How to measure traffic statistics for someone else’s website – for free

SYNOPSIS: Being able to do a competitive analysis of the amount and nature of traffic going to a competitor’s website has a number of advantages for marketers and businesses. In this blog post, I will compare the 4 main tools that allow you to procure this competitive analysis free of charge, namely Compete, Quantcast, Alexa and Google Trends / Double Click Ad Planner. If you’re not interested in the details of where one of these is stronger than the other, you can jump straight to my conslusion.

very now and then, most marketers will want to know traffic data from a site that is not theirs. Measuring competitive intelligence for a site other than your own can be useful for many reasons in marketing. You may want to know how many unique users are going to a competitor’s site compared to your own. You may want to track how many people are viewing a site that you are potentially going to advertise on. In my case, I am often quite interested in the online reach of one or more potential Influencers I may potentially begin engaging with. Typically, there are some great proprietary tools that can help you find this information – Hitwise, for example,  is such a solution which will give you data on competitive websites.

Comparing Compete, Quantcast, Alexa and Google Trends for websites.

Sometimes, however, us marketers just don’t have a budget for tools like Hitwise. Or perhaps the budget is there, but you can achieve more by focusing that spending elsewhere. The fact that some of us aren’t willing to pay for competitive analysis tools doesn’t stop this competitive intelligence from being interesting and useful. The good news is that you don’t have to pay big dollars for semi-decent data.   Keep in mind though that ALL of these tools simply make an estimate of website data – if you compare the results these tools give you about your own site with your own analytics, you will quite often see anomalies. As such, it is important to take the results supplied by each of these tools with a grain of salt. It is also a good idea to employ several of these tools together to cross reference accuracy – each of them use slightly different methods to estimate website data, so compare results between the below for the most accurate results.

1 – Compete.com


– (Very) basic competitive intelligence data supplied for free

– Claims to take it’s data from “the largest, most diverse, most actionable, panel in the industry.” (http://www.compete.com/resources/methodology/)

– Basic stats for free, but there is a proprietary service that allows you to dig much deeper into your competitor’s web traffic data, including audience profiles and sub-domains.


– Free version does not do sub-domain data (eg, http://microsoft.com/education or similar)

– English language only

– U.S. audience only

– Relatively small sample compared to the potential size of Google’s sample (see below), which may impact relevancy and accuracy of results.

– Struggles to provide traffic profiles for smaller / more niche sites.


Compete analysis - this is all the detail you get for free. Fairly bare bones, as you can see from all the instances of "Only Available with Pro" blocking out key data.

2 – Quantcast.com


– Usually returns roughly the same results as Compete, suggesting that despite their different methods of estimating competitive intelligence, both compete.com and quantcast.com are, generally speaking, probably reasonably accurate (again, remembering that these sites only estimate traffic, they are not guaranteed to be precise).

– The free version of Quantcast’s competitive intelligence reporting is more comprehensive than Compete. Whilst you still cannot obtain data for subdomains under Quantcast, the report you get in the free version is still fairly useful and you get much more free data than Compete.

– Quantcast will also give you information about the related interests of people visiting the site you are analysing, which can help you better target everything from content creation on your own site to choosing keywords in your online campaign. For example, if I look up Microsoft.com, Quantcast will also show me a list of other interests generally held by people who visit the site.

Quantcast shows some general additional interests of others who have visited the site you are interested in.

– Quantcast are MRC Accredited. I don’t pretend to know what this actually means, or if it’s even important, but apparently they are the only online traffic management company to obtain this accreditation.


– English language only

– U.S audience only

– Relatively small sample compared to the potential size of Google’s sample (see below)

– If a site is smaller or focused on a niche topic, Quantcast (and Compete) may not have a traffic profile for it.


Quantcast measures much the same data as Compete, but you can see that instead of making you upgrade to a Pro account for the bulk of your competitive data, Quantcast provides alot more detail for free.

3 – Alexa.com


– Free

– Global data, not just U.S audiences!!

– Allows more than just English language, although I cannot vouch for how, say, Chinese Alexa compares to English Alexa.

– Takes data from the highly popular Alexa toolbar, meaning that any data gathered around pages per visit etc is probably reasonably accurate (although how well the users supplying that sample data then represent the rest of the internet-using population is debatable).

