Are Micro Sites Dead?
Some Suggest Social Media Is A Better Model
We do not completely agree. We recently read this interesting article from Brandweek. In this article it's apparent brands are choosing to utilize social media (MySpace, Facebook etc.) and completely forgo the route of marketing with micro sites online. Suggestions hint at current methods for site creation and the media that drives to the sites as ineffective.
Recently Coke's own Sprite brand took advantage of the new Facebook Ads technology (see our previous post on this) and launched a destination on the popular social network. The result supposedly provided better and more direct dialog for consumers and their affinity for the brand.
Our concern for a drastic shift in social media only makes us wonder - why kill micro sites completely? Why not just improve micro site execution and integration within social media? Instead of pulling micro sites, place brands as heroes in the social media with exclusive and rich experiences loyalists can only acquire at external destinations that accentuate our social landscape. If proper strategy is tied into the plan, social media shouldn't exist to diffuse exclusively owned destinations (in this case micro sites). It should be a catalyst that integrates for a more holistic identity of the brand. It almost seems to be a huge limiter of the brands reach if exclusive social media was only used. Doesn't this dilute and go against the beauty of the web in the first place? Are online marketing budgets so tight that we must limit brands reach across the mighty channel of the world wide web?
With this all said, social media is most certainly in a brands best interest. With knowledge of who and why consumers love their products, marketers would be crazy not to tap into the potential these opportunities provide. Outside of the networks though, the brands need to maintain their individuality with richer experiences that extend the identities on MySpace, Facebook and other social sites.
We do not completely agree. We recently read this interesting article from Brandweek. In this article it's apparent brands are choosing to utilize social media (MySpace, Facebook etc.) and completely forgo the route of marketing with micro sites online. Suggestions hint at current methods for site creation and the media that drives to the sites as ineffective.
Recently Coke's own Sprite brand took advantage of the new Facebook Ads technology (see our previous post on this) and launched a destination on the popular social network. The result supposedly provided better and more direct dialog for consumers and their affinity for the brand.
Our concern for a drastic shift in social media only makes us wonder - why kill micro sites completely? Why not just improve micro site execution and integration within social media? Instead of pulling micro sites, place brands as heroes in the social media with exclusive and rich experiences loyalists can only acquire at external destinations that accentuate our social landscape. If proper strategy is tied into the plan, social media shouldn't exist to diffuse exclusively owned destinations (in this case micro sites). It should be a catalyst that integrates for a more holistic identity of the brand. It almost seems to be a huge limiter of the brands reach if exclusive social media was only used. Doesn't this dilute and go against the beauty of the web in the first place? Are online marketing budgets so tight that we must limit brands reach across the mighty channel of the world wide web?
With this all said, social media is most certainly in a brands best interest. With knowledge of who and why consumers love their products, marketers would be crazy not to tap into the potential these opportunities provide. Outside of the networks though, the brands need to maintain their individuality with richer experiences that extend the identities on MySpace, Facebook and other social sites.
Labels: Advertising, Brand, Marketing, Strategy
This entry was posted by cam, on
11/12/2007.
