Mitch Joel and I don\u2019t always see eye to eye. He thinks we need mass media and I\u00a0disagree entirely. He also thinks print is sticking around, something I see\u00a0having no relevance\u00a0in tomorrow\u2019s digital society.<\/p>\n
Sometimes I think he just creates posts he knows people will link to, but I\u2019m going to take his bait today as again I think he\u2019s way off. Essentially, Mitch sees a future with\u00a0no investment in your own open web presence, instead yielding this to other entities like social networks. Let\u2019s go through his thoughts:<\/p>\n
Are the days of big websites and long website builds numbered? It could well be. If you think about how people find and connect to most brands, it\u2019s not just through a search engine anymore.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Agreed Mitch but your downplaying of SEO is missing the point. Search is still and will remain a core function of the web and plays a central role in all digital marketing activity, including social. Even as a marketing blogger who loves social media and has been an advocate since day one, I still do not drink the kool aid A-listers like Mitch Joel and\u00a0Steve Rubel are drinking. Throughout every wave of social web innovation search still mattered and there are not any current trends that convince me otherwise. If anything, as web users become\u00a0more literate in search, it becomes more valuable.<\/p>\n
In fact, more and more people are having their first brand interaction on their mobile device. There are many people who are also connecting to brands for the first time in spaces like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Perhaps if your website isn\u2019t findable and you\u2019re that bad at marketing it. This advice steers marketers wrong by immediately pushing them into outposts (something ultimately tactical). Further, the comment of \u201cin fact, more and more\u201d without any data behind it is merely pontification (actually\u00a0there is data\u00a0behind it, but that data still only tells one side of the story).<\/p>\n
While social media is growing, that does not denigrate the value of intent-based traffic such as search. For a majority of the consulting I do, proper SEO efforts send the highest quality traffic. Additionally, while I agree with inspiring conversations across channels, I do not agree with resting your whole web strategy in channels you do not control. You play right into the strategies of social sites by doing it. Those sites do not necessarily exist to help you as marketers, they are businesses and the popular ones have a design on your activity (and it\u2019s not necessarily for the same outcome you want).<\/p>\n
As an aside, I\u2019m honestly a bit tired of those who are spreading the messaging of putting all your resources and content development into the products of other businesses. Other networks can and do fall out of favor, and time spent in them comes at the opportunity cost of your own home on the web. I\u2019m not saying that someone couldn\u2019t have their first interaction with your brand in something like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, but these channels are simply not robust enough to offer a unique experience you can create in the open web. Don\u2019t mistake a first interaction with long term story telling and\u00a0lead nurturing.<\/p>\n
Does this mean that the website is going the way of the dodo bird? Not exactly, but it does mean that the overall Digital Marketing strategy is going to change dramatically in the next little while.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What? Smart marketers have been playing to the social landscape as it changed. Good digital marketers are fluid in their approach and shift with the times. This statement is made as if the digital marketing community sleeps under a rock \u2013 it does not.\u00a0Social media is not new\u00a0nor novel.<\/p>\n
Instead of one, big and centralized website with many digital marketing outposts in the appropriate platforms, it is more than likely that we\u2019re going to see more and more brands create multiple spaces and platforms to ensure that they\u2019re connecting with the right people in the right communities.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Go for it and make the rest of our lives easier. Spreading yourself thin is a great way to minimize your impact and ultimately ruin your strong source of signal in the world. This is not a realistic approach for most brands and ignores the power of concentrating your forces along with network effects that kick in when you reach critical mass within one area. It could work with the right strategy behind it but ignores the SEO benefits of having one centralized, ultra-authoritative home.<\/p>\n
Imagine a world where a Digital Marketing strategy focuses less on one big website and more on creating engaging \u201cthings\u201d like iPhone apps, a mobile website, a Facebook page along with a Blog (or whatever), and it\u2019s all supported with a simple website that acts more like a hub for all of the other spokes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This advice seems tactical, doesn\u2019t it? You could base your strategy on \u201cthings\u201d like iPhone apps, a Facebook page along with a blog as Mitch advises, or you could base your strategy on something decisive and\u00a0platform agnostic, like owning a certain vertical in the market or positioning differently\/ahead of competitors.\u00a0 Also, where does Mitch plan on converting anyone?\u00a0 As much as I love blogs, they don\u2019t convert visitors like a well crafted site designed for such a thing.<\/p>\n
