![]() CONTENTSThe figures from each chapter are available to download as PowerPoint files.
Subject: Interview Mary Modahl Wired
If you want to know what's really new in new media, you ask Mary Modahl. By Harvey Blume
It's becoming almost standard in reports on new technology to find
a quote from someone at Forrester Research Inc., a rapidly growing
research firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That someone, more often
than not, is Mary Modahl, Forrester's group director, the author of The
Forrester Report on People and Technology, and a woman whose
views on new media are highly sought on Wall Street.
When I met Modahl, Forrester was about to expand once again. There
was determined activity everywhere but nearly no unoccupied space.
When we did settle down in a momentarily empty office, Modahl's
conversational style regarding the future of the Internet turned out
to be quirky, high-speed, and data rich. Wired:
Will the Internet collapse under the weight of its own success?
Modahl
:
So far as Wall Street goes, you're going to see a certain sobriety take
over, an end to what has been called momentum investing. But will the
Internet be brought down under its own weight? Not at all. The move to
commercialization means there's a very significant build-out of the
Internet by companies who want to offer a service. That will result in a
considerable more reliable network.
Will
the Internet collapse under the weight of its own success?
Right
now it's like neutron bomb went off on the Web. All the buildings are
there, but you don't have a sense of people the way you do in online
services where there's an aliveness, a sense of others. The way-out
vision for the Web is that when you go to a site, there will be people.
You sense them, they sense you. It's a social experience, like walking
into a store. Right now, it's like looking at signs and billboards.
It could be like AOL's instant-message features, it could be avatars,
it could be 3-D, 2-D, or even print, but when you get to a Web site, you
want to know who's there. You want to be able to meet your friends.
You
wrote that Web commerce today amounts to "a dozen pizzas, two or
three flower bouquets a week, and a dozen subscriptions," but by
the year 2000, there will be US$7 billion in sales. How do you get from
two pizzas to $7 billion?
Pizza
prices soar! No, the thing to keep in perspective is that $7 billion is
diddly when we're talking retail sales. Retail sales in the US are more
like $5 trillion. Catalog sales are $53 billion.
You're going to see travel purchases increase. YOu're going to see a
lot more software and hardware sold online. We're also optimistic about
grocery-shopping services like Peapod. Grocery bills typically range
from $100 to $200 a week. Less than 20 percent of the online population
will do their shopping online, but those who do will spend a lot, from
airline tickets to groceries.
Will
advertising play a major role on the Net?
Advertisers
are willing to spend on the medium. There will be 33 million people in
the US on the Internet by the years 2000, and some projections are much
higher. This is an upper-income demographic, more educated than average,
more likely to have children. It's the demographic that most
consumer-goods companies want to talk to most.
How they do that needs to be examined. New models need to be
explored. And that's where content smashes together with advertising. In
the early days of television, there was a Geritol-sponsored game show.
On the Web, we may see the Doritos content site.
If
the Net gets better for business, will that come at the expense of
personal expression?
The
possibility of the Internet supporting a new art form is huge. I don't
think the presence of business will interfere with that any more than
the presence of Citicorp prevents the East Village from existing.
Will
dumb, internet-only terminals replace PCs?
I
think it's a dumb idea. Just producing a $500 computer that does
anything useful has proven to be extremely difficult. And videograme-machine
producers will tell you that even at $300 you enter a pricing abyss,
where consumers just don't want to buy.
Will
expanding bandwidth make real-time phone service commercially viable
over the Internet?
No.
Real-time voice is a hobby, like ham radio, not a permanent application.
As a packet-switching network, the Internet just isn't matched to voice
streams that need continuous connection to run well. Anyway, the phone
system works - why fix it?
When
you write that "vices such as pornography, gambling, and money
laundering" flourish on the Internet, does that mean you are
calling for censorship?
I
don't think government censorship can succeed. They can pass laws, but
enforcement will be very difficult. I think you will begin to see the
equivalent of red-light districts, centers of the Internet understood to
be pornographic, so that people can stay away or lock their children out
if they want to. Search tools and indexing can provide a clear
delineation between red-light and green-light sites, so you can stick to
your side of the street.
Should
government subsidize telecommunications as a way to boost the economy?
