COMMENTS
I am curious as to how often you run into people who ONLY use social media. It seems as though this discussion is a bit of a false dichotomy. Websites and social media are not at odds with each other. Social media, simply put, compliments your website and doesn't replace it.
I agree with Justin and have the same question. To me, it seems more likely that more people would have a website and not social media rather than the other way around. I don't know anyone who only uses social media. I've never even heard of this as an issue.
Ahh! I love this article! Spot on, as it drives me nuts when a small business chooses to ignore the crucial starting point of a website and build from there. Some of your points I hadn't considered and they are all incredibly valid. We just posted a vlog about using Facebook as your "website" ... maddening I say, maddening! Thanks for "getting" it HubSpot!
With kindness,
Elena
I completely agree with Justin, we are using social media primarily to help drive business to our website. So, in our eyes, the two definitely work hand in hand, not independent of one another.
I applaud the sentiments of the author while also agreeing with the commenters. This idea should never rise to the level of actually being seriously considered, and probably is not a common issue. However, the variation that I have experienced several times involves the context of a particular campaign or initiative, and the creation of a microsite or dedicated support site is challenged by a (usually) young, hip social media devotee in favor of a Facebook tab. To me the same restrictions apply, even though (particularly now with the i-frame changes) one can do a lot more with one's Facebook page. Most importantly, even beyond question of brand consistency or credibility, is the issue of technical control and dependability. It is imprudent to abdicate the responsibility of hosting key content and an important channel to your customers to the cloud; it's as simple as that. So use your web site as a hub, and link out to all your social connections, but don't put your eggs in a basket that you are not carrying yourself.
Great article Kipp! I just saw this WSJ post also and I was like "whhhaaattt?!" So silly. Thanks for your wonderful insight.
I happen to know a few companies that use only Social Media. But agreed,the two should work together.
You forgot one of the most important that so many others warn about: you have no control of your content at all in fact you lose control the second it goes on the social media sites. On top of that as it has happened even to relatively large businesses you can be thrown out of the social media website and all your efforts and potentially 1000s of hours of marketing will go out in a split second and you have to start from scratch again. This is by and far the worse problem with social media only internet precense!
It is not website or social media. It is using both with each it's positive and negative aspects.
@Rey - don't try to control you content. Let it go!
Dumb: Swapping out your website for socmed.
Dumber: The people who would counsel it.
Great article and very thought provoking. The main reason for me is "Control" - like the house ownership analogy vs renting. The idea of building a house for someone else who can takeover at any moment, is fairly scary for a business. Ownership is key.
Mark
Is a blog social media? If so, then I disagree with this article. I think it is totally appropriate to replace a traditional, brochure website with a blog.
Is a wiki social media? If so, then again I say it is totally appropriate to replace a traditional, brochure website with a blog.
The days of static websites are over and a blog, wiki, etc allows your community to interact with you online. AND SEO engines prefer dynamic over static.
That really brings my piss to a boil. Who would replace their website with SM? It is crazy. Craziness of the bat-shit variety.
At the very least, a company could purchase a cheap domain and set up a Wordpress site as its home page. It takes little effort (I did it in an hour or two). It gives you a home base, access to advanced analytic tools and a space to market your products.
The point is, some businesses use only social networking sites as their home base. So, let's say you run a pet shop. Instead of setting up a website, you choose to set up a Facebook page. You spend hours and hours on that page, talking to potential customers, telling people about your pets and products, and convincing them to come down to your store and buy a kitten or some dog toys. Sounds good, right? Suddenly, Facebook decides that they are getting rid of business pages and are only going to allow community pages. You no longer control your page. Or, let's say out of spite, someone reports your page repeatedly for spam. Facebook deletes your page, and you have no way to access the content that was there. Now you're back to square one.
The same goes for blogging, if you are using a third-party site like WordPress.com rather than hosting your blog on your own domain with WordPress.org. So, if you are using Blogspot.com for your pet shop's blog -- even if you have it pointing to a domain -- Google could decide at any time that Blogger doesn't make them enough revenue and they then pull the plug. This happened recently with Yahoo! Geocities. Yes, Yahoo! gave people tons of warning, but I bet anything that many businesses were caught with their proverbial pants down.
You can certainly still use social media -- as Kipp said, it should all function as a hub -- but your CONTENT should be on your website, and your social networking sites should drive people to that content on your website. If you want to have a company blog, you have to host it on your own server. Otherwise, you're pretty much gambling.
Think of it this way: no one can kick you out of or decide what you can and can't do in your house (website), but your landlord can certainly kick you out of and tell you what you can and can't do in your apartment (Facebook/Blogger/Twitter/etc).
So, what you should be doing is writing great blog posts on http://yourwebsite.com/blog and posting the links on Facebook or Twitter. You can still post unique content to Facebook or Twitter, but you want to limit that so that people are coming to your website.
Just because social networking sites are free doesn't mean they're the best choice when it comes to building a digital home for your brand. (:
Not gonna say and will probably never say replace your website with social media but seriously if you have managed to go this long with out a site (for cost or other reasons) why bother? especially if cost is a concern.
I completely agree! I also know a few organizations that have gone strictly social, and it does affect their rep in my opinion.
Good post with some compelling reasons for a website. And I agree that credibility is #1 on the list.
