Posts by Peter Sargent (bio)

Peter Sargent | August 09, 2007, 11:10 AM
Findings from the Online Video Custom Research Report

One of the points within the report I discussed in my last blog will surely get the attention of advertisers and publishers alike.

In the consumer survey, we presented respondents with a scenario in which online video content was free if it was ad-supported. Although the most acceptable form of advertising to accompany online video is an adjacent ad banner, the general level of acceptance of advertising in some form is encouraging to publishers. Only 20 percent of online video users said they would only watch online video if it had no ads at all. So, 80 percent of online video users accepted the presence of advertising as a trade-off for providing free online video content.

And while very few consumers actually WANT ads of any form (except perhaps those people attending a Super Bowl party who couldn’t care less about the game), this willingness to accept such advertising only heightens the importance of Web sites to maintain a satisfactory online video experience.

On vacation for the next week, but I’ll look to pull additional thoughts from the report when I return.

Peter Sargent | August 07, 2007, 01:46 PM
Report: The Importance of A Great Online Video Experience

My apologies to those of you who have waited patiently since I first mentioned this forthcoming report. But it is now here! You can see our client's press release here.

Jupiter developed the study based on a consumer survey of more than 2,300 online consumers - posing a myriad of questions regarding preferences and activities related to online video consumption. In addition, the report investigates the consequences that befall a site offering a poor video experience.

The report, which is now being made available by our client (Akamai), is available for download here.

Take a gander, and I'll be back in the next few days to pull out some of those findings that I feel are most significant.

Peter Sargent | May 24, 2007, 10:15 AM
More on SEO & Footage/Images Houses

My recent blog discussed the implications for SEO on stock images/footage sites. And my colleague, Joe Laszlo, recently blogged about a meeting he had with Gotuit.com. My analogy might be something more along the lines of searching for footage of “guitarist + crowd” if I’m creating footage from a rock concert for a new cologne ad. (Admittedly, Joe’s analogy is more fun…but, work with me.) Gotuit is positioning itself to enable the proper tagging of video, which could easily benefit stock footage buyers.

In addition, I met recently with the VP of Marketing (Howard Seibel) at Veotag. Veotag’s current focus is in tagging corporate video for indexing. For the most part, it enables companies (think HR departments that have compiled a training video) to index the video, insert relevant bookmarks, overlay text, etc. SEO could be another application for Veotag as well. And then there are others….Motionbox, Click.tv, Viddler, Mojiti. I’ll be asking Joe his opinion on these guys.

But bottom line, SEO is a tremendous issue for both image and footage houses. As the number of sites carrying stock footage/images continues to rise, the buyer will increasingly look to the Web search engines to locate the perfect clip or pic. Customer loyalty for both new and repeat purchases of images/photos is increasingly in doubt. That’s a concern for the large stock houses who have benefited from being seen as the default resource(s) for buyers, but good news for vendors offering tagging solutions for multimedia.

Peter Sargent | May 22, 2007, 01:25 PM
Update: Importance of Quality Online Video Playback

Many folks have contacted Jupiter in regards to the Custom Research study we are doing as I described in an earlier blog.

Thanks very much for your interest. While delayed, we are now expecting to deliver the report to our client by mid-June. Then, it will be up to our client as to how quickly they post or promote the study. Either way, I promise more to come on this study...and it is looking like mid- to late-June is the likely timeframe.

If you are interested in the Custom team at Jupiter developing a similar report for you, feel free to contact me directly at psargent@jupiterresearch.com.

Peter Sargent | May 11, 2007, 03:21 PM
For Online Consumers of Video As Well As Stock Footage Buyers, It's All About Search

In the evolving market for providing stock video footage, content is king. The right footage (from the richest libraries) of the highest quality is key to any footage provider's success. But that certainly doesn't matter if there's no way for footage buyers to effectively find the content they seek. The same goes for consumer media sites offering online video (e.g. YouTube, MySpace, and NYTimes).

My colleague Sapna discusses the most effective strategies for marketers to drive traffic to their video content in a report she released back in December. "Marketers should use both text-based search engine optimization (SEO) tactics and multimedia-specific guidelines to optimize their multimedia content for search engines." If you're a client and haven't checked it out yet, go here.

