RE: UKNM: RE: Conflicting Statistics

[Damian Jennings]

Ben


Please see below.


-----Original Message-----

From:

benbabyhippo [dot] com

 [

benbabyhippo [dot] com (mailto:benbabyhippo [dot] com)

]

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 4:26 PM

To:

uk-netmarketingchinwag [dot] com

Subject: RE: UKNM: RE: Conflicting Statistics



Damien,


Happily and in 5 minutes off  the top of my head.


1) Your method of recruitment is self-selecting. Trouble is the people

selecting themselves are those after a couple of pounds here and there.

They

are not the ABC1's most advertisers want.

>Wrong.  Advertisers can target the ads to whomever they please.  Using

Prizm and Memphis.



2) The information you have about the customer is fixed, based on what

the

customer told you and may not be accurate.

>Again, wrong.  Prizm has 75% of the population detailed on it's

database.


3) By specifying that certain areas may pay more interests (up to $120

an

hour) you may actually be encouraging users to select interests based on

their perceived guess as to where the top bits of income are going to be

and

not on their actual interests.

>Wrong.  This information has been off the site for months.  Obviously,

the more information we have, the more likely it is you will be

targeted.  End of story.  There isn't a 'more attractive'

hobby/interest.



4) By not watching where people visit there is no confirmation that the

information contained in 2 is accurate. Little or no follow-up

information

is going to be available. As such I don't know what proportion of the

people

I'm buying to watch my ads are what they say they are (say Company

directors) and not Burger Flippers at MacDonalds.

>Wrong.  Claritas' Prizm is about as accurate as you can get.  Map this

with TGI and our own database and you get very trustworthy and very

definable universes.



5) Finally for now, you are judging the quality of your results by

click-thro ratio's. Not a reliable measure at the best of times (it

doesn't

relate to any tangible result in the way that an affliate marketing

scheme

could). Furthermore, it is possible to encourage people to visit the

site by

offering them extra money to do so. Doesn't that somewhat screw the

value of

these figures.

>Well, CTR seems to be a 'standard' in judging the success of the

campaign.  As someone on the list was discussing 10% as >good, I wanted

to let people know that there are better CTRs out there.  Namely ours.

The first ads we put out will be tests.  We will publish the results as

we find them.  We are also in the process of commissioning Millward

Brown Interactive to do research for us in the effectiveness of banners

vs superstitials vs bepaid.  As MBi are quite well known in the field

after the AIM study, we thought they would be quite reputable.  We will

also be looking into the branding that seeing an ad you chose to watch

can provide.  I'll wager it's more than a banner.


As for encouraging people to visit the site by further compensating them

being paid, I fail to understand.  How does this differ from a special

offer or time-limited discount?  It's exactly the same thing, we're just

being a little more direct.


Thank you for pointing out your thoughts as to how our business is

massively flawed.  Also thanks for giving me the chance to point out the

errors in your assumptions.


If anyone else is interested in bepaid.com please email me with press

enquiries and any sales enquires to

'uksalesbepaid [dot] com

'


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 the UK's totally managed affiliate marketing solution.

 ukaffiliates.com >> the net.working

 http://www.ukaffiliates.com /

salesukaffiliates [dot] com (mailto:salesukaffiliates [dot] com)

 telephone: 020 7691 1880 / fax: 020 7691 1881

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com