Internet Commerce Briefing: Online Advertising & Digital Marketing Report

8/14/2019 Internet Commerce Briefing: Online Advertising & Digital Marketing Report

1/61

Online advertising& digital marketing report

The Internet

Commerce Briefing

The Intermarket Group L.P.www.intermarketgroup.com


2/61

Online Advertising & Digital Marketing Report

The Internet Commerce Briefing | 1

This document is intended for electronic delivery

Copyright 2002 by The Intermarket Group, L.P.

All rights reserved.

The entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by The Intermarket Group, L.P. and may not betranslated, reproduced, stored in another retrieval system, posted on a website, or transmitted in any form orby any means, beyond that permitted by your Customer License Agreement and by Sections 107 and 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without prior written consent from the copyright owner. The charts,

tables and data provided in this report are all sourced from publicly-available information produced by theattributed sources and remain the property of and are copyright by their respective owners. Requests forfurther information or for reprint permissions should be addressed to: The Intermarket Group, L.P., P.O.Box 500126, San Diego, California 92150-0126, USA.

The following uses of this document are strictly prohibited unless otherwise provided for in your CustomerLicense Agreement: Transmittal via the Internet or any other network Reproduction for sale or for further distribution Posting on a website or intranet site

All information contained in this publication is believed to be obtained from reliable sources. Thepublication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter

covered. It is sold with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is engaged in offeringlegal, accounting or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, theservices of a competent professional should be sought.

Published January 2002ISBN No. 1-882113-16-0


3/61



Table Of Contents

Table of Contents...................................................................... 2 List of Charts and Tables .......................................................... 3

Section I. Online Advertising Market Sizeand Composition.................................................. 4

Section II. Online Advertising Practices ...............................17

Section III. E-mail Marketing Practices .................................28

Section IV. Leading Advertisers and Brands.........................37

Section V. Internet Users and Online Advertising ................42

Appendix Data Sources and Contact Information...............58

Other reports in the Internet Commerce Briefing series:Internet Population & Online DemographicsBusiness-to-Consumer E-commerce


4/61



Charts and tables in this report

1.01 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures (1/1996-9/2001)1.02 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Month (1999/2000)1.03 U.S. Share Of Online Advertising Expenditures (1998-2005)1.04 Global Online Advertising Expenditures By Region(2001/2005)1.05 DoubleClick Ads Served Worldwide By Quarter (1999-2001)1.06 Daily Banner Ad Impressions Per U.S. Internet User (2001-2005)1.07 Leading Sectors For U.S. Online Advertising By Impressions1.08 Leading Sectors For U.S. Online Advertising By Share OfImpressions1.09 Leading Sectors For U.S. Online Advertising By Expenditures1.10 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Sector (1999-2001)1.11 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Sector (1998-2001)1.12 Online Advertising Expenditures Breakout For U.S.Consumer-Related Sector (Q3-2001)1.13 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Ad Type(2000/2001)1.14 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Pricing Scheme(2000)1.15 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Pricing Scheme(2000/2001)

1.16 Estimated U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures (2001)1.17 Estimated Growth Of U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures1.18 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditure Growth (1998-2006)1.19 U.S. Digital Marketing Expenditures (2000-2006)1.20 U.S. Performance-Based Online Advertising Growth (2000-2005)1.21 Wireless Advertising Expenditures By Region (2000-2005)1.22 Online Share Of U.S. Advertising Expenditures (1996-2006)1.23 Total U.S. Offline Advertising Expenditures (1999-2006)1.24 U.S. Offline Advertising Expenditures By Media Category(2000/2001)1.25 U.S. Offline Advertising Expenditures By Media Category(1996-2006)

2.01 Top Reasons Companies Advertise Online2.02 Objectives Of Online Advertisements2.03 Media Used To Drive Traffic To Websites2.04 Effectiveness Of Select Media In Driving Traffic To Websites2.05 Effectiveness Of Affiliate Marketing vs. Online Alternatives2.06 Most Effective Advertising Media For Customer Acquisition2.07 Most Effective Advertising Media For Branding2.08 Sources Of Website Traffic Growth2.09 Online Banners Served By Size Of Ad (Q4-2000)2.10 Online Ad Dimensions Used By Advertisers (2000)2.11 Full Banner Ad Rate Card Pricing2.12 Average Rate Card Pricing For IAB Online Ad Units2.13 U.S. Online Ad Campaign Size By Sector2.14 Number Of Sites Purchased In U.S. Online Ad Campaigns2.15 Effectiveness Of Online Advertising By Type Of Placement2.16 Online/Offline Advertising Mix Among U.S. Online Retailers2.17 U.S. Advertiser Plans For Streaming Media Ad Expenditures2.18 Barriers To Increased Online Advertising Expenditures

3.01 U.S. E-mail Message Volume (1999-2003)3.02 U.S. Opt-in E-mail Message Volume (1999-2003)

3.03 Frequency Of Promotional E-mails Among Leading Retailers3.04 Types Of Permission E-mail Received By U.S. Internet Users3.05 E-mail Volume Of U.S. Internet Users At Home And At Work3.06 How Frequently Do U.S. Internet Users Check Their E-mail3.07 Proportion Of U.S. Internet Users' E-mail That Is Spam/UCE3.08 Reasons Internet Users Forward E-mail To Others3.09 Total U.S. E-mail Marketing Expenditures (1999-2004)3.10 U.S. E-mail Marketing Services Expenditures (1999-2003)3.11 E-mail Marketing By U.S. Small Business (2001/2003/2005)3.12 Payment Options Supported By E-mail Marketing Networks3.13 U.S. E-mail Marketing Allocation Of Expenditures, CustomerAcquisition vs. Retention3.14 Objectives For Opt-in E-mail Marketing Campaigns3.15 Internet User Open Rates For HTML Messages3.16 Formats Supported By Internet Users' E-mail Clients3.17 E-mail Format For Advertising Campaigns

4.01 Leading U.S. Online Advertisers By Expenditures4.02 Leading U.S. Online Advertisers By Impressions4.03 Leading Websites By Online Advertising Revenue4.04 Leading U.S. Advertisers By Expenditures (All Media)4.05 Leading Dot.com Brands Among U.S. Decision-Makers

4.06 Leading Technology Brands Among U.S. Consumers4.07 Leading E-commerce Brands Among U.S. Internet Users

5.01 Communication Preferences Of U.S. Online Buyers5.02 How U.S. Internet Users Learn About Websites5.03 Primary Method For U.S. Internet Users To Learn AboutWebsites5.04 How U.S. Internet Users Search For Products Online5.05 How Online Shoppers Get To Websites5.06 Visibility Of Online Ads Among U.S. Internet Users At HomeAnd At Work5.07 Elapsed Time To Conversion For Online Ads5.08 U.S. Internet Users' Likelihood of Clicking On Banner Ads5.09 U.S. Consumer Attitudes About Clicking On Banner Ads5.10 U.S. Click-Through Rates For Banner Ads vs. Opt-in E-mail5.11 U.S. Click-Through Rate Comparison By Type Of Media5.12 U.S. Wireless Advertising Response Rates By Format5.13 U.S. Wireless Advertising Response Rates In SkyGo ServiceTrial5.14 Attitudes Towards Banner Ads Among U.S. Internet Users AtHome5.15 Attitudes Towards Banner Ads Among U.S. Internet Users AtWork5.16 U.S. Internet Users' Attitudes Towards Spam/UCE5.17 U.S. Internet Users' Attitudes Towards E-mail Marketing5.18 U.S. Internet Users Attitudes Towards Rich E-mail5.19 Internet User Preferences For Permission E-mail Volume5.20 Online Activities Of U.S. Internet Users vs. eCoupon Users5.21 Household Income Of U.S. Coupon Users5.22 eCoupon Use Among U.S. Internet Users By Category5.23 Redemption Of eCoupons By Category And Retail Channel5.24 U.S. Online Consumer Preferences For Coupon Delivery5.25 How Frequently U.S. Consumers Wish To Receive Coupons

Via E-mail5.26 Visibility Of Online Ads By Format5.27 User Recognition Of Streaming Commercials


5/61



Section I.Online Advertising MarketSize and Composition


6/61



The year 2001 was unarguably among the most difficult and challenging yetfor the infant online advertising industry. After years of rapid growth, the industrywas hit for the first time by a double-digit decline in expenditures thanks to aslowing U.S. economy and a literal collapse of the dot com economy.

