Mike Arauz has an interesting discussion going on his blog questioning the purpose of websites. The general consensus is that people are visiting fewer websites in general these days. It’s like they have a top 8 that they visit regularly. And if you want to be part of their consideration set, you probably have to build the greatest website in the world. Otherwise, it’s not worth it to sink so much money into something that someone might visit once for about 56 seconds.
I mostly agree. I think the Internet has matured to the point where it’s not the Wild West anymore and the building boom has outpaced demand. But I think the point is more relevant for microsites – those one off websites that last no longer than a few months with content as deep as a ditzy blonde. Corporate websites are still important as a source of reference, but microsites are like intrusive billboards on the interstate. As Mike pointed out, it makes no sense to build the microsite and then use ad buys to drive traffic to it. And if the content isn’t that deep, why not put it in a rich media banner? At least you are guaranteed impressions, which is more than you can say about a microsite.
What is a better solution is for a brand to participate in the digital spaces that matter to their consumers – beyond ad buys and sponsorships – but that true integration/authenticity/community building or whatever jargon is popular at the moment.
The best example I can think of is Whopper Sacrifice on Facebook. People around me know that I love this example for anything digital. I understand that it got pulled fairly quickly, however, it keyed in on insights about the user and the norms of the community while making the product at the center of it.
I think one way go at these opportunities is like this:
It might be too simple to guarantee any success while using it, but at least it puts us in the right position to take advantage of the opportunities. I think the most important part is the community insight bubble – so often we don’t ever have a deep enough understanding of how these groups work, but that might just be lazy planning in general – because that’s what makes the whole thing relevant.
Yes? No?
1 comments:
This is pretty smart. I agree 100%. This also ties into the notion of the "publisher/blog" format and posting something everyday to have people visit your site everyday. There are very few sites that people visit everyday. I think it's OK for people to visit your site once.
I think with the rise of Twitter and bite-size information, people will be visiting sites less and less.
Websites used to be about content-sharing and connecting with other people (social networks). The future of websites revolves around quality (content, posts, etc) and not quantity. People will start backlashing against too much information.
Don't really know what my exact point is but hopefully this will start a discussion :)
Post a Comment