Is Facebook Killing Off The Company Website?

Cogent, compelling post on an important topic, Jeff.

I agree very much with you here, “Facebook is a great channel to engage with your fans and drive traffic to your official websites and blog but don’t get caught up in the hype and ignore your other online properties” and Richard here, “You still need a website, at the end of the day it’s your home base, where all your products and services are on display, all your Customer support options are here.”

It is important to remember that not everyone has bought into the Facebook hype and simply does not like its interface or its arrogance. Marketing only to Facebook land is ill-advised.
Additionally, many workplaces still block Facebook. If people can’t immediately can’t immediately access your content at work, it is highly unlikely that they will wait until they get home to do so and email your details back to themselves at work. Never, ever post key material only on Facebook. Make sure it is available in several venues.

Moreover, do you really want to surrender the many options for personalization, innovation, experimentation and buzz (not to mention, the pure aesthetic pleasure and just plain fun of a well-designed Web site) that Web sites facilitate in favor of the all your eggs in the Facebook basket gamble? I spend hours on the Web and basically if I have to go into Facebook to look at something, I bag the whole idea and move on to the next link in Google. Facebook is a time sink and when I see a link to it, I am outta there and on to a good old Web site.

And do really want to give surrender your data and brand identity and company (or even personal) reputation to Facebook alone? Looking at it from a risk management standpoint, I say, “Noooooooooo way–uh uh. Count me out.”

Agree with your overall approach. There are however some companies that have made a thinking decision to go all Facebook, after weighing up pros and cons. See my post Real company – no website – Hearsay goes all Facebook http://www.walteradamson.com/2011/02/real-company-no-website-hearsay-goes-all-facebook.html

For them it works, For others it may not. It is not wrong for them it is a choice – a decision between options.

Walter @adamson
http://xeesm.com/walter

I definitely believe that companies should have a presence on Facebook but in no way should that replace the corporate website. As you mentioned throughout this article companies seem to be getting too caught up in the whole social media space and the buzz around sites like Facebook and Twitter has got them rethinking their online presence.

Social media sites are great additional channels which can be used in conjuction with your corporate website, but just because traffic is decreasing does not mean you should abandon your ‘home’. In addition what about the possiblites of sites like Facebook dissappearing or being replaced by something new that comes along in the next ten or so years? The point here is lack of control.

Like you mentioned – with a website or blog you “own” the domain and have full control to be able to adapt to the rapidly changing online world. If certain changes come about then you have the ability to stay up to date and adapt to whats current – whereas if your main presence is on Facebook (a platform owned entirely by another company) then you will not have the ability to facilitate changes.

This is an interesting topic but I am of the opinion that your corporate website should still be your main online presence and that these new social sites should be ‘add-ons’ that work together to increase reach and awareness.

Interesting comments. I tend to agree with Adam, why turn over your brand to something you don’t own or control. Also as mentioned most people never revisit, so what do you gain, a mythical following?

Use all available mediums, rely solely on none to drive your business.

Wayne Spivak
SBA * Consulting LTD
http://www.sbaconsulting.com

I call my blog’s Facebook page my town’s party block!

Facebook cannot be the end all be all of a business plan, but I see so many people treating it like that because some so-called social media expert has come along and told them that!

Great article. I have shared it on Twitter and Facebook because it’s really important information for business people.

Riding the Facebook wave is obviously very shrewd but to do so at the expense of the company website (‘Mother Ship’) would be a short-sighted move indeed.

Oh Please!!! It’s not that companies have Facebook Pages, or any other Social networking sites, it’s what they put on it!! This is no longer a “push” media – it’s a “pull” media. Start LISTENING instead of telling.

One factor that shouldn’t be ignored is the COST. For a business to hire an agency, or a graphic designer and/or a web developer to build their official website can cost thousands and thousands of dollars. Whereas if a business wants a FB page they can just have an employee set it up in a few hours. And even if they hire a designer to build it the cost is hundreds. Easy decision for most businesses.

If Rupert Murdoch had any sense he would fire any news person who muttered the word Face book or Twitter.

Yes, I admit it. I am a news junky. I watch CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC and so on. No matter which show (yes I said show, only NBC Nightly News qualifies as a newscast) I am watching, the talent will mention Twitter or Face book without fail. You can set your watch by this, and even more so on local news channels.

Neither of these social time sucking applications would have grown as fast in popularity if print and cable would have remained silent.

Yet every day I hear the newscasters repeating the mantra; “Visit our Face book page or follow us on Twitter. Tweet us at twitter/ bonehead-does-not-know-any-better.”
The Weakening of Websites

Every time newscasters say Face book or Twitter, they are unwittingly weakening the search engine rankings of their primary news website because they are lessening the clicks and visits to their news website. I would suggest that instead of slowly killing their websites they might as well shut them down.

More importantly, newscasters are providing FREE advertising to these social time sucking Internet competitors. If you monetized the mentioning of Twitter and Face book across television networks and cable channels, it would amount to billions of dollars in lost advertising revenue each year.

If you doubt that large websites advertise on television, then consider the millions of ad dollars spent by Yellow Pages, Bing (Microsofts’ Internet search engine), Service Magic, Angie’s List, Constant Contact and many others.
Take a Stand and Stop the Madness

I can completely understand when a news story must mention Face book as it pertains to an actual news story. However, if I were a major stock holder in any of these networks, I would be screaming for casual mentioning of social sites to stop. Could you imagine the national buzz it would create if a major media outlet took the lead and announced they would no longer mention Face book or Twitter? I honestly might follow that particular newscast for taking a stand for common sense.

Now that’s free advertising!

No one talks about the downside and there is a HUGE one. Our website is http://www.WindyCityParrot.com. we have a FaceBook fan page named WindyCityParrot.com The term WindyCityParrot.com has been banned from FaceBook as abusive. Dozens (hundreds) of emails have been ignored. ads resolving to our website are disapproved. If we relied on Facebook we’d be broke as no one can seem to fix this and if you read the emails from Facebook responding to our queries – they don’t care

Facebook is just the current trend right now, so it makes sense for everyone to send their outgoing links on their advertising there because that is the current state of the internet union.

Interesting points have been covered helping squeezing FaceBook features.
In my opinion FB in “most of the cases” is helpful only for consumer durable items, fun and multimedia websites as they get latest updates.
Industrial brands still depends on search engine queries.

Correct me if I am wrong on it.

Totally right! I see Facebook as a major traffic BUS to your site or to any place you really want.. Like if you run a PPC campaing on Google you need to have a website.

Richard Golebiowski That’s actually true. There are a few sites where you can buy “likes” for your Facebook page as well, Everyone knows that you can also buy followers for your Twitter account.

When I talk to any new clients the first thing they ask me is the number of followers or likes that I will be able to provide?!  The second questions is how long before I can have1000+ followers/likes??!

People have the wrong concept on how Social Media works.. Websites are and always be needed as long as we have a way to access them.

that  is your opinion , for you to make the things were you can analyze what is good to have.

Has the impact of mobile browsing & app usage been taken into account in this study? Surely they would be contributing to the decline in traditional website traffic as much as Facebook. Additionally, any brand that cannibalizes their web traffic by overdoing Facebook, only has themselves to blame.