It's
very important for government to look at the Internet as a national
strategic asset with about a $100 billion impact on the economy. But in
the Untied States, subsidy is unnecessary. The competitive activity in
the industry is very high; the pressure on prices to come down is very
strong. The scope of participation - new entrants as well as established
players - is such that subsidy is not necessary here, though it may be
in other countries.
Speaking
of other countries, why is there less furor about connectivity in
Europe, less concern about getting wired?
There
is not a love affair with technology the way there is in the US. We're
kind of like the Borg - bizarre people on Star Trek who are hal machine,
half human. We are the Borg of the world community.
-Harvey Blume (joel@ai.mit.edu)
is a critic and co-author of Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo.
If you want to know what's really new in new media, you ask Mary
Modahl.
By Harvey
Blume
It's becoming almost standard in reports on new technology to
find a quote from someone at Forrester Research Inc., a rapidly
growing research firm in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That someone,
more often than not, is Mary Modahl, Forrester's group director, the
author of The Forrester Report on People and Technology,
and a woman whose views on new media are highly sought on Wall
Street.
When I met Modahl, Forrester was about to expand once again.
There was determined activity everywhere but nearly no unoccupied
space. When we did settle down in a momentarily empty office,
Modahl's conversational style regarding the future of the Internet
turned out to be quirky, high-speed, and data rich. Wired:
Will the Internet collapse under the weight of its own success?
Modahl
:
So far as Wall Street goes, you're going to see a certain sobriety
take over, an end to what has been called momentum investing. But will
the Internet be brought down under its own weight? Not at all. The
move to commercialization means there's a very significant build-out
of the Internet by companies who want to offer a service. That will
result in a considerable more reliable network.
Will
the Internet collapse under the weight of its own success?
Right
now it's like neutron bomb went off on the Web. All the buildings are
there, but you don't have a sense of people the way you do in online
services where there's an aliveness, a sense of others. The way-out
vision for the Web is that when you go to a site, there will be
people. You sense them, they sense you. It's a social experience, like
walking into a store. Right now, it's like looking at signs and
billboards.
It could be like AOL's instant-message features, it could be
avatars, it could be 3-D, 2-D, or even print, but when you get to a
Web site, you want to know who's there. You want to be able to meet
your friends.
You
wrote that Web commerce today amounts to "a dozen pizzas, two or
three flower bouquets a week, and a dozen subscriptions," but by
the year 2000, there will be US$7 billion in sales. How do you get
from two pizzas to $7 billion?
Pizza
prices soar! No, the thing to keep in perspective is that $7 billion
is diddly when we're talking retail sales. Retail sales in the US are
more like $5 trillion. Catalog sales are $53 billion.
You're going to see travel purchases increase. YOu're going to see
a lot more software and hardware sold online. We're also optimistic
about grocery-shopping services like Peapod. Grocery bills typically
range from $100 to $200 a week. Less than 20 percent of the online
population will do their shopping online, but those who do will spend
a lot, from airline tickets to groceries.
Will
advertising play a major role on the Net?
Advertisers
are willing to spend on the medium. There will be 33 million people in
the US on the Internet by the years 2000, and some projections are
much higher. This is an upper-income demographic, more educated than
average, more likely to have children. It's the demographic that most
consumer-goods companies want to talk to most.
How they do that needs to be examined. New models need to be
explored. And that's where content smashes together with advertising.
In the early days of television, there was a Geritol-sponsored game
show. On the Web, we may see the Doritos content site.
If
the Net gets better for business, will that come at the expense of
personal expression?
The
possibility of the Internet supporting a new art form is huge. I don't
think the presence of business will interfere with that any more than
the presence of Citicorp prevents the East Village from existing.
Will
dumb, internet-only terminals replace PCs?
I
think it's a dumb idea. Just producing a $500 computer that does
anything useful has proven to be extremely difficult. And videograme-machine
producers will tell you that even at $300 you enter a pricing abyss,
where consumers just don't want to buy.
Will
expanding bandwidth make real-time phone service commercially viable
over the Internet?
No.
Real-time voice is a hobby, like ham radio, not a permanent
application. As a packet-switching network, the Internet just isn't
matched to voice streams that need continuous connection to run well.
Anyway, the phone system works - why fix it?
