>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. >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >