From: Strata Rose Chalup (email@example.com)
Date: Thu May 04 2000 - 11:03:05 PDT
Anyone looked at the copyright fine print? Do they also own a right to
reproduce any images (like the Kodak site does)?
That's another revenue model, though not as compelling as the ones
Nicolas Popp wrote:
> They are getting your true personal identity in exchange for free pictures
> development (cannot lie to have your pictures sent to the right address).
> That's very valuable info.
> Once they have nailed your exact consumer profile, they can monetize it
> through highly targeted advertising...
> Also, watching pictures and getting your friend and family to watch your
> pictures online is probably one of these "sticky" activities...
> In other words, it is the same idea as the free ISP stuff. Look at NetZero
> and some of the deals they have closed lately and you'll see why they are
> getting the money...
> ps: as far as the name, who would have thought that Yahoo! would become a
> world renowned brand...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: B.K. DeLong
> To: Adam Rifkin -4K; FoRK@XeNT.CoM
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: 5/3/00 7:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Someone please tell me why Snapfish.com is worth $40 million in
> At 01:11 PM 05/03/2000 -0700, Adam Rifkin -4K wrote:
> >What kind of brand name is Snapfish anyway?
> One of the only domains available that sounded remotely cool? It seems
> .com startups these days base their name on whatever domain they can get
> without shelling out millions. It doesn't seem to matter that it has
> nothing to do with the product.
> B.K. DeLong
> Research Lead
> ZOT Group
-- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Strata Rose Chalup [email@example.com] | firstname.lastname@example.org Project Manager | VirtualNet Consulting iPlanet/Netscape Professional Services | http://www.virtual.net/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 04 2000 - 12:03:13 PDT