by Peggy J. ParksIf there's one thing advertising professionals understand, it's media. We know the importance of using the right medium for our message, and we also know how powerful media can be. After all, we're in the business of helping clients figure out the best way to market their products or services. Choosing the right media is an integral part of what we do.
When it comes to understanding the WorldWide Web, however, most of us are still in the dark. Of course you'd never know it to look around, with all the new media "specialists" coming out of the woodwork, all claiming to be highly skilled at developing Web sites. But most of these so-called specialists are little more than new media pioneers and dabblers, learning the ropes as they go. And the proof is in the Web sites they've developed (or haven't developed).
In an Internet World article "Taking on TV," writer and Internet marketing specialist Robert Brueckner claims the biggest flaw in Web site development is that Web advertising is usually modeled after television. "Most people think about the Web in terms of a medium they already understand," Brueckner says, "and the medium they understand best is television." He says in many ways Web advertisers act like they're trying to compete with TV, and that's a huge mistake. Television and the WorldWide Web are very different kinds of media, and the same principles just don't apply.
According to Brueckner, there are four things television always does better than the Web: It provides us with the ability to watch moving pictures; it allows us to hear sound; it provides a source of passive entertainment; and it communicates commercials (even if we do find them annoying). One look at the Web's flashy graphics, Java animations, RealAudio sound and Shockwave confirms Brueckner's theory: No matter how creative Web site developers are, they're still doing whatever they can to copy TV. A futile practice because even "the crummiest TV show has better audio and video than the best Web site can hope to provide."
So what is the Web good at providing? Primarily information, and a wealth of it. Also communication, active (self-directed) entertainment, and personal choice. The Web audience is in a different frame of mind from a TV audience. They're actively looking to gain or discover something, which is why traditional in-your-face advertising methods aren't effective on the Web. And why traditional advertising rules don't apply.
Ironically, it's the differences between television and the Web that make the Web such an excellent opportunity for marketers. Unlike a passive TV watcher, our Web audience makes the choice to visit a site. By spending time learning to understand how this audience thinks and what they want, then developing a site that's rich with content they'll find appealing and relevant, a Web site can have a significant impact and will relate to our audience without being intrusive. Brueckner calls this relationship selling, and he says that the Web offers marketers millions of ways to lure customers and develop lasting relationships. The key is to really understand the audience and give them what they're looking for.
In order for advertising professionals to really become specialists in WorldWide Web development we have to realize that this is uncharted territory, and we don't understand a lot about it. We may be experts in every other kind of media but when it comes to the Web, our tried and true ways of doing things don't necessarily work. In other words, being successful in the field of new media is about a lot more than how creative and clever we are, or how many award-winning ad campaigns we've developed. It's about admitting that when it comes to the WorldWide Web, there's a whole lot that we still don't know. And a whole lot more that we need to learn.
July 1996 by Peggy J. Parks
The other day I visited the Web site of a well-known organization (sorry, can't mention names). I was glad to hear that these people had a site because I've known the Internet offered them tremendous potential. One glance at their home page, however, proved disappointing to say the least. Their site looked like something they had either thrown together on their own, or that someone had volunteered to do for free.
The home page featured boring graphics, and included a bunch of predictable rhetoric like "Our company is composed of A, B, and C, and our mission is D, blah blah blah blah...." Yawn. It droned on like that for awhile, and then hyperlinked to pages of more boring rhetoric. A few of the links they included were good, but unfortunately those were lost amongst the not-so-good. And the copy was a glaring flaw because it was written in the third person, and didn't talk directly to the visitor. If there was any strategy involved, I haven't a clue what it was. Overall, it was obvious there just wasn't much thought put into it. And what's really sad is that if I didn't know better, I'd think the company was as boring and uncreative as their Web site.
One more glowing opportunity down the drain. And one more company that just doesn't seem to get it.
In the last Ad Lib (Ad Club newspaper), Matt Thornhill talked about the Web being a brand new medium, with a whole new set of rules. It's interactive, a one-on-one medium, and the viewer has complete control over what sites to hang around and what sites not to come back to. In other words, just because you build it doesn't necessarily mean they will come. But if they do, it better be worth their while or you can bet they won't be back. And in the meantime they've formed a negative impression from what they've seen.
Before companies even start putting a site together, they need to spend time studying the Web to develop an understanding of what the best sites are and why they work. They also should read statistics on Web demographics and growth, and then develop a solid Internet strategy that fits into their corporate communications program. And they must be clear on what they want the site to do for them, as well as how they'll go about accomplishing their objectives and then measure results.
Since the home page is the first part of the site visitors see, it can make or break a company's online image. (First impressions do count here, as they do anywhere else.) It should be creative enough to grab visitors when they first click into it, but not go overboard with color and graphics that slow downloading to a snail's pace. It doesn't need to be overly complicated, but should be intriguing enough to grab and keep someone's attention. And contrary to popular opinion, the purpose of the home page isn't to tell everything there is to tell about a company, but rather to whet the visitor's appetite to dig further into the site. And then to come back later.
As with any form of communication it's important to remember the target audience. Who are they? What's relevant to them? Copy should talk to them on a personal level, and be creative without being too flowery. And the point the copy is making should be obvious to anyone reading it. In other words, visitors shouldn't have to try very hard to understand what the company is about, or what they're trying to say.
The hyperlinks included in a Web site are extremely important too, as they're one of the main features that keep visitors coming back--or that keep them from coming back. The best sites link to all kinds of relevant industry information, related companies, statistics, business and government sites, industry research and newsgroups, business articles, and just plenty of good, solid information people can use. Pulling all this together isn't as difficult as it is time consuming. But it's time that's extremely well spent.
I have to believe that the companies who've created such bad sites will come to their senses and have their sites re-done professionally. (Sooner, I hope, rather than later.) But in the meantime, unfortunately, there's far more garbage than treasure on the Web. The sites that are strategic, well thought out, creative, and professionally developed will win publicity, praise, and customers in the long run. And the others will continue to do what they're doing now: just keep fluttering out there in Cyberspace, accomplishing nothing. And doing the companies' image much more harm than good.
