different news sources as users to the other measured outlets. Therefore, their expectations may be a little lower, which makes them easier to satisfy. But whatever the reason for their high satisfaction, it is off the charts for a news site.  If I were Fox, I’d be using this data in my media kit, because high satisfaction leads to high return visits and loyalty, which means more eyeballs for ads on FoxNews.com.

The Portals and Search Enginescategory is usually a pretty stable in terms of who dominates the field: Google has been at the top every year but this year and in 2007 (when Yahoo slipped momentarily ahead). This year, the "all others" group beats Google, which is a combination of all the other search engines not mentioned by name in this study. This year, they tended to be niche search engines. Google itself had a 7% decline this year (down six points to 80). Bing was measured for the first time this year, and it made a strong first showing with a score of 77, second only to Google.

So what do you think:

• Can Bing actually compete with Google, even with all the power of Microsoft? Last year I would have said no; this year I think Bing might actually have a glimmer of hope.

• Does Facebook's low satisfaction score pose any danger for the company? Or like other perennially low scoring companies like airlines and cable companies, does it have enough of a specialized market that it can dominate despite low satisfaction?

• Why can't the other cable news channels come close to FoxNews.com's high satisfaction score?

I'd love to hear what you think in the comments...

You can download the free report here: http://www.foreseeresults.com/research-white-papers/ACSI-e-business-report-2010.shtmlor catch me on Twitter (@larryfreed) with any questions about the findings.

Yes, You Can Calculate ROI for Social Media Efforts

Know what you know. Know what you don't know. I say it all the time to the people who work at ForeSee Results. And while those of us using social media to market our businesses know A LOT about how well it's working, we have virtually no information about the actual impact of social media marketing on our bottom lines

• We know how many tweets mentioned us or our competitors (but we don’t know if the people who are mentioning us or reading about us are buying)
• We know how many “likes” we have on our Facebook page (but not if they are more likely to visit a store than non-Facebook fans)
• We know how many people visit and comment on our own blogs
• We know what our customers and prospects are talking about (but not whether chatter contributes to dollars)

In short, we can count, but we can’t measure how social media is actually driving revenue. As the saying goes (you may have heard me say this one or one thousand times), you can’t manage what you don’t measure.
 

But we think we've figure out how to understand the effects of social media on revenue.
 

ForeSee Results uses a scientific methodology created at the University of Michigan to measure customer satisfaction and assess its impact on future behaviors. Using this proprietary methodology, we’ve created a way to link what drives customers to a website, store or call center with what they spend. We can help businesses understand how much revenue is being influenced by social media versus traditional advertising, marketing emails, brand awareness and other factors. We call it the Social Media Value Calculation.
 

It looks like this: we find out what influenced a customer’s visit to a store, website, or call center. Then we find out how much that customer did or didn’t spend. For a brand website, financial institution, nonprofit, B to B, or other non-retailer where there is no purchase, we can tie what drove the customer visit to another valuable, business-specific outcome such as opening a new account, signing up for a newsletter, requesting more information, etc.

 

Linking these two pieces of data (what drove a customer to a site, store, or call center PLUS what they spent or did as a result) allows for a proprietary Social Media Value Calculation that can help you actually determine social media ROI. You can accurately compare what you spend on social media marketing against the direct revenue it generates.

 

You may find out that social media is a primary influencer of $38 million of your revenue. If you’re spending $1 million on social media, then you’re making a pretty good investment. Or you may find out that social media is influencing $12 million in revenue, and you’re spending $15 million in advertising your social media presence, in which case you have some realigning to do.

 

The point is that you don’t know until you ask your customers, measure, and run the analysis. Do it in a smart, thoughtful way using the Social Media Value Calculation, and your customers will tell you everything you need to know about where to invest to get the most traffic, purchases, and loyalty.

 

We have a slightly longer version of this blog post available for download on our website as an executive brief, and of course I'm happy to answer any questions in the comments.

 

So what questions do you have about how this works?

 

 

Just in Time for Spring, E-Retail Blossoms

Poetic title, right?

We've been doing our Top 100 E-Retail Satisfaction Report for six years now. And the latest installment was released today.  

Overall satisfaction with the top 100 e-retailers rebounded from last year's dip to an all-time high of 78, up nearly 5 points from 2009. That's a lot, especially since not a single one of the top 100 e-retailers scored 69 or lower, which we generally consider the threshold for being a bottom performer. Looks like we may need to come up with a new threshold.

 Since customer satisfaction is predictive of future financial success and even stock prices, this is great news for e-retail. In fact, this study showed that a one point increase in online customer satisfaction predicts a revenue increase of $89 million, on average.

The report is available on our website and has individual scores for all Top 100 e-retailers across a half dozen categories.

I'm still at eMetrics in San Jose today, so stop by and say hello if you haven't already. 

Does anything surprise you about this report? Has your own experience with e-commerce improved over the last year?

