Digital Marketing is dead: survival tips for what comes next (Part 1)

In the coming years, everything that we know about market­ing and advert­ising will be chal­lenged. New tech­no­lo­gies, changes in consumer beha­viour, and the rise of intel­li­gent personal assist­ants will make-​or-​break brands, organ­isa­tions, and marketers.

As prac­ti­tion­ers, we’ll need to change how we think, and start prepar­ing now. Here’s why.

There’s a technical revolution underway

Once upon a time, we built and managed websites simply by writ­ing HTML source code into a note­pad file and upload­ing our files to a server. In the hazy mists of 2003 – still the era of ‘webmas­ter’ – many of us were still using products like Microsoft Frontpage and Adobe Dreamweaver to directly edit the code and content of our websites.

But as the inter­net matured, busi­nesses deman­ded more flex­ib­il­ity and more soph­ist­ic­ated market­ing tools. To connect with and sell to consumers, websites, content and digital chan­nels needed to be easier for busi­nesses and marketers to use and manip­u­late.

So we intro­duced abstrac­tion into the process. We put systems and inter­me­di­ary layers in between us and the raw code. We moved content into data­bases so that people could edit pages in content manage­ment systems, without having to touch the under­ly­ing script. We broke our code into many small parts and built logic to determ­ine how differ­ent templates and scen­arios should behave for differ­ent requests and URLs – rather than main­tain­ing files for indi­vidual HTML pages.

This chan­ging approach made websites more complic­ated, and more soph­ist­ic­ated. The web pres­ence of many busi­nesses star­ted to become more react­ive and to better answer to the needs of consumers – support­ing dynamic content, accounts, person­al­isa­tion, and more diverse exper­i­ences. They star­ted to answer much more effect­ively to the demands of both busi­nesses and consumers.

But in many cases, it was too little, too late.

The rise of the app store

By the time 2008 arrived, the mobile app revolu­tion was well under­way. Mobile exper­i­ences offered a degree of person­al­isa­tion, fluid­ity and persist­ence which many websites had failed to achieve. They frequently offered better exper­i­ences than websites, because they knew who I was, saved my data, and offered designed-​for-​purpose exper­i­ences which normal websites struggled to compete with.

Native apps bypassed many of the devel­op­ment chal­lenges around cross-​browser support, respons­ive­ness, and inter­activ­ity which websites often struggled – and still struggle – with. Whilst web browsers were still clunky and hard to work with, apps allowed for designed-​for-​purpose exper­i­ences which just felt better.

Unsurprisingly, this meant that consumers flocked to, and frequently preferred the kinds of fluid exper­i­ences which apps delivered, whilst most websites felt increas­ingly unre­spons­ive and static in compar­ison.

jQuery to the rescue

So, it’s no surprise that, around the same time, JavaScript librar­ies like jQuery began to rise to prom­in­ence in the web devel­op­ment community. They offered a quick, easy, and power­ful way to over­come cross-​browser head­aches, and to add inter­activ­ity and anim­a­tion. This empowered even rookie developers to build func­tion­al­ity which felt more ‘app-​like’ than the kinds of static websites we were used to seeing at the time.

Hundreds of thou­sands of websites adop­ted jQuery and similar librar­ies in an attempt to try and level the play­ing field. Overnight, in the web 2.0 revolu­tion, the web became more inter­act­ive. The exper­i­ences and inter­activ­ity which we’d grown to expect from the app ecosys­tem became much more common­place.

Except, this power and flex­ib­il­ity came at a cost.

jQuery, and solu­tions like it, have to “bolt on” to websites to add func­tion­al­ity. It takes time and browser resources to load the library, and then more time to process and execute any JavaScript writ­ten on top of it. These kinds of librar­ies also typic­ally ship as a single, large file, which contains the entire library – so even if all I need is a simple func­tion (say, to be able to easily toggle the visib­il­ity of an element via a button click), I’ve still got to load the whole thing. That’s a lot of over­head.

So whilst using jQuery as a stick­ing plaster went some way to fixing the present­a­tion and inter­activ­ity of the web, it made the whole thing much slower. jQuery, in partic­u­lar, gained a repu­ta­tion for allow­ing rookie developers to make the web even worse and widened the quality/​experience distance between websites and the apps they were trying to compete with.

