From declanm@netcom.com Wed Sep 6 18:06:10 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po8.andrew.cmu.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id SAA17573; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:02:40 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po8.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17916; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:04:24 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:03:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from well.com (well.com [198.93.4.10]) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA21053 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:03:35 -0400 Received: (from mnemonic@localhost) by well.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15862; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:03:29 -0700 From: Mike Godwin Message-Id: <199509070103.SAA15862@well.com> Subject: Re: GLJ Editor Responds to Conspiracy Theories To: mnemonic@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Godwin) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Cc: declanm@netcom.com, fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu, ped@panix.com, kruemmler@aol.com In-Reply-To: <199509062154.OAA25305@well.com> from "Mike Godwin" at Sep 6, 95 02:54:32 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3270 Status: RO X-Status: This is a letter Marty sent to Hoffman and Novak in December of 1994. Notice what Marty says about the "embargo," plus what he seems to be admitting about his conclusions. --Mike Forwarded message: >From mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Sun Dec 18 21:02:44 1994 Message-Id: Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 22:02:01 -0500 (EST) From: Martin Rimm To: novak@moe.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu (Tom Novak) Subject: Re: Your research project Cc: hoffman@colette, novak@moe In-Reply-To: <9412190250.AA07512@moe.ogsm.vanderbilt.edu> Excerpts from mail: 18-Dec-94 Your research project by Tom Novak@moe.ogsm.vande > I have your summary a quick read - do you have the full version posted on > the net? If so, what's the URL? (If not could you please send a hardcopy?). Thank you for the response. I believe I read and enjoyed several of your articles. The study will be published this May and the GLJ has embargoed the results, so unfortunately I cannot send you a copy at this time. > > I forwarded your message to one of our MBA students who plans to perform a > (non-pornographic!) content analysis of Usenet groups to investigate > word-of-mouth patterns. He may be contacting you to discuss your approach > to content analysis. > > One thing I am curious about is your use of the term "marketing." From > my quick read, it sounded that you are implying that commercial pornographic > BBS operators are using download records from Usenet groups to determine > "consumer demand" and using this information to design "product offerings" > for their boards. Is this really the case? I'd be surprised if the To some extent, but the truth is I am ahead of the pornographers. However, with mainstream pornographers moving on-line, some of the best software engineers in the country are now working for the pornography industry, and I expect within a year or two they will leap ahead of me. Recently, Kenneth Guarino, of Southe Point Enterprises, the largest adult video distributor in the country, hired a team from Microsoft. > pornographers were really that clever, frankly. Or that they would even > feel the need to do this sort of research. Once my study is published, it will be obvious to them why such research is useful. In a two hour video, or magazine with 100 pictures, pornographers never knew what the customers really wanted. Now they can find out. Personally, I'm getting out of the pornography business, as I want to move on to other subjects on the net. > > On the Usenet side of things, I don't really see how any "marketing" is > involved here. Instead, it seems to be a classic situation of word-of-mouth > (word-of-net) influence. The study makes clear the extent to which they use the Usenet to "market" their products. Perhaps the word "marketing" would need to be precisely defined. > > Perhaps the full paper will explain things in more detail. I'd be > interested in taking a look at it, in any event. > > --Tom Thanks for your interest. > > > p.s. I grew up in Pittsburgh, and even given the hot summers here, the > climate in Nashville beats that in Pittsburgh, no contest! :) > Is it humid? Maybe I should apply to Vanderbilt. ----- End Included Message -----