When
you write that "vices such as pornography, gambling, and money
laundering" flourish on the Internet, does that mean you are
calling for censorship?
I
don't think government censorship can succeed. They can pass laws, but
enforcement will be very difficult. I think you will begin to see the
equivalent of red-light districts, centers of the Internet understood
to be pornographic, so that people can stay away or lock their
children out if they want to. Search tools and indexing can provide a
clear delineation between red-light and green-light sites, so you can
stick to your side of the street.
Should
government subsidize telecommunications as a way to boost the economy?
It's
very important for government to look at the Internet as a national
strategic asset with about a $100 billion impact on the economy. But
in the Untied States, subsidy is unnecessary. The competitive activity
in the industry is very high; the pressure on prices to come down is
very strong. The scope of participation - new entrants as well as
established players - is such that subsidy is not necessary here,
though it may be in other countries.
Speaking
of other countries, why is there less furor about connectivity in
Europe, less concern about getting wired?
There
is not a love affair with technology the way there is in the US. We're
kind of like the Borg - bizarre people on Star Trek who are hal
machine, half human. We are the Borg of the world community.
-Harvey Blume (joel@ai.mit.edu)
is a critic and co-author of Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo.
COVER
STORY -- E.BIZ -- THE E.BIZ 25
Net hypesters, beware. Modahl, based in Cambridge, Mass., has become a trusted consigliera for e-businesses by bringing a piercing eye to the era of the New Net Thing. While many Net consultants specialize in one narrow industry, Modahl's clients include everyone from the Web site Travelocity to Johnson & Johnson. Modahl's opinions have inspired momentous decisions. She helped nudge America Online away from hourly pricing to flat monthly charges. She persuaded the Weather Channel to begin distributing its info via links on thousands of other sites. Its Web site now counts among the top 25. And she was instrumental in helping Federal Express offer online package-tracking --in the Net's commercial Dark Ages of 1994, no less. ''She's spot-on at identifying trends, and she can articulate them in a way people understand,'' says Dennis H. Jones, FedEx chief information officer. Her latest insights could change the way people size up Net consumers. Marketers traditionally pigeonhole consumers by their age, income, or occupation. Modahl thinks that when it comes to e-commerce, it's much more important to consider their attitudes toward technology. She separates the U.S. population into tech optimists and pessimists. That concept forms the basis for her new book, Now or Never, which lays out her vision that the e-business battle is still in its infancy and that ''traditional companies are only now beginning to fight back.'' She argues that 48% of Americans are still tech pessimists, who will rely on established brands and their sophisticated distribution and customer support. What's more, a raft of cash-poor e-tailers will flame out by yearend, victims of a get-rich ''cancer'' that has little to do with building lasting enterprises. Skepticism and a fascination with research run in Modahl's blood (her mother is a UC-Irvine neurobiologist). After graduating from Harvard, she worked for three years as a loan officer scrutinizing credit applications. But she chafed under the structure. ''I was never going to fit. I was too outspoken,'' says Modahl. She still has a sharp tongue. Woe is the company that receives one of Modahl's signature putdowns: ''That's so-o-o last Thursday.'' Even back in the 1980s, Modahl could see the future. In college, she read Esther Dyson's influential tech newsletter, Release 1.0, and wrote her thesis on competition in the semiconductor industry. She found Forrester's name in a trade magazine and gave a blind call. Hired in 1988, she began analyzing corporate networking, which led to her uncovering the promise of the Net. Unlike many of the newbie Net analysts, Modahl's wealth of industry-watching experience has given her a more balanced, long-term view. Indeed, analysts' reputations are most often made on their ability to predict correctly, and Modahl has proved uncommonly prescient. For instance, a 1997 Modahl report defined the huge opportunity for online business-to-business trading hubs. Of course, not every shot is a bull's-eye. Her prediction that the Internet would kill AOL's proprietary service was dead wrong. ''I'm still amazed to this day that they survived,'' she says. Modahl's rise to prominence has mirrored Forrester's own emergence from a five-person, boutique operation in 1988 into a 500-employee firm with an $800 million market cap. In her new role as head of marketing, she is pushing Forrester into providing business-to-business market research. There she will find increasing competition from the likes of Gartner Group and smaller outfits like the Yankee Group and Giga Information Group. But Modahl isn't blinking. For now, she's at the top of the advice game, and it's no stretch to predict she'll stay there. e.biz online For a Q & A with Mary Modahl, visit ebiz.businessweek.com. By Dennis K. Berman |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

WHAT ADVERTISING WORKS? by Bill Doyle, Mary A. Modahl, Ben Abbott, Forrester Research
Advertisers are rolling up their sleeves to figure out how to make advertising work on the Web. They are torn about what to spend and who to hire. But as Web advertising becomes a significant portion of marketing budgets, advertisers will need to adopt a set of best practices for this new medium.
