Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1998/Seidman.s.Online.Insider.html
Content
| | | | --- | --- | | Red Rock Eater Digest | Most Recent Article: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 |
Seidman's Online Insider - March 8, 1998
``` [Recent surveys suggest that Internet users are resisting commerical interactions that require them to surrender personal information. I've seen these results spun in different ways. On the one hand, people in surveys express concerns about handing over personal information in many contexts. On the other hand, the Internet is a special case in that a Web site, at least with current technology, cannot learn much about you as an identifiable individual unless you knowingly provide the information, and even when you do provide that information, it cannot yet be readily merged with information derived from other sources. Furthermore, Internet users have a greater capacity than customers of most businesses to talk among themselves about the privacy issues that affect them. That makes the Internet a fairer test of consumer attitudes and actions than many other contexts in which the capture and transfer of personal information is less visible.]
---
This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
---
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 17:04:01 -0500
From: Robert Seidman
---
Seidman's Online Insider - Vol. 5, Issue 9 Visit the Online Insider on the Web for additional content and access to the Insider Talk discussion forums. A new Seidman's 25 is now up! < http://www.onlineinsider.com >
---
Copyright (C) 1998 Robert Seidman. All rights reserved. May be reproduced in any medium for noncommercial purposes as long as attribution is given.
IN THIS ISSUE
If you've been dying to see my fish and my cat or even if you haven't, here's your chance: < http://www.onlineinsider.com/html/about_me.html >. The links to the pics are at the bottom of the page at the above URL.
What's Happening in Insider Talk
---
Note: you can avoid the hassle of cutting and pasting all the links below by viewing the current issue at www.onlineinsider.com and using the links there.
"The notion that it is simply honorable junk mail if the person will remove you, if you ask, does not hold water, knowing that asking to get off the list is the trigger that many folks use to send you more stuff. It is often better to just not reply. There is no way to know if the person sending the stuff is honorable in advance, unless they have done the truly honorable thing and asked you if you want to be on the list in the first place." -- Cliff Kurtzman, president and CEO of Tenagra, in the Policy conference:
< http://www.wellengaged.com/engaged/seidman.cgi?c=policy&t=9&q=49 >
---
"Yahoo! performs a useful service, but it's no more likely to inspire brand loyalty than the catalog at the public library or the water & sewer department." -- Durant Imboden, Boardwatch Magazine columnist, in the Web conference:
< http://www.wellengaged.com/engaged/seidman.cgi?c=web&t=16&q=3 >
---
"The comments about leveraging AOL infrastructure are on target and will be a key part of CompuServe 5.0. But the CompuServe brand will continue. With its own identity, personality and character and with web forums. Most of us recognize the forums as a key asset that are better than what AOL or anyone else has. It'd be dumb to blow that up (and in saying that I know there are people participating in this thread who'll conclude that we'll do it anyway because it's dumb; but I can't help them)." -- Bob Kington, VP of programming, CompuServe, in the Online conference:
< http://www.wellengaged.com/engaged/seidman.cgi?c=online&f=0&t=16&q=131 >
Correcting a Correction
---
In last week's "off-week" update, I corrected a statement in the February 22 issue where I'd said that AOL did not offer flat-fee options outside of the US. I said that AOL did in fact offer a flat-fee option in both the UK and Germany. AOL International spokesperson Kirsten Powers contacted me to let me know that there is no flat-fee option offered in Germany. According to Powers, the reason I may have been told otherwise by some readers is that AOL is testing different price plans. Such tests are not available to the general public.
Life and the Internet
---
A couple of new services are attempting to use the Internet to complement life events, major or minor. Getting married, having a baby or selecting a college are major events that affect a great many people. Planning and coordinating a family reunion or Little League baseball practices or even a car-pool schedule -- well, these are not major life events, but people live with this stuff, and the Internet could be used as a tool to disseminate information.
An example of a company that's going after major life events is LifeServ, a start-up based in Englewood, Colo. LifeServ's first product, WedServ, offers a software tool called WedLink that lets couples plan and organize that special day. Couples also get to set up a "WedSite" that serves as a tool for the wedding guests by providing them the most up-to-date information straight from the engaged couple. Gift registries, pictures, directions to the church, hotel accommodations and the like can all be made available online. Point your guests to the Web site for the most up-to-date info. It's an interesting model and one that, as more and more folks get online, becomes very practical.
The business model is simple: Give the service away and charge the merchants that definitely want to reach this target audience. As a couple steps through the planning phase for the wedding, certain merchants are recommended on the basis of a profile the couple has filled out. LifeServ gets money on what's effectively very targeted advertising, plus a cut of any resulting transaction.
