Tag Archives: InfoSpace Inc.

Why Pay For Ads That Don’t Work?

Businesses have long worked to take the guesswork out of advertising. And for a time, pay-per-click ads on the Internet seemed like a pretty good solution. Not only did pay per click let marketers better target their campaigns, it cost them money only when potential customers actually clicked on their ads. But for many businesses, pay per click has been a letdown. For one thing, between 20 and 50 percent of clicks are estimated to be made by people who have no intention of buying–and many are outright fraudulent. And the price of keywords is soaring; popular terms on Google cost an average of $1.95 per click. Now a host of technology entrepreneurs believe they have a better answer. They’re working toward a future in which online advertisers, instead of buying clicks of uncertain value, will pay only when an ad results in a phone inquiry–or, in some cases, an actual sale. Their services, which are just now becoming available, represent a kind of Holy Grail for marketers and could spark a revolution in the way businesses seek to reach customers. “Pay per click was just the beginning,” says Bill Gross, who helped pioneer Internet advertising in 1998 with GoTo.com, the Web’s first paid search engine, which he later sold to Yahoo. Gross has launched two new online advertising services, Snap and InsiderPages. “The real evolution is pay per action,” he says–in which advertisers pay only when a customer actually does something, like signing up for a newsletter or purchasing a product. The appeal of these new services is easy enough to understand. A phone call is far more likely to result in a sale. Some 30 percent of calls lead to sales compared with a mere 3 percent of clicks, according to Jupiter Research in San Francisco. “That kind of high close rate should put some pressure on the kind of fraud that happens over the Internet,” says Bill Leak, CEO of Leads Customers Sales, an online marketing firm in Austin. “Where I’d pay $1 for a click, I might pay $10 for a phone call.” Indeed, research by the Kelsey Group, a market research firm in Princeton, New Jersey, shows that 42 percent of advertisers would prefer paying for phone calls over clicks. Pay-per-call advertising was pioneered and trademarked in 1999 by a company out of San Francisco called Ingenio, which has since partnered with AOL and Smartpages.com to bring the technology to market. It’s similar to bidding for keywords on Google, except that when your company appears in the results of an AOL search, you’re charged only when a potential customer picks up the phone and calls you. (The average price per call is about $5.50, according to Ingenio.) Ingenio supplies a toll-free number, which allows it to automate the tracking of unique calls. “We only charge once per each unique customer, not for each phone call,” says Marc Barach, Ingenio’s chief marketing officer. That means you don’t have to pay over and over again to serve the same customer. Another pay-per-call start-up, Jambo, based in Agoura Hills, California, recently partnered with the search engine InfoSpace. When a potential customer makes a call through Jambo, a voice lets the advertiser know the call is coming from Jambo and gives the advertiser the option of whether or not to accept the call–and the charges. Like a collect call, “it gives the merchant the option to opt in” and avoid paying for inquiries that are likely dead ends, says John Melideo, founder of Jambo. Pay per call currently makes up only about 2 percent of the online advertising market, but it is expected to soar to some $4 billion, as much as 15 percent of the market, by 2009, according to the Kelsey Group. Despite its promise, it may not be the best fit for every business. So far at least, the technology is best suited to local merchants such as plumbers, electricians, and even mortgage brokers–many of them without websites of their own–that have traditionally relied on the printed yellow pages to reach customers. For businesses engaged in e-commerce, on the other hand, customers may not be interested in placing a phone call. Bill Gross’s Snap aims to have broader appeal. It’s the first search engine that enables so-called pay-per-action advertising. If, say, an airline places an ad on Snap, it would pay a fee only when a customer buys a ticket. Another business could arrange a deal in which it was charged only when a potential client logged on and requested additional information or registered for a sweepstakes. “This radically changes advertising,” says Gross. “It makes it much more accountable.” Google, Yahoo, and MSN are all expected to roll out their own versions of pay per action later this year. That’s good news for Missy Cohen-Fyffe, president of Babe Ease in Pelham, New Hampshire. Babe Ease sells about $2 million worth of quilted coverings for shopping carts and public highchairs each year under the Clean Shoppers brand name. Cohen-Fyffe says she has been advertising through Google for several years but has become frustrated by the constantly rising price of keywords. An even bigger problem, she says, is that she’s not seeing a corresponding increase in sales. A pay-per-sale program, on the other hand, would allow her to track the return on each and every advertising dollar spent. “If I’m getting orders routed to me, I’m more than happy to pay a commission,” she says. “I’ll pay for sales over clicks any day.” Resources To read more about pay-per-action advertising, go to Internet Advertising Bureau, a trade group that researches new marketing trends. If you think you’ve been the victim of click fraud, go to clickfraudindex.com to learn how to investigate.

