and therefore
 
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, James B. Morrison, Jr. wrote:
 
> >To: [log in to unmask] (James B. Morrison, Jr.)
> >From: [log in to unmask] (James B. Morrison, Jr.)
> >Subject: Internet Marketing Digest #0446
> >Cc:=20
> >Bcc:=20
> >X-Attachments:=20
> >
> >>Return-path: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 10:46:10 -0700
> >>From: Internet Marketing discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Subject: Internet Marketing Digest #0446
> >>Sender: [log in to unmask] (Glenn Fleishman)
> >>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
> >>To: [log in to unmask]
> >>Comments: Point of Presence Company, Seattle, Washington <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Comments: Point of Presence Company
> >>
> >>Internet Marketing Discussion List
> >>
> >>Digest #0446
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>The Internet Marketing Discussion List is sponsored by
> >>Okidata <http://www.okidata.com>
> >>and Downtown AOL <http://downtown.web.aol.com>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>To UNSUBSCRIBE send any text to the email address [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>Send posts to [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>This list is moderated by Glenn Fleishman <[log in to unmask]>
> >>For info about the list, send INFO INTERNET-MARKETING to=
> [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>Complete list archives: <http://www.popco.com/hyper/internet-marketing/>
> >>For sponsorship info, add "sponsor.html" to that address
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>In this digest:
> >>Re: Measuring Site Traffic ([log in to unmask] (Ed Hott))
> >>Re: Client removed from listing due to pressure ([log in to unmask] (Peter
> >>Arguelles))
> >>Psychographics and the Web ("Steve Krause" <[log in to unmask]>)
> >>GVU /HERMES Survey and Online Users (long (Sunil Gupta <[log in to unmask]>)
> >>Re: Does Marketing own the Internet? (Nick Gassman=
> <[log in to unmask]>)
> >>Re: Where to Place Your Ads? ([log in to unmask] (Debbie Reed))
> >>Re: Measuring Site Traffic ([log in to unmask] (Brent Halliburton))
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Date: 10 Sep 1995 08:22:23 -0700
> >>From: [log in to unmask] (Ed Hott)
> >>Subject: Re: Measuring Site Traffic
> >>
> >>
> >>With all due respect to the ongoing discussion about state systems, there
> >>are ways to mine significant information out of standard log files without
> >>modifying the server or writing custom CGI scripts. Our product, Interse'
> >>market focus, accepts log files in Common Logfile Format (CLF) and
> >>approximates user sessions with *no* modifications to the server
> >>environment. The full details are on our web site (www.interse.com).
> >>Relevant to this discussion, here's how we define a "user".
> >>
> >>[ extracted from www.interse.com/marketfocus/user.html ]
> >>
> >>We define a user as a single session or interaction with a web site. In
> >>other words, if Neal visits our web site on Monday, and then returns on
> >>Tuesday, he is counted as two users. The privacy of the individual users=
> is
> >>ensured, as you won't be able to distinguish Neal from Debra who also
> >>visited your site on Monday.
> >>
> >>To differentiate user sessions, our user algorithm analyzes the request
> >>stream in three passes:
> >>
> >>1. Separates requests into groups of similar "differentiating
> >>characteristics." Requests from a single user session always use the same
> >>browser, originate from the same Internet address, use the same web=
> protocol
> >>and request format, etc.
> >>
> >>2. Sorts requests within each group chronologically. If there is a=
> 25-minute
> >>time gap in the request stream, then the previous user session is=
> considered
> >>complete.
> >>
> >>3. If a page is requested and not cached, and there is a high probability
> >>that this page is in the cache of the current session, then the current
> >>request is considered part of a new user session.
> >>
> >>Our user algorithm is conservative, underestimating a sites' user session
> >>count, but never overestimating it. The algorithm is consistent, so
> >>comparisons between time periods and even between sites are valid. The
> >>results enable you to make more informed Internet business decisions.
> >>
> >>[ end of extract ]
> >>
> >>The orignal post was seeking "more relevant and in-depth information than
> >>the "hit-list" generated by the ISP". Interse' market focus is an
> >>off-the-shelf solution that lets you analyze site usage using standard log
> >>files. There are server side approaches as well, but if you're using an=
> ISP
> >>for web hosting services, don't forget that you may have to convince your
> >>ISP to modify *his/her* server environment to accommodate *your*=
> customers.
