Very interesting take on a new metric that seems to work well with other metrics mentioned. Although I find the word 'nag' humorous, I'm just wondering if it has too negative a connotation, or could there be an alternative to this metric label?
I kind of love it but dislike it at the same time 😄
Since publication, have you experimented further with this metric? I'd love to know what your findings were.
Great article! Loved it. However, the Nag Score of the article is 400 as 100% of the screen was blocked with a popup asking me to subscribe and the attention multiplier is 4 "since a full-screen interstitial blocks you from doing anything else until you've managed to precisely hit that" continue to read button 😂
Loved this post, super useful metric. I like the "nag" term, even if I feel is way too soft for what most products and marketing teams are doing to our attention. Would be interesting to know what is the balance and how much nagging can someone take before completely turning off from the product.
I don't think this Nag metric is useful beyond a point. If ' % of screen real estate dedicated to the CTA' is high, is there anyway the attention multiplier be low? Anything that takes up 1/4 of total real estate is invariably going to have users' attention.
- Inverting the standard conversion rate discussion, to focus on the number of users who didn't find a CTA useful, is very much needed.
- Regarding the nag score, curious about the attention multiplier in the equation. It seems a bit subjective. Perhaps modifying to; attention multiplier = (frequency * duration) makes it less so.
Very interesting take on a new metric that seems to work well with other metrics mentioned. Although I find the word 'nag' humorous, I'm just wondering if it has too negative a connotation, or could there be an alternative to this metric label?
I kind of love it but dislike it at the same time 😄
Since publication, have you experimented further with this metric? I'd love to know what your findings were.
Great article! Loved it. However, the Nag Score of the article is 400 as 100% of the screen was blocked with a popup asking me to subscribe and the attention multiplier is 4 "since a full-screen interstitial blocks you from doing anything else until you've managed to precisely hit that" continue to read button 😂
Loved this post, super useful metric. I like the "nag" term, even if I feel is way too soft for what most products and marketing teams are doing to our attention. Would be interesting to know what is the balance and how much nagging can someone take before completely turning off from the product.
I don't think this Nag metric is useful beyond a point. If ' % of screen real estate dedicated to the CTA' is high, is there anyway the attention multiplier be low? Anything that takes up 1/4 of total real estate is invariably going to have users' attention.
- Inverting the standard conversion rate discussion, to focus on the number of users who didn't find a CTA useful, is very much needed.
- Regarding the nag score, curious about the attention multiplier in the equation. It seems a bit subjective. Perhaps modifying to; attention multiplier = (frequency * duration) makes it less so.