Between 1996 and 2000, the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) estimates thatonline advertising expenditures grew by an average 142% per year, from $268million to more than $8.2 billion. Expenditures in Q4-2000 alone reached almost$2.2 billion, according to the association, before declining by 12% in the first-quarter of 2001. During the first three quarters of 2001, expenditures declined bya total of 8.4%, to $5.6 billion from $6.1 billion for the comparable period in 2000.Most analysts estimates of expenditures for the full year are just over $7 billion,representing a year-over-year decline of more than 10%.

1.01 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures (1/1996-9/2001)Millions of dollars and percent change quarter-to-quarter

1.02 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Month (1999/2000)Percent of total annual expenditures

4 . 3 % 4 .

7 % 6 . 0 % 6 .

1 % 6 . 7 % 7 . 5 %

7 . 8

% 8 . 5 % 1

0 . 0 %

1 0 . 8

% 1 3 . 1

% 1 4

. 6 %

7 . 1 %

7 . 6 % 9

. 0 %

8 . 0

% 8 . 5 % 9 .

3 %

7 . 5 %

7 . 7 % 9

. 0 %

8 . 1

%

8 . 4

% 9 . 8 %

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jly. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Source: IAB, 4/2001

1999 2000

$ 3 0

$ 5 2

$ 7 6

$ 1 1 0

$ 1 3 0

$ 2 1 4

$ 2 2 7 $ 3

3 6

$ 3 5 1

$ 4 2 3

$ 4 9 1 $ 6

5 6

$ 6 9 2 $

9 3 4 $ 1

, 2 1 7

$ 1 , 7

7 7 $ 1

, 9 5 3

$ 2 , 1

2 4

$ 1 , 9

8 6

$ 2 , 1

6 2

$ 1 , 8 9

3

$ 1 , 8 6

8

$ 1 , 7

9 2

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

Q 1

- 1 9 9 6

Q 2

- 1 9 9 6

Q 3

- 1 9 9 6

Q 4

- 1 9 9 6

Q 1

- 1 9 9 7

Q 2

- 1 9 9 7

Q 3

- 1 9 9 7

Q 4

- 1 9 9 7

Q 1

- 1 9 9 8

Q 2

- 1 9 9 8

Q 3

- 1 9 9 8

Q 4

- 1 9 9 8

Q 1

- 1 9 9 9

Q 2

- 1 9 9 9

Q 3

- 1 9 9 9

Q 4

- 1 9 9 9

Q 1

- 2 0 0 0

Q 2

- 2 0 0 0

Q 3

- 2 0 0 0

Q 4

- 2 0 0 0

Q 1

- 2 0 0 1

Q 2

- 2 0 0 1

Q 3

- 2 0 0 1

Source: IAB, 10/2001

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%Online Ad Expenditures Qtr. Over Qtr. Growth


7/61



The United States dominates online advertising, accounting for approximately80% of all expenditures during 2001. Despite its outsized role in the industry, theU.S. share of global expenditures has been declining slowly over the years andthis trend is expected to continue. By 2005, the U.S. is expected to account forapproximately 70% of global expenditures compared to 88% in 1998. After theU.S., Europe is the second-largest online advertising market, accounting for 12%of expenditures during 2001. The Asia/Pacific region is expected to experiencethe greatest growth between 2001 and 2005, expanding from 6% of globalexpenditures in 2001 to 10% in 2005.

1.03 U.S. Share Of Online Advertising Expenditures (1998-2005)Percent of global online advertising expenditures

1.04 Global Online Advertising Expenditures By Region (2001/2005)Percent of global online advertising expenditures

88%83% 81% 79% 75% 73% 72% 70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: eMarketer, 2000

2%

6%

12%

80%

4%

10%

15%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Latin America

Asia/Pacific

Europe

North America


2001 2005


8/61



610705

800880

950

0

300

600

900

1200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: AdRelevance, 2/2001

1.05 DoubleClick Ads Served Worldwide By Quarter (1999-2001)Billions of ads

The Internets largest online advertising network, DoubleClick, reports that theaggregate volume of banner ads that it served peaked during the fourth-quarter of2000 at 185 billion before declining to 181 billion in the first-quarter of 2001 and168 billion in the second-quarter.

The number of daily banner ad impressions per Internet user has continued togrow, despite the decline in online advertising expenditures. AdRelevancepredicts that the typical Internet user will view an average of 705 banner ads perday during 2002, representing a 16% increase over 2001. The growth in totaldaily impressions per user is expected to slow over the next few years, accordingto the company, which predicts a 13% increase in 2003, 10% the next year, andonly 8% in 2005.

1.06 Daily Banner Ad Impressions Per U.S. Internet User (2001-2005)Total impressions per user per day

20.9 29.643.8

77.2

125.1

149.0 162.0

185.0 181.0

168.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

Q1-1999

Q2-1999

Q3-1999

Q4-1999

Q1-2000

Q2-2000

Q3-2000

Q4-2000

Q1-2001

Q2-2001

Source: Morgan Stanley, 8/2001


9/61



1.07 Leading Sectors For U.S. Online Advertising By ImpressionsThousands of impressions, excluding house ads, for each period

Impressions

SectorWeek Ending

9/10/2001 ShareWeek Ending

11/4/2001 Share

Retail 3,149,358 22% 4,422,044 20%Web Media 2,810,156 20% 7,199,377 32%Financial Services 2,476,339 18% 3,512,960 16%Travel 1,120,494 8% 1,048,978 5%Entertainment 1,109,916 8% 1,058,443 5%Consumer Goods 922,457 7% 1,000,076 4%Business-to-Business 785,788 6% 1,050,806 5%Telecommunications 541,662 4% 863,604 4%Hardware & Electronics 403,938 3% 339,562 2%Software 348,812 2% 1,113,697 5%Other 479,917 3% 692,073 3%

Total 14,148,837 100% 22,301,620 100%Source: AdRelevance, 11/2001

Online advertising is currently dominated by companies from the retail, media,and financial services sectors, according to data from AdRelevance. The threesectors combined accounted for approximately two-thirds of all impressions atdifferent measurement points during the second-half of 2001.

1.08 Leading Sectors For U.S. Online Advertising By Share OfImpressionsPercent of total impressions, excluding house ads, for each period

3%

3%

4%

7%

2%

6%

8%

8%

18%

22%

20%

3%

2%

4%

4%

5%

5%

5%

5%

16%

20%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Other

Hardware & Elec tronics

Telecom

Consumer Goods

Software

B-to-B

Entertainment

Travel

Financial Services

Retail

Web Media


9/10/2001 11/4/2001


10/61



The breakdown of estimated online advertising expenditures by sector tracksfairly closely with estimated impressions, based on data from both the IAB andfrom CMRi. The two organizations, however, differ significantly in their estimatesof aggregate expenditures for each sector, with most IAB estimates between two-and four-times higher than those of CMRi.

1.09 Leading Sectors For U.S. Online Advertising By ExpendituresTotal expenditures in dollars by all companies in each sector

SectorAggregate Expenditures

January - September 2001 Pct. of TotalRetail $432,553,803 23.7%Media & Advertising $363,323,644 19.9%Financial Services $260,633,494 14.3%Local Services & Amusements $200,131,636 11.0%Computers & Software $194,720,418 10.7%Public Transportation, Hotels, Resorts $103,007,919 5.6%Automotive, Accessories & Equipment $89,671,013 4.9%Government & Organizations $62,844,864 3.4%Telecommunications $61,724,212 3.4%

Insurance & Real Estate $56,221,210 3.1%Source: CMRi AdNetTrackUS, 9/2001

1.10 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Sector (1999-2001)Percent of total online advertising expenditures

1.11 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Sector (1998-2001)Millions of dollars

Period ComputingConsumer

RelatedFinancialServices Media

BusinessServices All Others

Q4-1998 $131.2 $190.2 $124.6 $ 45.9 n/a $164.0Q4-1999 $284.3 $550.9 $302.1 $213.2 $124.4 $302.1Q4-2000 $454.0 $691.8 $281.1 $194.6 $129.7 $410.8Q1-2001 $340.8 $567.9 $246.1 $189.3 $113.9 $435.0Q2-2001 $336.2 $560.4 $242.8 $186.8 $149.4 $392.4Q3-2001 $340.5 $519.7 $215.0 $250.9 $179.2 $286.7

Source: IAB

2 0 % 2

9 %

1 9 %

7 %

2 5 %

1 6 %

3 1 %

1 7 %

1 2 %

7 %

1 7 % 2 1

%

3 2 %

1 3 %

9 % 6 %

1 9 %

1 9 %

2 9 %

1 2 % 1 4

%

1 0 % 1

6 %

N / A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Computing ConsumerRelated

FinancialServices

New Media BusinessServices

All Others


Q4-1998 Q4-1999 Q4-2000 Q3-2001


11/61



Online advertisers in the consumer-related sector spent an estimated $1.65billion during the first three quarters of 2001 and $1.13 billion during the first-halfof 2001, according to the IAB. Retail- and mail order-related advertisingaccounted for one-half of total expenditures in the sector, followed by automobiles(12%), travel/hotels (11%), and music (9%).