Upstarts: Digital Photography

Photo Opportunities Digital-photo start-ups get ready for their close-up By the time Mark Platshon landed a meeting with celebrated Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist John Doerr in mid-1999, Platshon and his online digital-photo business, Zing Network Inc., had already been snubbed by a dozen other VCs. So Platshon couldn’t help bracing for rejection when — midway through his pitch — Doerr walked out and began rummaging around in an adjoining office. But as suddenly as he had exited Doerr rushed back in, hastily pulling a brand-new digital camera out of its box. Finding nothing in the accompanying literature about uploading, accessing, and distributing digital images on the Internet — a major component of Zing’s business — Doerr concluded that Platshon had hit on a missed market opportunity. Kleiner Perkins took the lead in a $14-million round of financing for Zing that closed in August 1999. “Doerr just got it,” remembers Platshon. “He understood the significance of the consumer shift to digital photography and that it would remake the entire industry in just a few years.” Indeed, Boston-based InfoTrends Research Group Inc. projects that online photofinishing will be a $4.4-billion worldwide market by 2005. The start-ups jostling for position in this emerging field have staked their claims in slightly different territories. Some have opted to become digital photo processors, creating hard-copy prints of film and digital media, and uploading digital images to the Web. (See “Someday Your Prints Will Come,” below.) Others, including San Francisco-based Zing, outsource their customers’ printing needs and focus on Web-based storage and sharing of digital images. A collage of services Among storage-and-sharing sites, Zing’s stands out for garnering some 3.5 million users each month. That’s quite a following, considering that three years ago the company was headed in a completely different direction. When Platshon stepped in as CEO, in December 1997 — after a yearlong stint with Zing investor Alloy Ventures Inc., in Palo Alto — the company was developing imaging technology for use in Web-based advertising. But by late 1998, Platshon saw a bigger market for online photography management as part of an Internet business for uploading, storing, and sharing digital images. “And so,” he says, “we changed the business.” Since making that shift, Platshon has made acquisitions a major part of Zing’s growth strategy. He began by purchasing image-uploading technology developed by FotoNation Inc. that provides a camera-to-Web connection, enabling digital photographers to plug their cameras into computers and connect through the Internet directly with Zing. Platshon has also sealed deals with manufacturers that have agreed to install FotoNation’s uploading technology in their cameras, making Zing the default Internet destination for users of digital cameras sold by Sony, Casio, and Nikon. Those deals are driving customers to Zing’s site, where product E-tailing accounts for some two-thirds of revenues, Platshon says. In E-tailing, too, he has bought his way into the business. Last January, Zing acquired Pix.com, which scans digital images onto everything from calendars and cookies to mouse pads and T-shirts. Platshon added another source of E-commerce revenues in August, when he snapped up Eframes.com, a high-margin, high-end framing business that handles its own digital printing. That deal may enable Zing to collect revenues from competitors that outsource printing and framing services to Eframes, which has retained its name within the Zing network. “Eframes can provide its services to anyone, even businesses that might be Zing competitors,” Platshon says. Enjoying its Kodak moment In contrast with Zing, which has focused exclusively on digital converts, San Francisco-based PhotoPoint Corp. has positioned itself as a go-between for film users who are just now beginning to go digital. Launched in August 1998, PhotoPoint seized an early-mover advantage in the online photo-sharing space through a partnership with PictureVision Inc., a subsidiary of Eastman Kodak Co. In that deal, PhotoPoint CEO Ed Bernstein agreed to pay Kodak a flat fee in exchange for access to the film- and digital-camera users who bring their pictures to 40,000 Kodak PhotoNet processing locations throughout the country. Bernstein proposed