Yesterday morning, I typed the question in the subject line into Google.
I got a mish-mash of results, some of which – like this post from New Media and Marketing – were quite insightful, while others … well, not so much. The gist I got is that this is a phenomenon of concern for brands, and corroborates thoughts I expressed in a previous post. But I didn’t feel like I found concrete evidence regarding why this is happening.
That led to today’s exercise, which is a dual-post effort with my friend Phil Gerbyshak. Here at Branding Bricks, I’m going to discuss why it appears some brands are trending in this direction, i.e., orchestrating a pristine social media experience, but allowing their website, or in the case of some brands, a family of websites, to languish. Phil is posting on his blog about the implications, i.e., what will happen if a brand neglects its website in deference to social media.
So why is this happening? Four thoughts immediately come to mind:
- Cost. According to this Zoomerang report based on a survey it conducted of about 750 small- to medium-sized businesses, "the growth of social media could be linked to more than half the businesses surveyed having a marketing budget of $1,000 or less." That means social media is a cost-effective marketing tool, allowing a brand – especially a new brand – to make an impact with target audiences. It’s more costly in terms of budget and time to develop, launch and maintain a website.
- Competition. It can be very tempting for a brand to see its key competitor launch a coordinated social media campaign with a multi-channel presence, and feel behind in the game. "We have to be there too!" should never be the primary reason for entering social media, but it’s also not a reason to divert website-dedicated resources, both human and monetary, to social media.
- Channel infatuation. Ragan’s PR Daily Europe posted earlier today about five questions brands should ask before entering social media, using the moniker ShinyNewSocialWidget.com to refer to the latest channel that everyone is talking about (e.g., Pinterest). I had to laugh at that, but focusing on the channel isn’t nearly as important as the result, or where users finally land and how they experience the brand there.
- Content strategy. Engagement in social media is crucial, of course, But lack of a unique content strategy that uses social media channels to drive engaged target audience members to a central hub, like a website where they can find rich content and a better understanding of a brand’s attributes, falls short.
I’ll also add that at the end of the day, many users who have no interest in social media (like my dad, for instance) use a search engine to find a brand, which justifies SEO costs, among other things. What brand experience are they having when they arrive?
Phil and I are going to follow up today’s posts next Saturday with ways a brand it can effectively utilize all availalbe channels, including its website, or its a family of websites.
Meanwhile, tell us about what you’re seeing. Are brands neglecting their websites for social media channels, or perhaps other initiatives? Feel free to post here or at Phil’s blog, and we’ll respond.
(Image credit to CaseDetails.com.)
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent 4 Cs Gregg. I agree with them all.
I’d add one other why: Laziness. There are only so many hours in the day, so business owners pick the easiest ones to build on, and think short term instead of long term. That’s also why they buy followers and likes instead of building relationships.
Phil: TRUE. But, is it laziness or issues like:
-Lack of delegation skills?
-The right people, but in the wrong position?
-Overloaded schedules due to staff reductions, etc.?
-Burnout?
I heard a very well known brand-level social media consultant explain a simple reason brands use social instead of their own website:
It’s too hard to get major changes made to the static corporate website. Social is a way to go around levels of approval, expense, red tape and bureaucracy that keeps the main website noninteractive and ineffective.
Very good point Becky – and one I heard when I was a corporate player as well. This is why I love small businesses – I have the power and the ability to make changes quickly – and so do other small business owners. Whether they take control or not is another story.
Yes! Big companies may be hampered by red tape, corporate policies, and huge inflexible websites, but small businesses can make their websites as dynamic, interactive, and social as they choose to.
Even one-person businesses can do this without spending major money these days — we have such fantastic tools at our fingertips. It’s really an exciting time to be in business.
Wendy: Re. your comment about being a really exciting time to be in business – AGREED!
Becky: Interesting insight – I would add that checks and balances are in place to make sure the visitor is able to interact with the brand in a productive, proactive way on the webiste. An integrated cross-channel strategy that factors all content being posted to the static website and distributed through all chosen social media channels prevents a disjointed or inconsistent feel, which can actually hurt a brand.
I do also think, to Phil’s point, that laziness or even a laissez faire attitude toward the static website contributes, but once again, the key is for the brand to feel the same and deliver the same messaging and experience no matter whether the consumer or user is interacting via Twitter, visiting the static website or reading print materials.
It’s just so much simpler to run a twitter or facebook page then it is to maintain an entire website. Using social media as opposed to a website allows you to simplify the initial set-up and keep costs down.
Johnny: This is true – but with social media channels, you don’t control the channel itself or the message, so in the long run, there might be more time, effort and cost to manage those things.
{ 1 trackback }