1.12 Online Advertising Expenditures Breakout For U.S. Consumer-Related Sector (Q3-2001)Millions of dollars

1.13 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Ad Type (2000/2001)Percent of total online advertising expenditures

48%

28%

4%

3%

3%

1%

4%

2%

7%

35%

25%

3%

7%

3%

5%

2%

3%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Banner And Tile Ads

Sponsorships

InterstitalsOthers

e-mail

Keyword Search

Referrals

Rich Media

Classifieds


2000 Jan. - Sep. 2001

$11

$56

$102

$124

$135

$135

$564

$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800

Toys/Games

Amusement

Music

Travel/Hotels

Auto

Other

Retail/Mail Order

Source: IAB, 2001


12/61



Source: IAB, 5/2001

CPM Ads43%

Performance-Based Ads

10%

"Hybrid" Ads47%

The pricing model for online advertising changed only marginally between1998 and 2000, according to the IAB. The largest share of expenditures duringthat period were so-called hybrid ads which are based on some combination ofcost-per-thousand and performance-based pricing -- such as cost-per-click orcost-per-lead -- with straight CPM deals accounting for most of the remainingbalance.

Performance-based ads have steadily expanded their share of overall onlinead expenditures, from 7% in 1999 to 10% in 2000. During the first nine months of2001, the share of performance-based ads jumped by 30% to 13% of allexpenditures. CPM ads also increased in spite of the soft market, to 48% of totalexpenditures, during the same period of 2001 while hybrid ads declined sharply to39% of expenditures.

1.14 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Pricing Scheme (2000)Percent of total online advertising expenditures

1.15 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures By Pricing Scheme(2000/2001)Percent of total online advertising expenditures

43%

10%

47%

13%

48%

39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

CPM Ads

Performance-Based Ads

"Hybrid" Ads


2000 Jan.-Sep. 2001


13/61



GartnerG2 estimates that about 2,800 websites in the U.S. were supported atleast in part by advertising during 2001. Among those sites, however, the top 20 -- or less than 1% -- collectively received approximately 80% of the aggregaterevenue.

Although online advertising expenditures declined sharply during 2001, theoutlook among most analysts is for a resumption of growth during 2002, albeit ata much slower pace than the 100% annual rate between 1996 and 2000. Themost plausible growth forecasts for expenditures during 2002 range from the highsingle-digits to the mid-teens.

1.16 Estimated U.S. Online Advertising Expenditures (2001)Billions of dollars

1.17 Estimated Growth Of U.S. Online Advertising ExpendituresPercent change from 2001 to 2002

40%

39%

26%

19%

13%

8%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Datamonitor

Giga Information Group

IDC

Jupiter Media Metrix

Meyers Mediaenomics

Veronis, Suhler & Assoc.

Forrester Research

Source: As noted, 2001

$8.6

$7.9

$7.6

$7.5

$7.3

$6.0

$6.0

$5.7

$5.4

$4.7

$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10

Yankee Group

Gartner Group

Goldman Sachs

Veronis, Suhler & Assoc.

IDC

Merrill Lynch

Forrester Research

Jupiter Media Metrix

McCann Erickson

Myers Mediaenomics

Source: As noted, 2001


14/61



Online advertising expenditures are expected to roughly double over the nextfive years. The most conservative forecast -- from Forrester Research -- predictscompound annual growth of almost 11%, or a total of 67% for the period between2001 and 2006. Jupiter Media Metrix and Myers Reports both expect more rapidgrowth of 170% and 111% respectively for the five year period. Gartner Grouprecently predicted that U.S. online advertising expenditures would grow by 138%,from $7.9 billion in 2001 to $18.8 billion in 2005. The company also expects theannual rate of growth to slow to 15% per year by 2005.

Jupiter predicted in addition that total spending for digital marketing --including web, online advertising, e-mail marketing and related services -- wouldreach $19.3 billion by 2006. Approximately one-half of that total, according to thecompany, is expected to be allocated towards customer retention-relatedcommunications. Forrester expects digital marketing expenditures in 2006 tototal $21 billion, $10 billion of which would go towards online advertising.

1.18 U.S. Online Advertising Expenditure Growth (1998-2006)Billions of dollars

1.19 U.S. Digital Marketing Expenditures (2000-2006)Billions of dollars

$1.5 $2.0$3.7

$6.2

$9.5

$13.8

$19.3

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Jupiter Media Matrix, 8/2001

$ 2 . 1 $

3 . 5 $

5 . 4

$ 5 . 7 $ 6

. 8 $ 8 . 6 $

1 0 . 6 $

1 2 . 9 $

1 5 . 4

$ 1 . 3 $

2 . 8

$ 7 . 6

$ 6 . 0

$ 6 . 3 $ 7

. 1 $ 8 . 0 $ 9

. 1

$ 2 . 4 $

4 . 3

$ 4 . 7 $ 5

. 3 $ 6 . 1 $ 7

. 3 $ 8 . 4 $

9 . 9

$ 1 0 . 0

N / A

$0

$4

$8

$12

$16

$20

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Source: As noted, 2001

Jupiter Media Metrix Forres ter Research My ers Mediaenomics


15/61



1.20 U.S. Performance-Based Online Advertising Growth (2000-2005)Billions of dollars

Wireless advertising is little more than embryonic in its evolution for a varietyof reasons, including limitations in current form factors -- such as small screensizes, and difficulties with data entry -- limited-bandwidth, high-latencyconnectivity, and consumer resistance to the general concept. Ovum predicts,however, that the market will begin to gain some momentum during 2002, withtotal worldwide revenues of slightly more that $1 billion.

Commercial messages can be communicated to wireless users through avariety of forms and methods, including: Alerts and other types of time- or location-sensitive notifications Commerce-enabled e-mail messages that allow the recipient to purchase by

clicking on an advertisement Links embedded in an advertisement that enable the recipient to click over

the senders website or respond by clicking or calling Time- or location-sensitive discounts or coupons that recipients can redeem Sponsored content such as city guides, stock quotes, or news headlines Traditional telemarketing pitches targeting mobile wireless phone users

1.21 Wireless Advertising Expenditures By Region (2000-2005)Millions of dollars

Region 2000 2002 2003 2005North America $4mn $363mn $1,212mn $4,558mnEurope $2mn $443mn $1,522mn $5,979mnAsia/Pacific $7mn $409mn $1,271mn $4,705mnMiddle East/Africa $0 $10mn $60mn $528mnLatin America $0 $0 $20mn $631mn

Source: Ovum, 2000

$1.1 $1.4$1.9

$2.5$3.2

$4.122% 23%

25%27% 28%

30%

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Jupiter Media Metrix, 7/2001

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Performance-based Expenditures Percent Of Total Expenditures


16/61



The share of total U.S. advertising expenditures allocated to online media hasgrown steadily, from only 0.2% in 1996 to almost 2.5% in 2001. Myers Reportsexpects that growth to continue and predicts online advertising will account foralmost 5% of total spending by 2006.

The Kelsey Group estimates that the approximately 10 million small andmedium-sized businesses in the U.S. spend an average of $4,700 per year onadvertising, marketing, and promotional services across all local media. In 2000,this translated to approximately $33 billion spent by these companies on yellowpages, newspapers, direct mail, coupons, websites, banners, and other locally-targeted advertising and promotional media. The company predicts thatspending for local online media among this group will expand from 2% of totaladvertising expenditures in 2000 to more than 5% in 2006.

Although online advertising expenditures are expected to resume their growthagain in 2002, Myers predicts that overall spending for offline advertising willcontinue to decline through 2003 before growth resumes again in 2004. Thecompany expects spending for most offline media to remain stagnant for theforeseeable future, with growth driven primarily by television and radio.