– Provides much more data than Compete and Quantcast for free – everything from an analysis of search keywords that lead users to that site through to click stream data, gathered via the Alexa toolbar. All of this is super handy if you are looking to compete for some of a competitive website’s traffic.


– Taking data from the Alexa toolbar can have it’s drawbacks… it is hard to feel like you are getting a good cross-section of participants if the data taken is solely from people who have either chosen to install a toolbar plugin or who have installed a product that installed the Alexa toolbar.

– Like Compete and Quantcast, Alexa struggles to provide a traffic profile for smaller or niche sites.

– Alexa seems to be hellbent on providing estimates about the percentage of total internet users rather than hard and fast estimates of total number of uniques heading to a site.


One of Alexa's key advantages over Compete and Quantcast is that it will deliver international data, not just U.S-centric data. It also provides alot more data to cross analyse, like a heatmap of which regions in the world your competitor gets most of it's traffic - useful if you are trying to win specific geographies.

4 – Google Trends for Websites / DoubleClick Ad Planner


– Combines data from both the hugely popular Google Toolbar and from the virtually unknown (kidding) Google Search engine. With around 80% of world searches being conducted using Google, this means that the sample data set much more closely represents the world population, meaning that any estimates made are (hopefully) much more likely to be reliable.

– Provides International traffic data, not just U.S. data

– Provides data on what other websites people have visited (see screen grab below).


– Doesn’t provide the level of data that Alexa (and to an extent, Quantcast) do. This tool only shows a very specific set of competitive data to help people better plan ad planning.


Unless you’re heavily focused on monitoring only the U.S Market (or are specifically interested in entering the U.S market), Quantcast and Compete are probably unlikely to be of much use to you. If you are interested specifically in the U.S market, I think that Quantcast’s ability to give more robust reporting in the free version makes it my preference – there really is some nifty data you can pull out of Quantcast.com.

However, for the rest of us who realize that there is actually a world that exists outside of the U.S, Alexa and the Google offering are your best bet. I honestly cannot make a decision between which one of these is better, and I honestly think that they’re better used in conjunction – each of them has their respective strengths. Alexa will allow you access to much more information about a site, but Google’s abundance of data gathered through its ubiquitous toolbar, crossed referenced against data from it’s http://google.com search engine results means that it’s sample is probably more representative, and thus maybe more accurate. So out of all these free tools, I’d recommend using Alexa and Google Trends in conjunction with one another.

What do you think? Have you compared either of these sites with your own server / analytics results? Do they even come close to being accurate?


Crowd Sourcing, Marketing and Music Ticket Sales – Posse.com might just work

I’m not a big fan of crowdsourcing in marketing. You might have guessed that from my coverage of the CGU Rap crowd sourcing campaign. The reason is that it’s often so poorly executed… it so often comes off as companies either (A) being lazy or (B) trying to do something that they’ve heard is hip / ‘the new thing’ without understanding the concept properly (crowd sourcing was probably one of THE marketing buzz words for 2009). There are exceptions, but they are few and far between (I liked the Smiths Chips ‘Do Us a Flavour” campaign. Although the flavours are no longer available in shops, that campaign was a provided customers a new reason for people to go out and buy not just one bags of Smiths Crisps, but 2 or 3 or 4 to sample the new flavours that Smiths had crowdsourced). 

Blaise Agüera y Arcas shows off Bing Maps and several crowdsourced features.

I need to clarify that I’m not anti-crowdsourcing in general – it is awesome for things like what Bing Maps are doing (see video above) where, for example, people are able to layer PhotoSynths of their favourite places over Bing Maps. Further, Bing is also able to pull geo-tagged images down from Flickr and stitch them together, meaning that a lot of the time, a human user doesn’t need to even create the PhotoSynth – it is automatically made by pulling down the millions of images on Twitter. See, crowd sourcing can be awesome. 

 But I digress… Posse.com is an awesome new(ish) business aiming to crowdsource sales of music tickets to fans. It mimics the role of bands’ street teams, whilst acting as a ticket selling intermediary. And I really like the idea. 

