Interesting article from
popimedia:
Why is social media such a real and viable alternative? 1. You won't lose your brand identity and audience engagement You spend significant corporate energy on positive brand perception and awareness. And then you start over completely from scratch with an entirely new brand or product. Why? If you are reaching an entirely different audience and your current brand would be confusing, then you may in fact want to build out a new brand, however, in that case, you probably won't be launching a microsite, you'll launch a full site.
In most cases, microsites are subsets of, or promotions for the main site, with exactly the same audience. Do you really want to work at building up multiple brand identities? And do you really not want to benefit from the brand building in one category for another related category?
2. You won't lose the ability to leverage your audience By way of example, you launch an awesome site with a fantastic user experience, great products, and unrivaled customer support. Someone writes up a positive article about you in say, the Business Times. Readers start clicking over to your site. They see you sell running shoes. They just read about how great you are, so they feel confident about purchasing some products from your site. But maybe those same readers also need some clothes to go running in. If you had a separate runningclothes.com microsite, you've just missed a great opportunity to reach a targeted and motivated audience.
3. You won't have to double your resources The microsite will use the same template and content management system. So it seems like a low overhead to maintain it . But wait, as you build out the content of both sites, you have to decide which content to put where and decide how to spend marketing, PR and advertising resources. When you issue a press release, which site do you talk up? All of them? What if you have 20? And you are likely doing social media too. Do you now maintain 20 Facebook pages and 20 Twitter accounts?
If you have built the microsite specifically for an advertising campaign, what happens when the campaign is over? Do you maintain the site? Abandon it? Take it down? This question gets more complicated if the microsite included a social networking element. You've gotten your audience engaged... oh now you need to dump them.
4. You can keep your consumer (and fans) engaged for the long termThe rise of the microsite has left a great big graveyard of micro sites in its wake. Many filled with brilliant content, discarded as campaigns come to an end. The beauty of social media as a platform is that you have a springboard for future campaigns that does not require any media spend, you have a ready made audience who have interacted with your brand in the past.
Most of the functionality that we see in micro sites can be built into a Facebook page where once you have an interaction it is likely that you will acquire a new fan who is not just a fan of your new campaign but a fan for the long term if you treat them well, and if you do it right, that fan will bring with them their own network of friends.
And as for video - rather than let it fall into a big black hole why not house it within your Facebook Page. This way your fans can access it whenever they need it and your messages keep spreading rather than just being campaign based.
Social media is changing how we market. Creating long term content hubs through social media using interactivity as a point of initiation, is a real and viable alternative - and also happens to tell the consumer "everything they need to know". Only it is not as capital intensive as a micro site and can last in perpetuity!
Which route would you want to follow as a brand with a view of keeping fans engaged in the long term?
