|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Internet Marketing Digest 0413
Internet Marketing discussion mailing list
Digest #0413
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet Marketing Discussion List is sponsored this week by:
d.b.Express - data visualization and decision support tools
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is moderated by Glenn Fleishman <[email protected]>
For info about the list, send INFO INTERNET-MARKETING to [email protected]
Send posts to [email protected]
To UNSUBSCRIBE send any text to [email protected]
To switch to single mail message mode (rather than digest) send
SET INET-MARKETING MAIL NOACK to the address [email protected]
To switch back to digest mode, send: SET INET-MARKETING MAIL DIGEST
Complete list archives: <http://www.popco.com/hyper/internet-marketing/>
If you'd like to help contribute towards making this list better
please review the Web pages for the site about paying a subscription
fee (voluntary) via check or First Virtual account. Or send the
message INFO PAYMENT to the LISTPROC address above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this digest:
Re: Sponsorship at Presentations ([email protected] (Brandi Jasmine))
Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0410
Re: An alternative to the Web ([email protected] (Peter Arguelles ))
Re: price and other factors (lisainc@intersource.com (Barry Martin))
Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0411 ([email protected])
Media Question ([email protected])
Re: Netscape IPO ("Steven Heath" <[email protected]>)
re: Copyrights and Domain Names ([email protected] (Bob Gaskins))
Re: Netscape IPO (Glenn Fleishman <[email protected]>)
Price as the penultimate reason to buy (was: Re: Internet Marketing Digest
#0410 (Richard Layman <[email protected]>)
Comparison shopping with the Web ([email protected])
Re: An alternative to the Web ([email protected] (Peter Arguelles ))
Re: An alternative to the Web (Andrew Dinsdale <[email protected]>)
Re: Comparison shopping with the Web ([email protected])
Re: Price as the penultimate reason to buy (was: Re: Internet Marketing
Digest #0410 ([email protected] (Suzanne Lainson))
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:11:14 -0700
From: [email protected] (Brandi Jasmine)
Subject: Re: Sponsorship at Presentations
There is another option: A display-board saying "This booth sponsored by:"
then a list of the sponsors, as well as a selection of their hand-outs. I
can't see anyone being offended by that. That way everyone would be aware
when the sponsor's page comes up that you have a vested interest.
I have had to juggle a similar situation. I am a freelance writer, and
about 25% of my work involves reporting on the Internet and new technology.
Another 25% is involved in various metaphysical reporting (yeah I'm a
new-ager so sue me), but the bulk of my work is on contract for a large ISP.
I have been bluntly straight-forward with my editors that I work for this
company, and have made a point of being open about it with other writers and
with readers. I have never had a problem, because I don't write about the
company in a "promotional" way, and I have so far always been able to demure
to other writers when this company makes news (which is fairly often).
I think if you are honest without being "salesy" people respect you for it.
They figure everyone has their finger in the pie anyway, so when someone
comes out and says, "Listen, I may have a vested interest here and you
should know that up front" they are usually impressed.
Brandi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:12:46 -0700
From: [email protected] (Peter Arguelles )
Subject: Re: An alternative to the Web
Previously posted:
From: [email protected] (Tor Rognmo)
>Most of the discussion here has revolved around the web with some sporadic
>forays into creative e-mailing. One of the other aspects of the Internet
>I've been looking into lately is Telnet...
Another excellent post from Mr. Rognmo. I, an avid Inet-mktg. reader, have only
seen about three other items with as resounding an impact as this. I can't wait
for the repercusions.
I have been faced with many dilemmas in the pursuit to paginate my website.
Most
I am glad I kept from you, finding the solution in various FAQ's and
through the
theft-and-disguise method of html coding <g>. But, alas, one problem plagues me
still. Perhaps Tor's post holds the only workable solution.
I have a business which was, pre-internet, wholesale. Now on the web I have
chosen to open my doors (bandwidth?) to the public. I like to make it
incredibly
easy for the lowest common I.Q. denominator to buy from me, though I am no CGI
whiz. On my page I list my retail prices and an order form.
Here's the rub: How do I offer my confidential pricelist to wholesale
customers?
Perhaps Mr. R's telnet is the answer, perhaps you know a better one.
Please elaborate.
