by NoDecafHere » July 13th, 2012, 11:46 am
Yes, Facebook is the largest and most well-known social media/networking/sharing-capable site. However, it's just another tool.
When approaching any online social/sharing platforms for marketing, you need to ask yourself 1) where is your audience spending time, and 2) how does each platform benefit your needs. As you answer these questions, keep one thing in mind: it's not necessary to have a presence on every social media site. As a matter of fact, I suggest limiting your social presence to no more than three platforms (there are always exceptions, but I think this is a good guideline). So instead of analyzing every platform, I'll just throw my thoughts out there and let everyone take them or leave them.
In my opinion, if you want to go the route of ditching traditional websites, all you need is Facebook and Twitter (*** your audience is comfortable with, and willing to be on social media...and by extension, Facebook in particular). I'll throw in LinkedIn as well since its the standard for professional networking, but I'm not convinced even that platform is necessary.
Let me say that I've never understood why organizations have both an involved, traditional web site as well as a Facebook page. What a lot of people don't notice (or don't care about) is that a Facebook page does everything a regular website does (blogging, news, images) but with a strong social/conversational component. That's extremely valuable. And with new features such as timeline and the large banner image, Facebook can be a powerful landing spot for a business or other endeavor. The only downside to choosing Facebook over a traditional website (that I've read about) is that if Facebook went under or drastically changed it's policies for the worse, you would have to move your main web presence to another location. That might not be an issue if you properly handled the marketing in the weeks and months leading up to that change. Otherwise, I think Facebook as the primary web presence is a gutsy but powerful move. Twitter is great for short updates, and it integrates well with Facebook. And they both have solid mobile apps. And let's face it, within the next decade, mobile will be the norm across the board. If done correctly, a business could really engage with their audience, and establish themselves as an industry ***, using a Facebook/Twitter combo presence.
Why do I not mention sites like Foursquare, Flickr, etc? Because the primary selling points for these platforms are already integrated into Facebook and Twitter (ex. check-ins, photo sharing, etc). These other secondary platforms are just that, secondary. All they'll do is water down a brand presence. You could argue that a site like Pinterest is valuable, and I actually think it is but only for specific professions such as a photographer or freelance chef. It's one of the only sites that offers a value that Facebook doesn't quite provide, at least in that way. So for arguments sake, I would be willing to alter my opinion to say that a Pinterest/Twitter combo, or even the Facebook/Twitter/Pinterest trifecta could work as well.
Since I know you're probably wondering what I use, I'll admit that I don't have a Facebook brand page for my professional work. I use a WordPress blog-folio, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Why? Because my blog-folio allows me to incorporate actual web pages that use long-form writing, along with a functioning blog; I have yet to see Facebook provide a way to effectively include a feature for long-form writing.
So let's dig into this discussion and really pull out additional benefits and negatives to using a social-only web presence for brands of any kind. What do others have to say?