![The Big Lebowski (Limited Edition) [Blu-ray Book + Digital Copy]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512F90yEqdL._SL75_.jpg){kind=small}
Monday
Mar012010
Ads Drop Dot-Com URLs in Favor of "Facebook Us"
Young Urban ProfessionalThe following is also my March Forbes.com column.
Today it seems that many marketers are literally tripping over themselves to invade social networks in force. There's almost a land grab underway as businesses rush to set up hubs on the "big three": Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. You can definitely sense that we've passed a tipping point.
All at once, businesses large and small are increasingly recognizing that they need to go where the people are. And with 100 million Facebook users in the US who spend an average seven hours on the site each month (Nielsen), it's surely a no-brainer. When your local pizzeria is promoting their Facebook page at the register, as mine does, then you know that marketing has changed. The same applies to Twitter and YouTube.
However, with this land grab, a controversial shift is underway. The trusty dot-com URL, at least its role in marketing, maybe dying.
Some companies are de-emphasizing spaces they own, like their web site, in all of their ads. Instead, they're pushing people towards spaces they rent where people are spending time - e.g. their Twitter, YouTube Facebook hubs.
Case in point: UniBall. During the Winter Olympic games I was surprised to see the pen manufacturer use its TV ads to point people to its Facebook page. There UniBall is giving away 10,000 pens. Nowhere in its ads does Uniball promote its own web site. It's all about Facebook. Clever.
Much the same, I noticed the New York Knicks basketball team in its outdoor ads had only three calls for action - an SMS code, Twitter and Facebook. Again no URL. A dot-com was nowhere to be found.
Finally, during a recent Mashable event in New York, Columbia Journalism professor Sree Sreenivasan pointed out that this is becoming the norm in the motion picture business. Perhaps this is a function of living in a world where people hardly use bookmarks any more and just Google.
If this all sounds familiar, it should. It's all reminiscent of the mid-1990s when URLs started popping up in TV ads and billboards. Or worse, when AOL keywords first surfaced in the early 1990s. These were curious at first, then later, welcome. Now I guess a URL is just boring.
However, this time it's different.
For starters, when marketers promote their social network hubs over their URLs they risk that more savvy consumers will see right through it. People could perceive it as a flat attempt to look cool and hip. Consumers already skeptical of advertising and this just adds to it.
Second, the use of "heavy artillery" - e.g. advertising - to round up more fans and followers is equally controversial. This would be fine if it lead to true person-to-person engagement. However, many brands are just using their Twitter and Facebook presences to spew out updates, without any thought to how consumers will benefit by essentially opting in. UniBall is providing value but others don't go to such lengths.
Finally, much the same, very few businesses treat social networks as personal, conversational spaces. Hardly any feature real employees. And a scant few aim to advance shared interests.
So while it's welcome that marketers are beginning to promote the hubs they rent in all of the relevant communities, few are really optimizing them into true relationship builders. Most are devoid of humans - e.g. employees - and many look like faceless companies that are trying to check off boxes or slap shiny logos on their site.
In some ways, it makes sense to me that marketers are emphasizing their spaces where people are spending time and where they can be easily found. However, at the same time, with so few understanding what it takes - people - to really build credible relationships, I wonder how long this trend might last and if a backlash is the works.
If I were a dot-com URL, I wouldn't write my will just yet.
Reader Comments (29)
Steve, do you think corporate red-tape has anything to do with this? I've worked in several companies where the marketing teams have wrestled with the 'corporate web team' over how fast things can be turned around on the corporate .com website, and what functionality they can have.Social media platforms by their very nature are not absolutely owned by any internal team, so the marketing teams can do what they like, when they like - and all the 'fancy social' functionality they want is right there out of the box.
".. the US who spend an average seven hours on the site.." a week?
Added "each month" to the stats. @Matthew, it could but I think it's more about the trend - going where people are.
agreed Steve. The corporate url will be here for a long while yet. Easy: daily increase in number of websites worldwide plus new pages of content plus worldwide number of visitors and the reliability of search engine indexing of those far outweighs social media opportunities even with all the great stats about facebook and twitter. How can facebook search ever expect to cope with that daily increase?
What irritates me most are ads at the beginning of YouTube videos. I try to avoid sites that use them.