No doubt the many small business owners need to prioritize, but the website has become a 'must have' business asset.
It's sad that there is actually a lot of people without a personal website.
Great post! To point three, I'd offer that the flip side of freedom is responsibility. A concrete example that's going to become very real for small business owners in the near future is that the sites they built in Dreamweaver, which are fine when viewed on a computer in IE or Firefox, are going to look funny and maybe even not work on mobile, tablet devices, and other platforms. Facebook is going to look and work great, 'cause they've got the bucks to write the code. So will Blogger, Google sites, YouTube, etc. We're coming up on some serious platform fragmentation and having some content syndicated on third-party platforms could help soften the blow for small businesses.
The businesses mentioned in the WSJ article were more like kitchen table start ups than traditionally funded start ups. I would consider these the equivalent of businesses that used to start by selling their merchandise at craft fairs or farmers markets.
It's important for all businesses to be online. For these very small start ups, social media provides them an online presence without the monetary or time costs of creating and maintaining a traditional website.
Once the business is making money, they can expand into a website property, just like they move their business from the kitchen table to a traditonal office or warehouse. With the current economic climate, this is a thrifty business option.
I wrote this a while back "Real company - no website - Hearsay goes all Facebook"
http://www.walteradamson.com/2011/02/real-company-no-website-hearsay-goes-all-facebook.html
Walter @adamson
Thanks for putting up this article. This is very much required on a mass awareness platform, because clients (not only small but even big clients) are getting carried away with the social media buzz and mistaking it to be the core of everything they do onine. People use social networking sites to network, to socialize. Your presence here has to be tactful and relevant. It simply cannot be the only thing you can do on the web. You will get users to like you once and post complains, et al..
Great article. Social media is no replacement for a website.
The biggest reason the WSJ stated against a website is to save money upfront. However, in this day and age, that's no excuse --- teach yourself to do it, convince a friend to help you, or trade services with a friend or acquaintance…..it doesn’t need to cost you a lot of money, yet can still look professional.
What about examples? Can anyone think of companies that only use social media?
I don't really agree with all of this. I think that it is different from business to business. I think it is most important for organizations to have a web presence but it doesn't necessarily have to be a website. I've worked with small local bakery in Northwest Ohio to develop a Facebook page for them. In less than a week they had over 500 followers. They do not have a web page.
I don't think that having a webpage will make or break your business (especially if you are in a small town). You mentioned that it hurts the creditability of an organization to not have a site, but obviously this was not the case for the bakery.
I think that as businesses grow, they should consider having a webpage but it is not essential to have one off the start. Depending on the organization and the market you are trying to reach, a business should consider what is the best option for them.
Also you mentioned Analytics. This is a weak point in your article. With a Facebook page you have "insights" that give you demographic and geographic data about your users. Using this data, you can quickly find out who your supporters are. Also with tools like Hootsuite (free up to 5 social networks), you can pull data and create reports. For Twitter you can use tools like Klout to determine your impact on Twitter.
Lastly, the average small business owner is not a web designer and cannot handle the tasks of logging into webpages and changing code. Nevertheless, they would have to contract another person to manage their site for them, which results in additional costs above and beyond the original website. I'm sorry, but I'm an advocate for small businesses and I know that many of them do not have a lot of money when starting-up.
Using only social media is not stupid, it just needs to be evaluated like any marketing strategy before implemented by a business.
Indeed, the "silver bullet" is the integration of the website, blog, online marketing initiatives and social media. It isn't one of these elements it is the cumulative impact from all. Think integration.
Mark Burgess
@mnburgess
I hear this question in my Virtual Assistance business all the time. The general public are using Facebook and YouTube to search and this trend is growing. So my clients are questioning the value of having (what they see as) a complicated web site vs a simple to manage Facebook page.
My response is always - Facebook and YouTube are marketing tools just like newspaper advertising. The goal is to drive potential customers to your business asset - your website. if you have a Bricks and Mortar business then your website can either be another step in the sales funnel or it can be a "branch office". Either way, it is a business asset. Your Facebook page, YouTube channel, Twitter account or LinkedIn profile are not, they are marketing tools. Period.
I agree with the post. Also is a risk to have your business only with social media when the service you used was only a fad.
I hope everyone follows this sage advice.
I have run into so many non-profit animal rescues who use only Facebook as a means to connect with people, and it's mindboggling.
The most important thing for me, I think, is Credibility. If an organization doesn't have a web site and relies only on Facebook, it makes me go Hmmm.
A website is a business's virtual house and social media are paths leading to the front door. Just that simple.
We typically find small and medium business owners using Facebook as a stand alone message center just haven't acquired the knowledge base they need to understand the Internet as a whole. Also, these businesses tend to reach a small and limited market, a specific geographical area and don't think a full on Internet presence will benefit them.
Knowledge is everything and those small businesses tend to read the latest "Guru" who is really taking about national and multi-national corporations and he thinks he can do the same marketing locally and it just doesn't work.
Great article.
Excellent post Jason, and couldn't agree with you more.
Even though I think most businesses don't use social media solely and independent of a website, I do believe many businesses are choosing social media, i.e. FB, as a primary means of their traffic, ignoring their website in many cases.
Dan
Sorry, I meant Kipp :)
Dan