WedServ is an interesting model, and LifeServ won't stop there. LifeServ plans to launch services centered on having a baby and picking a college. My biggest concern for LifeServ is distribution of its software. But, given the nature of the life events it's going after, it has interesting distribution opportunities in terms of handing out software that go beyond simple banner ads, print and other marketing media. It could partner with merchants. For example, it could cut deals with jewelry stores in which they give the software to couples who buy engagement rings. Or it could make arrangements with obstetricians to distribute disks. To succeed, I think, LifeServ will have to be effective at nailing down its non-Internet marketing strategy, but it's a great concept. The company's current marketing efforts include creating traditional Internet partnerships as well as, with WedServ, making deals with wedding merchants and publications. For more information, see < http://www.wedserv.com >.
Though it's not specifically targeting major or minor life events, Seattle-based start-up Throw, Inc.might be better off it were targeting such events from a marketing point of view. Instead it's going after the much broader and currently more competitive space of online communities. Throw's product, InstantOnline, will offer a compelling set of features and tools that easily and quickly let you add and share information and create "virtual communities." It's currently in private beta.
"In addition to email, discussions and chat, InstantOnline offers an address book, photo album, events calendar, bookmark file and much, much more," according to text on its Web site. "With pre-set community templates like 'Team Sports,' 'Book Club' and 'Virtual Office,' it's even easier to build a specialized community. You know what your community needs; InstantOnline gives you the tools to meet those needs."
InstantOnline can get you started quickly with templates such as its starter pack, plus a family template, a book-club template, a sports-team template and, yes, even a wedding-planner template (you give access to your community to all your guests, then give them the URL).
One of the advantages of InstantOnline is that it lets you communicate in real time with anyone else currently logged in to your community. It also intends to be more object-oriented than other services. For example, you can link almost anything to anywhere. You can have a photo album for browsing photographs, but you also can embed a picture directly into a message in a message thread.
The biggest concern I have for Throw's InstantOnline is that, like me, it isn't exactly sure what it wants to be when it grows up. On the one hand, it seems to be trying to position itself to take on GeoCities-style build-your-own-home-page-in-our-neighborhood products. On the other hand, it's going after a hybrid free/fee plan where many of the applications available to you in a community (say, messaging) will be free of charge, while others (such as a calendar function) may carry a fee. Last, and worst, in my opinion, Throw appears to want to sacrifice its message for a chance at more exposure.
InstantOnline's tag line is "Aren't there times when you don't want all of America online with you?" It's a sly ploy that attempts to make the subtle statement "when you only want to be with the people you want to be with," while also making a backhanded reference to AOL. Such a tag line obscures the real message of what Throw is attempting to do with InstantOnline -- allow you to communicate easily with the people you want or need to communicate with in a great forum for doing so. The tag line seems to imply that when you're online you're always burdened with EVERYONE else who's online too. That's clearly never the case. And the backhanded AOL comment might be construed to imply: "Do you really need all that stuff on AOL, or do you need this?"
That said, the tag line still may be a good approach. Why? AOL is the giant, and everyone loves a David-and-Goliath story. It's the same rationale CNET used when it launched Snap! Online. CNET suggested Snap! was competing with AOL. "Hello Snap. Goodbye AOL!" the Snap! T-shirts joked.
So when InstantOnline launches more formally, it may get a lot more press exposure as a result of the AOL nature of its tag line. Let's hope this won't obscure the underlying potential of InstantOnline: We think we have great tools that will let you more easily share information among your friends, people with like interests and/or your co-workers.
You can find more information at: < http://www.throw.com >.
More Fun With Numbers
---
It's been a while ...
First off, we have a survey from Business Week and Louis Harris that concludes concerns over privacy block the way to increased Internet commerce.
According to the survey results, 78 percent of people who go online say they'd use the Internet more if they believed the privacy of their personal information and communications was protected.
Privacy is a big deal. No question about it. But I often find myself pondering editorial products and pollsters' fixation on the issue of privacy and the Internet. The focus, if anything, only increases people's fears. And maybe that's not bad -- I'd probably argue it isn't. But what irritates me is that these pollsters and editorial products don't raise privacy issues that concern other forms of media. Not so with the Business Week-Harris survey.