Cordially,
Peter Arguelles
President/wannabe guru
- --
= \== /==== ____/= \=== ____/= ____/=== E-mail [email protected]
== \ /==== /===== __/ /== /===== /======= ISO 9002 Quality Certified Ribbons
=== ==== ___/== ___ <== ___/== /======= Voice 310-827-0123 Fax 310-305-8185
== / \== /===== ___/ /= /===== \====== FREE SHIPPING ON ALL RIBBONS!
=_/==_\_____/=______/=_____/==\____/== url| http://www.servint.com/Xebec
X E B E C C O R P O R A T I O N RIBBONS * TONERS * INKJETS 1-800-429-0123
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:15:11 -0700
From: lisainc@intersource.com (Barry Martin)
Subject: Re: price and other factors
>From: [email protected] (Cliff Kurtzman)
>
>>On 9 Aug 1995 Kim J. Smith wrote:
>>There are more factors than just price and IMHO most companies do not want
>>to be judged soley on price.
Actually Kim did not write this. I did in my reply to her. In reference to
comparison charts that are used in various media forms to make it easier for
the consumer to evaluate your superiority to your competitors. If my price
did not offer more value or wasn't just simply lower then I would not be
inviting prospects to visit the web sites of my competition. I have found
their web sites to be either:
1. very slow to load too much graphics or
2. hard to find the right product or
3. offering no online pricing at all or
4. no more than what a small brochure could do
In all honesty, links were also the quick and cheap way. Keeping up with
price changes on so many products from three or four competitors with
slightly different price structures and optons would be very difficult and
not serve the purpose any better in our case.
>
>Most *companies* don't want to be judged solely on price, but for most
>purchases, *customers* will buy from the company with the lowest price.
>In the past, it wasn't worth the time to call around to find the lowest
>price on a purchase, so people generally found a company with good
>service and shopped there.
I aggree.
>I think this won't last for long, at least for most purchases. As long
>as I get a product in the mail a few days after I order it, I don't care
>about the "service" level of the company I ordered it from. The net
>makes it easy enough to shop for price that more people will do it. I
>think anything beyond very basic customer service will drive up prices.
>Agent technology and sites which search other sites for their price on a
>specific item make price the biggest factor in purchasing behavior.
>Net competition is one step closer to economic competition.
Absolutely. I do it that way quite often. And when I have to return
something or have to check on a backorder I can then evaluate their service.
I can then determine if a return shopping trip is a good idea and worth the
savings. But price got me there in the first place.
====================================================
Barry J. Martin
LISA, Inc.
Software Compatible Business Forms and Checks
Accounting Software Reviews and Forum
http://www.intersource.com/~lisainc
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:50:52 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0411
I'm writing an article about how to market yourself and/or your
service/product on the net and looking some comments by bona fide
entrepreneurs. If you would like to share your insights, tips, warnings,
please contact me directly. The article will be posted to a new WWW
installation, and I will be glad to point you there so that you can copy the
article.
Thanks for your help.
Grace Smith
([email protected])
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:51:30 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Media Question
Dear Fellow marketeers
For my final thesis i'm struggeling with an (in my opinion) interesting
question.
"What kind of medium is internet ?"
I think this must be clear before one can start a marketingcampaign on the
net. For most of the temporary media there are certain guidelines how to
handle it. For internet there isn't one yet (?), but still everybody is
marketing on the net. For those of you who are using the net as a marketing
tool i have the following question:
"Is 'the Internet' the missing marketing medium ?
(we all have been waiting for ?)"
If you want to answer this last question please also notice what is wrong
with the temporary media.
If someone knows a good book or article about this subject, please let me
know.
Virtually
Joris Damen
MBA Student, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:52:54 -0700
From: "Steven Heath" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Netscape IPO
[email protected] (Charles Chickadel) did say:
> Imagine a company that gives away its browers to sell its servers, which it
> also begins giving away. The company has a total of $14 million in
> revenues, of which it has managed to eke out a $4 million loss.
Im surpised that no one has corrected this statement (or maybe they did
and Glenn did not forward the message :-)
Netscape does not "give away" its browser. It is free for NON
commercial use and has a certain evalutation period for the software.
Netscape considers a key revenue stream the license fees from
companies buying in bulk and the ISP distribution agreement.
Allowing people to use the broswer and download it for no cost is an
excellent method for marketing and market acceptance. However. it is
by no means free, I am aware of several cases where Netscape is
contacting companies shipping the browser to clients without consent
from Netscape.