Advertisers are searching for the formula that will unlock the potential of the Web. Forrester interviewed 51 companies that currently advertise on the Web and found that:
- Spending patterns vary. Consumer brands spend a small fraction of their budgets on the Web.
- Technology companies spend five times more of their brand dollars there. Spending on sites
- still exceeds spending on ads.
- Banner campaigns run the gamut. There is no such thing as a typical Web advertising campaign.
- Ad pricing frustrates advertisers.Nearly three-quarters of the respondents want pricing to be based on results rather that CPM.
- Personalized targeting has not yet taken hold. Advertisers target mainly on content.
- Web advertising needs best practices. As Web advertising becomes a significant portion of marketing budgets over the next four years, advertisers need to develop a set of best practices around what to build and what to pay.
WHAT TO BUILD
Advertisers on the Web have three choices. They can build: 1) destination sites, which use information, entertainment, and high production values to pull users in and bring them back again; 2) micro-sites, small clusters of brand pages hosted by content sites or networks; or 3) banner campaigns and other low-overhead Web advertising-like sponsorships (see Figure 1). To understand which is best, advertisers need to ask:
- Can it be sold online? Products that can be sold online and shipped economically or delivered digitally-such as music, tickets, books, software, and mutual funds-can use a destination site to support everything from brand awareness and consideration, through post-sales support. But if the Net doesn't enable your company to offer a product faster, cheaper, or better, rule out a destination site.
- Is it a considered purchase? Sellers of complex products like computers, cars, and industrial coatings can use a Web site to squeeze costs, allowing prospects to check specifications, configure their purchase, and get product support on-line (see Figure 2). But if your customers are more likely to ask their neighbors than you about your product, you don't need a Web site.
Destination Sites Create A New Channel
Destination sites are right only for companies that can use the Net as a full-fledged channel for exchanging information with customers, in order to book a sale (See the September/October, 1996 Leadership Strategies Report, "The Fourth Channel: Vision.") Advertisers that do build destination sites should:
- Do a gut check beforehand. A company must be willing to spend $3 million or more to build a destination site and then more to maintain it. A half-baked site actually will erode a brand. Don't underestimate the volume of customer interactions. L.L. Bean dedicates a team of customer service reps to reply to e-mail seven days a week.
- License, don't produce content. True content providers always will outpublish advertisers. When Toyota first moved onto the Web, it created seven different lifestyle 'zines. Today only Car Culture remains-and that will soon be produced by one of the big auto publishers.
- Get found. Once a site exists, marketers need to promote it. Smart companies dedicate at least 20% of their overall interactive budgets to promoting the site online. They also sneak URLs into print and TV ads and become experts in such Web guerrilla marketing techniques as getting found by search engines and trading links with other sites.
Micro-Sites Are Sufficient For Considered-Purchase Products
Micro-sites enable advertisers to communicate deeper product benefits and collect customer information without the cost of a full-blown Web site. Advertisers of considered purchases like clothes and appliances should:
- Put micro-sites where the audience is. The rumored $3 million that Levi's spent on its early way-hip site could have put micro-sites on all the top youth sites for months. Appliance manufacturers like Whirlpool should embed product selectors in such sites as remodeling.hw.net.
- Maintain clues that this is advertising. Commercial content masquerading as editorial undermines the trust on which brands are built.
Banners Are Enough for Most Off-the-shelf Products
Most consumer goods companies should use their resources to:
- Build interactive banners. Banners should let viewers request free samples, register to win, and order products. Recent examples: HP lets people play "Pong;" First Virtual sells Casio watches; and Metlife provides your ideal weight.
