Something Is Wrong with the Internet
Introduction: This article is somewhat UK-centric. I make no apology for this, it's simply that it's where most of my experience lies. In addition, I'm not going to 'name-and-shame' any sites that I don't think are up to scratch. Not right now, anyhow. However, that doesn't mean that I think the sites I do mention are 'Best in Class' examples by any rate, but they all do at least something right. OK, with all that said...
I realized recently, that something was wrong with the internet.
Specifically, that there's a certain number of sites that leave the visitor feeling slightly confused; it's often just a subliminal, unvoiced feeling of discontent with a site, but enough to prevent them from returning. Before I begin, I'm going to make a grand, sweeping statement which you may well disagree with, but that I'll hopefully provide evidence to support.
There are only three types of website, and good sites fall into one, or possibly two, of these categories. Sites that try and sit in all three, or sit in one category but think they sit elsewhere, will rarely achieve success.
Phew! Do you disagree with my oversimplification yet? Wait until I tell you what the three types are.
1 - Shops They sell stuff online. People visit the site, and buy things. The site makes money out of being a retailer or service provider. Amazon, Netflix and Flickr are all examples.
2 - Support Websites They support an off-line business, by marketing the company online, or by providing additional benefits online for the business' customers. Examples of sites that market their business would be McDonalds and Ernst & Young. Sites that offer additional information include Virgin Radio, and New Scientist.
3 - Audience Builders These websites provide entertainment or a useful service for free. These attractions draw an audience, and the site makes revenue from selling advertising space to companies who wish to target those visitors. Examples include Google, Facebook, Lifehacker, Huffington Post
We have limited ourselves to considering sites that have a commercial aspect - ie: they do intend to contribute to a profitable company. This restriction actually only disregards a small number of websites, such as those set up by a group for their own convenience (eg: a WoW guild homepage) or a site under the support of a generous benefactor. If a website is both entertaining and ad-free, this doesn't mean that it is not one of the 'three types' - Photoshop Express looks like a great tool, but the site's purpose is to encourage you to buy the company's flagship product - providing a great online application is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Mix and Match Can Be Tasty
I've mentioned sites that fall firmly into one category, but it is worth considering sites that successfully straddle two of these groups:
Sainsburys - the supermarket's website allows you to find out the opening times and location of your nearest store, as well as its current offers (Type 2) or allows you to do your shopping online (Type 1).
Channel4 - the UK broadcaster's website provides details of what's on its channels, and extra material for people who've just watched one of its shows (Type 2.) However, it also provides a wealth of information and entertainment that you neither need to have watched the channel to make use of, or feel compelled to watch afterwards. The site does carry adverts, and can also be classed as Type 3.
I've struggled to think of a successful site that combines being an online shop, with carrying adverts - and I'm happy to take suggestions from anyone who can provide an example. However, the difficulty in trying to list successful sites in that genre-combo, compared with the wealth of sites that sit neatly into one of the categories, suggests that trying to make your site 'all-things-to-all-people' is a task that has to be approached with a great deal of care, and that the best solution may be to back away from the idea altogether.
My Own Mistakes
By way of example - not so long ago, I worked for a magazine - whose audience was mainly middle class, well educated, and 40 years plus. The magazine had a fairly low circulation, and a website that contained just a couple of pages - only enough to persuade people to buy the magazine; it was firmly Type 2. Overtime, they improved their offering to carry more information that supplemented features from the magazine - maintaining the Type 2 foundation of the site, and also increasing the number of visitors considerably. However, although the magazine's readership was increasing, it was still losing a considerable amount of money, and the publishing company owners suggested that enough was, indeed, enough. To try and prove that the magazine could make money from non-traditional methods (their only existing revenue was from advertising sales), they created new sections of the site that used affiliate services to sell books, holidays, etc to the visitors. The concept was that visitors trusted the magazine's brand, and would trust them in their new place as a shop. However, the website was starting to look like Type 1, and it was not selling magazines. When visitors were on the website, they may well have been interested in the products being offered, but like most savvy internet users, they will have shopped around (probably just by typing a product name into Google) and found that they could find similar products elsewhere.
The magazine was great at getting attractive photos in glossy print onto your coffee table, but it sucked at being a doorway into affiliate schemes. The need for income did not abate, and adverts were introduced to the site as well. The site was now Type 1, 2 and 3. Although the affiliate shopping pages had been carefully integrated to be consistent with the rest of the site, and the adverts were non-invasive (text only, no flash popups, and content targeted), the site did feel less like the sharp marketing tool it had once been, and had inched its way into becoming a plea for visitors to part with cash, no less desperate than an airport departure lounge. The time was clearly approaching for a fundamental rethink of the site's contents, but the free market took its course and the magazine - website and all - closed down.
This is an example of a website that lost its way, and although I'm not suggesting that the site's changes had any influence on the magazine's outcome, an opportunity was missed to provide a more compelling sales pitch to first time visitors.
The Times They Are A-Changin'
Coming back to my previous quandary (is there an online shop that also carries adverts) I cam across some interesting offerings from a couple more old-media companies, that have an aspect of Type 1 and Type 3 in their substantially Type 3 websites. The New York Times would originally have been considered an online extension of it's newspaper, and thus a 'Type 2' style site. However, with the massive changes in the way people consume media online, the website managed to offer a limited amount of content for free (supported by advertising, Type 3) and offered extra content for paying subscribers - essentially adding a Type 1 income stream to the company. However, in late 2007 the paper eventually dropped the subscription model and now allows access to the full selection of content on the site for no cost. The paper now ends up with an online and an offline version of the brand, both ad supported. *(It's worth mentioning that print media is predominantly funded by advertising. The cover price does contribute, but doesn't provide the bulk revenue from each sale, by any stretch. Also interesting is that paper's websites could be making more than they already are.)
Another combination I found interesting was Today's Golfer , which apparently has an advert supported website, but also offers the occasional opportunity for you to part with a few pounds - with a tee-booking service for example. However, I suspect that the revenue contribution from the website is still small in comparison with the magazine itself, and thus I have still failed to find a successful online shop with adverts.
And why is that? A lot of common sense comes into it. Since many adverts are targeted to the content on the page, it's may be possible that your shop will be interspersed with adverts for competitors. Before you scoff that this is clearly a situation that webstore owners are unlikely to put themselves in: within the last week, I was on the site of web developer (so it is essentially a Type 2 site, selling his services) but it carried adverts - for web developers. (Would you see a taxi with an advert for another cab firm on the side? Would a business card printer give out cards with the Vista Print logo on them?) It felt like I was on a site that existed to build audience and make ad revenue, not a business site to compel me to become a client.
But There Were Lessons Learned
Perhaps the key is just to exercise a little awareness of your purpose. Be reflective and introspective. If you provide a useful tool, a must-read-blog or host a superb game, then by all means use adverts as a way to monetize your site. There are other ways of course, but you have a perfectly legitimate - and potentially highly successful - business model.
On the other hand, if your website is trying to promote a business, grow your customer base or offline audience, or otherwise exists to contribute to a business that exists beyond the site itself, then demonstrate some restraint when deciding if and how the website itself needs to be monetized. If there's any way that the site can be considered a marketing expense - and the correct budget will pay for it - then concentrate on letting it do its job.
If your site is an online business, then of course you won't be advertising your competitors (right?), but you may be able to create profitable partnerships with complementary companies, if you wish.
So, consider the long game, make the visitors pleased the came, and remember what you're in it for.
23.04.2008. 18:02
This story hasn't been commented yet.
Write a comment
* = required field