DISC Inc

This looks like a rocking reporting tool. To consider for resale later.

The downside to having a dedicated IP address is the cost. Most ESPs charge an initial set-up fee of $500 to $1,000 for a dedicated IP address; there's also often a $250 monthly fee for maintaining it. This directly impacts your e-mail ROI (define). For large quantity senders the additional cost is minimal, but for those sending small volumes of e-mail it can make a dent in your profit margin. A shared IP address is just what it sounds like -- you're sharing the IP address with other organizations. Every company sending from the IP address has the potential to impact, positively or negatively, its reputation. If your IP address neighbors are good guys, the reputation shouldn't be damaged. But if one of them (or if you) does something that raises a red flag, the IP address' reputation will be tarnished and all e-mail sent from it could be blacklisted. Why Might You Want to Share an IP Address? The ESP I spoke with recently raised another valid positive about shared IP addresses, at least for low-volume senders. When we talk reputation, we talk about positive, neutral, and negative. To get on the reputation radar, the IP address needs to be sending a certain amount of e-mail each month. If your sends are small, your dedicated IP address may be below the radar and never "qualify" for a positive or a negative reputation -- you'll be stuck with a "neutral" reputation or no reputation at all. This isn't all bad, but it's also not all good. By having companies share IP addresses, this ESP contends it is able to get enough volume to earn positive IP address reputations, which helps its customers' e-mail get to the inbox. This is a valid point, as long as everyone using the IP address behaves and avoids red flags. It's a calculated strategy, one which requires the ESP to provide education about e-mail best practices and closely monitor every IP address to ensure customers are in compliance. If you're sending from your own in-house system, these same pros and cons apply

The downside to having a dedicated IP address is the cost. Most ESPs charge an initial set-up fee of $500 to $1,000 for a dedicated IP address; there's also often a $250 monthly fee for maintaining it. This directly impacts your e-mail ROI (define). For large quantity senders the additional cost is minimal, but for those sending small volumes of e-mail it can make a dent in your profit margin. A shared IP address is just what it sounds like -- you're sharing the IP address with other organizations. Every company sending from the IP address has the potential to impact, positively or negatively, its reputation. If your IP address neighbors are good guys, the reputation shouldn't be damaged. But if one of them (or if you) does something that raises a red flag, the IP address' reputation will be tarnished and all e-mail sent from it could be blacklisted. Why Might You Want to Share an IP Address? The ESP I spoke with recently raised another valid positive about shared IP addresses, at least for low-volume senders. When we talk reputation, we talk about positive, neutral, and negative. To get on the reputation radar, the IP address needs to be sending a certain amount of e-mail each month. If your sends are small, your dedicated IP address may be below the radar and never "qualify" for a positive or a negative reputation -- you'll be stuck with a "neutral" reputation or no reputation at all. This isn't all bad, but it's also not all good. By having companies share IP addresses, this ESP contends it is able to get enough volume to earn positive IP address reputations, which helps its customers' e-mail get to the inbox. This is a valid point, as long as everyone using the IP address behaves and avoids red flags. It's a calculated strategy, one which requires the ESP to provide education about e-mail best practices and closely monitor every IP address to ensure customers are in compliance. If you're sending from your own in-house system, these same pros and cons apply

* Twitter's Overhyped A number of people commented on Twitter hype growing: * Come on, this is ridiculous. Yes, a large proportion of getting-edge tech geeks use Twitter, but this is still less than 1% of the population as a whole. I'm a tech geek, I work in search and research, but I have never used Twitter in my life and have yet to see a purpose for it. * Have done some research for a couple of companies on where they're showing up in the Web 2.0 space. My feeling is Twitter is a very long way from replacing certain review sites let alone search engines. * Honestly, I believe Twitter will fade rather than become an alternative to search. More people are joining Twitter because others are, but few realize the real value - and that real value has yet to truly reveal itself. * I admit that Twitter will become a great knowledge sharing tool, but it doesn't have the scale to be useful outside of the state of California…yet. * I don't see Twitter overtaking search engines in any way shape or form. For quick contact with friends or very specific advice that's better handled with some quick back and forth, sure, but Twitter lacks the depth, specificity and authority of search engines for 99% of anything I need to look for. * I think Twitter at the moment is over-hyped. Period. * I'm more likely to trust a reliable website that specializes on the topic at hand over a friend or random person who follows me. I also wouldn't have to wait for a response if I just searched for the answer myself. I do like the concept of getting answers to real time issues, but I can accomplish that on facebook (which I have far more connections on). In Summary Made it to the end? Here's a summary of the findings: * Half ask a question on Twitter at least once per week * Nearly 40% are "usually" satisfied with the answers they get * Half "sometimes" or "often" turn to Twitter for questions rather than a traditiona