uk-netmarketing Archive

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]


Subject: No Subject
From: david_bentley
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 20:06:56 +0100

85256664.0062ABB4 ; Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:57:44 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: ANL
To: uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com
Message-ID: <85256664 [dot] 0061191B [dot] 00atalny [dot] com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 13:57:42 -0400
Subject: Re: UKNM: longer question re pr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owneratchinwag [dot] com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com

Steve

That is actually a very interesting case in point. I have been following
the success of NetNames (not in-depth I might add) with interest. It would
seem that with the launching of registry services in US (and Denmark) has
started to push NetNames to the forefront of registry companies - I have
notices NetNames in articles in The New York Times being refered to along
side InterNIC etc... indeed there is some good marketing going on.

However I have a question for you.... In your opinion do you think that PR
is a tactical marketing tool which is there to get 'editorial space' (no
matter what) even at the expense of positioning?

>From the case study you have outlined here it seems that Wired picked up on
an angle as they saw it (i have not read the article) and as it applied to
their publication. Do you feel the angle that was then taken forward is
beneficial , in the long run, to the success of NetNames?

I for one am very suspicious of concepts of the moment - like 'portals'.
To ally yourself with something which will soon become passe is perhaps ill
advised. Everyone is a 'portal' and everyone wants to be a 'portal'.
Surely NetNames is a service which can be franchised to portals - thus not
actually being a portal - Perhaps that is the point of portal enabling
tool...

I haven't read the article, or any other articles on NetNames v portals -
perhaps i am off on a tangent, but all views are welcome none the less

David


David Bentley
Account Director, Interactive
Anderson & Lembke, New York









"Steve Miller" <SteveatNetNames [dot] co [dot] uk> on 08/18/98 11:41:27 AM

Please respond to uk-netmarketingatchinwag [dot] com

To: uk-netmarketingatmail [dot] chinwag [dot] com
cc: (bcc: David Bentley/ALNY/ANL)
Subject: Re: UKNM: longer question re pr




The press has gone wild about portal sites of late, so when NetNames
announced an agreement with CompuServe, closely followed by MSN about
loading Domain Name Registration tools on to their respective sites, Wired
did a specific story about how Domain Names would be the next revolutionary
'portal enabling tool'. Initially the two stories were unrelated, but when
we realised that there was an 'angle' to be had, we moved the story in that
direction. Whilst luck has a certain element to play, a lot of good stories
come about because there is a moment in time where everyone is talking
about
the same thing, but they are looking for a unique angle. We provided that
angle when the time was right - but it probably won't happen again.
Steve
Its Miller Time!
Steve Miller: Marketing Director
NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY
Registering Domain Names in over 200 countries

http://www.netnames.co.uk
180-182 Tottenham Court Road
London, W1P 9LE
+44 171 291 3905 (Direct) Mobile: 0467 456787
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-uk-netmarketing-digestatchinwag [dot] com
> [owner-uk-netmarketing-digestatchinwag [dot] com (mailto:owner-uk-netmarketing-digestatchinwag [dot] com)]
> Sent: 18 August 1998 15:39
> To: uk-netmarketing-digestatchinwag [dot] com
> Subject: UKNM Digest V1 #48
>>
> Of course often seemingly sound stories are overlooked however cleverly
> they are pitched. Some, though not all, journalists simply feel

> uncomfortable taking story after story from the same agency.
>
> Last year, when I was editing GE'97 at Online Magic the press couldn't
get
> enough of us, and we were featured in around 50 separate
> articles. The same
> PR company couldn't raise any interest outside a very limited section of
> the trade/Internet press when we launched a public consultation for the
> government's Freedom of Information White Paper six months later.
> Personally I think we had a lot of unmerited coverage in the first
> instance, and were unlucky in the second.
>
> There is of course the further question of whether offline coverage is of
> much value to web sites or other online ventures.
>
> Alex Balfour
> Politics producer & Search Engine/ Webguide writer, The Guardian:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk
>




[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]