Steven Heath
Account Manager, Corporate Internet Services
E-mail: [email protected] Voice: (902) 481-4505
NSTN is Canada's Internet Navigator (1 800 848-NSTN)
Take a spin and go to NSTN's new True North Web Site
URL: http://www.nstn.ca
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:53:58 -0700
From: [email protected] (Bob Gaskins)
Subject: re: Copyrights and Domain Names
In light of the recent copyright / domain name discussion this clip
from the latest Scout Report might be of interest:
- ----------------------------reprinted from------------------------
> The Scout Report
> August 11, 1995
>
> A Service to the Internet Community
> Provided by the Info Scout and the InterNIC
>
[snip]
>The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides a Web page
>covering "Basic Facts About Registering A Trademark." Topics include
>establishing trademark rights, applications, who may apply, searching for
>conflicting marks, and use of the "TM," "SM" and "circled R" symbols. The
>information presented here has been quoted on the 'Net often recently with
>respect to the relationship (or lack there of) between domain names and
>trademarks.
> http://www.uspto.gov/web/trad_reg_info/basic_facts.html
>
- ------------------end reprinted material-----------------------------
cheers!
-- Bob.
Bob Gaskins
Robert Gaskins & Associates
Advertising - Marketing - Communications
Helping small business succeed with effective information technology.
email: [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:55:07 -0700
From: Glenn Fleishman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Netscape IPO
At 3:35 AM 8/14/95, Steven Heath wrote:
>[email protected] (Charles Chickadel) did say:
>
>> Imagine a company that gives away its browers to sell its servers, which it
>> also begins giving away. The company has a total of $14 million in
>> revenues, of which it has managed to eke out a $4 million loss.
>
>Netscape does not "give away" its browser. It is free for NON
>commercial use and has a certain evalutation period for the software.
>
>Netscape considers a key revenue stream the license fees from
>companies buying in bulk and the ISP distribution agreement.
That's right. Of all the foo-fa-roo surrounding the IPO, I heard plenty of
inaccurate remarks, like "the global market for World Wide Web server
software may be $300 million by 1998, so blah blah blah." Also, most
analysts quoted the $1,500 to $5,000 range for Netscape's software.
Obviously, the briefs prepared on Netscape were inadequate.
Netscape sells a range of products from $39.00 (the new Netscape all-in-one
package for Windows; soon to be out for Mac and OS/2) to about $20K, for
the integrated Internet Store. They also have several other server packages
in the wings, ready to go, such as a newsgroup server, etc. They're going
to wind up releasing supported, commercial versions of server software that
now is widely used but barely supportable and generally free.
I saw one analyst from Jupiter Communications on CNN where he accurately
dispelled a bunch of the standard garbage being fed out; it's obvious
Netscape is highly overvalued at the moment (100 times their 1996 earnings
goals, I read in one report), but it's also obvious that no one has them on
the scope yet, so it's possible the stock will drop enough for the average
mortal to feel like grabbing some.
Glenn Fleishman
Moderator
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 08:55:38 -0700
From: Richard Layman <[email protected]>
Subject: Price as the penultimate reason to buy (was: Re: Internet
Marketing Digest #0410)
Dave Asprey wrote a post stating that finding the cheapest price should be
the prime motivator for Internet-based buying. (At least that's the way I
read it.)
Revisiting the discussion we had last December about pricing strategies, I
argued that transaction, inventory, fulfillment, and distribution costs
don't vary that much, whether you sell your wares via the Internet or a
catalog with 800# service. They do when compared to fixed retail
locations, and I think Joe Andrieu made a good point re: Hot, Hot, Hot
that they could reach a lot more people via the Internet (the same comment
could be made about catalogs) more cheaply than they could add the number
of retail locations to reach the same number of people.
Of course, as much as everyone knocks the online services, at least the
big three each has a group of 2 million or more people that can be
marketed to more easily than the anarchic ways of the Internet. As an
example, an article in the 6/19 issue of Infoworld on 1-800-FLOWERS made
the point that "while the new Web server produced about 500 orders over a
two-week period around Mother's Day, the AOL site produced more than
30,000 orders in the same period." Hmm.
On the other hand, companies like Novell find that having a
Web-based customer/technical support center helps improve quality and
speed of service, and reduces demand of live service, which saves on
telecommunications and personnel costs.