the deal as a way for Kodak’s digital-development division to provide its customers with long-term Internet-based storage, sharing, and image-enhancement tools. Because PhotoPoint provides free long-term storage for Kodak’s brick-and-mortar retail customers, the Kodak retailers stand to get more reprint orders over a longer time period, Bernstein says. And PhotoPoint enjoys direct access to established Kodak customers. As Bernstein sees it, PhotoPoint’s tie-in with an old-economy film-industry giant is the surest way to build market share in the burgeoning digital field. Close to 90% of camera users have yet to take the digital leap, after all. And although digital-camera sales are predicted to soar, a survey by Jupiter Communications Inc. found that 37% of consumers would rather store digital images at home than post them on the Web. Bernstein is betting that PhotoPoint can leverage Kodak’s trusted brand name to reduce such consumer wariness. When Kodak customers pick up their prints, they receive directions on how to transfer digital versions of their pictures from a Kodak site — where the images are stored at no charge for 30 days — to the PhotoPoint site, where they can get free long-term storage, as well as find tools to create and share online albums, and buy PhotoPoint merchandise. “We’re all about making it brain-dead simple to get your digital images to the Web,” says Bernstein, noting that PhotoPoint now hosts more than 13 million photos. For PhotoPoint, Zing, and their competitors, consumer education remains the biggest and most daunting hurdle. As Bernstein puts it: “Our mission is to transform customers into digital users without fundamentally changing the way they think about and use pictures.” D.M. Osborne is a senior writer at Inc. Someday Your Prints Will Come Serial entrepreneur Kamran Mohsenin eased into the summer of 1999 with time on his hands. Having recently sold his second start-up, Mohsenin was scanning the landscape for a new business venture and playing with one of the toys he bought with the spoils of his company’s sale — a new digital camera. “The camera was taking great pictures,” Mohsenin recalls. “The problem was, I wasn’t able to get quality prints.” In a flash, Mohsenin hit on the idea for his third and most recent start-up, Ofoto Inc. Soon, Mohsenin was caught up in a heated race among online digital photofinishers, including Shutterfly.com. “It’s a huge market, and the competition is fierce,” observes David Hornick, who is on Ofoto’s advisory board. Founded in July 1999, Ofoto, based in Berkeley, Calif., has adopted a clicks-and-bricks business model. Like Shutterfly, Ofoto has invested millions in terra firma photo-development labs. At the same time, online photofinishers have seized upon technological advances to carve out an Internet-based niche in the photo-processing market, which has traditionally been dominated by industry giants like Eastman Kodak Co. To the extent that these nimble start-ups can secure a foothold — and create new, Web-based efficiencies — before bigger competitors lumber into the market, their payout could be huge. Margins in the traditional photo-development business typically run as high as 50%. Thus the game right now is all about grabbing market share. Toward that end, Ofoto and Shutterfly are competing to become the photo processor of choice for a bundle of other start-ups that outsource printing for their online photo storage and sharing. At the same time Ofoto and Shutterfly are reaching out to picture takers of all stripes by offering steep discounts on old-fashioned film processing (returning prints by snail mail), as well as digitizing the images for online viewing and distribution. It’s an updated twist on a low-cost, mail-order film-processing service popularized a few years ago by Seattle Film Works, recently renamed PhotoWorks Inc., in its own bid to straddle the digital divide. For its part, Ofoto has concentrated on high-level business-to-business partnerships. It’s teamed up with InfoSpace Inc., for example, to become the preferred print shop for that company’s affiliate network of 2,500 Web-based businesses, which provide communications and commerce infrastructure services for wireless devices. Ofoto has also sealed a deal to print the digital images sold through the Internet division of Corbis Corp., which boasts an online archive of 2.1 million images — from fine