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

Subject: RE: UKNM: Re: Portals?
From: Mike Butcher
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:12:06 +0100

>> Jim Sterne wrote:
>> >The smart money is pouring into the portals because
>> >that's where ALL the eyeballs are. The portals are
>> >figuring out how to identify and cater to those
>> >eyeballs and it goes far beyond pointing the way.
>> Sure, but how *long* does anyone stay on a portal site? A site may have
>> 20m+ impressions a month but what is that worth when 90% of the traffic
>> only spends 10 minutes on the site? Surely depth of interaction and user
>> loyalty, not just buckets of eyeballs, is a better goal and therefore a
>> route to a better media property?
>A site with regular, sustainable mega-traffic, who's users behaviour is to
>jump off the site when tempted away.
>Hmm - sounds ideal for an advertiser looking for clickthrough.

On the face of it yes, but if the user is so eager to get away, will an
advertiser want to be associated with that media brand in the first place?

I guess it's easy - when talking about this subject - to confuse Portals
with Gateways. Definitions anyone?

News Now's Nick Gilbert wrote:

>What it was telling us however was that our users spent an average of 40
>minutes per day looking at the site, which as far as I'm concerned is
>about the
same as the average person spends reading a magazine or newspaper. What's
more the majority of our users return up to 5 days per week. Not bad for a
"portal" site.

Well, 40 minutes for five consistent days sounds like a healthy amount of
interaction to me. Although *portals* like online services such as AOL tend
to have the best depth of interaction with users, for obvious reasons.


  Re: UKNM: Re: Portals?, Mike Butcher
  RE: UKNM: Re: Portals?, Glen Collins

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