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