Building the Maven Trap
Should we even bother with brand websites anymore?
In an industry famous for enthusiasm bordering on cultish and one that can be surprisingly reticent to change old habits (see: adoption of digital, Madison Ave) I’m amazed at the passion with which the industry has declared the death of the website.
It seems like every time an agency releases a non-traditional, “anti-site” the chorus starts anew. Modernista.com, DEAD! Skittles.com, DEAD! BooneOakley.com, OMG, DOUBLE DOG DEAD! From the sound of it, you’d think Rahm Emanuel quit his day job and became a marketing industry analyst. (Come to think of it… I’d read that blog.) In the meantime, the actual analysts are doing an excellent job of sounding the death knell for the “.com”. David Armano tells brands to kill their websites. Meanwhile, Mashable wonders out loud if brand websites are irrelevant in the face of social media.
Whoa. Calm down. Let’s take a step back. Clearly social media has captivated the minds and attentions of consumers, but does that mean the brand website is truly irrelevant? I don’t believe so. While brands are correct to expand their online presences beyond the walls of their .com, the fact is that consumers still visit them. So the real question is: Who are the people still taking time out to visit brand websites?
Who’s visiting your Brand website?
In his seminal book, The Tipping Point, Malcom Gladwell argues for the existence of “mavens,” consumers so invested in a product, category, lifestyle or brand that they serve as a resource for the community around them. Mavens are extremely outspoken and, while they were always important to the success of products, their influence is even more profound due to the amplifying properties of the internet.
Initially, the solution to this phenomenon was an expansion of the “key influencer” strategy. By broadening the umbrella of what a “key influencer” is, company outreach programs expanded from traditional influencers like doctors, journalists, celebrities and TV personalities to bloggers, social media moguls, and Twoguls. (Twitter +mogul = twogul. You heard it here first.)
In a portion of the book rarely mentioned in meeting rooms, Gladwell talks about something he calls the “maven trap” – things most of us either don’t notice, or rapidly dismiss with a “who would ever do that?” To illustrate his point, he refers to the “questions/comments?” tag on soap packages. Who does that? Who fills out warrantee cards? Who has intelligent conversations with help representatives? Truthfully, not a whole lot of people. But the ones who do are people who care a whole lot about their brands.
Who takes the time to visit brand websites? Probably people who care a whole lot about that brand – or at least care enough about the category to see if the brand is worth caring about.
Politicians make extensive efforts to “energize their base” knowing that an excited base can generate campaign momentum through advocacy. How is your “.com” encouraging your most valuable consumer to become your biggest advocate? Obviously, strategies will diverge, but at a base level — brand websites must provide tools, information, experiences and incentive to energize and amplify the voices of their core consumers.
Image Credit: niallkennedyFollow the author: @brianchiger Follow AgencyNet: @agencynet
JohnnyBoyOlive…
I totally dig where your coming from… Your little referenced Gladwell point was well placed… That’s what most brand marketers miss… That “small” “loyal” group of brand mavens – they can be your best friend or worst enemy… I think it’s plumb foolish to not give them the ability to connect… The web, is the web, is the web – it is the first touch point beyond the physical… Tweet me up! @johnnyboyolive
http://www.olivemedia.com
JohnnyBoyOlive…
…?
Brian…
It doesn’t take all that many people to really change the perception of a brand. And (for those sales managers out there) it doesn’t take that many people to really drive sales for your company.
I think my uncle sold my family 5 Sony TV’s by talking about how great their Trinitron monitors were to everyone he knew for 10+ years. (I can only imagine how many Sony TV’s he sold overall. ) These days? He thinks Sony dropped the ball and is all about Samsung.
Twitted by NINSTEELER…
[...] This post was Twitted by NINSTEELER – Real-url.org [...]
Bernard Bonomo…
in an effort to connect brands with consumers, it’s very apparent that “traditional” forms of advertising are not going to be as effective. I believe a new generation of Pop-Culture Engineers are going to be the solution companies need.
Matt Anderson…
It’s about time that someone offered a coherent counterpoint to the “Dot-Com is Dead” argument. As we continue to overreact to every development, there’s probably nothing more important right now than to slow down and find some perspective. Kill your brand’s online home and just open a Twitter account?! Seriously? There’s gotta be a balance to strike…
Social media is an infant. We have no idea what it will or can become. And people who say different (or offer complex matrices predicting the social future of your brand through 2012) either know more than the rest of us do or they’re just lying. Putting all your eggs in such an unpredictable basket is simply bad business. In 1996, it would’ve been crazy to tell a client to abandon all print, broadcast and environmental advertising and just launch a website… the responsible thing is to run at both and find a balance. The same is true now. Let’s give social media some time to grow up before we shutter the dot-coms.
Sonia Jean-Marie…
I totally disagree with this article, if anything I believe Social Media will die out first. Look at MySpace! it was hot for a while now it’s all about Facebook. The point is there will always be bigger and better out there. Brands just need to up their strategies to assure that they’re leveraging on all new and upcoming possibilities. I for one Love to shop online! (lol, just thought I’d add that in!) Loyal Brand Fan, yeah!
Brian…
@matt Completely agree. I don’t think any digital agency out there (or at least none worth their salt) are advocating ditching all traditional media. The fact is, different media are great for accomplishing different goals.
I belive that we’re moving into a phase of media specificity. No longer does TV, traditional vehicles, or websites serve as “hammers for all nails.” We now have tools that can reach consumers with greater specificity of purpose.
It’s up to us to use those tools in the most effective way. I think marketers need to reevaluate their channel strategies and really use each one to accomplish the goals that make sense for each channel. In the case of the .com, this often means reaching out to your most dedicated core consumer.
Janice Momoko Chow…
We have a plethora of media channels to reach the consumer. I think the best way a brand can approach its audience is all based on the context–what they do, where they spend most of their time, and what generation they belong. Websites aren’t updated as often as social media or with mobile apps nor are they interactive. However, people would go to a website for factual info, like news releases and backgrounder bios. It’s definitely more useful for an older generation where they can find static info.