Unlimited choice of "store options" as represented by the Internet reduces
the critical mass of customers available to an indiviudal sellers, because
no matter that those hype ads say "reach the 30 million people on the
Internet" that's not how "surfing the Net" works. To use the Reagan
parlance, it's truly "trickle down economics."
(One could develop a more serious analysis of these issues based on the
typology outlined by Hoffman and Novak
[http://www2000.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu] in their paper which categorizes
the purpose of Internet-based presences -- storefront (sales), information
and customer service, and publishing, as well as directory and traffic
services. Note: this is a paraphrase.)
I find it hard to believe that Internet-based sales will _prima facie_ be
able to provide items more cheaply than the same products available via
other marketing channels. In the retail arena, category killer stores
like Staples, Office Depot, Best Buy, Circuit City, Toys R Us, etc. have
driven price and profit margins down to pretty low levels that will be
difficult to beat.
If all you're buying is copy paper, maybe cheapest price is the prime
motivator. But if you're ordering CDs (your example) and the selection of
the particular, cheapest online store, stinks, maybe price isn't enough.
Maybe you want a great selection, access to foreign releases, and a
database search engine to find out who the artist is of a particular song.
Maybe you want a hypertext accessible list of reviews for albums and
artists, and an archive of interesting music information too.
Or, the fact that Best Buy uses sales of such as a loss leader -- can an
online service beat $8.99 given that their volume can't hope to approach
Best Buy's? But if you don't want to go to the store, you want an obscure
item, you don't want to buy a refridgerator too, etc., then you may buy
through a different outlet, even if it costs more in some cases. (For
example, I know I can buy books cheaper from SuperCrown, but compared to
Borders or a technical book store, they show little respect for books, and
their selection stinks. Because those factors matter to me, I often am
willing to pay more and buy books not at SuperCrown, knowing that they
can special order books at discount prices, but when I want to buy a
particular book it's for a reason, and I don't want to wait.)
Not all customers are the same. (I don't have good research at my
fingertips here to spout off). Some are in fact motivated only by
price. Others care about service, quality, and other factors. I would
think about those issues when developing web sites (and, in fact,
developers are).
Again, to use Hot, Hot, Hot as an example, you can't hope to find that
breadth of selection of hot sauces at your local grocery store, or even at
a high-quality gourmet/specialty food store. And you're buying
specialized products, so they cost more. But if "Chi Chi's" hot sauce,
available in your local supermarket, doesn't satisfy your palate, price
matters less. Etc.
Richard Layman, Mgr., Business Development, and Research Producer
Computer Television Network, 825 6th St. NE, Washington, DC 20002
(202)544-5722 - (202)543-6730 (fax) - [email protected]
http://www.phoenix.net/~ctn (... I know, it needs work)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 10:27:40 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Comparison shopping with the Web
In "Re: Internet Marketing Digest #0410", [email protected] (Cliff
Kurtzman) seemed to be trying to make the point that the Web is now or will
soon succeed in promoting competition (comparison shopping), especially on
price, and that this will spell the grand success of Web shopping. He then
asks, "So, list.people, convince me why a net.company can't be successful by
competing on price alone. Is there a hole in my reasoning I don't see?"
I agree that making a price comparison is theoretically more viable with the
Web than it is with a just collection of mailorder catalogs, but it is still
no picnic. In fact, I can't see how the Web will ever be successful at
promoting price competition or for that matter any kind of competition.
Directly comparing products on an apples-to-apples basis with a Web brouser
is nearly impossible, and I don't foresee it getting any better. Even if the
technology improves sufficiently (speed, security, consistency, bugs, etc),
there remain nagging questions about the basic structure of the Web and
whether it will support a true competitive marketplace.
A link between competing products depends on a full and detailed agreement
between the vendors as to the definition of the items being linked. The more
products there are, the more links you need. The more links there are, the
more difficult is the task of maintaining relevance and integrity in the
links. I see the process as self-defeating. Moreover, all of the products
that are relevant to a particular customer query ought to be presented, not
just the ones that have paid links to that search site, or to a common mall,
or to each other directly. I see the Web breaking down into little
individual feifdoms with each vendor struggling to control his own position
in the "food chain" (see former thread). Some of the larger and better
vendors will go out on their own. The rest will try to form trading blocks
(sometimes called "malls"). The competitors within each of these blocks will
of course subscribe to common standards of product and service quality, and
probably to maintaining consistency in the customer interface (which is
helpful), but they most certainly will not specifically seek to admit an
unlimited number of direct competitors into their trading block.