1.22 Online Share Of U.S. Advertising Expenditures (1996-2006)Percent of total advertising expenditures

1.23 Total U.S. Offline Advertising Expenditures (1999-2006)Billions of dollars

0.2%0.5%

0.9%1.3%

2.1%2.4%

2.7%3.2%

3.7%4.2%

4.9%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Myers Reports, 8/2001

$186.9$200.7

$192.0 $188.1 $187.3 $191.3 $192.0 $192.4

$100

$150

$200

$250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006



17/61



During 2001, Myers estimates that expenditures across all offline mediadeclined by 4.3% over 2000 to $192 billion. The biggest declines in spendingduring the first nine months of 2001 occurred among national newspapers (-21.5%), national spot radio (-18.6%) and spot television (-17.9%), according toCMR. Cable television, outdoor, and Sunday magazines were the only mediawith ad growth during the same period.

CMR estimates that ad spending among magazines declined by 5.1% duringthe first nine months of 2001. The Publishers Information Bureau (PIB) estimatesthat magazine advertising revenue declined by 4.5% for the entire year and thattotal ad pages declined by 11.7% from 2000. Among the different magazinecategories, PIB estimates that declines in ad revenue were greatest forbusiness/finance titles (-31.5%), outdoor/recreation (-21.4%), and news-weeklies(-18.6%). The fastest growth in ad revenues was among mens magazines(+15.7%), teen magazines (+14.9%), and womens health titles (+8.5%).

1.24 U.S. Offline Advertising Expenditures By Media Category(2000/2001)Millions of dollars

ExpendituresMedia Jan.-.Sep. 2001 Jan.-Sep. 2000 % ChangeNetwork Television $14,058 $15,279 -8.0%Magazines $11,895 $12,533 -5.1%Spot Television $10,773 $13,123 -17.9%Cable Television $7,843 $7,679 2.1%Sunday Newspapers $7,471 $8,139 -8.2%Daily Newspapers $5,892 $6,269 -6.0%Syndication-National $2,406 $2,326 3.4%National Newspapers $2,190 $2,788 -21.5%Outdoor $1,853 $1,807 2.6%National Spot Radio $1,613 $1,981 -18.6%Sunday Magazines $792 $766 3.4%Network Radio $622 $699 -11.0%

Source: CMR, 12/2001

1.25 U.S. Offline Advertising Expenditures By Media Category (1999-2006)Millions of dollars

Media 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Newspapers $46,958 $48,400 $49,368 $49,862 $49,363 $49,363 $48,623 $48,136Broadcast TV $41,448 $45,902 $41,926 $40,796 $39,752 $40,397 $39,627 $37,982Cable TV $11,153 $13,418 $14,344 $15,390 $16,998 $19,017 $20,841 $23,281Radio $16,744 $19,088 $17,752 $17,042 $16,701 $17,369 $17,369 $16,848Yellow Pages $12,463 $12,712 $12,458 $12,333 $12,210 $12,088 $11,907 $11,669Magazines $15,508 $17,834 $17,299 $16,780 $17,116 $17,544 $17,719 $18,251Outdoor $1,840 $2,153 $2,174 $2,131 $2,088 $2,130 $2,151 $2,173Other $40,800 $41,208 $36,675 $33,741 $33,066 $33,397 $33,731 $34,068Total $186,914 $200,716 $191,997 $188,074 $187,296 $191,304 $191,968 $192,406



18/61



Section II.Online AdvertisingPractices


19/61



Branding is the principal objective behind most online marketing efforts,according to AdRelevance. The company reports that more than 60% of allonline ads are related in some way to brand building and that 45% are designedprimarily to build brand awareness. Only one-third of online ads are specificallyintended to drive either sales or website traffic, according to the company.

Myers Reports estimates that 85% of companies who advertise onlinenevertheless do so at least in part to drive website traffic -- the most-frequentlymentioned objective -- followed closely by general branding, which was cited by82% of advertisers. Among major U.S. companies surveyed by the Associationof National Advertisers, one-half said that developing or improving brand loyaltywas the primary objective behind their online advertising during 2000, up from40% the previous year.

2.01 Top Reasons Companies Advertise OnlinePercent of companies that advertise online

2.02 Objectives Of Online AdvertisementsPercent of online ads

71%

72%

75%

82%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Targeting: Sponsorship Opportunities

Branding: Sponsorship Opportunities

Branding: Integrated Marketing

Brandbuilding

Drive Traffic To Site



Branding,Awareness

45%Direct

Response, DriveTraffic19%

DirectResponse, Drive

Sales14%

No Strategy6%

Branding,Positioning

15% Branding,Feature/Benefits

1%


20/61



2.03 Media Used To Drive Traffic To WebsitesPercent of respondents; multiple responses accepted

2.04 Effectiveness Of Select Media In Driving Traffic To WebsitesEffectiveness on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (great)

32%

46%

48%

48%

52%

52%

58%

60%

60%

66%

96%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sponsorships

Affiliate Programs

Radio

Newspapers

Television

Direct Mail

Opt-in E-mail Lists

Magazines

Public Relations

E-mail To Customers

Online Banner Ads

Source: Forrester Research, 2001(n=50 marketing managers)

2.5

2.6

2.6

2.7

2.7

2.8

3.1

3.2

3.4

3.8

4.1

0 1 2 3 4 5

Opt-in E-mail Lists

Newspapers

Radio

Sponsorships

Magazines

Online Banner Ads

Public Relations

Television

Direct Mail

Affiliate Programs

E-mail To Customers

Source: Forrester Research, 2001


21/61



Forrester Research reported that a majority of marketing executives fromonline retailers it surveyed in 1999 believed affiliate marketing was among themost effective methods for generating sales and building their online brands. Theonly online alternative that most survey respondents thought outperformedaffiliate marketing was e-mail to current customers. Fifty-seven percent ofrespondents thought that affiliate marketing was superior to offline advertising,77% felt the same about sponsorships and 78% for portal deals.

An analysis by affiliate marketing consultants Fiore and Collins estimated thatthe cost of acquiring new customers during 2001 was approximately $9.00 eachfor affiliate programs. In contrast, they estimated the cost increased to $21.00per new customer for online advertising and $24.00 per new customer for e-mailmarketing.

Affiliate programs generated approximately 13% of online retail sales during2000, according to Forrester. By 2003, the company predicts that such programswill account for 21% of online sales to consumers.

2.05 Effectiveness Of Affiliate Marketing vs. Online AlternativesPercent of online retailer marketing executives

5%

10%

15%

17%

29%

63%

5%

7%

7%

6%

14%

25%

90%

83%

78%

78%

57%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Banners

Portal ShoppingAreas

Portal Deals

Sponsorships

Offline Advertising

E-mail To CurrentCustomers


Better About The Same Worse


22/61



Targeted e-mail, banner ads, and linking arrangements with partner sites were themost widely used advertising media among both pure-play Internet retailers as well asthe more established multi-channel retailers, according to a 2000 survey byPriceWaterhouseCoopers. When it comes to assessing which media are most effectivefor acquiring new customers and for building brand recognition, thePriceWaterhouseCoopers survey found significantly different approaches. A largeplurality of pure-play Internet retailers indicated that targeted e-mail was the mosteffective in acquiring new customers followed in distant second by television advertising,off-site links, and search engine placement. The multi-channel retailers, in contrast,employed a broader mix of media with roughly the same proportion of companiesindicating that targeted e-mail, portal/ISP/community site deals, magazine advertising,direct mail, and off-site links were all highly effective in acquiring new customers.

2.06 Most Effective Advertising Media For Customer AcquisitionPercent of companies surveyed

Although the role of search engine placement and its effectiveness was ranked low bythe Internet retailers surveyed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, search engines anddirectories were rated as either excellent or very good for website promotion by 48% ofcompanies surveyed by ActivMedia. Other favored methods of promotion, according toActivMedia, are off-site links and buttons (23%), online PR and press releases (17%),reciprocal ads and links (16%), affiliate programs (10%), and paid banner ads (6%).

Among larger sites -- those processing more than 500 orders per month -- only 36% ratesearch engines and directories as excellent/very good compared to 67% of mid-levelsites (100 to 500 orders per month) and 54% of smaller sites. High volume sites weremore likely than others to focus their promotional efforts on offline media and on on-going e-mail communications with existing customers.

5.6%

5.6%

44.4%

2.8%

2.8%

5.6%

5.1%

7.7%

10.3%

10.3%

12.8%

17.9%

17.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

0% 20% 40% 60%

Television Advertising

Magazine Advertising

Links on Partner Sites

Direct Mail

Targeted E-mail

Portal/ISP/CommunitySite Deals

Catalog CrossPromotion

Search EnginePlacement

Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Pure-Play Internet Retailers Multi-Channel Retailers


23/61




Seasonality46%

OnlineAdvertising

17%InternetPopulation

Growth37%

2.07 Most Effective Advertising Media For BrandingPercent of companies surveyed

Four-in-five (79%) major U.S. companies surveyed by the Association ofNational Advertisers used online advertising during 2000. Among thosecompanies, 92% used banner ads, 75% used search engine positioning, 70%used sponsorships, and 67% used e-mail marketing.