And stock footage buyers (from agencies, post production houses, and visual effects firms) rely on their experiences as consumers to locate the content they seek at work. In actuality, it's even more critical for stock footage houses to refine their SEM strategies since their customers' needs are very specific (whereas consumers might just be looking for any video content they find entertaining.) And as we see the evolution of increasingly more players providing stock images and footage, it makes more sense for buyers to search the Web rather than head straight to Getty's Website.

One interesting nugget I have heard from some footage houses is that they have taken steps to make the display of video clips an easy process (providing dynamic pages that allow for easy playback). But because crawlers aren't as effective at reading dynamic pages, some footage houses have had to revert back to static pages to maximize their search engine optimization (SEO).

So..ThoughtEquity, Ribbit Films, and other footage houses out there, get your hands on this report!

Peter Sargent | May 01, 2007, 02:20 PM
Jupiter is Global in its Strategic Research & Consulting

As I continue to lead custom research all over the world, I thought it might be worthwhile to let you all know about a major project that Jupiter's Custom Research group is embarking upon.

Jupiter was recently selected by a global consumer product goods company (can't offer more detail than that, sorry) to provide quarterly white papers, primers (i.e. tutorials in executive style presentations), and country specific data with regards to what emerging technologies, platforms, or channels are consumers embracing (ie: mobile/wireless, consumer created content, etc.), what kinds of activities are consumers adopting and why, examples of success & failure, and what are our client's competitors doing in these arenas.

What's most interesting for me personally, is that Jupiter will be compiling research and strategic analyses across all of the following countries:

United States
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Spain
Ireland
The Netherlands
Greece
Czech Republic
Romania
Bulgaria
South Africa
Russia
Turkey
Australia
New Zealand
China
Japan
South Korea
Malaysia
Indonesia
Vietnam
Singapore
The Philippines

It should be a great project that really emphasizes our abilities to identify technology trends in emerging markets. Stay tuned for interesting tidbits from this one!

Peter Sargent | April 20, 2007, 04:39 PM
Photographers/Artists Need to Eat Too!

Since the start of the year, PhotoShelter and Digital Railroad have combined to announce more than $14M in raised capital. Both provide a marketplace (similar to that of Getty) facilitating the buying and selling of stock photos. Each of them has some interesting service features (for buyers and sellers alike) and a growing library (Digital Railroad is still in beta), that I’ll try to find time to get into next week.

But, one thing that struck me about Digital Railroad is the revenue split they have with sellers. It’s been reported that artists keep 80% of all revenues from their images, while Digital Railroad keeps the other 20%. The standard revenue share at images marketplaces tends to be around 40% (artist) and 60% (marketplace), and even worse (for the artist) at stock footage sites (as high as 15%/85%). Artists have begrudgingly accepted these 40-60 terms from major marketplaces like Getty and JupiterImages, so the 80/20 split offered by Digital Railroad (while admittedly also charging subscription fees to artists for managing their collection at the site) could be a sign of things to come. Now that new entrants continue to flow into the stock images market, artists have greater choice of channels through which to sell. While I suspect Getty and others are hardly planning major changes in their arrangements with artists, the pressure is mounting. And, I can't see Getty and others actually RAISING prices in such a market.

Peter Sargent | April 12, 2007, 05:47 PM
Importance of Quality Online Video Playback

You might recall in my last blog discussing the mindset of potential buyers of stock video footage . There I mentioned that video content (including that which is viewed online) will become increasingly standards-based in its delivery so as to ensure a minimum level of quality in the video playback. As part of Jupiter’s Custom research services, I have been working on a report that outlines not only online consumers' preferred formats for video (which has been well documented by my colleagues), but also the potential sources of frustration online consumers face when viewing online video. We conducted a survey of more than 2,000 online consumers and asked them about their deterrents to watching more online video, and the most common sources of frustration once they are confronted with sub-par online video quality.

The results of this project will be a published report released by our client. So stay tuned for that report, and more detailed findings from the survey…

Peter Sargent | April 10, 2007, 04:39 PM
What Motivates Royalty Free Stock Video Footage Buyers?

As I have mentioned here before, stock video footage is simply a different animal from stock images. This also holds true when considering the differences between royalty free (RF) and rights managed (RM) for images versus footage. The cannibalizing effect that RF has had on the images market is tremendous. And while RF footage libraries continue to emerge, the effects on the footage market will be quite different. For one, it is critical that providers understand what motivates RF footage customers and how that differs from RM footage buyers.