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>Ed
> >>_________________________________________________
> >>
> >>Ed Hott
> >>Interse' Corporation
> >>[log in to unmask]
> >>408 732-0932 ext. 233
> >>408 732-7038 fax
> >>http://www.interse.com
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Date: 10 Sep 1995 08:23:53 -0700
> >>From: [log in to unmask] (Peter Arguelles)
> >>Subject: Re: Client removed from listing due to pressure
> >>
> >>
> >>Sharon Lane ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Today the directory service called my client and told him that they had
> >>>removed his ad. They had received complaints from competitors, that did=
> not
> >>>want his type of service offered on a directory where they listed their
> >>services.
> >>
> >>Hullo all!
> >>
> >>I have recently been wooed by several ISP's to move my website to their
> >>service. A couple of days ago I received a note from one presenting me=
> with
> >>a URL for a "Site of ill repute" (tm). The site
> >><http://www.servint.com/online> is located directly off my ISP's base URL=
> as
> >>am I. The not-so-concealed implication was that both the ISP and my=
> company
> >>would be guilty by association for sharing the same base URL with this=
> other
> >>company.
> >>
> >>Now, I have nothing against the site in question, nor any site of its ilk,
> >>but I do believe that others might -- specifically, my potential=
> customers.
> >>So I wrote to my ISP's administration and suggested that those other guys
> >>should be offered a domain of their own, free of charge if necessary. I=
> have
> >>previously applied for my domain <http://www.xebec.com> but Internic seems
> >>to have lost it...
> >>
> >>I think this relates to Sharon's question, and my reactions surely=
> elaborate
> >>my own opinion.
> >>
> >>Any others?
> >>
> >>~Pete
> >>
> >>* Laser Toners * Ribbons * Inkjets * http://www.servint.com/Xebec
> >>=3D \=3D=3D /=3D=3D=3D ____/=3D __ \=3D=3D=3D ___/=3D ___/=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =
> 1-800-429-0123 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >> =3D \ /=3D=3D=3D /=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D __/ /=3D=3D /=3D=3D=3D=3D /=3D =
> 310-827-0123 Fax 310-305-8185
> >> =3D =3D=3D=3D ___/=3D=3D ___ <=3D=3D __/=3D=3D /=3D=3D X E B E C C O R=
> P O R A T I O N
> >> =3D / \=3D /=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ___/ /=3D /=3D=3D=3D=3D \=3D=3D=3DOnline=
> Imaging/Supply Superstore
> >>=3D_/=3D=3D_\____/=3D______/=3D____/=3D=3D\____/=3D email=
> [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Date: 10 Sep 1995 08:25:08 -0700
> >>From: "Steve Krause" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Subject: Psychographics and the Web
> >>
> >>
> >>In Internet Marketing Digest #0444, Glenn Fleishman
> >><[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I just had an interesting conversation with a marketing person
> >>> at a design firm who had just compelted a refresher course at
> >>> the local university. She that traditional demographic categories
> >>> have collapsed, since you can't make assumptions about people
> >>> based on their age, gender, etc., any more that are reliable. So
> >>> instead, marketers use fuzzy conceptual groups and "psychographics,"
> >>> where you group people by what they think about things, rather than
> >>> their physical, racial, or other characteristics.
> >>
> >>Psychographics are indeed useful tools, although they are often
> >>most useful when augmenting--not replacing--demographics. The relative
> >>value of the two in predicting consumer behavior tends to depend on
> >>the particular behavior (and related products/services) you're trying
> >>to measure.
> >>
> >>My group at SRI International believes that once site providers get past
> >>the current infatuation with counting hits, they'll increasingly need
> >>psychographics to actually make hits count--that is, to insert the most
> >>appropriate and effective ads, to offer links with the best chance of
> >>being clicked, and to customize a site's presentation for individuals'
> >>affinities.
> >>
> >>Our site is at <http://future.sri.com> for those interested. It includes
> >>information about iVALS and VALS 2. Initially, we applied the latter
> >>(a general-purpose psychographic segmentation for the U.S. population)
> >>to the Web audience, surveying 5500 unique respondents earlier this year.
> >>Some of the lessons we learned from that exercise are available in a
> >>paper on the site. One meta-lesson was that we needed an Internet-
> >>specific segmentation, and thus begat iVALS.
> >>
> >>- --Steve
> >>
> >>P.S. The site allows you to type yourself for both iVALS and VALS 2.