In a nutshell, the site allows users to earn a small commission upon directing a friend to buy a ticket to see a band… the people who refer buyers (called “Posse Agents”) are given a unique referral code which tracks how many people have been referred by that Agent, and the Agents are then paid the corresponding amount based on how many ticket sales they accrued. Agents may also receive certain other perks such as free CDs, VIP access to shows they sell tickets for etc. Whilst for the average user, the small amount received for referring their friends might not be worth it, you can imagine that this provides a very interesting, exciting new way for music blogs and industry influencers to earn some solid cash. This is potentially very attractive for those Influencers who are active in some of the more ‘niche’, underground genres, where they reach a large percentage of the fan base but a small percent of the overall population. This allows them to generate the sort of revenue that display advertising would never be able to replicate. 

Whilst I hesitate to call an idea as awesome as Posse ‘affiliate marketing’ (which is a dirty word if ever I heard one), that is essentially what the site is – it’s an affiliates program for the live music industry, where promotions and effectively ticket sales are crowdsourced. To the best of my knowledge, that is an original concept for live music. 

Premo's Coming to Australia... and using Posse

Premo's Coming to Australia... and using Posse

I do have one concern with Posse – it’s a business model that is easily replicated. Whilst I’m no copyright expert, I’d say there’s not sufficient IP involved in the site to prevent established ticket sellers cheaply imitating the same functionality with some quick code or the affiliate marketing software of their choice. Posse will really need to hit the ground running over the next 6 months to build a solid user base and cement itself as the originator in this area before the bigger players start to take notice, because I think it’s a concept that has the potential to become an industry standard. All the same, despite this challenge, Posse’s an inspired concept and I wish them well.


What is Influencer Marketing? More importantly, what are ‘Influencers’?

I was at an Australia Day barbeque last week and a girl from the Netherlands asked me what I did for work. BBQ’s are one of those events where you can almost guarantee that when you meet a new person, one of the first 5 things people will ask you is what you do for a living. The conversation almost always goes like this:

THEM: “So what do you do for work?”

ME: “I work in Marketing”

THEM: <face lights up> “So you work at an advertising agency? Thats cool. You must get to meet heaps of important people and celebrities – which ones have you m….”

ME: “Er no, I work in Influencer Marketing.”

THEM: “Oh, OK….” <looks distractedly at shoe>

ME: “It’s still pretty cool though. Basically, there’s a select group of people out there that we know our customers both listen to and respect. My job is to make nice with those respected people, and educate them about our product so they can, in good conscience (hopefully) recommend it to other customers.”

THEM: “Oh, so it’s like sponsoring Tiger Woods! Which celebrities do you sponsor? You know I read that Jessica Simpson was linked to him and…”

ME: “Er yeh sure, whatever. Tiger Woods. Can you pass the mustard?”

I admit… Influencer Marketing is not as glamorous as having a 30 second TV spot or sponsoring celebrities. But if you play your cards right, you don’t need the 30 second TV spot, and you can get much greater cut-through and build so much more street cred with your customers. It’s strange that in all the posts I’ve put up at marketingisadirtyword.com, I’ve never really blogged about my work, and the knowledge I’ve gained as a result. So over the next few week, you can expect a bunch of posts about Influencer Marketing, how to start doing it, how to spot influencers, and more.


Average amount of time spent on Social Media by Australians : Facebook stats

The Sydney Morning Herald reported today that Bebo is going to close it’s Australian offices – no surprise there really, since Bebo’s Australian user base has been rapidly shrinking… it was only a matter of time until operations in Australia became unfeasible.

The really interesting part of the article, however, was the stats included from Nielsen that a whopping 29% – almost one third – of time spent online by Australians is on Facebook. I can hear the jingle of marketing dollars being moved around as I type, diverting funding from their PPC campaigns to developing more useless Facebook apps that will create videos of your Facebook friends as dancing Easter bunnies.

Also interesting was this tidbit – “Australia now leads the world for time spent each month on social media sites (7.12 hours), ahead of Britain, Italy, North America and Japan.”

But the real lesson here: Stats are awesome!!


How to tell when a webpage was published / last updated

It’s no secret that I work in Influencer Marketing (of sorts). An important part of choosing which Influencer you want to keep engaging with is checking who has been active recently – sure, homeboy may still be getting hundreds of thousands of unique visits a day to his blog, but if the blog is no longer being updated, why would you engage with him? He’s not going to write any more blog posts, so why bother?

Anyway, Google will normally tell you which date an article was published. But sometimes it doesn’t, in which case I found a neat little trick that will help you find out when a page was last modified. This means you can know straight away if the site you’re looking at is recent…

All you have to do is type ” javascript:alert(document.lastModified) “ into your browser’s address bar and it will show you the date the page was published (this works in FF and IE – I did not test any other browsers). Neat.