art to quirky photography. Meanwhile, Shutterfly, based in Redwood City, Calif., has gone directly after consumers. Since cofounding Shutterfly, in December 1999, CEO Jayne Spiegelman has cut cross-promotional deals with such portals as Yahoo and Homestead.com. Spiegelman, who hails from senior-level retailing posts at the Good Guys and Macy’s West, has also persuaded electronics retail outlets to display Shutterfly’s sample prints at camera counters. “We wanted to connect with customers at the point of purchase,” she says. Market Snapshots A sampling of other digital-photography players Snapfish.com, San Francisco Business concept: Offers basic printing and digitizing of film images free of charge. Depends primarily on advertising revenues but also sells photo equipment and merchandise and charges for reprints. Competitive advantage: A superlow price point and a catchy marketing campaign engineered by a branding expert with experience at Kraft and Nabisco. Major challenge: Proving its advertising-revenue model, which has fallen out of favor among investors. Also, to access image files stored on the site, customers must provide demographic information used for advertising purposes. eMemories Inc., Los Angeles Business concept: Enables amateur photographers to create online photo albums. Makes money selling hard-copy prints and albums. Competitive advantage: Being the exclusive photo-sharing community for the Women.com network and the teen site Alloy.com, and securing a slot on the Earthlink personal start page. Major challenge: Beefing up its E-commerce offerings. At press time, eMemories’ merchandise was limited to mouse pads, mugs, hats, and T-shirts. DotPhoto Inc., West Trenton, N.J. Business concept: Allows digital-camera users to upload images, create their own voice-over “captions,” and share pictures through E-mail links. An ad-free site, DotPhoto offers a sliding-scale subscription-fee plan that may appeal to people who don’t want to be bombarded with marketing come-ons. Competitive advantage: Its proprietary “talking pictures” technology. DotPhoto is the first site of its kind to accept both image and sound files from digital devices. Major challenge: Gaining traction and getting noticed. A relative latecomer to the market, DotPhoto is funded by founder Glenn Paul and carries less clout with prospective partners than its venture-backed competitors do. Q&A The Big Picture Can these digital-photo start-ups successfully take on the Kodaks and Fujis of the world? The outlook might best be described as blurry. To help us bring this expanding and highly competitive space into focus, Inc. spoke to Lia Schubert, an analyst at Boston-based InfoTrends Research Group who follows developments in the online digital-image arena very closely. Q: Some entrepreneurs describe what’s happening in the online digital-image domain as a renaissance in the photography business. What’s your reaction? A: Yes, we’re seeing all the signs of a renaissance. Digital photography combined with the Internet is creating a paradigm shift in the way personal pictures are captured, shared, stored, and printed. New players are coming out of the woodwork with innovative business models. We’re seeing renewed interest in photography as a result. Q: Traditional photo processors are expected to offer digital photofinishing services in their retail centers. How can these start-ups compete with them? A: The key advantage that online photofinishers have is that they’ve already developed their services before retail solutions have been actively promoted. Online photofinishers are reaching out to digital-camera users through strategic partnerships and free-print promotions, teaching those users that it is possible to order photo-quality prints online. If the online start-ups can gain significant mind share before retail services become more competitive, then they may be able to lock in a certain portion of the market. Q: How big a slice of that market do you expect the start-ups to capture? A: It would be too speculative to predict a precise number right now. Start-ups will succeed according to their ability to secure the capital necessary to scale up their operations and to draw in and retain members. But it’s safe to say that traditional photofinishers, like Fuji and Kodak, will garner a significant portion of market share. Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.