- Sponsor appropriate content. Instead of building a big site, a brand like P&G's Tide should be looking for a way to sponsor the online schedules of every Little League in the country. A logo and positioning line are sufficient to make an impression.
- Maintain a corporate site. Companies need a "face to the public" that catches search engine queries and serves investor relations and recruiting groups. But consumer brands should resist pumping up the site with product information. Save that money for creative campaigns.
WHAT TO PAY
Ad space and agency pricing mechanisms are still in flux. Smart advertisers will:
- Lock in low rates. Early advertisers can win favorable treatment from grateful sites and networks. Lock up search engine keywords with a right of first refusal. Negotiate a first-sponsor rate in perpetuity.
- Come to terms with CPM. Results-based pricing will appear on the Web - but we don't think that it will dominate. Why? Sold-out sites like CNET don't need to take the risk. Instead advertisers should hold their agencies accountable for click-through results.
- Reset expectations. In traditional media, an advertiser might spend just 20% of its budget with an agency on ad development, placement, and account management -with much of that covered by commissions. The other 80% goes to the media properties. On the web, this ratio is closer to 50:50 for now. So don't expect your agency to survive by commissions - plan to pay fees.
But most of all, plan to use the medium. Most everyone else will be doing likewise. This report is digested from the March 1997 Forrester Report, "What Advertising Works." In addition to interviews with 51 Web advertisers, Forrester spoke with 35 industry participants from agencies, software companies, and ad networks. These included: Ad Age, AGENCY.COM, Anderson & Lembke, Berkeley Systems, Commonwealth, DoubleClick, FlyCast, Focalink, Foote, Cone & Belding, Grey Interactive, I/PRO, Kirshenbaum Bond & Partners, The Laredo Group, LinkExchange, Modem Media, Narrowline, NetCount, NetGravity, Organic Online, Poppe Tyson, Red Sky Interactive, Riddler.com, Saatchi & Saatchi, SiteSpecific, Strategic Interactive Group, Submit It!, Sunrise Media, TBWA Chiat/Day, The Web Magazine, WebRep, Western International Media, and Ziff-Davis Publishing.

WHAT ADVERTISING WORKS? by Bill Doyle, Mary A. Modahl, Ben Abbott, Forrester Research
Advertisers are rolling up their sleeves to figure out how to make advertising work on the Web. They are torn about what to spend and who to hire. But as Web advertising becomes a significant portion of marketing budgets, advertisers will need to adopt a set of best practices for this new medium.
Advertisers are searching for the formula that will unlock the potential of the Web. Forrester interviewed 51 companies that currently advertise on the Web and found that:
- Spending patterns vary. Consumer brands spend a small fraction of their budgets on the Web.
- Technology companies spend five times more of their brand dollars there. Spending on sites
- still exceeds spending on ads.
- Banner campaigns run the gamut. There is no such thing as a typical Web advertising campaign.
- Ad pricing frustrates advertisers.Nearly three-quarters of the respondents want pricing to be based on results rather that CPM.
- Personalized targeting has not yet taken hold. Advertisers target mainly on content.
- Web advertising needs best practices. As Web advertising becomes a significant portion of marketing budgets over the next four years, advertisers need to develop a set of best practices around what to build and what to pay.
WHAT TO BUILD
Advertisers on the Web have three choices. They can build: 1) destination sites, which use information, entertainment, and high production values to pull users in and bring them back again; 2) micro-sites, small clusters of brand pages hosted by content sites or networks; or 3) banner campaigns and other low-overhead Web advertising-like sponsorships (see Figure 1). To understand which is best, advertisers need to ask:
- Can it be sold online? Products that can be sold online and shipped economically or delivered digitally-such as music, tickets, books, software, and mutual funds-can use a destination site to support everything from brand awareness and consideration, through post-sales support. But if the Net doesn't enable your company to offer a product faster, cheaper, or better, rule out a destination site.
- Is it a considered purchase? Sellers of complex products like computers, cars, and industrial coatings can use a Web site to squeeze costs, allowing prospects to check specifications, configure their purchase, and get product support on-line (see Figure 2). But if your customers are more likely to ask their neighbors than you about your product, you don't need a Web site.