When consumer rights orgs get it wrong: Consumers International gets it twisted

In December 2009, Consumers International (CI) announced their annual ‘Bad Company Awards’ for 2009. Among the brands that CI deemed to label “Bad” was Microsoft, lambasted for it’s claims that Windows 7 was a greener OS. Consumers International claimed that whilst Microsoft was flogging a greener OS (which they liked), they were also trying to encourage consumers to buy new hardware / PCs (which they hated)…. and they could not have been much further from the truth.

The Simpsons is a very powerful show - this is how people still seem to see Microsoft - "Buy Him Out, Boys"

I’m all for consumer rights. I love the idea of organisations like CI or Choice Australia keeping companies honest and providing reliable, third party information for consumers. Heck, I started this blog partly because I wanted to showcase great, ethical marketing and expose shonky, dishonest marketing, so I share an end goal with these organisations to an extent. In theory, I like what Consumers International is doing. But part of the credibility of such organisations comes from giving objective, informed decisions, and in this case I don’t think either of these qualities have been displayed. They seem to either (A) have something against Microsoft or (B) just don’t understand what they are talking about in this case.

Before I look at the reasons I feel CI have totally missed the mark by including Microsoft as a “Bad” Company, I need to confirm that I am not employed by Microsoft – I am self-employed, but I am currently contracted to Microsoft to help with their technical community efforts. Further, I’m not a Microsoft fan boy… I like alot of their products, but I’ve got a Playstation aswell as my Xbox360, I have a Nokia phone, I’ve used MacOS on and off for years, I use Google for probably 50% of my search needs, and cut my teeth as a geek (in my past life) delivering open source projects in PHP for NSW state government departments. So I’m no Microsoft zealot. As such, I’m confident that the points I list below can be considered as a fairly objective criticism of CI’s “Bad Company Awards” (as they relate to Microsoft anyway).

1 – No-one I know has gone out to buy a new PC just for the Windows 7 experience – all have either bought the software from a reseller, or downloaded it and upgraded. Those that needed a new PC, bought one, but not just so they could upgrade to Windows 7.

2 – I’m no licensing expert, but I’m pretty sure an OEM (or ‘Original Equipment Manufacturer’) license probably brings in less revenue per PC for Microsoft than when someone buys Windows outright from a reseller like Harvey Norman. What does this mean? Basically that Microsoft makes less money from shipping a copy of Windows 7 on, say, a HP laptop, than they do by selling people the software alone through resellers / online…  it makes no sense for Microsoft to be trying to push people to buy new PC’s when it makes money from software, not PC hardware sales.

3 – Microsoft went to great efforts to ensure the upgrade to Windows 7 from Vista was easy. And it is easy. Ridiculously easy. Upgrading from a Vista machine to Windows 7 is something an average consumer with average computer knowledge can do themselves without needing help / tech support. Why would they Microsoft make upgrading old computers so easy if they were trying to get people to buy new PC’s.

4 – Microsoft also made sure that the large bulk of hardware and associated drivers that work with Vista will also work with Windows 7. So again, there was a consious effort on Microsoft’s behalf to make sure people did not have to buy new PC’s / hardware to enjoy Windows 7.

5 – Microsoft gave free upgrades with purchases of new Vista PC’s in the lead up to Windows 7’s launch. If you bought a new PC in the few months leading up to Windows 7 launch (in Australia, anyway) you received a free voucher for a Windows 7 upgrade. A free voucher that would make the Vista PC you just bought into a Windows 7 PC in a few months… for free. (Free also meaning there were no hardware upgrades necessary, and thus no hardware upgrade costs either.)

6 – Look at the Microsoft Press Release CI are using as proof that Microsoft is trying to encourage people to buy new hardware. At no stage does the press release say people should go and buy a new PC. In fact, at one stage, the press release says “Customers can purchase PCs with Windows 7 or software upgrades online or in-store from technology retailers”. ‘Upgrades’ being the key word there.