Bulletin Board

Of RÉsumÉs and Rap Sheets If you’re launching or growing your company and feeling a little desperate for tech talent, you may be tempted to hire first and think later. Bad move. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, a huge number of candidates — at all levels — lie on their rÉsumÉs. More than half the companies surveyed by the organization in 1998 found that job candidates had falsified information about their previous employment. John Putzier, president of FirStep Inc., a human-resources consulting firm in Prospect, Pa., says free-form job titles make matters even more confusing. “If I’m interviewing a ‘guru,’ is she a project manager or just a wacko?” Putzier says. The worst-case scenario, he says, can lead to a negligent-hiring suit. “If someone has been convicted of assault, and you could have found that out and didn’t, you could be putting the lives of employees, customers, and clients in danger,” he warns. Fortunately, there’s a way to protect your company. First, make any job offer contingent on a background check. Then, to save time, hire a screening service to do the checking for you. Third-party services, like Laborchex, in Jackson, Miss., can turn such requests around in a matter of hours or a few days at most. Laborchex, which took its service online a year ago, now plays Sherlock Holmes for 1,000 clients. For an average cost of $70 a candidate, Laborchex staffers poll the applicant’s past employers and gather driving and criminal records, credit reports, and other publicly available information. The snooping is all aboveboard, says Laborchex owner and president Rene Barbee. “We make sure we have a legal release from the applicant before we do the review,” he says. However, hiring an outsider to do your background checks is potentially perilous, says lawyer Julie Moore, president of Employment Practices Group, a training and consulting company in Windham, N.H. “A person can sue you for what your independent contractors do,” she says. So if you do hire a background checker, cover your you-know-what. Ask for references and a copy of the company’s insurance policy. Make sure the company complies with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Finally, says Moore, get an indemnification contract. “You want to make sure the background-check firm will pay the defense costs and any settlement if it was their wrongdoing that brought on the suit,” she says. –Jill Hecht Maxwell Your Average Joe It’s no surprise that nontechnical professionals, such as photographers and real estate agents, consider the Web a valuable business tool. But what is surprising is that such Main Street proprietors are now buying up more domain names than their high-tech counterparts are — further evidence that the Web is, well, everywhere. Top First-Time Domain-Name Buyers, by Occupation 1. Photographers 2. Attorneys 3. Real estate agents 4. Church officers and clergy 5. Insurance agents 6. Internet service providers 7. Restaurateurs 8. Physicians and surgeons 9. Software professionals 10. Accountants Source: Network Solutions Inc., January 2000 Virtual Swap Meet At yet2.com, one company’s mothballed technology can be another’s moneymaking treasure. Launched earlier this year, the Web site is intended to streamline the clunky process of researching, selling, buying, trading, and licensing technologies. According to yet2.com, based in Cambridge, Mass., businesses spend more than $100 billion annually on research and development for technologies that, for one reason or another, they end up wanting to sell. Yet2.com’s mission: turning that research into revenues. The company provides businesses with a searchable online marketplace for their technologies. Successful deals often result from online connections made between buyers and sellers whose paths otherwise might never have crossed. In one early transaction, for instance, a home-appliances company was negotiating with an aerospace company. Like any good matchmaker, yet2.com keeps interested parties anonymous until they agree to an introduction. Buyers and sellers then negotiate their own deal. Yet2.com’s cut varies depending on the deal’s bottom line but never exceeds $50,000. (Companies also pay an annual fee to use the site.) The forum’s first 200 registered users range from lone inventors to members of the Fortune 500, says Conrad Langenhagen, director of strategic planning. Small companies may benefit by finding research done by bigger companies, he says. And start-ups and soloists may be able to sell their own innovations online. Thomas G. Field Jr., professor of law at Franklin Pierce Law Center, in Concord, N.H., however, says electronic searches will never replace the traditional system of human brokers. Will