Although effective advertising and marketing efforts are important for success in theonline space, Jupiter Media Metrix contends that only 17% of website traffic growth isattributable to online advertising. Seasonality is the most important source of increasedtraffic, accounting for 46% of growth, according to the company, followed by simplegrowth in the overall Internet population, which contributes 37% of traffic growth.

2.08 Sources Of Website Traffic GrowthPercent contribution to overall website traffic growth

11.1%

11.1%

5.6%

5.6%

11.1%

5.6%

16.7%

2.6%

2.6%

5.5%

7.7%

7.7%

10.3%

10.3%

12.8%

15.4%

15.4%n/a

n/a

n/a

0% 10% 20% 30%

Outdoor Advertising

Targeted E-mail

Banner Ads

Magazine Advertising

In-Store Cross Promotion

Portal/ISP/Community Site Deals

Links on Partner Sites

Direct Mail

Television Advertising

Catalog Cross Promotion

Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers

Pure-Play Internet Retailers Multi-Channel Retailers


24/61



The traditional banner ad accounted for more than one-in-three (36%) onlineads served during the fourth quarter of 2000, according to AdRelevance, whilethe vertical banner was barely on the radar screen with its 1% share. By mid-year2001, the vertical banner had doubled its share to about 2% -- or approximately280 million impressions between January and June -- even though it was stillavailable on only 21% of the sites tracked by AdRelevance. During the sameperiod, the share for full banners declined to slightly more than 30%.

2.09 Online Banners Served By Size Of Ad (Q4-2000)Percent of all online banner ads served during quarter

2.10 Online Ad Dimensions Used By Advertisers (2000)Percent of online advertisers

1%

1%

4%

6%

16%

16%

20%

36%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Vertical Banner

Short Banner

Tall But ton

Medium Button

Micro Button

Short Button

Half Banner

Full Banner

Source: A dRelevance, 7/2001

16%

25%

14%

13%

6%

3%

14%

80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Micro Button

Short Button

Medium Button

Tall Button

Vertical Banner

Short Banner

Half Banner

Full Banner



25/61



2.11 Full Banner Ad Rate Card PricingDollars per thousand impressions

AdRelevance reports that full, non-negotiated rate card pricing for onlinebanner ads declined during 2000 and then held steady during the first-half of2001 at an average CPM of just below $30.00. Although few advertisers actuallypay the published CPM rates, the company points out that they serve as astarting point for negotiation and are useful for identifying trends in site pricingstrategy.

The average full banner CPM hit a low in the fourth-quarter of 2000 at justover $28.00 before ticking upwards to $29.37 in the first- and second-quarters of2001. The vertical banner remained the most expensive among the standard IABunits, according to AdRelevance, at $35.00 per thousand impressions while theincreasingly popular 88 x 31 pixel micro button was the least expensive at a CPMof $11.85. The company reports that many advertisers are now leveraging thesmall size and low price of the micro button ads to saturate the web with tinybrand awareness messages.

2.12 Average Rate Card Pricing For IAB Online Ad UnitsDollars per thousand impressions

30.52 31.0928.28 29.3730.00

26.00 25.00 25.00

0

10

20

30

40

50

Q1-Q2 2000 Q3-2000 Q4-2000 Q1-Q2 2001


Mean CPM Rate Median CPM Rate

$11.85

$16.94

$19.54

$22.81

$27.64

$29.37

$35.29

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50

Micro Button

Medium Button

Short Button

Tall Butt on

Half Banner

Full Banner

Vertical Banner



26/61



The online advertising market is comprised of many advertisers who schedulesmaller campaigns and a relatively small number of very large advertisers whoaccount for the bulk of activity, according to research by AdRelevance. Themedian campaign during the fourth-quarter of 2000 was 27,000 impressions andmore than one-half (55%) of all advertisers made buys for only one site. Only 1%of online advertisers purchased impressions on 100 or more websites.

The company also found that the number of impressions purchased variedsignificantly between sectors, with campaigns in the hardware and electronicsand the financial services sectors running more than three-times as manyimpressions as the overall average.

2.13 U.S. Online Ad Campaign Size By SectorMedian number of impressions in thousands

2.14 Number Of Sites Purchased In U.S. Online Ad CampaignsNumber of companies

18

27

29

29

33

40

61

67

94

114

186

0 50 100 150 200

Retail

B-to-B

Entertainment

Web Media

Travel

Automotive

Consumer Goods

Software

Telecommunications

Financial Services

Hardware And Electronics


58

126

86

171396

450

961

1,397

2,053

2,692

10,065

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

200+ Sites

101 To 200 Sites

76 To 100 Sites

51 To 75 Sites26 To 50 Sites

16 To 25 Sites

9 To 15 Sites

5 To 8 Sites

3 To 4 Sites

2 Sites

1 Site



27/61


28/61



Source: Yankee Group, 2001

Plan To BuyLess9%

Plan To BuyAbout The

Same35%

Plan To BuyMore56%

Streaming media is expected to post the fastest growth during the next fewyears among the different varieties of online advertising media, according toYankee Group, expanding from only $44 million in 2000 to $3.1 billion by 2005. Asurvey of online advertisers and their agencies conducted by the company inearly 2001 found that more than one-half (56%) of respondents plan to increasetheir spending on streaming media advertising. A related survey also found thatadvertisers believed streaming media advertising was second only to e-mail interms of effectiveness.

2.17 U.S. Advertiser Plans For Streaming Media Ad ExpendituresPercent of agencies/advertisers who use streaming media ads

A 2001 survey of marketing executives and their agencies by Myers Reportsfound that budget limitations were the most common barrier to companiesincreasing their online advertising expenditures. More significant, however, werethe large number of executives who expressed concerns about various aspectsof online advertising performance and performance benchmarking. Almost one-half or marketing executives and 57% of agencies cited low click-through rates asa barrier to their increasing spending and more than one-third of each wereconcerned about low conversion rates, high cost-per-thousand ad rates, anddifficulties in measuring return on investment.

2.18 Barriers To Increased Online Advertising SpendingPercent of each type of executive

MarketingExecutives

AgencyExecutives

Budget limitations 58% 92%Low click-through rates 49% 57%High CPMs 45% 44%Cant measure ROI 38% 40%Low conversion rates 33% 35%Inadequate research 32% 48%Webs branding abilities 30% 43%Lack of measurement standards 29% 40%Inadequate sales competence 27% 27%Fragmentation of market 23% 26%Bandwidth limitations 19% 21%Poor stewardship of schedule 6% 15%Creative standards not compatible 3% 17%

Source: Myers Reports, 2001


29/61


30/61



E-mail is the most popular online activity, with surveys indicating that morepeople use e-mail than any other online service, including surfing the web. IDCestimates that at the end of 2001 there were approximately 137 million e-mailboxes among U.S. users at work and another 102 million among users at home.

Opt-in e-mail marketing and similar types of permission marketing are the onlyappropriate approaches for integrating e-mail into a digital marketing effort. Opt-in e-mail message volume is growing at roughly twice the rate of overall e-mailmessage volume, according to most analysts, and is expected to account forabout one-in-five e-mails by 2003. Including opt-in, there are three principal typesof permission-based e-mail: House List Messages -- These include company newsletters, promotions,

and various types of updates sent to a companys own e-mail list Sponsored E-mail Messages -- Stand-alone newsletters, bulletins, and e-

zines which carry advertising and are sent regularly to subscribers whorequest them

Opt-in E-mail Messages -- Messages sent to generic lists of individuals whohave indicated an interest in receiving e-mail related to specific topics

3.01 U.S. E-mail Message Volume (1999-2003)Billions of messages per year

3.02 U.S. Opt-in E-mail Message Volume (1999-2003)Billions of messages per year

394

536

677

840

1,035

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003


40.164.1

101.2

159.1

227.0

10.2%12.0%

14.9%

18.9%21.9%

0

50

100

150

200250

300

350

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

E-mail Messages Sent Opt-in Messages As A Share Of All E-mail


31/61



3.03 Frequency Of Promotional E-mails Among Leading RetailersNumber of e-mails sent per month

Retailer February 2001 January 2001 December 20001-800-FLOWERS.COM 3 3 3800.com 2 2 5

Amazon.com 1 1 1BananaRepublic.com 3 4 4BarnesandNoble.com 2 2 5ClickRewards 2 2 5FTD.com 2 1 2Microsoft 2 3 5MSN 4 4 9NetFlix 9 -- --Outpost.com 5 5 5Sears.com 4 7 --Victorias Secret 4 3 2Williams-Sonoma 0 1 2Wine.com 5 4 5

Source: Iconocast, 2001

Almost two-thirds (65%) of Internet users are interested in receiving activitystatements by e-mail and 44% their bills by e-mail, according to NFOWorldGroup. More than one-half (54%) already receive online versions of offlinepublications by e-mail and 13% have actually cancelled one or more printsubscriptions in favor of the digital counterpart. Valentine Radford found that thenumber of online consumers who actually enjoy receiving electronic newslettersperiodically has remained steady at about four-in-five over three different surveysconducted during 2000 and 2001.