First, the market understands it is more difficult to produce high quality clips and potential buyers are often wary of “cheap” footage that may reflect its sub par quality.

Second, agencies and other buyers may require some exclusivity over the footage they use. Advertisers hate to take chances with footage that could be used by others (particularly competitors).

Third, video is becoming increasingly standards-based, whether the footage ends up on TV or on the Web. If the Web is going to look more like the TV in the future, there must be standards in place to ensure a quality viewing experience.

And finally (and perhaps most interesting), many buyers of stock footage may even PREFER more expensive footage. Why? It’s all about pass-through. Some ad agencies make commissions on everything that passes through their hands. Investments in stock footage can fall under “Media expense,” which is simply passed on to the advertiser. Plus, the agencies can charge a 17.5% premium on the price of the footage. The end result - greater contract value and greater profits. Ultimately, more expensive rights managed (RM) footage works well for them.

So why should anyone be offering RF footage? Well, there are still the budget-conscious buyers out there. But, they aren’t necessarily working at larger, more traditional agencies. Instead, the market is sustained by smaller agencies, post-production houses, interactive agencies, and amateur users who aren’t in a position to command a 17.5% premium on everything they touch for their clients. So while the proliferation of RF images continues to cannibalize RM images, the same cannot be said for RF footage. The market must recognize both a distinctly different set of motivations for RF versus RM footage as well as a distinctly different set buyers.

Peter Sargent | August 22, 2006, 04:59 PM
Video Clips & Animation for 5 bucks

In my last blog, I talked about Getty's emerging 'rights-ready' licensing model as a response, in part, to the emergence of players such as iStockPhoto and their sale of images at "bargain basement" prices. Earlier this month, iStockPhoto announced the sale of video and animations for as little as $5 per clip. The footage is user-generated, where videographers (professionals and amateurs alike) can submit video for sale.

The effect that a model like this has on images sold by Getty, Corbis, and JupiterImages is one thing, but does the same threat translate to their video libraries? My guess is no.

Sure, HD video cameras/camcorders are becoming more prevalent, but it's not quite as simple for an amateur to replicate the same or similar video quality to that of professionals. It's still rather difficult and expensive to create good/high quality motion. Users at iStockVideo must submit their video for acceptance, but it's not as if there's any quality control behind this. iStockVideo merely ensures no copyright violations or inappropriate content is published, and offers basic tips on shooting quality video....nothing more.

Compare this to images, where even I could take a decent snapshot with my 4 mega pixel Canon (you should see the shots I got at the women's AVP tournament at Coney Island this weekend!).

Another interesting point that was recently brought to my attention and could support the idea that user-generated video won't penetrate the stock video market, the same way amateur images is creeping into the stills market: unions.

There is no such thing as a photographers' union. Thus, images can be created for sale by virtually anyone who posseses the technology and skill. However, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) and other motion picture unions have (historically) been extremely prominent. It stands to reason that such entities won't stand idly by and see it's market undercut by amateurs. Assuming this user-generated video market continues to grow, I wouldn't be surprised to see the motion picture unions sweep into action and make high quality video very difficult to publish.

So all-in-all, iStockPhoto is likely to attract many of the same video publishers from YouTube or MySpace, rather than professionals. Thus, iStockPhoto appeals to a market segment which is significantly different than companies like ThoughtEquity, Getty, and others in the stock video market.

Peter Sargent - Research Director

Peter Sargent | August 11, 2006, 03:35 PM
'Rights-Ready' Licensing Model from Getty - Here We Go!

In the midst of downward spiraling stock prices from major players in the stock images market, Getty announced last week that they are unveiling a new licensing model for a portion of their images inventory known as "rights ready" licensing. (http://gettyimages.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=367)

Historically, the licensing of rights managed images has been predicated on 4 basic variables:

Duration (how long one can use the image)
Territory (in what parts of the country can they be displayed)
Media (TV versus online, mobile, print and outdoor)
Frequency (number of times an image can 'air' or be displayed)

This model, with a myriad of variable combinations (which requires a PhD in astrophysics in order to decipher -- ok, I'm exaggerating), has become increasingly simplified to satiate frustrated customers. Territories (which were generally defined by TV broadcast regions) have now broadened to larger regions of the country. Frequency is also less relevant.