> >> (VALS is an acronym for Values and Lifestyles, which is a program
> >> that has been creating commercial psychographic systems since the
> >> late 1970s. VALS is a trademark of SRI International.)
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Date: 10 Sep 1995 08:26:01 -0700
> >>From: Sunil Gupta <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Subject: GVU /HERMES Survey and Online Users (long)
> >>
> >>
> >>In recent postings Elizabeth Lane Lawley has expressed reservations
> >>regarding the GVU/HERMES study=EDs usefulness in describing the "online
> >>community as a whole". More specifically she stated, "power internet
> >>users, maybe, but the "average consumer" who wanders onto the web from AOL
> >>or their local internet provider? No."
> >>
> >>As a matter of fact, the survey does include considerable information=
> about
> >>such users (who also surf the Web). Of the 13,006 WWW users responding to
> >>the 3rd survey, 6,800 subscribed to either AOL, CompuServe, or Prodigy.
> >>Listed below, are some of the differences between these 6,800 and the
> >>others. (please keep in mind that the 3rd survey was conducted on the Web
> >>between April 10 - May10, and not all of the services had web browsers for
> >>the entire duration of the survey. Thus, whatever conclusions you wish to
> >>reach can apply only to the Web users of these services as of the survey
> >>date. Please also keep all of the other caveats regarding the study in
> >>mind).
> >>
> >> Non-subscribers Subscribers
> >>DEMOGRAPHIC
> >>Income < $50,000 55% 35%
> >>Single 50% 31%
> >>Education - Ph.D.=EDs 10% 5%
> >>Occupation - Managerial 7% 17%
> >> Professionals 17% 26%
> >> Educ related 34% 14%
> >>
> >>COMPUTER RELATED
> >>Internet Access thru Edu 44% 10%
> >>Modem Speed >1m 32% 13%
> >> 14k 33% 56%
> >>Platform - Windows 35% 67%
> >> Unix 16% 2%
> >>Less than 1 year on Internet 35% 64%
> >>Surf once a day or more 80% 64%
> >>>50 item in hotlist 36% 29%
> >>Find Web sites thru
> >> Magazines 59% 71%
> >> Newsgroups 64% 52%
> >> .sigs 38% 28%
> >>Primary use of Web
> >> Academic Research 42% 26%
> >> Business Research 34% 43%
> >> Educational 50% 43%
> >>Not willing to pay fees
> >>for Web resources 26% 20%
> >>
> >>COMMERCIAL STUFF
> >>Use commercial WWW sites for
> >>purchase information 53% 63%
> >>Bought through any online source
> >> Apparel 2% 7%
> >> Books 14% 15%
> >> Casual Clothes 2% 6%
> >> Electronics < $50 3% 6%
> >> Electronics > $50 3% 6%
> >> Gourmet Food 2% 3%
> >> Hardware < $50 9% 19%
> >> Hardware > $50 10% 17%
> >> Stocks/Bonds 5% 12%
> >> Music 11% 11%
> >> Software < $50 21% 35%
> >> Software > $50 13% 23%
> >> Travel related 6% 15%
> >>
> >>Sought information through any online source
> >> Apparel 9% 13%
> >> Books 43% 42%
> >> Casual Clothes 6% 10%
> >> Concerts/Plays 18% 18%
> >> Electronics < $50 20% 27%
> >> Electronics > $50 27% 37%
> >> Gourmet Food 10% 12%
> >> Hardware < $50 48% 58%
> >> Hardware > $50 62% 72%
> >> Stocks/Bonds 23% 35%
> >> Movies/Videos 34% 36%
> >> Music 36% 39%
> >> Software < $50 59% 65%
> >> Software > $50 63% 70%
> >> Travel related 35% 49%
> >>
> >>Quick summary: The online service users who surf the Web are richer,
> >>non-academics, newer to the internet, and are more likely to be interested
> >>in using the Web for purchase and shopping related information across many
> >>product categories.
> >>
> >>Details for individual online services and other survey
> >>questions are available by downloading the original datasets
> >>(http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-04-1995/datasets/),
> >>and then running the analysis using your own analysis program. A simpler
> >>procedure for customized analysis will be available on September 27th.
> >>Comments and suggestions for the 4th survey are welcome.
> >>
> >>Sunil Gupta
> >>Director, HERMES Project
> >>University of Michigan Business School
> >>http://www.umich.edu/~sgupta/hermes/
> >>[log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Date: 10 Sep 1995 08:26:47 -0700
> >>From: Nick Gassman <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Subject: Re: Does Marketing own the Internet?
