

How I Made One Client An Extra $500k a Year In 5 Minutes - topcat31
http://analytics.blogspot.com/2010/07/using-wrong-tracking-code-can-cost-you.html

======
jasonkester
Of course this could be read another way: How Google's poorly thought out
Analytics code cost a company $500k/year.

Whenever you plug somebody else's code into your site, you're taking a risk.
Try browsing the web with your browser set to pop up warnings on every
javascript error, and you'll see how bad most of the scripts people plug into
their site really are.

~~~
pierrefar
You can also spin it as the customer not keeping updated with the latest code
that fixes known issues. How much can you really blame Google on customers
using years-old code?

~~~
jasonkester
Indeed. That's the point I was trying to make. It's not an issue of whether
it's Google's fault that the company didn't update their tracking code. It's
the fact that when you start integrating 3rd party stuff into your codebase,
it suddenly becomes your job to keep on top of every one of those plugins to
make sure they stay working.

------
brown9-2
Pretty amazing that sites with such high daily revenue (close to UK 7000/day,
just for IE) either weren't testing their checkout process in IE or didn't
ever wonder "gee why am I getting this 'insecure content' popup and how can it
be fixed?".

~~~
jseifer
Not to mention that there were almost certainly people who did see that pop-up
and entered their credit card details anyway.

~~~
whatusername
As mentioned at the bottom of the article -- if you click "yes" on the popup
-- then you only got the secure data -- and didn't get the analytics code. And
that quite possible 70% of the users did just that.

------
pbhjpbhj
Summary:

Ensuring that Google analytics downloads the js script using https on websites
that are themselves https served in order to prevent IE8 visitors from getting
a security warning.

Discusses segmentation in GA and some other issues too along with the general
concept of checking conversion rates for different classes of visitor.

------
fishercs
how could you miss this with initial cross browser testing? If I were the
company i'd be furious.

~~~
paraschopra
Probably their QA got fired after this event. Who knows? Seriously though I am
amazed how can such companies remain to exist. I am amazed at how trivial this
error is.

On another note. The payment processor we use (2checkout) have an error in
their checkout page where they ask PIN code but explicitly point out _Only
required for US customers_ but in reality it is needed for ALL customers.
Raised this bug two months ago, they acknowledged it and it is still not
fixed. I'm furious at this but based outside US I have little or no option to
switch.

~~~
tpz
"I am amazed at how trivial this error is."

Agreed. However...

"Probably their QA got fired after this event."

I doubt it. I have seen many QA staff at a variety of companies get so used to
IE's various oddities that over time they will simply stop opening some kinds
of bugs against the site on IE, even perfectly legitimate bugs like that in
the article. All it takes is for product management to punt mixed content
warning bugs during a few releases before QA also stops reporting them. If
someone does later bring one up, over time it evolves into "Oh, that's an IE
thing we can't fix." These are smart people doing generally diligent work, but
they do tend to get worn down around IE.

I can't say for sure why this happens but I've seen it most with IE mixed
content warnings.

------
rythie
Why aren't the other browsers warning about this? It IS a security problem if
people mix non-SSL content into a SSL page.

------
bkrausz
Isn't it just as likely that people were still ordering but clicking "Yes" to
the remove insecure content option? This would mean the orders still came
through but Google Analytics wasn't getting called and recording them.

------
leftnode
A more genuine title would've been: "How I made one client with a tremendous
amount of traffic an extra $500k a year".

It's not like someone implemented a new feature that brought in an extra
$500k.

~~~
carbocation
I mean, that's pretty much what I inferred given the nature of the title.
Since you usually only tell part of a story with a title, I felt that this one
was sufficiently genuine. They could have deflated it a bit by saying "How I
increased a client's revenue by X% with one change."