A new approach

It’s for this reason that many developers and organ­isa­tions went back to the draw­ing board, and developed new approaches – approaches designed to help build websites which behaved more like apps.

Google’s AngularJs (now simply ‘Angular’) and Facebook’s React frame­works – and more recently VueJS – rose to prom­in­ence in this revolu­tion.

These librar­ies and frame­works are the go-​to solu­tions for devel­op­ing the kinds of ‘single page apps’ which the SEO community is becom­ing increas­ingly famil­iar with. Their differ­ent approach to managing compon­ents, page and states makes them well-​suited to devel­op­ing ‘apps as websites’, rather than ‘websites which try to act like apps’.

So it’s no surprise that these frame­works power some of the world’s biggest and most success­ful websites – the likes of YouTube and PayPal (AngularJS), or Netflix, The New York Times and AirBNB (React).

And what’s notable about these websites, in partic­u­lar, is that they feel unar­gu­ably more like apps than websites. Where most websites are typic­ally either inform­a­tional (blogs, affil­i­ate sites and lead generation/​brochureware sites) or trans­ac­tional (ecom­merce sites), we can categor­ise these examples differ­ently – they’re plat­forms, not just websites. They’re destin­a­tions for consumers who want to browse, inter­act, update, and manage their exper­i­ences in a way which doesn’t exist on most websites.

Websites vs Platforms

This dysfunc­tion (where websites are frequently a bit naff, vs plat­forms, which are gener­ally where consumers want to be and what they want to exper­i­ence) is one of the biggest drivers behind the kinds of chan­ging consumer beha­viours, which we’re seeing more broadly through­out the industry.

Because, brands typic­ally build websites, and they exist to provide a specific func­tion. They have web pages where you can read content, and click on links. They give you the inform­a­tion you want, but only when you seek it out. They enable you to purchase the product or to make an enquiry. These are all singu­lar tasks, which the website is expli­citly designed to allow you to complete, on demand. Websites are where you go to do the thing. And, because of these kinds of inter­ac­tions are typic­ally static, trans­ac­tional things, websites rarely provide a fluid, dynamic, inter­act­ive, person­al­ised process.

The thing about these kinds of on-​demand, trans­ac­tional exper­i­ences is that they’re only inter­est­ing when I want the thing they offer (or if I can be convinced that I want it). If I’m not inter­ested, there’s no incent­ive to visit and consume.

With plat­forms, I visit to discover, without neces­sar­ily having a specific agenda in mind. That’s a very differ­ent type of exper­i­ence, with differ­ent expect­a­tions.

And whilst brands and compan­ies can build plat­forms which behave in this way, they often struggle to do success­fully, as their conflict­ing object­ives of getting you to do the thing (e.g., buy the product) versus allow­ing you to do your own thing (e.g., look at some cat pictures) comprom­ises the qual­ity of both types of exper­i­ences.

It’s because of this that I’ll never proact­ively choose to spend hours casu­ally brows­ing Argos’ furniture cata­logue pages – even if they add chat and social elements – whereas I might well choose to spend that time look­ing at my friends’ cat pictures on Facebook.

Cause, or effect?

You could argue that a large part of this differ­ence is based on the content in those envir­on­ments. I’m not inter­act­ing with Facebook in the same way as I might with Argos; I’m inter­act­ing with my peers and their content via Facebook as a medium. But there’s a strong distinc­tion between websites which are built by brands who are trying to get me to do-​a-​thing, and plat­forms built by organ­isa­tions which house the content I want to consume.

And this is just the begin­ning. The tech­no­lo­gies which under­pin and enable these kinds of rich, app-​like exper­i­ences will continue to mature. They’ll provide better exper­i­ences in compar­ison to brand websites. The gap will widen, consumer expect­a­tions with continue to rise, and most websites will feel increas­ingly clunky and trans­ac­tional in compar­ison.

Cue, advertising

To pull consumers from plat­forms to websites, we advert­ise. We run campaigns, invest in Google AdWords and Facebook Ads, strive to rank highly in organic search results, and put bill­boards on street corners.

We find oppor­tun­it­ies to inter­rupt the media, content and exper­i­ences which consumers are enga­ging with. We buy clicks and eyeballs.

To brands, plat­forms are market­places for consumers.