So in this spirit, Getty's new model licenses 80,000 of its images inventory irrespective of duration or territory. It is essentially based on media. A Getty customer can use the image in a single medium (say, mobile devices) without concern for frequency or location. In addition, Getty has set "8 fixed price points" to further simplify the process for advertisers, publishers, and creative-types.

The rights-ready model signifies the first major defense tactic against the likes of iStockPhoto and Flickr who sell images at rock-bottom prices. Using a My-Space-like environment, where amateurs and professional alike can upload their images for sale to anyone interested, these newcomers are rocking the entire industry to its foundation. (More on this emerging business model in my next blog.) By paring out a portion of its inventory, Getty intends to offer simplified (and presumably lower) pricing to its customers. To what extent this pervades their inventory in the future, and its likelihood of cannibalizing revenues from its other images, remains to be seen. But the tactic is designed to keep discount shoppers from leaving Getty altogether.

It is worth noting that Getty is the first company to offer such licensing for its images. This demonstrates a forward thinking approach that ought to pique the interest of JupiterImages and Corbis. But for the record, this licensing model is not new. In fact, Ribbit Films (whom I've discussed here in the past (http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/custom/archives/2005/10/the_future_is_s_1.html) adopted this model for it's chromakey stock video footage nearly two years ago. Hooray for the little guy!

-Peter Sargent - Research Director

Peter Sargent | October 11, 2005, 11:54 AM
The Future is Stock Footage, Rather than Images – Part 2

I was asked the other day about the applications for Ribbit Films and their chromakey stock footage (see my previous blog). A colleague pointed out that large television networks such as Fox are already using their own “video clip art.” So, why would they want Ribbit’s footage for their “bumpers”?

Point taken. They do have this stuff. But I would venture to guess that they don’t have an endless inventory of such footage. Let’s say they want to use a soccer goalie in action and they already have such footage. But do they have the right angle? Are they getting to proper perspective on the goalie in action? Don’t forget that this is really an artistic decision, and those producing these effects will often have a unique perspective on how they ultimately want the footage and their imagery to look.

Secondly, this stuff is cheap. I mean, you telling me that a post-production company (or one being funded by a huge TV network) doesn’t see the value in getting exactly what they want in their footage for a few hundred bucks? With footage so cheap, why should they settle for something in their own library that isn’t exactly what they want?

And finally, even in the case where larger networks may feel pressure to use their own stuff, there are hundreds (thousands?) of local affiliates across the US and the globe that don’t have access to any library of stock video footage. Ribbit’s business is all about volume (not necessarily the size of their individual customers), so the little guys are just as valuable. So, I guess when I mentioned you ought to think small, I wasn’t speaking just of the applications…but perhaps for the customers too.

Peter Sargent – Research Director

psargent | September 29, 2005, 05:29 PM
The Future is Stock Footage, Rather than Images

I came across an interesting article in the October 2005 issue of Wired magazine. A company called Ribbit Films (www.ribbitfilms.com) is “ushering the stock-footage industry into the digital age.” They sell royalty free footage of everything from a soccer player making a bicycle kick to two business people shaking hands.

More specifically, the footage is chromakey shot in hi-def. Chromakey is essentially green screen a la Star Wars (more circa 1980 than 2002). This means that Ribbit’s footage (be it the soccer player or the Millennium Falcon) can be superimposed onto any background footage (e.g. a stadium full of people, outer space) for use in…say…TV commercials (Microsoft has already produced a commercial using Ribbit’s footage) as well as special effects in the movies.

Seems like pretty basic stuff, but it appears that the applications for such footage don’t end there. Beyond a cheaper way to produce TV commercials, you have to think…smaller.

Every single “bumper” you see on TV between the preceding commercials and the introduction of a TV show or sporting event could use this stuff.

Here’s an example:

You just came back from another Budweiser commercial with scantily clad bikini models lying in the snow (I know. Their commercials are as bad as their beer.) And for just a few seconds before Al Michaels and John Madden come back on the screen to call the football game, there’s usually some graphics (including maybe the current score of the game) on your TV screen. So, this type of footage could spruce it up a little bit. Show a silhouette of a place kicker kicking off, or a wide receiver doing a celebratory dance in the endzone. The footage adds a little more flare to that 3-second bumper. If you think about it, everything from news programs to sporting events to TV-shows could use such footage for transitioning to/from their programs. So it’s really “video clip art” as much as it is footage.

