Re: URL Structures in Advertising?

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Thu 24 Jan 2002 09:06:02 -0500

Steve NeSmith <nesmithegroup_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

>My organization is debating what type of URL structure
>to put in place on our large web network. I work for
>LifeWay, a large publishing comapany with many strong
>subbrands. In an effort to build the corporate brand,
>we have shut down the promotion of any/all individual
>product URLs, and instead all subbrands must advertise
>their URL as http://www.lifeway.com/subbrand/. Ive
>proposed that we implement a new URL structure of
>http://subbrand.lifeway.com. My boss says that this
>will water down our corporate brand. Ive told him that
>this URL structure has become a common practice (ie.
>MSN.com, Yahoo.com, etc.) but he says I have to "prove"
>that it is a better way to go, with supporting data,
>articles, etc. Can anyone point me to any supporting
>data that demonstrates that, from a marketing/advertising
>perspective my recommendation is strong? Or am I way
>off?

I am not familiar with any research which supports going
either way. My personal reaction is to adopt the plan
proposed by the boss because I think more lay people
are familiar with that method of dong things from the ads
they see on TV (eg., www.sony.com/badmovie).

Secondly, the parent brand gets more play and is more
likely to be remembered - at least getting people to your
web site. Once there, site navigation tools or a search
option can help them find the product they want.

Lastly, try to get a discussion going about parent brand
versus product brand advertising. Publishing brands
seem to work best if the materials offered are how to
manuals such as computer books and such. It may
work in the Christian publishing arena, but always
remember that people don't buy the parent brand,
they buy the product or service.

Parent brand promotion may have some value in
moving a stock price, but moves little product.

John Gaskill
jg_at_Info-Central-USA.com
http://Info-Central-USA.com





Received on Thu Jan 24 2002 - 08:06:02 CST