> Jeff funk's response to gerhard's response.
> That is a pretty vague response. It kind of reminds me the way some
> Americans were called communists in the 1950s. Please tell us about the
> "discrepancies" you think there are in the data. And please show us your
> data as I think that many people would be interested in seeing
> it. Most of
> the data that I displayed on my previous message is from D2C,
> which is 51%
> owned by docomo. Thus, I think the data is reliable.
Hi Jeffery,
I don't have any other figures than the same ones you mention
from D2C. But I would hesitate to call them reliable. I'm sure
they aren't too far off. But definitely a liberal estimate of monthly
traffic. As to why I say this:
When I was at Panasonic, when asked about yearly production
figures, we would give the press release figures which are goals
and not necessarily realistic. Just because its DoCoMo, that
doesn't mean the numbers are realistic.
Websites often raise their own page views figures above the
actual monthly totals. It doesn't happen here, yet, but in the
US, Australia and Europe, a lot of websites have their figures
audited by third parties such as Price Waterhouse to demonstrate
the accuracy of the numbers (as we do with our adserving).
I'd just say take the numbers with a grain of salt until (if?) a
third party comes along and can verify them.
Besides, 4.5 billion pages views means 14 million users are
viewing 10 pages a day. At some wireless conferences I have
been to here, even official site providers have stated probably only
one in four users actually view webpages on imode, official
or unofficial.
I'd be more interested in the actual page views per month of pages
that actually (or can) carry ads. I also really wonder if D2C and
DoCoMo aren't referring to hits and not actual page views.
Jon
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Tue Nov 28 06:13:17 2000