When I read the news release for the survey and saw that it concluded people trust the Internet less than other forms of communication, I wondered how the study approached that. I've concluded from the results that a lot of people are worried about almost all forms of privacy invasion. Of course, the release didn't emphasize that 80 percent of the respondents are at least somewhat concerned about giving credit card information to catalog phone service representatives. Likewise, 80 percent are at least somewhat concerned about providing their credit card information on the Internet. The difference is that only 56 percent of the respondents were VERY concerned in the telephone-catalog instance, while 65 percent were VERY concerned about giving their credit card data on the Internet.
Seventy-eight percent of the respondents who actually go online report they have never bought anything via the Internet (22 percent report they have).
Most telling and problematic for Internet advertising in general may be the finding that 62 percent of respondents are not at all willing to give personal and financial information about themselves so they can receive targeted ads. Add the 22 percent who are not very willing and you have 84 percent who are at least not very willing to provide this information.
David Simons, managing director of Digital Video Investments, looked at the above results and wondered what impact the privacy issues would have on online marketing. He contrasts the 84 percent above with the fact that "targeting not obtainable via other media has forever been the major promise of online advertising."
Other interesting tidbits from the Business Week-Harris study:
And the study even covered spam!
Full details at: < http://www.businessweek.com/premium/11/b3569107.htm >.
Online Shopping Increases
According to research by Stamford, Conn.-based @Plan, 24 percent of Web users are actively shopping online. Sounds high to me, and I went to @Plan's Web site < http://www.webplan.net > to see whether I could find out more, but at the time I visited, the only information available without a subscription was the company name, address and phone number, and an e-mail address for getting info on subscribing. I would say @Plan isn't using its own Web site to sell its own goods very well, but, hey, that's just one guy's opinion. According to the news release issued on March 2, the five "Web Purchase Retail Categories" showing the greatest percentage growth in the past nine months are:
1. Airline ticket reservations (up 301 percent) 2. Stocks and mutual funds (up 291 percent) 3. Computer hardware (up 111 percent) 4. Car rental (up 105 percent) 5. Books (up 94 percent)
None of this strikes me as outrageous. While the percentages are high, you're starting from very low usage, so these kinds of increases aren't shocking. That books are low relative to airline tickets only indicates (to me) that books were already selling better nine months ago and earlier.
In the nostalgia department, the following content sites have the highest percentage of viewers who have been on the Web for more than two years:
1. CMP TechWeb 2. Jumbo 3. PC Week Online 4. ActiveX.com 5. HotWired
I'm sure they danced a jig in Manhasset over that one! That technology-related sites occupy all five places sounds right to me.
The following content sites have the highest percentage of viewers who have been on the Web for less than six months:
1. ABC.com 2. Autoweb.com 3. RollingStone.com 4. Penthouse 5. MTV Online
This I found interesting. ABC.com is still relatively new itself, so no big surprises there, especially with the promotion on AOL. That music sites occupy two of the five slots is also not shocking. I'm surprised that Penthouse is on the list! Not a slam on Penthouse, I'm just surprised people admitted visiting the site.
From our friends at Find/SVP Emerging Technologies Research Group (which is now Cyber Dialogue) ... According to the fourth-quarter 1997 results for the American Internet Usage survey update:
You've seen bigger numbers than the ones above. You've seen WAY bigger numbers. I trust these numbers the most (though I do have one concern, which is noted at the end).
The younger an adult you are, the more likely you are to be online:
More people use the Net from home than from work:
AOL -- not quite as big as the rest of the online world combined, on a user basis:
On a subscriber basis, it looks a little different (but remember, not all users subscribe to anything):
The Microsoft Network: The survey doesn't track well with data reported by MSN, or else MSN is holding back on us!
This is extremely surprising on a couple of levels. For one thing, the users-per-account ratio is much higher than it is for AOL; this is especially surprising since MSN stopped giving out numbers at 2.5 million. While there's an argument that says Microsoft might want to mask growth amid all the antitrust considerations, I have trouble buying that Microsoft would lowball its U.S. numbers by such a huge amount (consider that a portion of MSN's 2.5 million reported included international subscribers and the above is only for U.S. subscribers). According to Cyber Dialogue VP, Tom Miller, "Possible explanations include: some survey respondents confusing using MS online support with using MSN, thus overstating the data; or MSN has more subs than they admit to."
*Extrapolated from Find/SVP data
Quotes of the Week
---
"Push isn't dead, it's hard." -- PointCast chairman, president and CEO David Dorman
"You've been somewhat hard to nail down."--Sen. Orrin Hatch to Bill Gates during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
Stock Watch for the Week Ended March 6, 1998
---
Courtesy of InfoBeat's CLOSING BELL < http://www.infobeat.com >.