And as it turns out, nobody other than Ribbit Films really does this stuff for commercial sale. The largest CPG companies like Nike and Coke certainly produce their own stock video footage. But they regard these assets as intellectual property. (Hey, they spent the bucks to produce it, so why should they sell it off to a competitor?)

And that’s another thing. This stuff is rather expensive. Shooting and editing such content and making it available for these types of applications can easily run a company into the six-figure range. A company like Nike is certainly going to want to protect this stuff, while a smaller business simply can’t afford to produce the footage at all. Ribbit Films is selling these clips at $299 a pop.

Hmmm…maybe I need to speak to someone over at JupiterImages about this.

Peter Sargent | June 22, 2005, 04:32 PM
I Can't Support Anyone in the Music Industry

Man. And I thought the music labels were clueless. But the fact is the media player and device providers have become just as guilty of alienating music lovers as the content providers.

As I sit here blogging, I'm listening to the latest Foo Fighters album - In Your Honor. Great stuff, by the way (more on this later).

The problem is that I can't listen to my new CD via iTunes (only Windows Media). As a loyal disciple to the iPod craze, my goal is to listen to Dave Grohl on my commute home, as well as in the office. Fair enough, right? I mean, I did PAY for the CD!

But Sony's new DRM prevents me from transferring the music files to Apple's AAC format. So, it appears that I cannot listen to the Foo Fighters on my Mini.

But WAIT. Here’s where things get REALLY STUPID. Sony offers a crack for their own DRM! Just email an inquiry as prompted off of the CD, and Sony (well, their DRM technology provider, really) will tell you how to crack it.

By the way, let me spare you the trouble:
1) Copy the WMA files off of the original CD on to your PC
2) Burn those WMA files to a new CD
3) Rip those now-unprotected files from the copied CD via iTunes

So the most obvious question is…what’s the freakin’ point?? While this method might deter the casual music listener from bothering to “steal” music, we loyal iPod owners understand that our music collection must go with us.

So…whom do we blame for this? Well, it’s easy to point the finger at DRM measures. But this is only partially about DRM. This is every bit as much about the never-ending battle for file format and media player dominance.

Oh…and another thing. It’s true that I could buy the digital album direct from iTunes for $17.99. But, I bought the CD at a Virgin Megastore for $11.99. Ugh!

Bottom line, it makes it impossible for me to back any side of this debacle of an industry.

By the way, anyone have a CD burner I can borrow???

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

On a lighter note, a friend of mine offered this review of Foo Fighter’s dual-CD: “In Your Honor”:

“The first 3 songs of the first, heavier disk are exactly what you want of rock. It's unbelievably good rock. By the middle of the disk, the mosh instinct kicks in; you'll want to pick up heavy objects and throw them out of windows. Then you'll want to run along the edge of skyscrapers, dive backwards, and punch holes in the asphalt. But there's also a classic rock sway as well as an alt rock echo that keeps the overall sound grounded."

"The second, acoustic disk is so melodic and contemplative. I can't help myself from becoming introspective when I listen to this disk. It's not a beach-house/lounge on a deck/bbq acoustic disk. It's got a country, rockstride bluesiness that requires a dash of loneliness to appreciate it. I love this side right now, but I'm going to absolutely treasure it in late Autumn.” Thanks, man!

- Peter Sargent (psargent@jupitermedia.com)

Peter Sargent | June 01, 2005, 07:02 PM
Hi-Def Provided by...Paper Towels???

As I munched on my whole grain cereal this morning, I was dumbfounded by a TV ad for Bounty paper towels. The spot depicts a real estate agent showing a home to prospective buyers. She takes the small family into the living room and shows them the beautiful "windows in hi-definition." Little do the prospective buyers know that there's no such thing as hi-def windows. So...how do you get 'hi-def' in your windows? Well...by using new 'Bounty Glass & Surfaces' of course!

Bounty's product offers no-streak cleaning of your windows. So now 'no streaks' = HD. Are you kidding me? I'm still waiting for HD TV prices to drop!

Times they are a-changing.

-Peter Sargent (psargent@jupitermedia.com)

Peter Sargent | April 28, 2005, 05:07 PM
iPods and...Online Banking?

Ok...that's it. I now have unequivocal proof that Apple's iPods have reached the point of mass-market appeal. Throw out all the algorithms, equations, and benchmarks that researchers (such as myself) have used in the past to prove mass-market success.