NFO also reports that almost three-in-four (71%) Internet users alreadyreceive permission e-mail from online retailers announcing special offers. AMarch 2001 survey of Internet users by Jupiter Media Metrix found that 85% ofonline buyers were either very likely or somewhat more likely to return to a siteafter receiving an e-mail message from a retailer.

3.04 Types Of Permission E-mail Received By U.S. Internet UsersPercent of Internet users

27%

38%

47%

49%

55%

55%

57%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Offers From Local Retailers

Local News

Weather

Entertainment

Travel

Humor

Household Tips, Recipies, Crafts

E-tailer Special Offers

Source: NFO World Group, 8/2001


32/61



3.05 E-mail Volume Of U.S. Internet Users At Home And At WorkNumber of messages received per day

The average Internet user receives 11 e-mails at home per day and 24 e-mailsat work, according to a June 2001 survey by the Gallup Organization. Themedian number of daily e-mails received at home and at work are 8 and 12respectively.

By 2006, Jupiter Media Metrix predicts that the average Internet user willreceive approximately 4,200 e-mails per year, more than 40% of which will bespam or UCE (unsolicited commercial e-mail).

3.06 How Frequently Do U.S. Internet Users Check Their E-mailPercent of Internet users

Cluttered e-mail boxes and spam have already become an issue for manyInternet users. Although the largest share of users report that only 10% or less ofthe e-mail they receive is spam, almost 40% indicated in the Gallup survey thatone-third or more of their e-mail is spam and almost one-in-five indicated that amajority of the messages they receive are spam.

2%

8%

13%

17%

12% 11% 12% 12%13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

< 1Hour

1 to 2Hours

3 to 4Hours

5 to 6Hours

7 to 8Hours

9 to 10Hours

11 to 15Hours

16 to 20Hours

> 20Hours

Source: Gallup Organization, 6/2001

4 2 %

2 8 %

1 0 %

9 % 6 %

1 % 2 % 2 %

2 7 %

1 9 %

1 3 %

1 0 % 1 2

%

2 % 8 % 6 %

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

5 OrLess

6 To 10 11 To 15 16 To 20 21 To 30 31 To 40 41 To 50 MoreThan 50


Users At Home Users At Work


33/61



3.07 Proportion Of U.S. Internet Users E-mail That Is Spam/UCEPercent of all e-mail received each week at home and at work

Word of mouth is one of the most common means by which Internet userslearn about new websites and it is the key to any viral marketing effort. ForresterResearch estimates that 53% of Internet users learn about sites by word of mouthand Jupiter Media Metrix estimates that 45% of online consumers choose e-commerce sites based at least in part on word of mouth. Almost one-in-five(18%) Internet users use word of mouth as the primary means of learning aboutnew sites, according to IMT Strategies.

The most common reasons why Internet users forward e-mails on to othersare they are either relevant to the recipients interests or they are consideredamusing.

3.08 Reasons Internet Users Forward E-mail To OthersPercent of Internet users


31% To 40%11%

51% To 70%10%

91% To 100%1%

71% To 90%

7%

41% To 50%10%

21% To 30%15%

11% To 20%16%

10% Or Less

30%

1%

4%

4%

6%

7%

35%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Prize/Coupon/Reward

New Technology

Cool

Informative

Work-Related

Funny

Relevant

Source: IMT Strategies, 9/2001


34/61


35/61




CustomerRetention

66%

CustomerAcquisition

34%

3.11 E-mail Marketing By U.S. Small Business (2001/2003/2005)In millions

2001 2003 2005Businesses using e-mail marketing 1.6mn 3.7mn 4.6mnE-mail marketing expenditures $398mn $1,319mn $2,238mn

Source: Kelsey Group, 5/2001

The Kelsey Group predicts that small businesses in the U.S. will aggressivelyadopt e-mail marketing over the next four years. The company estimates that11% of small businesses spent approximately $211 million on e-mail marketingduring 2000. That share is expected to expand to 16% of small businesses in2001 and 42% in 2005 when they are predicted to spend an estimated $2.2 billionon e-mail marketing.

3.12 Payment Options Supported By E-mail Marketing NetworksPercent of e-mail marketing networks

3.13 U.S. E-mail Marketing Allocation Of Expenditures, CustomerAcquisition vs. RetentionPercent of total e-mail marketing expenditures

38%

53%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cost PerAcquisition

Cost Per Click

Cost Per Thousand

Source: Opt-in New s, 3/2001


36/61


37/61




Text Only40%

HTML And Text60%

Source: Opt-in New s, 3/2001

HTML E-mail34%

Text E-mail66%

Substantially more than one-half (60%) of Internet users today use e-mailclient software that is capable of supporting HTML e-mail, according to JupiterMedia Metrix. Opt-In News, however, reports that two-thirds of the e-mailcampaigns among marketing executives it surveyed in March 2001 employed textmessages. Although the open rates and click-through rates are generally higherfor HTML e-mail than text messages, many Internet users at work have text-onlymessaging software such as Lotus Notes. In addition, IT administrators areincreasingly blocking HTML e-mail and e-mail attachments to protect theirsystems from mail-borne viruses and other types of malicious code.

3.16 Formats Supported By Internet Users E-mail ClientsPercent of Internet users

3.17 E-mail Format For Advertising CampaignsPercent of e-mail advertising


38/61



Section IV.Leading Advertisersand Brands


39/61



The ranks of leading online advertisers are dominated by companies from theretail, financial and entertainment sectors, according to both CMRi andAdRelevance. Online retailer Amazon.com and the eBay trading community areranked, not surprisingly, among the top five online advertisers in terms of bothimpressions and expenditures during the first nine months of 2001.

4.01 Leading U.S. Online Advertisers By ExpendituresTotal expenditures in dollars for online advertising

Rank AdvertiserExpenditures

Jan.-Sep. 2001 Sector1 eBay Inc. $35,731,219 Retail2 General Motors Corp. $35,520,684 Automotive3 Providian Financial Corp. $23,581,190 Financial4 Amazon.com Inc. $22,884,132 Retail5 Classmates Online Inc. $21,831,884 Entertainment6 Barnes & Noble Inc. $21,595,465 Retail7 AOL Time Warner Inc. $19,242,581 Entertainment

8 JP Morgan Chase & Co. $18,011,060 Financial9 BankOne Corp. $17,295,526 Financial

10 Vivendi Universal $15,963,171 EntertainmentSource: CMRi AdNetTrackUS, 9/2001

4.02 Leading U.S. Online Advertisers By ImpressionsThousands of impressions during quarter, excluding house ads

Rank AdvertiserImpressions

Q3-2001 Sector1 Amazon.com Inc. 12,316,972 Retail2 Columbia House 5,438,788 Entertainment3 eBay Inc. 5,746,873 Retail4 BarnesandNoble.com 4,902,329 Retail5 Orbitz 5,040,898 Services6 Classmates Online Inc. 4,909,343 Entertainment7 Cassava Enterprises 4,042,223 Entertainment8 Bertelsmann AG 3,814,016 Entertainment9 AOL Time Warner Inc. 3,433,876 Entertainment

10 Providian Financial Corp. 5,559,735 FinancialSource: Jupiter Media Metrix, 10/2001

During 2000, four-in-five (79%) major U.S. companies used online advertising,

up from 66% in 1999, according to the Association of National Advertisers. Theaverage amount spent by these companies during 2000 was $2.4 million,accounting for an average 2.9% of their total advertising budgets. Theassociation also reports that the average company increased its spending foronline advertising by 24% between 1999 and 2000.