yet2.com work? The answer is, of course, yet to come, Field says. But he calls the users’ costs relatively low compared with soaring R&D costs. “Even if the technology sales’ yield is one hit a year, what the hell, you’ve made back your investment,” he says. –Anne Stuart From the Life-Is-Too-Short File: If you’re an average adult Internet user, you’ll spend 23.5 months — nearly 17,500 hours — of your remaining life span online. If you’re under 30, it’s about 33 months. Over 50? Plan on staring at the screen for about a year. Moral: Pick an Internet service provider with an unlimited-use plan. Source: Cyber Dialogue Things We Love As everybody knows, whiteboards are an ephemeral medium. (Do the words Do Not Erase mean anything to you?) And clients can’t take them off-site and read them over. Electronic whiteboards that record what you write and print out, one board at a time, have been around for years, but they’re cumbersome, slow, and expensive, and they use Flintstones-era thermal paper. One day last spring on a flight to St. Louis, lawyer Dennis Brislawn read in Popular Mechanics about Mimio (from Virtual Ink Corp.; www.mimio.com; 877-696-4646). Mimio, which sells for $499 at the company’s online store, is a device that attaches to a regular whiteboard with suction cups and records a kind of animated movie of everything you write. Plug Mimio’s cord into a PC with Windows, and the computer saves the movie; you can play it back, rewind it, and fast-forward it. When Brislawn’s plane landed, he called Virtual Ink and had the folks there ship one of the units to the conference he was attending. He successfully used Mimio for his presentation to 300 lawyers. He is now hooked. Instead of saving his scribbling as one big graphic, Mimio’s software translates Brislawn’s words into a text file. He can shrink or enlarge individual elements as well as cut and paste them into other Windows documents. –J.H.M. Flushing Out Customers Attendees at a recent Internet conference were, well, bowled over to find that one exhibitor had laid claim to the toilets. A Connecticut company had bought exclusive rights to promote itself as the official “bathroom sponsor” at a Jupiter Communications event. And promote it did, posting its signs on rest-room walls and on stall doors. Even behind closed doors there was no escape: more ads decorated the inside of each stall. And in a modern twist on the gift-with-purchase concept, company employees gave departing rest-room patrons bottles of spring water labeled with the company’s name. Which, by the way, was FloNetwork. John Carroll, a media critic and managing editor of WGBH’s Greater Boston TV program, says marketing in bathrooms is inevitable in an era in which companies buy ads on airport baggage carousels. The free spring water, though — that’s a first. The message, Carroll says: “Not only did we catch you in here with all our ads, but we’re going to make sure you come back real soon.” FloNetwork, of Greenwich, Conn., an E-mail marketing company, couldn’t agree more. “You have a captive audience,” corporate communications director Beth Ghiloni says cheerfully. But others remain unconvinced about the taste of powder-room promotions. Sniffs Carroll: “They’re called privies for a reason.” –A.S. For Rent: Savvy CIO, Available Fridays It’s no secret to executives of small businesses that good tech help is extra hard to find these days. In a market where Ferraris and options are becoming the currency of choice, a few companies are turning to an extreme version of outsourcing: they’re renting chief information officers. “The idea behind CIO outsourcing is that you’re renting an officer of the company,” says Aberdeen Group senior analyst Stephen Lane. “Ideally, that’s someone who has the experience to get your company started with IT while you’re building your own organization.” CIO outsourcing goes beyond just hiring a consultant, Lane explains. Whereas a consultant carries out a particular job — be it coding or assessment or project management — an outsourced CIO becomes a member of the senior management team. Janet Kraus, CEO of Circles, has worked with both consultants and a rent-a-CIO. Janie Tremlett, founder of the CIO-outsourcing program at Breakaway Solutions, spent a year on call at Kraus’s Boston-based concierge-services company, working anywhere from one day a week to one day a month. Tremlett helped Kraus plan strategy, choose technology, design an IT organization, and even get financing. Circles then called in a development team from Breakaway — a full-service provider — to handle the implementation. On an all-cash basis, according to Tremlett, a client would typically pay about $40,000 to have a CIO on board once a week for three months. (The average