All you need to know is one thing: even Citibank thinks they need to jump on the iPod bandwagon to gain new online banking customers.

Yep...those funky music lovers from Citibank...

Citibank is now giving away the newest addition to the iPod family (the $99 iPod Shuffle) to any new Citibank.com customer.

http://citi.bridgetrack.com/cbol/iPod/1500/2BP12MM/default.htm?Promo_ID=CD2G&ProspectID=2F7B4E3172AD4907B102BB4A80776C2F&BT_TX=1

All you have to do is open a new online checking account, plunk $1500 into that account, and pay at least 2 bills online each month for an entire year. (Don't worry, you get the Shuffle after the first month of bill paying. A full year from now, the first edition of the Shuffle will be nothing more than an antique paperweight!).

There you go…no abacus or easel needed. Next time you want to know what new products have reached the mass-market…just call Citibank.

But if you insist on more scientific proof of the proliferation of MP3 players, Jupiter is reporting that U.S. shipments of MP3 players will grow 35% to 18.2 million in 2005 and maintain a compound annual growth rate of over 10% through 2010, reaching an installed base of 56.1 million by then, up from 16.2 million in 2004.

Those of you who are Jupiter clients can find this report here:

http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/research:concept/105/id=96211/

Peter Sargent | February 24, 2005, 10:02 AM
Vonage Customer Service is Atrocious

Jupiter's Custom Research team has worked with many of the most prominent telcos and ISPs in both the US and EU market. We have aided clients in improving their customer experience (both online and offline) through benchmarking exercises that include key comparisons of virtually all aspects of customer acquisition and retention (e.g. Web site design/usability, online order processes, fulfillment/installation, customer care, billing).

But as a consumer, as well as an analyst, I regret that Vonage has not been among our clients. The reason?

I signed on for Vonage exactly one week ago, intrigued by the $24.99 monthly price tag for unlimited calls within the US. I liked the idea that my only connection to the stodgy, old telcos of days-gone-by was my mobile phone. And it would stay that way with the intro of a Vonage router providing me voice service through my home broadband connection.

The problem is, Vonage has completely dropped the ball. In the course of the last week:

- The sales rep that took my phone order misspelled my last name and my email address (even though i spelled it out for her more than once). This resulted in no email from Vonage to confirm my order.
- When I called customer service to inquire about my order (before knowing of the misspelling), I was on hold for more than 1 hour before I gave up (good thing i can multitask in this job!).
- I received my equipment (a Linksys router and instructions) from Vonage rather promptly. But as i explained when ordering the service, I use a WIRELESS router to access the Web from anywhere in my "spacious" NYC apartment. With no indication of whether the router can be configured with a wireless router, i'm left guessing
- Subsequent calls to customer service over the last 4 business days have produced only two things: a maze of automated prompts and a busy signal when I was to ultimately reach an actual human being at Vonage to discuss the problem. The only means of speaking to an actual person at Vonage is to call their sales rep. Sure; Vonage has PLENTY of people to take your order...but no one to actually help you when these sales reps actually mess up.

My colleague, Joe Laszlo, has developed Jupiter's US forecast for the VoIP market (http://www.jupiterresearch.com/bin/item.pl/research:vision/59/id=95555/). And while i see the value in an alternative to traditional phone service, Vonage's performance (or lack thereof) in servicing their customers has me wondering if my colleague's forecast is just a little too optimistic.

----------------------------
Jupiter's Custom Research team could actually help Vonage make the necessary improvements in their sales and services. Jupiter recently announced a valuable new product available for key MSOs and ISPs in the US market, called the JupiterResearch ISP Portal Evaluation

This research service provides everything Web business managers need to know to best take advantage of their web presence. This special custom package dispels common myths about online sales and helps managers cut through the confusion of customer service support.

JupiterResearch has developed a point-by-point assessment of critical portal features and functions for each Web site including:

Content
Site Layout & Usability
Marketing
Buy Flow
Customer Service
Billing/Account Access

For more information about this product, contact Kieran Kelly at 800-481-1212 or e-mail researchsales@jupitermedia.com.

So while I sit and wait to cancel my Vonage service (if i can reach anyone) a thought for my new VoIP friends...

While this particular product is targeted at ONLINE service and sales, I still think we can help. We'll be waiting for ya!