Steve - While I totally agree that distribution is a key factor in managing how brands reach and interact with consumers it's not right for everyone. While the Uniball example is interesting for what they are doing, but it's also completely ridiculous. I guess if I want a free pen, Facebook replaces the old email capture, but do I really want to be "friends" with a disposable pen company? No. Toyota Sienna is another example of TV driving to social media that's a bit off. They are driving to their YouTube presence over a corporate site, but the commercials are over the top cheesy and seem to cancel out the potential cool factor. We are talking about a minivan here so take the cool for what it is... Channels other than dot com make sense for the Knicks as they can offer a stream of info through twitter, facebook and sms in nice digestable bites, that's easier for me to get than having to seek out the full site - which as a fan I probably know about and visit during the season. The push from the channels you highlight really makes it easy for consumers to stay current with the team in a pretty passive, yet positive way.I completely agree with your final point. Brands can't just stick this stuff out there and expect people to respond particularly if they don't actively take part themselves ... and not by talking at us.JG
The last line says it best,"If I were a dot-com URL, I wouldn't write my will just yet." since that's the site that the company owns and has complete control of.
Not just yet (.com url), I'm still hanging on to mine for the old-school & corporate crowd :) However, your post is a good example of the inevitable pendulum swing. I'm really beginning to think over my content strategy myself here thanks to your insight; with the impetus leaning towards a more "clever" strategy.Btw nice white space..
Steve, this reminds me of a post I wrote last year on how State Farm was under-using their TV ads by pointing people to their site instead of a more social and scalable addon to their strategy. I agree that the URL is not dying, but it should start moving to the 2nd spot on our quest to gain customer's attention since more and more people first look at what others in their network say, and if interested, then they move on to greener, more controllable (by the company) pastures. Great post, see you soon. --Paul
Japanese train advertisements have been using keyword SEO to drive people to URLs for a long time. Here's a couple of advertisements that feature an image of search box with the search statement they want you to use.http://www.flickr.com/photos/clankennedy/3053468135/http://www.flickr.com/photos/clankennedy/3054302630The find us on Facebook is just the next phase in this evolution but more powerful because a Fan or follower is someone you can message while a web page visitor is not.What you give up, of course, it control. Control of your look and feel and, depending upon your business and it\s relation to the current flavor of the platform's TOS, your message.What happens when FB or Twitter start to charge for using their platform to promote commercial messages?
This may have less to do with a company choosing Facebook over its own website, and more to do with convenience for a consumer. The same reason AOL Keywords became semi-popular is the same reason many companies decide to direct audiences to Facebook and Twitter - they're already going there anyway. The easier you make it for your market to find you and interact (which is key!) in a space they're familiar with - the more effective a campaign might be. Consumers have already given their information over to Facebook and Twitter, creating a much lower barrier for them to simply fan or follow on that tool. If you're asking for an email address and zip code on your website, how many users do you lose who don't want to give up that information? It may be a temporary trend, but I think companies who are using this approach are smart, even agile.
"with so few understanding what it takes - people - to really build credible relationships, I wonder how long this trend might last and if a backlash is the works." - Absolutely!My biggest pet peave as of late in the world of advertising is sitting through an 45 minutes of television, and seeing the same 3-4 advertisements replayed over and over. Having started dipping my toes into advertising in a business context, I'm learning its all about the tease and promise. But where is the tease and where is the promise if you keep repeating yourself?In regards to Facebook and Twitter, there is a part about using Facebook as a news aggregator. Its much easier to use than Google reader, and I am normally already on it so that cuts down a site I frequent. That said if the call to action from those properties does not ultimately lead to relationship with a live human, and not just to assist you in parting with your money; consumers will continue to get more and more jaded. Some sooner than others, but it will happen. Advertisers and businesses beware, there be dragons here.
Great article, Steve. Thanks. Participation on individual sites is obviously the next logical step. Big win, however, comes when brands start to integrate ALL of their social networking, then curate the content for their fans. That's added value for followers and control for brands. When the next shiny network emerges, brands aren't playing catch-up. Instead, they're serving the content. Again, thanks.
Ah, a Fleeting Flurry of Facebook Facades to provide a nice coat of Wall Street Whitewash for the IPO. Just don't be surprised if it's AOL/TimeWarner 2.0 in the making. If there's a Google IPO 2.0 down the road, it's Bloom Energy or one of it's kin; or a biotech cure for Parkinsons, Alzheimer's or the like.As far as internet portals go, we've seen this story before. Three years and we were bored of BBS's. Three years and we were bored of AOL. Three years and we were bored of MySpace. Maybe a fake patent on stuff Dave Winer invented a decade ago enables Facebook to go five, but not for me. In the words of the immortal Don Henley, I'm already gone ...Forecast for Facebook's Ultimate Fate: Internet Rolodex (public open dossier helps to keep you off the Terrorist No-Fly Lists; barely, sometimes, not always) and it's a really cool Interactive Yellow Pages. FB buys Yelp and some other stuff with IPO money before running investors off the cliff.Industrial Era Capitalism, doing what it does best. All hail The Recovery!
