Re: UKNM: Re: Portals?

[Jim Sterne]

WAA31464

Sender:

ownerchinwag [dot] com

Precedence: bulk

Reply-To:

uk-netmarketingchinwag [dot] com

At 10:17 AM 8/20/98 +0100, Mike Butcher wrote:


>Sure, but how *long* does anyone stay on a portal site?


The point is that they are all in one place even for

a nano-second. The big dollars are being thrown to

figure out a way to capture and entertain those eyes.


>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?


That's why 'search engine' and 'directory' is trying to 

become 'portal'.


At 11:51 AM 8/20/98 +0100, Glen Collins wrote:

>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.



At 12:31 PM 8/20/98 +0100, Matteo Berlucchi wrote:

>If it were 'ideal', advertisers would get more than 2%-4% CTR.


Those are the numbers. That doesn't mean it's a useless

medium. Those are the numbers for direct mail as well and

we haven't given up on licking stamps yet.


At 12:22 PM 8/20/98 +0100, Matteo Berlucchi wrote:

>My main worry is that thanks to the 'smart money', the portals can keep

>growing and gaining considerable advantage against all other sites.


I hear a voice in the wilderness calling out, "It's

just not fair!" I'm sorry, I'm from California and 

I don't know how to spell "whinge-ing." 


>Going to

>the busiest sites, like going to the most popular TV channels, is the

>wrong approach as the Web is a different thing from Radio/TV/Papers. 


It's a fine approach if your audience is broad.

If your audience is narrow, your marketing should

be as well. If your audience is wide, what's wrong


with getting your message to as many of them as possible?


>A

>proof comes from what Mike Butcher said about the 10 mins spent on web

>portals - as opposed to the hours one could spend on a TV channel!


And that's why the portals are trying to become the

one-stop-shop. You can buy a computer and get free 

e-mail and make investments all from one screen.



Please don't underestimate the laziness nor the 

lack of knowledge of the Public. They have not

been online for years like you. They have not

known the Web as you have, back in the good olde

days.


Sorry to say, but the world keeps turning.


Wander into a Cyber Cafe and watch how people surf.

It's maddening. You want to grab them by the mouse

and shout, "No, no, no! Don't type the URL in the

Yahoo search box. Type it in the 'Location' field

at the top of the window!!"


People need/like/want/and will stay true to the

portal of their choice. Now it's a matter of

services offered and mega-buck spent on branding.


At 04:11 PM 8/21/98 +0100, Ray Taylor wrote:

>Value is created by investment. BBC is investing in the product in a big way

>(not necessarily efficiently) and making good use of established capital

>assets in the form of brand names and intellectual property rights.


Bingo.


At 05:19 PM 8/21/98 +0100, Mike Bracken wrote:

>The value of information is falling and information is

>becoming ubiquitous. 


We've been overloaded from an information perspective for ages.

Hence the need for strong branding. Strong branding is borrowed

(BBC, Wall Street Journal) and purchased (various failed attempts

and earned (Yahoo).


At 06:42 PM 8/21/98 +0100, Lard wrote:


>I'd strongly disagree that the BBC as a whole is making good use of its

>brands

>I agree that beeb.com is in a position to leverage world markets. 


Kwel? No. Smart? Let the games begin. In a position? Quite.



------------------------------------------------------

Jim Sterne           Target Marketing of Santa Barbara

jsternetargeting [dot] com

                www.targeting.com

Author: "World Wide Web Marketing"     +1 805-965-3184

"Customer Service on the Internet"          Consultant

and "What Makes People Click - Advertising on the Web"

======================================================