I could go on with more reasons, but let’s face it, CI got this one pretty wrong. Given it’s size and dominant presence in the world software industry, Microsoft presents an easy target for consumer rights group. Everyone likes to read about how “Bad” global corporations have been, so I think there’s perhaps a chance Microsoft’s inclusion in the “Bad Company Awards” is to drum up some excitement / interest. Admittedly, there have been occasions in the past where, either intentially or accidentally, Microsoft has found itself in trouble with consumer rights group, but Consumers International is far from the mark this time. I’d go as far as to say they’ve been very “Bad” themselves, since they have not shown what we need to be able to rely on from consumer rights organisations – that is, being properly informed, and impartial in their findings.


Agency side vs client side marketing : which is better?

SYNOPSIS: This is one of the longer blogs posts I’ve done, so let me break it down for you to perhaps save you some time. In the post below, I identify some factors that are important in your choice of job. I then compare these factors looking a both client side marketing and agency side marketing roles to see which is better. I throw in some jokes and make a half-arsed conclusion and bam, we got us a blog post.


It’s part of human nature to look at ‘what could have been’ and think that maybe we chose the wrong path in life. One of the greatest opportunities for this sort of navel-gazing is when one thinks about one’s career. Whilst perfect hindsight is probably one of the most useless gifts one can be endowed with, I can’t help but still sometimes wish I’d finished high school and done a panel beater apprenticeship instead of studying at university, because had I followed that path, I could probably own a hotrod workshop with a couple of employees building big budget custom cars all day by now… a dream job for sure.

Another question that comes up for me every now and then is that of whether I did the right thing by going client side to start my marketing career rather than agency-side. When I was but a wee lad just finished my marketing degree, I applied for the AFA Traineeship as my first fulltime role out of study. Now let me point out that the marketing degree I’d just finished was actually a Masters degree, and that I’d already completed a double degree prior to it wherein I majored in (1) Gender Studies and (2) Information Technology (weird combination, I know). Plus I’d worked part time all the way through my Masters degree in marketing roles, so I went into the ‘try-outs’ for the traineeship feeling pretty assured I was hot shit. And in all modesty, I was pretty over-qualified to be going for an AFA traineeship, so my confidence was probably somewhat warranted.

Anyway, it came time for the group assessment day for the AFA traineeships, which was the final step of the culling process for candidates, and all us eager young candidates lined up to perform our tricks like dancing monkeys for all the agency types who had assembled to pick over the young talent. The usual behaviour for group recruitment days was on display. Everyone was trying to be a ‘leader’. Everyone was trying to be creative. Everyone was trying to contribute for contributions’ sake… god help us, we cannot sit back and listen – we must speak and be seen to speak, no matter what the consequence!!! I remember one traineeship candidate was loudly rattling off names of staff from several big advertising agencies that he apparently regularly caught up with, like he was some bigtime player. I also remember thinking how unsatisfying it would be to glass him with the flimsy paper cups we were given for drinking water out of during the group exercises.

Well, the time came at the end of the day for the traineeships to be dolled out, and I was made an offer by Renard, a great agency from Sydney that I could totally have seen myself working for. Founded by Neil Fox, whom I’d spoken with numerous times throughout the group assessment day and was very impressed by, Renard was a smaller team offering a diverse role, which was right up my alley. To this day, I still feel like I shafted Neil Fox a little, as out of everyone on that day, he chose me to offer a trainseeship to, but alas things were not to be that way. I was very chuffed at my offer, until I found out what the AFA Grad traineeships actually paid – let’s just say that the amount was (A) less than half what I’d been earning whilst working client-side 20 hours a week during uni and (B) barely enough to cover living expenses. I feel the AFA really should have been more upfront with candidates about the amount to be paid, but that’s neither here nor there. I’m under no delusion that Neil Fox reads my blog, but Neil, if you do, I’m still very grateful that you offered me a job with your crew and I hope you ended up with someone awesome.

The point of this story is that the main deciding factor for me as to whether I went client side or agency side was the dollah bills. Materialistic, I know. Which brings me to the point of this blog post, and the first major difference between client side and agency side work – the cheddar…


I’m using the ‘Great Australian Paycheck’ reports from seek.com here as a yardstick. I know it’s not a perfect measure, but I don’t think that anyone can deny that (at least in the more junior ranks) agency staff are severely underpaid. Sure, the argument is that agency types have the payoff of work that is stimulating and fulfilling, but money in my pocket so I can go on an interstate holiday and eat out once in a while is also kinda fulfilling and stimulating too. Anyway, lets look at the figures…

salary report advertising  salary report client side

Salary brackets for agency side (top) vs client side (bottom) in Australia

Long story short, there’s alot more opportunity to earn $80k plus in client side marketing based on the above (then there’s the bonuses too!)