Often, this is the heart of those plat­forms’ revenue models. They’re a magnet for users and a conduit to/​for advert­isers. They provide a discov­ery mech­an­ism for those advert­isers, who might other­wise struggle to attract consumers directly.

Grey areas

Of course, the distinc­tion isn’t always that black-​and-​white. There are grey areas and cros­sov­ers. Some indus­tries, like publish­ing, some affil­i­ate models, and even search engines, often exhibit char­ac­ter­ist­ics of both websites and plat­forms; consumers may be pulled in multiple direc­tions to fuel a partic­u­lar advert­ising model.

And how we might define some brand websites isn’t always clear, either. What about all of the time you’ve inves­ted in content market­ing; your rich edit­or­i­ally direc­ted blog posts, and top-​of-​funnel inform­a­tion which gives advice and support?

Chances are that you’re trying to make part of your website feel and act like a plat­form – to pull visit­ors to your resources from places like Google or Facebook. But even if you attract millions of read­ers and buyers, you’re still paying to acquire this audi­ence (even via, say, ‘free traffic’ like that from organic search or social media) – and they’re still coming from plat­forms.

At worst, then, your content market­ing is just another form of inter­rup­tion advert­ising.

That’s not to say that your content isn’t neces­sar­ily good or useful, but rather, that you’re still stuck paying to move eyeballs from where people want to be, to your product/​service. At any minute, that traffic source might dry up. Or it might double in cost. Or the plat­form you’re buying it from might launch its own, compet­ing solu­tion.

At best, your content market­ing is an invest­ment in brand recog­ni­tion and pref­er­ence – so that when consumers need your products or services, they remem­ber and trust you, and come to you directly (bypassing, and redu­cing your brand’s reli­ance on plat­forms).

An unrealistic goal?

So the trend and ambi­tion for brands to aspire to become publish­ers isn’t enough – in the long-​term, unless you become a plat­form, you’ll lose to one, where custom­ers get the content they want, where they already are.

For most busi­nesses, though, that’s a radic­ally unreal­istic goal. The tech­no­lo­gical, logist­ical and commer­cial barri­ers to “becom­ing a plat­form” are unsur­pris­ingly insur­mount­able.

This goes a long way to explain­ing why the plat­forms are winning – they control, albeit some­what indir­ectly, which brands win and lose, and define the rules of the game.

To attract custom­ers, you must play in their ecosys­tem – whether it’s Google, Facebook, Twitter, or some­thing else entirely – you must pay to buy clicks and visits from plat­forms to your website and content.

Distributed content

But here’s the good news – you can put your content on their plat­forms. For free.

All of the major play­ers allow you to provide them with your edit­or­ial and ‘pull’ content, and they’ll serve it up in situ in a way which avoids all the awkward fric­tion of a user having to leave their comfort­able envir­on­ment.

Facebook Instant Articles, Apple News, and more recently, AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages), allow users to read, research, and even purchase from a brand without ever leav­ing the plat­form they’re brows­ing.

A better experience

In many cases, these ‘in context’ exper­i­ences are better than the brand’s own. They’re certainly faster, gener­ally ‘cleaner’ in design and focus, and less ‘pushy’ when it comes to invas­ive ads and conver­sion mech­an­ics.

This raises the ques­tion; if your users can find and engage with you in a way which they prefer, from within other plat­forms, why should they visit your website? Moreso, even, why would plat­forms afford them the oppor­tun­ity?

This is a huge shift in online beha­viour, with huge implic­a­tions. Brands are ceding control of ‘their’ customer exper­i­ences and content, sacri­fi­cing owner­ship for in-​platform discov­er­ab­il­ity.

It’s import­ant that we don’t under­es­tim­ate the import­ance of this shift in the owner­ship of content, else we risk disastrous results.

More than just new channels

Many brands have approached AMP and similar frame­works simply as new chan­nels to add into their market­ing mixes; new store­fronts which just require extra think­ing and resource to optim­ise and main­tain.

But there’s a deeper change under­way.

This the tip of the iceberg, of a revolu­tion from an owned media model to a distrib­uted content model; a shift from websites publish­ing edit­or­ial and ‘pull’ content to attract consumers, to those consumers much more commonly encoun­ter­ing and enga­ging with that content in other envir­on­ments.

And that stretches far beyond Google, Facebook and Apple. Your content, or your compet­it­ors’, is increas­ingly being discovered and consumed – and purchase decisions are being made – in envir­on­ments which you don’t control.

