NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Differentiation/revenue via community/brand
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Differentiation/revenue via community/brand
Brian Sarrazin (sarrazin_at_earthlink.net)
Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:21:54 -0500 (CDT)
This is a point-by-point response to Lauren Guzak's rebuttal
of my initial post. Based on Lauren's comments, I think I
should clarify my post's scope.
I presented an answer for questions like these:
How does a site compete against similar sites? How can a
site create a sustainable competitive advantage that doesn't
exist in the real world?
Obviously, there are sites that needn't concern themselves
with standalone success. My post does not speak to sites
such as the 3Com example Lauren cites. Interestingly, it
does speak to sites like "Ask Jeeves."
LAUREN GUZAK WROTE:
>I violently disagree with many of Brian's assumptions about
>community and branding on the web. It's a highly naive --
>and all too common -- perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No need to get violent, Lauren. It's encouraging to know
that at least one of us does not espouse "highly naive" or
"all too common" views. Still, let's have a look under the
hood of your arguments:
YOU WROTE:
>Site directors don't necessarily want people to stay longer.
>It depends on the business model. In fact, I would argue
>that the most successful site directors and managers will
>decide to serve their customers with fast, easy, and
>convenient services or transactions. This means a customer
>goes to your site, finds what they're after (e.g.,
>information, products, whatever), and logs off in a matter
>of minutes. Is there anything more intoxifying than the
>speed, convenience, and accuracy of a successful online
>jaunt for something specific???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course we must consider the business model. I propose
that when the business model requires long-term
profitability, most site directors would appreciate the
opportunity to do some additional selling before their
prospects dash off. In the example you cite, there would be
no opportunity for such add-on sales or co-marketing
arrangements. And yes, I can think of something more
*intoxicating*: that of finding a product or service that I
hadn't known existed, one that really helps me.
THEN YOU WROTE:
>I couldn't disagree more. The web doesn't limit the ability
>of individuals or corporations to differentiate themselves
>-- it presents them with infinite possibilities to do so!
>Let's face it: Crap proliferates in _every_ media. Paper and
>television have their limitations too (ink, TV monitors),
>but it's still infinitely possible to be unique, inspiring,
>revolutionary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree that the possibilities to differentiate per se are
limitless. Apologies for not making this fine point sharp
enough: In terms of sustainable competitive advantage,
differentiation must (and I'll quote someone I hope you
won't consider a schmoe: UC Berkeley's David A. Aaker from
his book "Strategic Market Management"): "... be real,
meaningful, and sustainable over time. If it is modest in
size or is easily matched or countered, then it is unlikely
that an effective SCA [sustainable competitive advantage]
will exist." It is this "easily matched or countered" aspect
that makes the Web a difficult place to *effectively*
differentiate.
It's significant that you mention "unique, inspiring,
revolutionary" because these are elements more properly
considered in discussions of *brand* and which I consider to
be very important to development of a sustainable
competitive advantage *on* the Web.
THEN YOU WROTE:
>Why is it that people don't consider the web a part of the
>real world? What's not unreal about it? Is TV more real? I
>don't understand this perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The television is a passive medium, while the Web involves
the market in ways that, increasingly, approximate 3D life,
thus the virtual/real distinction. If you view the Web only
as an alternative for print or TV, it's no wonder you didn't
understand this perspective.
THEN YOU WROTE:
>Re branding: A site might be a brand in and of itself, or it
>might be a part of a brand. There are incredible branding
>opportunities on the web, but there's no reason that a site
>can't be an integral part of an overall brand (go to
>www.palm.com, a site that I recently managed for a good
>example. It integrates well into the overall branding
>efforts of the company -- from print to television).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree. A limited site could serve merely to extend real
world branding efforts.
As I stated above, the questions my post attempts to answer
are, How does a site compete against similar sites? or, How
can a site create a sustainable competitive advantage that
doesn't exist in the real world? Your Palm Pilot site
example may provide a clue to your misunderstanding, because
I can't imagine the director (formerly you) of the 3Com Palm
Computing support site needing to consider such questions,
not yet anyway.
Do you have the luxury of ignoring the issues I'm raising
over at "Ask Jeeves" too? What is your sustainable
competitive advantage there?
THEN YOU WROTE:
>I've seen countless executives fall prey to this word. If a
>vendor is lucky enough to nail down your VP or President for
>a meeting, all they need to do is mention community and the
>exec's eyes are sure to light up. It's the most predictable
>method of immediate PO generation I know of.
>
>Anyway, I've personally been involved (against my vehement
>objections, I might add) in dozens of online community
>building projects and events. Whether it's VRML worlds or
>celebrity chats, they've all been incredible flops.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are those vehement objections? I can easily believe
that a VRML world flopped! Emphasis on the technology is an
easy way to get into trouble. It's easy to forget that we
must focus on what the technology *can do.*
THEN YOU WROTE:
>Of course there are myriad successful, community-oriented
>sites and activities online. But it's not the secret to
>success on the web -- it's more likely to be a costly
>sidetrack.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I strongly believe that community/brand is the secret to
success *on* the Web, but I agree with you, Lauren, that it
is not the secret to success *with* the Web (as an extension
of the real world that needn't stand on its own).
THEN YOU WROTE:
>I don't know what you mean by "products that help build and
>identify community"... developing and selling chat clients?
>VRML browsers? ; )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seriously? I think it's quite clear, please reread.
THEN YOU WROTE:
>I don't know many people who really want to sit around and
>talk with others at CDNow or Borders. (I'd be interested in
>any research on this subject -- anyone out there have some
>insight?) I might want to read reviews of products before I
>buy, but I'm not going to trust the advice of any schmoe. I
>want expert recommendations, not chit-chat with
>Jimmy_at_hotmail.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good for you. Most of us -- and our target markets -- are
most influenced by recommendations from people they believe
are like themselves. This is the very essence of brand and
of community.
I ask again:
- Are brands an abstraction of community?
- Can interaction among site visitors/members produce
revenue?
- Is this all painfully obvious?
- If so, why isn't everyone doing it?
Best regards,
Brian Sarrazin
Vice president, sales & marketing
Media In Motion
http://www.mediainmotion.com http://www.snapsite.com
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
Internet.com, Mind The Store and ValueClick
Internet.com Delivers The Internet Professionals You're Looking For!
Over a million unique users, 75% have purchased online this past year.
Target your message to them, http://www.internet.com/mediakit/find.html
---
ClickToBuy is an advanced e-commerce technology allowing Advertisers to
sell products directly from their banners or images. Call Michael Tingle
at 800-254-9992 or visit http://www.hotflyers.com/demo for more info
---
ValueClick can guarantee you instant revenue on 100% of your ad space
Stop in and see us on Oct27 at the Momentum Awards at _at_d:Tech in NY
ValueClick Ad Network | 805.965.0543 | http://www.valueclick.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