Yes, there are some (only a few) brands already playing with creating Facebook pages in lieu of micro-sites for promotions and experiential marketing initiatives, but it has not become a commonplace activity where you find a brand doing multiple things in multiple channels and focusing less on driving consumers to their marketing-riddled jargony websites.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Micro-sites? Ughh. The fact that is even mentioned here as an \u201cin lieu of\u201d as if they ever were ever a good idea bothers me:\u00a0micro-sites are a mistake. As to Mitch\u2019s other point, again I disagree with yielding your digital marketing returns to social sites external of your own site. If I know my \u201cmarketing-riddled jargony\u201d website converts, I am damn well going to drive people there. If I build permission in external channels through thought-leadership or delivering value, especially in the B2B world, the authoritative, compelling website I\u2019m funneling prospects to will be trusted and will already have the\u00a0social proofing\u00a0behind it to succeed. I find this ironic since Mitch runs a digital marketing firm which has one of those \u201cmarketing-riddled jargony websites.\u201d<\/p>\n
The \u201cgame\u201d used to be about always driving people back to your own, controlled, website, and the truth is that the more vibrant community for a brand may be happening more through a mobile app or online social network platform\u2026 or something else or something in addition to it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If you want to ignore search engines (which I do not advise) listen to Mitch. But ultimately search traffic is demand based, consistent, and profitable. Social traffic, while nice, has a high bounce rate and attracts users in a different kind of mindset. Ultimately I want both. This post just has undertones of selling out your strategy to networks controlled by others.<\/p>\n
Does this mean we need to trim websites back to WordPress Blog-shaped platforms or micro-site sizes? Not really, but it does mean that if a brand\u2019s vibrant community is happening in a place like Facebook, they won\u2019t have much control or ownership over the content, but they might be able to do things (in terms of connecting and growing that community) that they could not scale to with a big, towering website of their own.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This is a blanket statement and without context makes little sense. If a brand\u2019s vibrant community is happening in a place like Facebook that\u2019s great \u2013 but figure out what it is about Facebook that makes it so attractive and apply it to your own strategy to grow visitors back to your site. Why should Facebook benefit from all the links, addition of content feeding the tail and attention? You spend time in sites like Facebook and Twitter at the opportunity cost of your own site. When did we as marketers decide we would allow others to tell us what we can and can\u2019t do with our marketing (yes, there are rules, controls and severe limitations in those networks).<\/p>\n
Sorry Mitch, I don\u2019t mean to complain today (and I do like you) but ultimately you serve a disservice to marketers when you push them in the direction of giving up the value of the open web. Brand experience websites suck and should die, I agree, but content\/resource based sites are valuable and will live on \u2013 social or not.<\/p>\n
Additionally, different brands have very different objectives from their digital participation. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to digital. If you treat your digital marketing as this type of solution, you can\u2019t ever create something unique or remarkable. It\u2019s not remarkable to have a Facebook or Twitter page (who would remark about that? At this point, other marketers \u2013 but not real people). It\u2019s not remarkable to have a blog by itself. It is content that is worth remarking on, and that content should live in a place unique to you. At least if your brand is unique.<\/p>\n
There is another fatal flaw with this advice: not all consumers want to be social. To only have a social presence and no well-crafted pages speaking to your business may confuse or scare off some prospects. It\u2019s just not for everyone, and it\u2019s the wrong approach to think everyone is like you. I grew up using social networks and was in them long before most, yet realized from the days of being on my 9600 baud modem some users just want information without necessarily getting social. That has not yet changed to this day.<\/p>\n
The social web would be a depressing and ultimate boring place it was ruled by horizontal networks. The most influential, profitable and ultimately valuable networks for brands and media live on the open web. Despite the attempts of sites like Facebook to commoditize the web, passionate users demand something \u201cfor\u201d them. I see examples in the industries I\u2019m passionate about like music and I see it in areas I market to for clients. The best players in each industry have a website worth going to and content\/communities worth engaging with that don\u2019t live within\u00a0walled gardens.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Mitch Joel and I don\u2019t always see eye to eye. He thinks we need mass media and I\u00a0disagree entirely. He … <\/p>\n