Your ‘pull’ content is being shared, syndic­ated into and read in WeChat, Slack, and WhatsApp. Your products and services are being compared and purchased on your AMP pages and in third-​party market­places.

Even if you’re not actively enabling or encour­aging this kind of beha­viour, your audi­ences are shar­ing links, your products are being compared, and people consid­er­ing your solu­tions – or not – where you can’t easily track or influ­ence them with ads, special offers or retar­get­ing.

It’s going to get harder

And that’s just today’s plat­forms. The frag­ment­a­tion, volume and velo­city of these envir­on­ments contin­ues to increase. Tomorrow, there will be dozens of new places where your audi­ence are, where they choose to consider your products and services on their own terms – without them ever visit­ing your website.

So if your site doesn’t offer users some­thing distinctly valu­able – enough so that they’re will­ing to visit it directly, rather than consum­ing what you offer through their preferred plat­forms – your traffic volumes are going to plum­met. They’ll engage with you on their own terms, via plat­forms which give them better exper­i­ences, and less of your pesky and distract­ing advert­ising.

And this trend will continue to grow.

At the extreme edge of this revolu­tion, apps like Pocket and Flipboard allow the consumer to own the entire content exper­i­ence, and to create their own tailored content plat­forms – completely bypassing not only your website but also, crit­ic­ally, any advert­ising or conver­sion nudge mech­an­ics which you might util­ise to move users through a buying cycle.

You’re no longer in control, because it’s all happen­ing out there.

A new marketing model

We can’t treat these apps and plat­forms like new or addi­tional market­ing chan­nels. This revolu­tion isn’t one of new or increased numbers of media outlets where I can advert­ise at consumers, but rather, a deeper shift in how and where content (and, as part of that, advert­ising) is consumed.

To compete effect­ively in this new land­scape, we need to change the way we think about the rela­tion­ship between our market­ing and our audi­ences.

The object­ive can no longer be to attract consumers to your website, in the hopes of convert­ing some small percent­age of those visit­ors to sale or action. At least, not if you want to grow to reach new audi­ences, or to break free of rent­ing or paying for visit­ors from plat­forms.

Instead, know­ing that purchase decisions happen in other envir­on­ments, the roles of content and brand websites need to shift away from conver­sion, and towards posit­ively influ­en­cing pref­er­ence and brand recall.

Rather than my content being part of a funnel to pull visit­ors from plat­forms to my website and attempt to get them to buy, it needs to become a vehicle to grow my brand’s reach into the envir­on­ments where my audi­ences are already consum­ing content.

Rather than my website being the final destin­a­tion in a purchase jour­ney, it needs to become a hub for the stor­ies I want to tell, and the values I want to show­case – feed­ing content and conver­sa­tions which are happen­ing out there, outside of my control.

To a gener­a­tion of digital marketers who obsess about conver­sion rates and clicks, this might sound radical, and perhaps even danger­ously naive.

But the world’s most success­ful brands have long under­stood that this model works, and have embraced this kind of think­ing for decades. Brands like Ferrari, Lego, Diageo, P&G, Johnson & Johnson and many others market exactly like this precisely because they under­stand that they don’t control the conver­sa­tion.

Take a look at P&G

Chances are, Proctor & Gamble manu­fac­tured most of the clean­ing and sanit­ary products in your home, and have done for decades.

Their reach, scale, and years of success­ful advert­ising and market­ing have helped them to develop a deep under­stand­ing of how consumers choose products and build brand pref­er­ence.

But they’re an analogue busi­ness, rooted in TV adverts and super­mar­ket shelving.

So when the digital market­ing revolu­tion began, they were slow to react and adapt. On the surface, parts of their web pres­ence still look unsoph­ist­ic­ated; like they’ve just ported their analogue market­ing models to the web.

Even today, very few of P&Gs many hundreds of product websites actively try to be a compet­it­ive ecom­merce destin­a­tion. But that’s not because they’re unsoph­ist­ic­ated; rather, it’s because they’re apply­ing a deep under­stand­ing of how consumers behave to their digital strategies.

They know that conver­sa­tions and purchase decisions are heav­ily influ­enced and happen outside of the controlled envir­on­ment of their sites, both online and offline. In many cases, when they know that they can’t own the conver­sa­tion, it’s more sens­ible for them to try and influ­ence online than to sell online.