40/61


41/61



4.05 Leading Dot.com Brands Among U.S. Decision-MakersCoreBrand Power score for each company/brand

Company/Brand Name

Q2-2000CoreBrand Power

Score (1) Type of Company

America Online 34.8 ISP/ContentLycos 32.1 PortalPriceline.com 31.7 E-commerceAmeritrade 31.2 FinancialExcite 26.7 PortalAlta Vista 26.5 SearchEarthlink Network 24.0 ISPJuno.com 23.0 ISPMindspring Enterprises 22.2 ISPGo Network 20.4 PortalEgghead.com 20.0 E-commerceiVillage 16.6 ContentCDnow.com 14.9 E-commerceZDnet 14.8 ContentHotBot 13.5 SearchAbout.com 11.7 PortalWingspan.com 9.5 Financial

(1) The CoreBrand Power score gauges how familiar and favorable a company is to key businessdecision-makers comprised of vice presidents or higher at the top 20% of U.S. corporations.

Source: Corporate Branding, 12/2000

Among American consumers, more than 90% are familiar with the IBM andMicrosoft brands, according to Forrester Research, which is significantly higherthan their individual market penetration rates at 17% and 40% respectively.Similarly, Yahoo! is recognized by 86% of consumers but less than one-in-three(29%) have actually used the online portal.

4.06 Leading Technology Brands Among U.S. ConsumersTrust measured on a scale of 1 (distrust a lot) to 5 (trust a lot) and market penetration measuredamong all U.S. consumers

Company/Brand NameConsumer

TrustMarket

Penetration Type of CompanyAmazon.com 4.52 9% E-commerceApple 4.41 7% TechnologyHandspring 4.41 1% TechnologyGateway 4.38 10% TechnologyDell Computer 4.35 10% TechnologyIBM 4.33 17% TechnologyPalm 4.29 3% TechnologyAOL 4.28 18% ISPeBay 4.22 10% E-commerce

Yahoo! 4.16 29% PortalNapster 4.14 8% EntertainmentE*Trade 4.13 2% FinancialEarthlink 4.09 4% ISPMicrosoft 4.05 40% TechnologyMSN 4.01 15% ISP



42/61



Forrester also found that Internet users generally recognized more brandsthan offline consumers. This was especially true for online brands such asAmazon.com and Yahoo!, but also applied to brands unrelated to the Internet.For example, the brand recognition for Yahoo! was 25% higher among onlineconsumers than among offline consumers while 12% more online consumersrecognized the Sony brand, 15% more for the Motorola brand, 16% more forMitsubishi, and 19% more for Circuit City.

4.07 Leading E-commerce Brands Among U.S. Internet UsersPercent of Internet users who recognize brand

24%

26%

30%

30%

42%

43%

44%

44%

51%

52%

52%

54%

54%

61%

61%

62%

65%

69%

73%

82%

83%

86%

92%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Autobytel.com

Drugstore.com

Buy.com

Travelocity.com

Bluelight.com

KBkids.com

Egghead.com

CDnow.com

GAP.com

Walmart.com

Landsend.com

JCPenney.com

Dell.com

CompUSA.com

eToys.com

Bestbuy.com

Priceline.com

Ticketmaster.com

Toysrus.com

Gateway.com

eBay.com

BarnesandNoble.com

Amazon.com

Source: Odyssey, 2000


43/61



Section V.Internet Users and OnlineAdvertising


44/61


45/61



Gartner Group reports that brand value and past experience play a significantrole in Internet users choices about which sites they decide to patronize. Thecompanys research has found that 59% of online buyers typically limit theirpurchases to only a handful of sites that they find familiar and comfortable.

If Internet users are unsure about which website to visit when shopping online,typing the desired product name into a search engine is the most frequentlymentioned method for determining where to go. Search engines and e-mail arealso common means of learning about new websites.

5.03 Primary Method For U.S. Internet Users To Learn AboutWebsitesPercent of Internet users

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

4%12%

13%

29%

18%

< 1%

< 1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Online Discussion Groups

Outdoor Ads

E-mail Newsletter

Direct Mail

E-mail From A Company

Hardcopy Catalog

Radio

Television

Personal Conversation

Banner Or Other Web AdNewspaper Or Magazine Ad

Link From Another Site

E-mail From A Friend

Search Engine

Source: IMT Strategies, 2000/2001


46/61


47/61



11%

34%

13%

4%

11%

8%

9%

61%

11%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

8 To 30 Days

1 To 7 Days

1 To 24 Hours

30 To 59 Minutes

0 To 29 Minutes

Source: AdKnow ledge, Q3-2000

Clickthrough-to-Conversion View-to-Conversion

Internet users are more likely to notice online ads and respond to them whenthey are at home rather than at work, according to the Online PublishersAssociation. More than one-half (53%) of Internet users surveyed for theorganization by Millward Brown also indicated that they were more likely to buyonline from home compared to only 18% who were more likely to buy at work.Survey respondents were, however, almost three times more likely to noticebusiness-related ads while at work than when they were online at home.

5.06 Visibility Of Online Ads Among U.S. Internet Users At HomeAnd At WorkPercent of Internet users

5.07 Elapsed Time To Conversion For Online AdsPercent of Internet users who respond to online ads

12%

34%

11%

12%

48%

53%

57%

65%

41%

13%

32%

22%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Click On Ads

Notice Ads ForBusiness Products &

Services

Notice Ads ForConsumer Products

& Services

Notice Online Ads

Source: Online Publishers Association/MBIQ Media Consumption Study, 11/2001

More Likely At Work About The SameMore Likely At Home


48/61



Among Internet users who click on online ads and who ultimately convert --either by registering, requesting information, or completing a purchase -- themajority (61%) take less than 30 minutes to do so, according to a Q3-2000analysis by AdKnowledge. Almost one-in-five (19%) take one day or longer toconvert after their initial click-through.

AdKnowledge also found that one-third (32%) of total conversions actuallyentailed no click-through by users. Those individuals simply visited advertiserwebsites by typing in a URL or through some other method after viewing anonline ad. The elapsed view-to-conversion time among this group of Internetusers was significantly longer than among users who actually clicked on ads.

Among the various online activities that Internet users engage in, ForresterResearch found that individuals were most likely to click on a banner ad whilethey were researching a product or using a search engine. Conversely,individuals were least likely to click on a banner ad while they were reading news.

5.08 U.S. Internet Users Likelihood of Clicking On Banner AdsPercent of Internet users

Activity

Extremely

Likely Likely UnlikelyReading News 6% 39% 55%Researching Products 9% 59% 35%Shopping for Products 6% 65% 29%Using a Search Engine 6% 81% 13%


5.09 U.S. Consumer Attitudes About Clicking On Banner AdsPercent of Internet users responding to question: How likely are you to click on a banner ad

60.3%

47.7%

31.5%

17.7%

25.1%

19.7%

25.5%

21.3%

26.6%

21.1%

42.4%

58.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

When Shopping ForA Particular

Product

When Shown ADiscount

When Offered AFree Product

When ResearchingConsumer Products


Likely Neutral Unlikely


49/61



Click-through rates for online banner ads have declined steadily, from an average0.71% in January 1999 to 0.31% in December 1999 and 0.29% during the first-half of2000, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. Most analysts during 2000 and 2001 estimatedthat click-through rates changed little during that period, but their estimates of averageclick-through rates were significantly higher than Nielsen/NetRatings at 0.5% to 1%.

AdKnowledge reports that click-through rates in the second quarter of 2000 for adstied to specific search keywords were measurably higher than ads with Run-of-Site(ROS) placement. The results for ads with keyword placement on portal sites were morethan twice that with ROS placement; on news/content sites and other non-portal sites,click-through rates with keyword placement were approximately 50% higher than withROS placement, according to AdKnowledge.

5.10 U.S. Click-Through Rates For Banner Ads vs. Opt-in E-mailPercent of Internet users who click on each type of ad

2%

1%

1%

7%

1%-2%

0.6%

0.5%

1%-2%

2%-20%

10%-15%

5%-15%

5%-15%

12.5%

2.5%-10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

FloNetwork

Aberdeen Group

Jupiter MediaMetrix

Winterberry Group

Tower Group

Forrester Research

24/7 Media

Source: As Noted, 2000

Banner Ads Opt-in E-mail


50/61



The click-through rates for opt-in e-mail messages is approximately ten-timesthat for banner ads, according to most analysts. MindArrow reports that theaverage click rate for opt-in e-mail, based on an analysis from 2000, was 5.4%compared to 0.4% for banner ads and 1.5% for postal direct mail. The responserate for rich media banners was almost ten-times higher than regular banners,according to MindArrow, at an average 3.8%.