> >>
> >>
> >>Larry Thomson said
> >>
> >>*Quote
> >>Debate seems to be raging among my peers as to what functional=
> organization
> >>within a company is most responsible for bringing the Internet to their
> >>organizations and who owns it after it's implemented.
> >>
> >>*snip
> >>
> >>Would also like to know where the list members think responsibility for
> >>Customer Support belongs within a business organization. For this post I
> >>would define customer support as all communication to and from the=
> customer
> >>including product information, press releases, software patches,
> >>configuration and support information, troubleshooting info etc
> >>
> >>*end quote
> >>
> >>There seems to be some background to this question that we are not
> >>party to. I imagine Larry has in mind an organisation of a particular
> >>size, and from the last paragraph he seems to be talking about a
> >>software company??? As a general point to list contributors, can I
> >>suggests that such assumptions should be made clear, as the answer in
> >>this case can only be 'it depends'.
> >>
> >>What it depends on are such factors as the size of the organisation,
> >>the way it is structured, and the use they wish to make of the
> >>Internet.
> >>
> >>If we assume a large enough organisation to have the full range of
> >>functional departments, then I believe that ownership should not lie
> >>with any one department, but with a corporate area, if such an area
> >>exists. In a large organisation there will be many business units
> >>with an interest in the use of the Internet, and there is a danger if
> >>one department owns it that not all interests will be adeqautely
> >>represented.
> >>
> >>My view is that 'ownership' should lie with a central dept and for
> >>there to be a steering board of representatives from the business
> >>areas affected.
> >>
> >>As to who manages contact, the answer should be that all the relevant
> >>areas do. It doesn't have to be one area only. Have a look at
> >>http://www.tesco.co.uk
> >>They have a contact section which lists email addresses for customer
> >>relations, investor relations, computers for schools, webmaster. I
> >>think this is the way to go, and I haven't yet seen a lot of it Any
> >>department with legitimate reasons for customer contact should talk
> >>direct to the customer.
> >>
> >>Multimedia across the Internet is here
> >>http://www.route-one.co.uk/route-one
> >>Nick Gassman known as [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Date: 10 Sep 1995 11:06:50 -0700
> >>From: [log in to unmask] (Debbie Reed)
> >>Subject: Re: Where to Place Your Ads?
> >>
> >>
> >>Although in the formative stages, Nielsen, SRDS, and other traditional
> >>audience research firms are looking at the problem (opportunity) you
> >>discuss. In the meantime, it seems the only track is a "do it yourself" -
> >>exactly what you're doing - getting data from individual sites.
> >>
> >>The Chamber of Commerce would be a good start. Also city listings, small
> >>business sites, home based business publications. And don't forget the
> >>opportunity of posting to appropriate newsgroups in your area - with
> >>disclaimers if you are selling your services. Don't overlook traditional
> >>media forms to build name awareness: local newspaper, business journals,
> >>radio. Speaking opportunities as part of an overall integrated program=
> will
> >>also produce results.
> >>
> >>What you are suggesting re: online help is an excellent idea; in a sense,
> >>the formation of rep firms handling areas, site types, i. e., electronic
> >>journals (consumer & trade), geographic areas, specialties such as=
> science,
> >>education, computers, marketing and leisure activities such as recreation,
> >>travel, etc. Master list development could begin in similar fashion to=
> the
> >>volumes of SRDS or take a geographic approach like Gale's directories.
> >>Online databases for searching, or printed reports by subscription.
> >>
> >>We've been looking at this same situation locally (New Orleans) and have
> >>categorized type information as mentioned above. Sites are approached
> >>individually; there are no standard costs. Everything appears=
> experimental
> >>at the moment based on hits; psychographic information is assumed by=
> content.
> >>
> >>Debbie
> >>
> >>****************************************************************
> >>DRI Media -- 504-365-1401
> >>405 Gretna Blvd., Suite 212 -- 504-365-1433 Fax
> >>Gretna, LA 70053 -- [log in to unmask]
> >>- ----Advertising Research, Media Buying, Internet Marketing----
> >>****************************************************************
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>Date: 10 Sep 1995 13:25:20 -0700
> >>From: [log in to unmask] (Brent Halliburton)
> >>Subject: Re: Measuring Site Traffic
> >>
> >>
> >>Ed wrote about Interse's Market Focus:
> >>
> >>>To differentiate user sessions, our user algorithm analyzes the request
> >>>stream in three passes:
> >> [ - snip - ]
> >>>2. Sorts requests within each group chronologically. If there is a=
> 25-minute
> >>>time gap in the request stream, then the previous user session is=
> considered
> >>>complete.