WINNER: Client-side by a mile. Plus, when you break down agency work on a ‘per hour’ basis, the pay is even worse because the hours are longer. Which brings me to my second point…


Besides being a film featuring one of the worst things to come out of Australia, The Hours are a major consideration for anyone in determining which career path they choose. If I were an investment banker doing 18 hour days, I’m still going quite happily get probably less than 4 hours sleep per night because I know I’ve got my mattress and pillows stuffed with hundred dollar bills and probably have Moet in the cistern in my toilet. Not so for young’uns at an agency. Being young and poorly paid at an agency isn’t an excuse to not work long hours. But you should want to work those long hours because it’s really interesting, fulfilling work (see point 1 above).

Being a junior marketer working client side on the other hand, is cushy… working 9-6, with maybe a really late night pushing that out to 7pm. Ooh, I’m gonna be tired in the morning!!

WINNER: Client side


Even when I’m not looking for work, I keep an eye on job listings to monitor what’s happening in the market, what companies are hiring what sort of staff etc. The number of ads I see for roles in agencies where they stipulate “Must have agency experience” is flabbergastingly high. Entry to agencies is hard for us client side marketers, no matter how good we are. The number of client side marketing roles that stipulate “Would suit someone from either an agency or client-side background” is equally flabbergasting – it seems it’s a one way road. Agency folk can quite easily make the switch to client-side, but it’s much harder for us client-side marketers to make the switch to the agency side of things were we so inclined.

WINNER: Agency-side, without a doubt


No marketer wants to be the ‘tactics guy’ – everyone wants to be the ‘strategy guy’. Strategy guys are the shot callers who drive off in their BMW M3’s after work. Tactics guys are the shit kickers who take the bus. Tactics guys get brought in on projects when they’re already half over and all the big decision have been made. Tactics guys get to ‘execute’. Tactics guys certainly don’t get the kudos they probably deserve. Whilst a lot of ad agency types will likely refute this, agency-side work is ‘tactics guys’ work. Before you scream blue murder, let me say I know many agencies advise clients on strategy – I know this. But my take on things is that the beauty of being a client side marketer is that you get to build a strong expertise in your market, in your customers, in your products. Thus your role is, almost by definiton, a strategic one, and your industry / market expertise should be something that I think alot of agencies would struggle to reproduce. If a marketing manager doesn’t know their market and their audience, and are thus unable to set strategy accordingly, I’d say they are under-qualified for the job.

WINNER: Client-side, but there’s certainly a grey space. As I said, the beauty of being a client side marketer is that you get to deep dive into a product or a market or a particular audience and be an expert on that. As such, it is the client-side marketer who should be setting the high level strategy, as they have that depth of understanding. Unless, of course, the agency you use has highly specialised research or knowledge in your area…


Client side marketers are usually boring. Not only are we boring, but we share boring information. I follow a good mix of both agency types and client side types on twitter – the best, most useful, most interesting information comes, almost without exception, from the agency types. They just seem to have their fingers more on the pulse. Agency side folks are cutting edge.

WINNER: Agency-side


Whilst on the topic of who’s boring / interesting, another factor that probably has a large bearing on where we choose to work is the ‘cool factor’ of the job you do. No one wants to be meeting people at parties and telling them “I build relationships with a select group of IT influencers who perform a variety of activities pro bono which helps deliver support and product information to Microsoft’s IT Pro and Developer customers” (that’s my current job I just described, by the way, although lately I’ve taken to telling people I’m a famous rapper and/or streetfighter. Not that I’m ashamed of my job, it’s just that it takes a certain type of person to appreciate what I do, and they’re usually the ones playing D&D and drinking tang in the corner). Working at an agency gets you street cred. It gets you props at parties. I’m pretty sure it’d get you chicks / guys. Everyone wants to be cool.


WINNER: Agency side again has it in spades.

drumroll please….


Lets take a look at the results to see once and for all who’s better client side or agency side marketers:

VARIABLE Client Side Agency Side
Money WIN
Hours WIN  
Career Portability WIN
Strategy v Tactics WIN
Knowledge Sharing WIN
Cool Factor   WIN

Oooh how convenient, a draw…

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 18 other followers

My Twitter feed

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Flickr Photos

April 2019
« Dec