I think it comes down to how the brand sees the sales cycle. And the promise made as to WHY someone should go wherever the brand wants them to go (website, Facebook, Twitter, whatever).Brands often times forget the WHY. Why follow us on Twitter? Why become a Facebook fan? Why go to the website? We are working on this now with my web team in regards to creating compelling reasons for people to follow on Twitter/friend on Facebook stated on our website. For example: Become a part of our Facebook community and you will get Facebook-only exclusive video clips with top entrepreneurs offering business advice on a specific subject. Or follow on Twitter where you can interact, get show updates and also the latest entrepreneur-friendly links. On the advertising end, what does a brand feel will work the best?Ad---->FB Page and/or Twitter---->Website--->Sale?Ad--->Website---->Sale?Time will tell.
I don't think this tactic would work with all companies. Take a hotel, for instance. If I want to book accommodation, I want to go to a website, look at the photos, see what amenities they have, how far away they are from x, what services they offer, etc. I could care less if they have a Facebook page or a Twitter account. In fact, if they didn't have a URL but they did have a Facebook, I would assume they don't have enough money, expertise, or will to create a proper website and would not be interested in staying there. I think this same scenario can apply to many different industries. I would also be wary if their Facebook page was listed higher than their actual website in a Google search.
Noticed the same thing with advertising for the Boston Celtics who are including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube on their outdoor ads. You can see their Twitter ad here http://ttrumble.com/retweet-celtics/ and more of their social media campaign covered in this post http://ttrumble.com/celtics-social-media-campaign/.
Based on the measurement report recently published by MediaPost http://www.marketingsherpa.com/1news/chartofweek-02-23-10-lp.htm it seems to me that how many followers you have ranks higher than leads generated or ROI. The "free give away" model works since most enjoy getting something for free. But, even that gets old. I think part of the movement is that brands think it's cheap to advertise on FB, and it is -- strategy is not however. Building up your followers is good for your ego, but making it work takes it what matters.
This tactic works for transitory marketing. Meaning, if your marketing is short-term focused on current campaigns. For instance, I have seen this shift in recent Movie trailers where they publish a Facebook URL at the very end. Facebook page is perfect for them! No maintaining a domain, and the page would either continue to build interest or die a natural death! My sense is that businesses would land grab their respective pages and engage users with some seasonal content. But, that is what it would be - a landing page. From there on, depending on the conversion strategy, they will lead the users to their dot com domains or keep the users engaged within the Facebook pages.
I don't know why principles of building relationships are so difficult for marketers...assuming humans are still involved in the process, of course. It's really fairly simple...show an interest in what's important to me (other than what you have to sell...although it's nice if there's some relevant connection), add value (the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yous" principle) and it might be nice if you actually listened and responded to why I say. It's extremely difficult to do this with stadiums filled with millions of people but if you approach it on a person by person basis, it's actually possible. No, I don't want to be friends with your cheese...or hairspray or razor or whatever it is you have to sell. I don't even want to be your fan because you're not a celebrity or rock star. I might, however, be interested in some content interesting that you create that meets my needs for information and practical advice.
One really simple reason is that it's just cheaper than building all the inferstructure of a website yourself. There is a big difference between two types of approaches. One where the Facebook icon is just added to a TV ad may well lack the desired engagement, but there's also a new trend of going Facebook out. i.e. building an engagment platform on Facebook as the primary marketing focus. In that case, it certainly makes sense to promote it on ATL to maximise the ROI.
Ive noticed this too recently. I wonder how the corporates will create a 'human' face and how they will implement this? Take a look at my webcast on http://prperspectives.tumblr.com/post/426561954/exploring-social-media-in-pr-... may be of interest..
What a great article and this is becoming the new reality. I've been struggling with marketing ideas and budget lately. I am going to check out your recommendations and see what happens. Thanks!
First of all I have to say that a local pizzeria advertising their facebook page at the register seems a little overkill. However, what do I know I'm just a college student! Ha. Honestly though this is a really interesting point that I hadn't really noticed. This may have something to do with the fact that I am 23-years-old and the idea of advertising through these social mediums such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, seems very natural to me, but I realize it has not always been this way. I really do believe that dot-com url's are facing their demise as an advertising tool. Bottom-line is internet traffic migrates to social media and when you google companies now, their websites aren't even the first search that appears, Facebook is. I obviously think that dot-com's will stay on as informational tools for consumers as there is simply not enough room on facebook or twitter to get out all the pertinent information consumers want, and need, to know. Thanks for this incredibly insightful post and I suppose we will all be waiting to see what comes of this phenomenon.
There is no such word as "towards." The word is "toward."