> >> [ - snip - ]
> >>>Our user algorithm is conservative, underestimating a sites' user session
> >>>count, but never overestimating it. The algorithm is consistent, so
> >>>comparisons between time periods and even between sites are valid. The
> >>>results enable you to make more informed Internet business decisions.
> >>
> >>Ed is right, due to limitations of the http protocol, without modifying=
> the
> >>server environment it is impossible to do little more than estimate the
> >>amount of users. If a company maintaining a web site is unable to modify
> >>their server environment, than they are forced to rely on a series of
> >>algorithms to judge what pages a user looks at.
> >>
> >>I have a lot of questions about this "rule of thumb" approach. I assume
> >>from your discussion that the way you are "conservative" and
> >>"underestimate" a user session count is by having a 25 minute time out
> >>period instead of something like 15 minutes. However, that seems
> >>inaccurate. I am relatively certain that every hit to the server gets
> >>allocated somewhere. You can either allocate it to distinct users, or in
> >>your conservative approach, assign them to the same user. What is a worse
> >>crime? To have 2 users where there was one, or to have one user making
> >>twice as many hits as he would have. To call this conservative would be
> >>one way to describe it. I think it was simply a design decision when
> >>attempting to determine how to err when one recognizes the possibility of
> >>inaccuracy. To illustrate this, I flipped open my (Common Log Format) log
> >>files. Here we have part of a session from a visitor from Netscape. He
> >>looked at about 20 pages before coming to this.
> >>
> >>unknown.netscape.com - - [01/Sep/1995:16:01:49 -0400] "GET /iis/ HTTP/1.0"
> >>200 809
> >>unknown.netscape.com - - [01/Sep/1995:16:02:04 -0400] "GET /groupcortex/
> >>HTTP/1.0" 200 1639
> >>unknown.netscape.com - - [01/Sep/1995:16:02:18 -0400] "GET
> >>/groupcortex/news/news.html HTTP/1.0" 200 4425
> >>unknown.netscape.com - - [01/Sep/1995:16:29:02 -0400] "GET /contact.html
> >>HTTP/1.0" 200 1765
> >>
> >>This illustrates the question of algorithms. He was gone more than 25
> >>minutes so he would be counted as two sessions. Common log format log=
> file
> >>analysis would indicate that it was two distinct users requesting on
> >>average 10 pages a session, rather than indicating that it was one user=
> who
> >>clicked on the link to read about our Interactive Age article and then=
> came
> >>back to fill out the contact page, which is what actually took place. One
> >>user, 20 pages, and other information.
> >>
> >>The common log format does not even contain much of the information that=
> is
> >>important to improve the efficacy of the algorithm. For example, there is
> >>no user-agent field in common log formats.
> >>
> >>That is why state environments are so important. They are the only way to
> >>eliminate reliance on estimates to count people. They give you a hard
> >>count.
> >>
> >>Even state environments can be built that are more or less effective. The
> >>manner in which you track users can have significant bearing on how much
> >>information is extracted from the tracking process.
> >>
> >>How do other people feel about this question? I know that up until we
> >>built a state environment and saw how effective it was we relied on
> >>algorithms. Now I think that tools like Interse's are an attempt to
> >>provide a UI to information, but I don't expect them to be accurate=
> because
> >>they simply don't have access to the information and data necessary to
> >>provide accuracy.
> >>
> >>
> >>Brent Halliburton
> >>
> >>President http://www.cortex.net/
> >>Group Cortex 2300 Chestnut St. Suite 230
> >> Philadelphia, PA 19103
> >>[log in to unmask] Phone 215.854.0646 Fax 215.854.0665
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Our Sponsors:
> >>
> >>Okidata <http://www.okidata.com>
> >>Okidata is a 23 year old company that's built its success on meeting
> >>the computer printing needs of small to medium sized organizations
> >>throughout North and South America
> >>
> >>Downtown AOL <http://downtown.web.aol.com>
> >>The streets of Downtown AOL are populated with an eclectic group of
> >>merchants, offering products and services that span the spectrum from
> >>novelty mousepads to regional gourmet food items.
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>