Destination Sites Create A New Channel
Destination sites are right only for companies that can use the Net as a full-fledged channel for exchanging information with customers, in order to book a sale (See the September/October, 1996 Leadership Strategies Report, "The Fourth Channel: Vision.") Advertisers that do build destination sites should:
- Do a gut check beforehand. A company must be willing to spend $3 million or more to build a destination site and then more to maintain it. A half-baked site actually will erode a brand. Don't underestimate the volume of customer interactions. L.L. Bean dedicates a team of customer service reps to reply to e-mail seven days a week.
- License, don't produce content. True content providers always will outpublish advertisers. When Toyota first moved onto the Web, it created seven different lifestyle 'zines. Today only Car Culture remains-and that will soon be produced by one of the big auto publishers.
- Get found. Once a site exists, marketers need to promote it. Smart companies dedicate at least 20% of their overall interactive budgets to promoting the site online. They also sneak URLs into print and TV ads and become experts in such Web guerrilla marketing techniques as getting found by search engines and trading links with other sites.
Micro-Sites Are Sufficient For Considered-Purchase Products
Micro-sites enable advertisers to communicate deeper product benefits and collect customer information without the cost of a full-blown Web site. Advertisers of considered purchases like clothes and appliances should:
- Put micro-sites where the audience is. The rumored $3 million that Levi's spent on its early way-hip site could have put micro-sites on all the top youth sites for months. Appliance manufacturers like Whirlpool should embed product selectors in such sites as remodeling.hw.net.
- Maintain clues that this is advertising. Commercial content masquerading as editorial undermines the trust on which brands are built.
Banners Are Enough for Most Off-the-shelf Products
Most consumer goods companies should use their resources to:
- Build interactive banners. Banners should let viewers request free samples, register to win, and order products. Recent examples: HP lets people play "Pong;" First Virtual sells Casio watches; and Metlife provides your ideal weight.
- Sponsor appropriate content. Instead of building a big site, a brand like P&G's Tide should be looking for a way to sponsor the online schedules of every Little League in the country. A logo and positioning line are sufficient to make an impression.
- Maintain a corporate site. Companies need a "face to the public" that catches search engine queries and serves investor relations and recruiting groups. But consumer brands should resist pumping up the site with product information. Save that money for creative campaigns.
WHAT TO PAY
Ad space and agency pricing mechanisms are still in flux. Smart advertisers will:
- Lock in low rates. Early advertisers can win favorable treatment from grateful sites and networks. Lock up search engine keywords with a right of first refusal. Negotiate a first-sponsor rate in perpetuity.
- Come to terms with CPM. Results-based pricing will appear on the Web - but we don't think that it will dominate. Why? Sold-out sites like CNET don't need to take the risk. Instead advertisers should hold their agencies accountable for click-through results.
- Reset expectations. In traditional media, an advertiser might spend just 20% of its budget with an agency on ad development, placement, and account management -with much of that covered by commissions. The other 80% goes to the media properties. On the web, this ratio is closer to 50:50 for now. So don't expect your agency to survive by commissions - plan to pay fees.
But most of all, plan to use the medium. Most everyone else will be doing likewise. This report is digested from the March 1997 Forrester Report, "What Advertising Works." In addition to interviews with 51 Web advertisers, Forrester spoke with 35 industry participants from agencies, software companies, and ad networks. These included: Ad Age, AGENCY.COM, Anderson & Lembke, Berkeley Systems, Commonwealth, DoubleClick, FlyCast, Focalink, Foote, Cone & Belding, Grey Interactive, I/PRO, Kirshenbaum Bond & Partners, The Laredo Group, LinkExchange, Modem Media, Narrowline, NetCount, NetGravity, Organic Online, Poppe Tyson, Red Sky Interactive, Riddler.com, Saatchi & Saatchi, SiteSpecific, Strategic Interactive Group, Submit It!, Sunrise Media, TBWA Chiat/Day, The Web Magazine, WebRep, Western International Media, and Ziff-Davis Publishing.
"Being a Dot-Com In and Of Itself Is Not a Strategic Advantage" |
|
In a Q&A, Mary Modahl of Forrester Research talks about the
evolution and future of e-commerce
|
![]() Mary Modahl, research VP at Forrester Research |