Martha Bennett
Many fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)
companies and/or individual brand managers continue to labor under the
misconception that each brand should have its own Web site. This has resulted in
a plethora of sites whose purpose is at best doubtful and at worst, casts the
wrong light on either the brand or the parent company.
To be fair, many organizations have realized that it is not a positive
reflection on their image to be associated with sites that are out-of-date,
confusing, out of line with corporate image, or which experience technical
problems.
"How can we improve these sites quickly and most cheaply" is
usually the question that is asked as a result of this realization. Yet, this is
not the most effective approach to the issue; rather, the first question that
should be asked is "Does this brand needs its own Web site at all?"
Be it any product – there are plenty of brands desperately trying to keep
consumers interested in Web sites devoted exclusively to them. But then, they
mostly fail in this endeavor. Why should a consumer keep coming back to a Web
site dedicated to, for instance, shampoo or gardening tools once their initial
question has been answered, or they have identified the product that is of
interest to them?
Popular ways to address this conundrum is to provide content, ranging from
brief news items to lengthy question and answer sections on specific topics. Or
else to engage the consumer through providing interactive features (e.g. making
them vote on how to continue the story line in a soap opera" or maintaining
a chatroom) or running competitions and online games.
All of this can be done with a reasonable amount of success. One should
ensure that the site remains topical and is competitive. Companies also need to
invest sums that quickly exceed what most are willing (or indeed able) to spend.
In many cases, brand Web sites find themselves in head-on competition with news
sites, or content sites dedicated to a particular sport, or a rival brand with
deeper pockets. It is easy to see how maintaining individual brand Web sites may
not be the most effective way of allocating enterprise resources.
In order to ensure more efficient use of resources and to minimize the risk
of damaging the reputation of a brand (or indeed an entire company), companies
need to examine the validity of the concept. The concept should have dedicated,
permanent Web sites for individual brands and analyze how best a brand can be
leveraged online. It is also important for organizations to ensure that the
online and the offline worlds are in accord – and if they are not, then this
is a conscious decision, not an accident.
This examination and decision process in turn has major implications for many
companies’ structure and corporate governance. The proliferation of Web sites,
with varying levels of consistency in corporate branding and design, is
frequently a symptom and not the underlying disease.
The real issue is the way in which many FMCG companies are structured, which
gives individual brand managers not only high levels of responsibility, but also
autonomy. Without addressing the way in which these "brand silos"
relate to the corporate center and without re-addressing the (always delicate)
balance between central decision making and local execution, companies are
unlikely to arrive at an effective, coherent online strategy at an acceptable
price point.
At the moment, there are too many web sites dedicated to individual brands,
which have neither a clear purpose nor do they reflect well on the company that
owns them. They are often badly designed, out of date, confusing to the consumer
and inconsistent with the overall corporate image. The majority of these sites
lack the level of consumer acceptance that would justify their existence and the
investment needed to turn all of these sites into compelling offerings far
exceeds the resources available.
Rather than trying to figure out ways to keep all of these sites going, brand
owners should establish a clear set of criteria to support the decision-making
process and then examine whether there is a strong case for maintaining a permanent
Web site dedicated to an individual brand. In many cases, the answer is
likely to be "not really."
There are a variety of potential alternatives that can be explored, all of
which are less of a drain on resources than maintaining dedicated sites. Here
are a few examples:
- Micro-sites associated with specific advertising campaigns, events
(sporting events, gift-giving occasions, etc) or product launches - Sponsorship of other sites that are dedicated to a specific sport, event
or topic - Association with an online store that goes beyond simply renting some
advertising space - Use of other media (such as short message service (SMS) and/or e-mail),
where the online link is provided through pages on the corporate Web site
In addition, there needs to be greater coherence between individual brands
and corporate owners. For instance, at the very least, information on (and where
appropriate links to) individual brands should be available on a corporate site.
Similarly, individual brand sites should provide links back to the corporation,
and ideally also to other brands in the stable. Companies could also do more to
leverage resources and ensure that there are certain minimum criteria to be met
by individual brand initiatives, to ensure that no single brand lets down the
whole stable.
This of course does not mean that brands should give up their own identity
– but in many cases, they could usefully give up their own Web site
development teams, for instance. How the balance between central control and
local initiatives works out will depend on existing corporate structures and
governance mechanisms. In many cases, tough decision-making processes will have
to be undertaken, in particular if existing brand owner "fiefdoms" are
not willing to concede any ground.