salary for an experienced CIO in 1999 was $152,000 plus stock options and benefits, according to a Computerworld survey; in this year’s hotter high-tech job market, salaries can run even higher.) CEO Kraus valued the arrangement’s flexibility. In addition, Circles benefited from the fact that Breakaway serves a wide client base. “Janie wouldn’t talk about specifics, but she would try to bring the learning of other clients to bear,” Kraus recalls. The ultimate measure of Tremlett’s success may be the fact that she’s still working at Circles. Fifteen months after she began working with the concierge business, it had grown from 12 to 100 employees but still was relying on its outsourced CIO. –Mary Kwak Better than Invisible Ink? E-mail may seem to resemble shifting sand, but when it comes to staying power, those bits streaming through the ether might as well be carved in stone. Long after they’ve been forgotten, confidential strategic documents and tasteless jokes live on. And they can return to haunt the senders, as companies like Microsoft have learned all too painfully. Disappearing Inc., a San Francisco start-up, has developed a system that promises to make such problems vanish. The company’s Disappearing Email encrypts each message and assigns it a 128-bit key — essentially a code that “unlocks” the encryption. Then the message is sent on its way. The recipient reads the encrypted mail by automatically “borrowing” the key from one of Disappearing’s servers. If Disappearing’s software isn’t installed on the recipient’s computer, the message appears as a link to a Web site, also hosted by Disappearing. At the site the message will be joined with the key, decoded, and displayed. After a time specified by the sender, Disappearing throws away the key. The message may remain on a PC, on an E-mail server, or on backup tapes, but it would be impossible to read it. Slated for release to companies with more than 1,000 Microsoft Outlook users, Disappearing Email is designed as an Outlook add-on. It costs $4 per mailbox per month. Boro Marinkovich, president of BBM Solutions, a Toronto-based systems integrator, tested Disappearing Email for a client. Following a government investigation that had forced the client to turn over reams of electronic files, the company’s partners were eager to try out Disappearing with their 50 or so staff members. Three months into the test, Marinkovich reported no technical problems with the service. But Marinkovich flags possible lack of access to Disappearing’s servers as his greatest concern. If Disappearing’s system goes down, he points out, “you’re going to have a hard time reading your mail. That’s the potential Achilles’ heel in this whole design.” –M.K. The Quotable Entrepreneur “In this new economy, failure is not a bad thing. If you have enough activity in an area, and you have failures that are because of a market change or something similar, you will instantly get funded again. It’s hard to accept this, but it’s like after a forest fire. You have had all this burning, but then all around there’s new growth shooting up.” –Gururaj “Desh” Deshpande, founder and chairman of Sycamore Networks Inc., a $60-million provider of optical networking technology A Rose.com by Any Other Name What’s in a name? Possibly returns that beat the market by nearly 100%. That’s the conclusion reached by Michael Cooper, Orlin Dimitrov, and P. Raghavendra Rau, of the finance department at Purdue University. In a recent study of 95 businesses, they found that companies that had changed their names to include .com, .net, or Internet outdid the AMEX Inter@ctive Week Internet Index (also known as the @Net Index) by an average of 25% on the day of the change. (The @Net Index includes 50 companies involved in Internet infrastructure, access, content, and commerce, including AOL and Amazon.com.) The researchers also tracked 52 of those 95 companies over six months and reported that they outperformed the Index, on average, by a whopping 97%. Many companies in the sample were relative unknowns, and Cooper speculates that their obscurity may have contributed to the dramatic effect. “As soon as they change their names, they get caught in screens that traders are using to pick stocks,” Cooper explains. Traders buy, often without asking questions, and the price shoots up. Better-known companies, conversely, may be able to buck the dot-com trend. In March, Nasdaq-listed InfoSpace.com announced that it was dropping the ubiquitous suffix. Coincidence or not, that same day InfoSpace beat the @Net Index by 8%. –M.K. After changing their names to include .com, .net, or Internet, the companies outdid the @Net Index by an average of 25%. Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com.