Citizen Satisfaction with e-Gov Stays Strong

Strong Satisfaction Scores Continue

Across over 100 Federal Government websites and over 330,000 visitor surveys, satisfaction with Federal Government websites registered a score of 75.1 on a scale of 0-100. While this is slightly off last quarters score of 75.2 (an all-time high), this is not a significant difference.  The fact that citizen satisfaction stayed strong is very good news.

Why does it matter if citizens are satisfied with Federal Government websites?  Is there competition?  If you have a bad experience with the IRS.gov are you going to pay your taxes in Canada?  No.  The traditional way we look at competition doesn't apply to Federal Government websites.  Yet, citizen satisfaction is very important for many reasons.

Channel Competition

One of the main reasons satisfaction with Federal Government websites is important is that the web is one of many channels that citizens can use to get information from the government, perform transactions with the government and communicate with the government.  It is also one of the most efficient ways to accomplish those tasks.  To service the next 10,000 citizens who need information on the Swine Flu from CDC, want to apply for Social Security benefits, get information on Medicare Prescription Drug plans, check out the latest happenings at NASA, investigate our National Parks or do research on a medical condition at Medlineplus, the web provides the most cost effective and efficient way to do so.  Think about trying to accomplish those tasks in a call center or a branch office -- expensive and inefficient.  Citizens will use the channel that provides them the best experience.  So the web is competing with the other channels, we call that Channel Competition.  And the reward for winning the competition?  Lower cost to provide information and services.  A true win-win.  Citizens get more information and services that is more accessible.  And Government is able to provide that information and services at a lower cost.  Which is not only a win for Government but also for us taxpayers.  I guess that makes it a win-win-win.

Highlights

Some highlights from the results include strong scores from many agency websites.  Social Security had two sites that score a 90 on a scale of 0 to 100, the Retirement Estimator (www.ssa.gov/estimator) and Social Security iClaim (www.socialsecruity.gov/applyonline) sites.  These scores are incredible.  To put it in perspective, Amazon and Google scored 86 the last time their ACSI scores were published.  Is Social Security site better than Amazon and Google?  And by better we mean, more functions, better look and feel, more usable, better site performance, etc.  Most experts and everyday citizens would not claim that the Social Security sites are "better" than Amazon and Google, but compared to their expectations they are.  The simple definition of satisfaction is a combination of what you get and what you expect.

In total, 27% of the sites measured scored 80 or higher.  80 is considered the threshold for a top performing site.  Now these sites can not rest on their past success.  As a result of their strong performance and the strong performance of many private sector sites, the standard that visitors will hold these sites to will continue to increase.  And for those sites that were not in the top echelon, they are taking the all important first step to improvement, which is measuring where you are today.  You cannot manage what you do not measure.  

The Satisfied Citizen

We define the satisfied citizen as those citizens who had a satisfaction score of 80 or higher for the e-Gov site they were visiting.  The dissatisfied citizen had a satisfaction of 69 or below.  The impact of satisfying citizens is huge.  The satisfied citizen is 80% more likely to use the the site as a primary resource, 79% more likely to recommend the site to others and 52% more likely to return to the site when compared to a dissatisfied citizen.  The satisfied citizen is also 50% more likely to participate in government and 54% more likely to trust government.

The Full Report

You can find all the details of the report by downloading our commentary on the results or email me and I will send you a copy. 

Welcome Walter Rothschild

We're thrilled to announce that Walter Rothschild is joining us to act as Chief Marketing Officer, a newly created position to help us advance strategically in the coming years.

Walter has actually been with us a little while, and we've just had such a busy spring, it took us awhile to get the release out. He's already helping us develop our brand and expand our full range of marketing initiatives.

You can read all about his background in the press release, and you'll have a chance to meet him at our upcoming user summit at the end of May in Ann Arbor. He's a great guy with experience and vision that will really strengthen our capabilities.

It's already shaping up to be a great year!

Vote in the Web Analytics Association Election!

Our very own Eric Feinberg, Industry Director for Content, Media & Entertainment here at ForeSee Results, has the honor of being nominated for the 2010 Web Analytics AssociationBoard of Directors. If you are a WAA member, voting begins this Monday, March 29, 2010. He is included in a very prominent group of 16 industry leadersprofiled on the WAA website, and you can listen to his interview and read all about his credentials, plans, ideas, philosophy, and commitment.

The pre-election buzz makes me more convinced than ever that this particular election has profound implications for the future of web analytics.

• Getting beyond clickstream:

Many of the nominees, including Eric Feinberg, highlight the importance of broadening our understanding and usage of web analytics to go beyond clickstream. Eric Peterson and I have both talked about different versions of the web analytics ecosystem that includes attitudinal, behavioral, and observational data--we need all three to get a complete and actionable picture of our customers. The fact that so many of the nominees are talking about this idea makes me very excited about the future of the WAA.

