The exploding demand to monitor your presence on the Web
Steve Rubel writes in this post that the AP and other news (and other content) syndicators have found in Facebook a way to build identity for a service that has always been secondary to the publisher. I see a slightly different twist on AP’s investment in Facebook. For many the light is dawning: there is a gradual movement toward a Web presence that is not based on “one site,” but rather distributed content across many aggregators – sites that cater to specific audiences. Let the other sites do what it takes to create communities, then offer your goods and services there. As long as the platform supports all a customer needs to know or do, why do you need a site of your own? Search will instead direct prospects to your content, even to the perfect community to access that product or service if their search string is very specific. In a post on this topic by Paul Gillen, @pgillen, he says as much. “A person’s or brand’s online presence will increasingly be syndicated through a network of feeds that may find their home almost anywhere.” I commented that:
I am absolutely seeing the lack of importance in any one site if it’s pure “thought content” we are talking about. Seems obvious that The Siteless Web would not apply when it’s commerce or private/secure interaction (such as managing client account data) we are talking about, right? Small quantities of any product could be sold in a variety of sites, I suppose, but for any catalog of product, or an array of services for that matter, the “company site” will still be necessary, will it not? And will it not be search still that leads us to the hooks people and brands place in the many pools when we don’t know who to ask for a referral, or we want to compare options or offerings? On the one hand, this supports the rampant, even indiscriminate, distribution of “thought leadership” content across the Web. (Investment tip: server and storage companies will never see a declining market demand. Ever.) On the other, it raises the staffing demand in order to:
- Keep ahead of the list of new sites that attract appropriate audiences, and
- Tailor the content to each community so as to be perceived as sensitive to the interests and needs of each audience, and
- Monitor comments and feedback through each placement in all sites.
And what of metrics and measurement? Is it overly simplistic to see the industry reverting to the classic, monotheistic measurement of success: sales? Why would you rely on traffic tracking to continue publishing to a site if it only takes one reader to call and order to justify the time and talent invested in the posting to the site where they saw your post? The folks at Gomez and Hubspot aren’t going to like hearing that, but I wonder if the siteless Web frees marketers from having to be left-brained technologists and returns them to the creative side? Not that such a scenario is all roses for the aforementioned never-ending list of new social networks, bookmarking, photo, video, opinion sites and blogs. That volume is actually terrifying to visualize.
What this means to companies is a choice—should they staff this need themselves or turn to outside resources to create, monitor, even to engage in dialog with their audiences on the many platforms and in the many threads of conversation where they add relevance and have an opportunity to build trust?
SRD InterActive stands ready to assist no matter how that issue is decided. From the strategy development, to the resource identification, to the full production and ongoing support. Call or email to start that discussion.
I've been saying, "The Web is your site" for a while now. Seems like this idea is really gaining ground (or, really, expanding it's presence).
Matt, what do you think the new integration of Facebook into every possible site on the Web means to your maxim, "The Web is your site"?