52 Wk 52 Wk P/E Week SECURITY CLOSE HIGH LOW Ratio CHNG
---
AT&T Corp................ 61 66 1/2 30 3/4 21 0.0% Amazon Com Inc........... 76 3/4 79 5/8 15 3/4 -0.3% America Online Inc....... 121 1/2 125 38 5/8 467 +0.1% Apple Computer Inc....... 24 7/16 29 3/4 12 3/4 +3.4% At Home Corporation Ser A 36 37 1/2 16 5/8 +5.4% C/Net.................... 37 3/16 46 1/2 15 3/4 +2.5% CMG Info Svcs. Inc....... 58 1/4 57 10 7/16 +21.6% Cendant Corporation...... 39 38 11/16 19 1/4 650 +4.0% Cmp Media Inc Cl A....... 24 3/4 29 3/8 13 3/4 33 +4.7% Concentric Network Corp.. 13 7/8 16 7 7/8 -4.3% Cybercash Inc............ 12 15/16 24 1/4 10 1/8 -5.0% Earthlink Network Inc.... 50 54 1/2 8 5/8 +2.0% Excite Inc............... 48 7/16 50 1/2 7 1/2 +2.5% FTP Software Inc......... 2 3/16 7 1/4 1 1/2 +9.4% GTE Corporation.......... 55 1/2 55 3/4 40 1/2 19 +2.5% Hewlett Packard Company.. 61 9/16 72 15/16 48 1/8 21 -8.1% IBM...................... 98 1/8 113 1/2 63 9/16 16 -6.0% ICG Communications Inc... 36 1/2 34 3/4 8 5/8 +8.5% Infoseek Corporation..... 18 3/8 17 15/16 4 3/8 +11.7% Lycos Inc................ 43 3/8 43 3/4 11 3/16 +5.1% MCI Communications Corpor 47 1/2 48 15/32 27 5/16 48 -0.6% Mecklermedia Corp........ 25 29 3/4 16 1/2 46 -8.2% Microsoft Corporation.... 82 3/4 86 43 3/4 57 -2.3% Mindspring Enterprises In 57 3/8 55 1/2 6 5/8 +18.6% Netmanage Inc............ 2 11/16 5 1/4 2 3/32 +1.1% Netscape Communications C 19 3/16 49 1/2 14 7/8 -0.9% Network Solutions Inc. Cl 23 1/8 26 3/4 11 3/4 75 +14.1% Newsedge Corporation..... 10 1/16 16 5 -9.5% Onsale Inc............... 28 11/16 35 1/4 4 5/8 0.0% Open Market Inc.......... 18 15/32 19 3/4 6 1/2 +11.9% Oracle Corporation....... 26 7/8 42 1/8 17 5/8 38 +9.1% Psinet Inc............... 8 11/16 9 3/4 4 1/4 +12.5% Quarterdeck Corp......... 2 1/64 4 1 3/16 -5.7% Realnetworks Inc......... 16 3/16 19 3/8 13 1/2 +7.9% Security First Network Ba 13 5/8 14 5 1/4 +25.2% Silicon Graphics Inc..... 14 3/4 30 5/16 10 15/16 92 -2.0% Sportsline Usa Inc....... 30 11/16 27 3/4 7 +30.5% Sprint Corporation....... 68 1/8 67 7/8 41 7/8 31 +3.2% Spyglass Inc............. 8 1/2 12 4 1/16 +1.4% Sun Microsystems Inc..... 42 3/4 53 5/16 25 7/8 23 -10.2% Vocaltec Communications L 21 9/16 33 1/4 6 -6.7% Worldcom Inc............. 38 1/4 39 7/8 21 1/4 96 +0.1% Yahoo Corporation........ 80 9/16 75 3/4 14 41/64 +10.0% Dow Jones 30 Industrials. 8,569.38 +0.2%
---
Subscription Information
---
To subscribe to this newsletter by e-mail:
Send an e-mail to LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM and in the BODY of the message type:
SUBSCRIBE ONLINE-L FIRSTNAME LASTNAME
Example: Subscribe Online-L Robert Seidman
If you'd like to remove yourself from this mailing list, send a message to LISTSERV@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM and in the body of the message type:
SIGNOFF ONLINE-L
A Web-based version of the newsletter is available at: < http://www.onlineinsider.com > ```
| | | --- | | ProcessTree Network TM For-pay Internet distributed processing. | | Advertising helps support hosting Red Rock Eater Digest @ The Commons. Advertisers are not associated with the list owner. If you have any comments about the advertising, please direct them to the Webmaster @ The Commons. |