So I don't see the Web as promoting competition any more successfully than
mailorder catalogs or retail shopping centers. It's too bad, because
computer technology certainly promises this advantage. The Web is just the
wrong vehicle for comparison shopping.
H. Barton
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 10:29:16 -0700
From: Andrew Dinsdale <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: An alternative to the Web
On Mon, 14 Aug 1995, Internet Marketing discussion list wrote:
> From: [email protected] (Peter Arguelles )
> Here's the rub: How do I offer my confidential pricelist to wholesale
> customers?
> Perhaps Mr. R's telnet is the answer, perhaps you know a better one.
Authentication is a possible solution. All of the major servers
(Netscape, CERN, NCSA) allow a tree of documents within the server
document hierarchy to be password protected, or limited to certain IP
addresses. Take a look at this as a possible solution to offering
confidential prices. The URL need not be published, just announced
through conventional means or Email to your wholesale customers.
Good Luck
____________________________________________________________________________
Andrew P. Dinsdale - Web Engineering Manager | [email protected]
Netrex, Inc | http://www.netrex.com/
Web Design, CUSTOM CGI, Web<-->Database & Java! | 1.810.352.9643
==========================================================================
Provider + Web Presence + Security + VAR + Expertise = Internet Integration
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 14:23:06 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Comparison shopping with the Web
This is a strange thread so far. I don't think there is enough competition on
the web to worry about comparison shopping - pricing and comparison just
aren't relevant there yet. Didn't we once have a thread about how consumers
are so scared of buying over the net, thanks to media hype? So suddenly they
are not only buying, but they are expertly surfing around to comparison shop?
Did I blink & miss something?
It seems to me that most shopping that is on the net so far is spontaneous,
novelty items, like the Star Trek junk site, or the weird peanuts story, or
Dilbert paraphenalia. I still haven't met anyone who buys stuff serious or
ordinary enough to merit comparison shopping.
The things that are worthy of comparison shopping are simple commodity goods
that are the same anywhere - Kmart, Walmart, Office Depot, Costco etc. Office
supplies and Fruit of the Loom are the same everywhere. These items will
never be successful on the net because people generally buy from a cheap,
local supplier, and it is hard to beat big retailers' and warehouse prices,
even by mail order.
So successful items on the net seem to be unusual, impulse buys. Naturally -
sites attract casual surfers through shmanzy graphics and witty repartee, and
the items follow suit. Business buyers aren't into net buying yet, and
serious items lack surf appeal.
Does anyone have any examples that contradict this? Is there a serious
commodity site that I have missed (and that is successful)?
Sincerely,
Kim J. Smith
====== ___ \== __ \== /== Precision Digital Images
===== / /= / /= /=== http://www.precisionimages.com
==== _____/= / /= /==== 6742 185th Avenue NE #100
=== /====== / /= /===== Redmond, WA 98053 U S A
==__/======______/=___/====== Tel (206)882-0218 Fax 867-9177
E X C E L L E N C E I N A D V A N C E D I M A G I N G
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1995 14:25:14 -0700
From: [email protected] (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Price as the penultimate reason to buy (was: Re: Internet
Marketing Digest #0410)
>If all you're buying is copy paper, maybe cheapest price is the prime
>motivator. But if you're ordering CDs (your example) and the selection of
>the particular, cheapest online store, stinks, maybe price isn't enough.
>Maybe you want a great selection, access to foreign releases, and a
>database search engine to find out who the artist is of a particular song.
>Maybe you want a hypertext accessible list of reviews for albums and
>artists, and an archive of interesting music information too.
But none of those services means I won't still shop around for the best
price. I do it all the time with books. I may find out about a book from a
full service vendor, but I'll buy it from the location which gives me the
best deal.
As long as at least two different internet retailers offer the same item, I
think consumers will tend to shop by price. Only unique items--not
available anywhere else--will give retailers the opportunity to have a
higher markup.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
[email protected] P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet Marketing Discussion List is sponsored this week by:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
d.b.Express - data visualization and decision support tools
with point and click ease.
Free 30 Day Trial at website - http://www.pb.net/~dbexpress
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