• Social Media’s Influence:

How does our understanding of customer behavior and attitudes in the social sphere fit into the web analytics landscape as we understand it? How do we measure it? How does it influence purchases, loyalty, word of mouth, and other customer decisions and actions? These are the challenges that Eric is eager to address if elected. Through standardization we can develop common vocabulary and definitions for measuring and reporting web metrics.

• International Expansion:

The international web analytics community is hungrier than ever and international markets are more accessible than ever with the advent of social media. We can help web analytics standardize worldwide by electing a leadership that thinks big. 

Eric has been in web analytics since 1997 and brings unique experience because he's been a practitioner, and analyst and a vendor. One of the things I really appreciate about Eric and that I think makes him particularly well-suited to this job is that he has a real passion for this stuff. He prides himself on his familiarity with a variety of technologies, best-practices, trends, controversies, and methodologies, and understands that the true hallmark of a forward-thinking web analytics professional (vendor, practitioner, or analyst) is flexible thinking, thirst for learning, and belief that what we all do really can change the world.

We are certainly rooting for our Eric Feinberg to get elected and bring his leadership, experience, creativity, passion, and dynamic thinking to the WAA Board of Directors. We look forward to contributing as a WAA member on the future of Web Analytics.

Get out and vote…The WAA leadership we elect for the next 2 years will set us up for the next 5 or 10. Let’s pick wisely. 

The Inaugural ForeSee Results E-Government Transparency Index

Today we released our inaugural E-Government Transparency Index. You can download the report for free on our website and read about it on NextGov. I'll share the results first and then explain a bit of the background. These are all Transparency scores, calculated on a 100-point scale. We're starting with 14 federal government websites, so this is far from representative of the whole government, and there are certainly sites out there with slightly higher and much lower transparency. But this study does represent more than 30,000 citizen surveys, which is nothing to sneeze at.

In the Next Gov article, GSA's Dave McClure said, "We have always assumed that greater transparency [and] more openness in government would link to greater satisfaction and higher trust in government. What this study does is help confirm that."

 

 Lots more details in the full report, which you can download for free on our website.

Now, a little more background on what we're measuring and why.

When President Obama released his memo last February about transparency and open government, we immediately got to work. We were already measuring online customer satisfaction with more than 200 federal websites, and our researchers thought there might be a way to adapt our methodology to measure the President's transparency goals in an accurate, precise, actionable manner. If we could do it, it would give agencies a way to measure their performance on these objectives. After all, as I have been known to say maybe once or twice in my career (or in the last 5 minutes), you can't manage what you don't measure. Agencies cannot manage, maintain, or improve transparency, communication, collaboration, or trust without a quantifiable measure of these objectives.

For months, we worked on models and tested them. We were already measuring dozens of drivers, or elements of satisfaction (such as navigation, search, content, look and feel, etc), and we had a theory that online transparency was another one. Citizens who perceive a website as more transparent are going to be more satisfied. Satisfaction as measured by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) has been sown again and again to predict certain future behaviors such as likelihood to use the website as a primary channel instead of other, more costly channels; likelihood to recommend, likelihood to return to the website, etc. So we wanted to see if it was also true that satisfaction predicted likelihood to communicate and collaborate with a given agency, and we wanted to see if satisfaction predicted trust in the agency. These were all the key elements laid out in the Obama memo.

After three months of testing the models, we implemented the new methodology on e-gov sites that volunteered to be part of our research, and then we tested some more. We tweaked, we adjusted, and in July, we published our first report, showing conclusively that transparency was a key driver of satisfaction (in fact, for most agencies but not all, it was the most important driver of satisfaction) and that satisfaction, in turn, predicted trust).

Meanwhile, the buzz about our research grew, and agencies were signing up left and right to deploy the new model on their site. The new model measured all the old things that agencies have been measuring online with us for 10 years, it just added these new elements so that agencies could evaluate their success on these open government initiatives and report their success if they choose.

The E-Government Transparency Index

We decided to publish a report with scores for the 14 sites that had enough data collected by the end of December. We have high standards for data collection, so while many more sites are measuring transparency, only 14 had a big enough sample by the end of the year. Voila, The E-Gov Tranparency Index. Kudos to all that let us publish their scores, and we are looking forward to seeing the Index grow and expand in the coming year.

Just in time!

Last December, the White House and OMB released another memo setting an aggressive time line for agencies to be more open and solicit public opinions. Those of you who have the new model implemented on your site should be well on your way to quantifying how transparent your website is with ACSI-modeled scores for trust and transparency, which are benchmarkable across agencies. Those of you who don't have the new model implemented, just contact your SRA and they can fix you up. Those of you who are not currently running the ACSI survey online can contact dave.lewan@foreseeresults.com and we'll help you out.

So what do you think? Any surprises? Who would you like to see included in the Transparency Index next time?