Several studies, however, indicate that a high click-through rate does notautomatically correlate with a high conversion or buy rate. AdKnowledge found thatcampaigns generating the highest click-through rates also generated the mostconversions only 14% of the time; put another way, this means that more than four-out-of-five times the campaign with the highest click-through rate generated a lower ultimateconversion rate than campaigns with lower click-through rates.

5.11 U.S. Click-Through Rate Comparison By Type Of MediaPercent of recipients who respond to message

Among mobile wireless Internet users, 91% indicated that they would be eithersomewhat or highly influenced by wireless advertisements, according to a survey

conducted by WindWire in late 2000. The same survey estimated averagewireless advertising response rates at 19% for click-through and 12% for call-through. The rich graphic ad format generated the highest response rate,according to WindWire.

5.12 U.S. Wireless Advertising Response Rates By FormatAverage call-/click-through rate

10%

24%

21%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Interstitial

Rich Graphic

Rich Text

Source: WindWire, 2000

0.4%

1.5%

3.8%

5.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Banner Ads Direct Mail Rich MediaBanners

Opt-in E-mail

Source: MindArrow , 2000


51/61



A trial among 1,000 mobile wireless users in Boulder, Colorado by SkyGoduring early 2001 experienced overall click-through rates of between 15% and25% for wireless push ads. Three percent of the participants made a purchase asa result of viewing an ad and 7% said they would use wireless coupons at thepoint of purchase. Advertisers participating in the trial paid between $25-75/CPMfor basic run of service ads and between $75-150/CPM for permission-basedads to a highly targeted opt-in audience.

This does not mean, however, that companies have free reign to sendunsolicited advertising to mobile wireless users. A majority of mobile wirelessusers surveyed by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) were not willing to acceptuntargeted push advertising. The same individuals, however, would be interestedin personalized, user-specific offers. Almost one-half (46%) of users surveyed byJupiter Media Metrix expressed no interest in receiving ads on their wirelessphones or PDAs; 36% were interested in receiving ads in the form of subsidizedcontent or access and 35% via subsidized devices.

5.13 Wireless Advertising Response Rates In SkyGo Service TrialPercent of wireless ads delivered

2.9%

15.0%

64.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Ads Resulted InOn- Or Off-line

Purchase

Ads Resulted InAction/Planned

Action

Opened Ads

Source: SkyGo, 2/2001


52/61



The majority of Internet users both at home and at work generally believe thatthere is too much advertising online today. Among users at home, three-in-fourfind online ads annoying and 70% believe that they provide little or no usefulinformation. Sixty percent of users at work report that few if any online ads offeranything relevant to them.

5.14 Attitudes Towards Banner Ads Among U.S. Internet Users AtHomePercent of online consumer households

5.15 Attitudes Towards Banner Ads Among U.S. Internet Users AtWork

Percent of Internet users at work

55%

70%

25%

45%

30%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Make it easy tofind important

information

Provide essentialinformation

Are annoying

Source: V alentine Radford, 3/2001

Disagree Agree

13%

40%

62%

87%

60%

38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Has Adertising IRemem ber For A

Long Time

Has Advertising ThatIs Relevant To Me

Has Too MuchAdvertising

Source: Online Publishers Association/MBIQ Media Consumption Study, 11/2001

Agree Disagree


53/61



Although a substantial majority (87%) of Internet users dislike receiving spamor other varieties of unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE), Gallup reports thatmore than one-in-ten (13%) either do not mind or actually find it interesting anduseful on occasion. In the competition for most annoying practice, online pop-up ads beat out spam by almost two-to-one (65% vs. 34%), according to Gallup.

Greenfield Online reports that new Internet users are generally more receptiveto e-mail marketing efforts than veteran users. A majority (54%) of users whohave been online for less than one year find e-mail useful for learning about newproducts compared to 44% of veteran users, according to Greenfield. On the flip-side, a majority of veteran users (53%) think that they receive too many e-mailoffers and promotions versus one-third on new users.

5.16 U.S. Internet Users Attitudes Towards Spam/UCEPercent of Internet users

5.17 U.S. Internet Users Attitudes Towards E-mail MarketingPercent of online consumer households

4%

9%

45%

42%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Really Like To Receive Spam

Sometimes Find It Interesting

Have No Strong Feelings Either Way

Find It Annoying But Don't Hate It

Hate Spam


18%

21%

31%

33%

54%

15%

39%

45%

53%

44%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I often buy things a dvertised to m e through e-mail

I delete most e-mail ads without readingthem

I wish it were easie r to unregister from e-mail o ffers

I receive too ma ny e-mail offers andpromotions

E-mail is a great way to find out about newproducts or promotions

Source: Greenf ield Online, 8/2000

Users Online More Than Four Years

Users Online Less Than One Year


54/61



Among online consumers, 60% prefer HTML e-mail over text e-mail and 80%like to receive rich media e-mail, according to Valentine Radford. Many of theindividuals who enjoy rich media, however, prefer that e-mails provide links to thecontent rather than embed it into the message itself.

The delivery frequency preferences of opt-in e-mail recipients are divided fairlyevenly with 30% interested in receiving messages several times per week, 31%interested in once per week and 34% desiring delivery only twice per month orless frequently. Among the different delivery options, once per week was themost popular, with 31% of recipients specifying that option.

5.18 U.S. Internet Users Attitudes Towards Rich E-mailPercent of online consumers

5.19 Internet User Preferences For Permission E-mail VolumePercent of opt-in e-mail subscribers

5%

6%

10%

31%

12%

18%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Don't Know

Less Than Once AMonth

Once A Month

Every Other Week

Once A Week

Couple Times AWeek

Daily

Source: NFO Interactive/FloNetwork, 2000

28%

40%

20%

72%

60%

80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Prefer receiving alink to rich media

Prefer HTML e-mailover text

Enjoy rich media e-mail

Source: Valentine Radford, 3/2001

Disagree Agree


55/61


56/61



The use of eCoupons is most common in shopping for groceries, followed in adistant second and third place by books and health-related products, according toNPD. The company estimates that the highest redemption rates for eCoupons,however, are for toys, music, and books, where 80% or more of coupons areultimately redeemed.

NPD reports that overall redemption rates for eCoupons are much higher thanfor coupons related to mailorder catalogs. In many product categories, eCouponsare redeemed at rates comparable to those for retail stores, although the specificrates within each category can vary significantly between the two channels.

5.22 eCoupon Use Among U.S. Internet Users By CategoryPercent of eCoupon users

5.23 Redemption Of eCoupons By Category And Retail ChannelPercent of coupons redeemed within each category

Item Online CatalogRetailStore Phone Other

Apparel 39% 2% 45% 1% 13%Beauty 58% 1% 29% 11% 1%Books 83% 1% 4% -- 12%Electronics 60% 1% 23% -- 16%Fast Food -- -- 96% -- 4%Groceries 4% -- 94% -- 2%Health 55% -- 42% -- 2%Music 80% 1% 4% -- 15%Restaurant 2% 14% 81% -- 2%Toys 87% -- 12% -- 1%

Source: NPD Group, 2000

13%

13%

14%

14%

16%

17%

26%

30%

32%

59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Restaurant

Electronics

Apparel

Toys

Fast Food

Beauty

Music

Health

Books

Groceries

Source: NPD Group, 2000


57/61




E-mail55%

Snail Mail16%Newspapers

29%

.

5.24 U.S. Online Consumer Preferences For Coupon DeliveryPercent of online consumers

The majority (55%) of coupon users who are also online now prefer to receivecoupons via e-mail, according to Valentine Radford. Only 29% prefer to clip their

coupons from newspapers and only 16% prefer to receive them through the mail.Companies should nevertheless exercise restraint, however, inasmuch as asubstantial majority of online consumers prefer to receive eCoupons via e-mailonly occasionally. Less than one-in-four (22%) indicated an interest in receivingthem often or very often.

5.25 How Frequently U.S. Consumers Wish To Receive Coupons ViaE-mailPercent of online consumers

9%13%

35%

28%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very Often Often Sometimes Seldom Never



58/61



Online ads which contain rich media -- such as audio or video -- are, notsurprisingly, more visible than conventional banner ads, according to Arbitron.This may be due at least in part to the novelty of such ads which are still fairlyrare. Data from Arbitron also indicates that Internet users with broadband accessare somewhat more likely than dial-up users to have seen an online ad withstreaming audio and were almost twice as likely to have seen a streaming videocommercial.

5.26 Visibility Of Online Ads

Internet Commerce Briefing: Online Advertising & Digital Marketing Report

Documents

Transcript of Internet Commerce Briefing: Online Advertising & Digital Marketing Report