Because if all their websites do is try to sell you clean­ing products, you’ve no reason to actively choose to visit, and no reason to stay beyond trans­act­ing. More impact­fully, none of their content organ­ic­ally permeates the plat­forms where consumers spend time – and as more and more closed-​loop exper­i­ences exist entirely in plat­forms, that means miss­ing out.

And whilst they could buy their way into some of those spaces, the cost of advert­ising into Facebook, Instagram and other envir­on­ments will become increas­ingly expens­ive when it’s not ampli­fied or suppor­ted by an estab­lished organic reach.

So P&G’s websites, content and messaging often focus more on their ethos, values, and storytelling than they do on selling.

By produ­cing content which educates, supports, inspires or other­wise helps consumers more broadly, that content is more likely to spread through­out a myriad of plat­forms and formats. It’s more likely to be read, watched, and inter­ac­ted with.

Then, when the consumer encoun­ters their brand in a context or a plat­form they don’t control, they have a much higher brand recall and pref­er­ence – and that means a chance of a step towards a purchase, and a chance for a P&G product to win in the consid­er­a­tion set.

That’s not to say that P&G are perfect; many parts of their business cling onto yesterday’s behaviours despite shift­ing trends, and they’re hurt­ing because of it. But all the evidence suggests that they under­stand where they’ve made mistakes, and they’re making changes to enable a renewed focus on effect­ive consumer market­ing.

You have to influence earlier

Just because your conver­sion mech­an­ism lives online and is part of your website, that doesn’t neces­sar­ily mean that it needs to be the exclus­ive focus of your site.

There’s a common assump­tion, and often a drive from senior stake­hold­ers, that brand websites must oper­ate as machines designed solely to convert visits into sales. Often, that means that any educa­tional, support­ive or brand­ing content and func­tions are percieved as distrac­tions from this focus, and a detri­ment to conver­sion rates.

But conver­sion is frequently only the end of a jour­ney which contains multiple touch points – many of which aren’t on your website or in your control. If all your website does it optim­ise for conver­sion, it does so at the expense of conver­sa­tions which may have influ­enced future purchase decisions. You’re optim­ising inwards, rather than outwards.

Our obses­sion with the final stage of the buying cycle means we often omit or over­look crit­ical earlier phases, where consumers are build­ing consid­er­a­tion sets, ruling brands in or out, and form­ing opin­ions and pref­er­ences.

I’ve talked previously about how the exper­i­ences that consumers have early in their research processes influ­ence what happens later; determ­in­ing which brands make it to the final consid­er­a­tion phases. I described a personal exper­i­ence, which star­ted with a Google search for “fuzzy sound on tv”, in an attempt to self-​diagnose a fault with a tele­vi­sion. Six months later, that jour­ney led to a purchase – informed by multiple searches, conver­sa­tions, research phases, and brand inter­ac­tions.

I noted that, in many of the early stages of my research, big brands were note­ably absent from search results and social media. They missed an oppor­tun­ity to build brand recall and pref­er­ence. In some cases, they ruled them­selves entirely out of the buying cycle, where they failed to address repu­ta­tion issues, or failed to provide content which answered my ques­tions as a poten­tial buyer.

If those brands had focused less on the end of the conver­sion jour­ney, and spent more time prov­ing that they’re reput­able and a good fit earlier on, my consid­er­a­tion set might have looked very differ­ent.

And in this new revolu­tion, not only will those exper­i­ences happen completely outside of the control of those brands (on Ebay, Amazon, Facebook and WhatsApp), but they’ll be eclipsed by the conver­sa­tions which do happen in those envir­on­ments.

The product research jour­ney which might once have lead me to an ecom­merce website, a blog post, or even an offline store visit is less likely to happen. More and more of my research and decision-​making process is unfold­ing within plat­forms, and my purchase decisions will be influ­enced by the content I consume there.

I’ll engage with the brands who’re present in my streams – those who provide useful, support­ive content – and buy from them, when I’m ready, without ever leav­ing that envir­on­ment.

To compete for attenton and busi­ness, brands must consider the role their website and their content plays in help­ing audi­ences who aren’t yet at the point of conver­sion. They’ll either need to provide increas­ingly compel­ling reas­ons for people to visit and engage with their websites directly, or they’ll need to completely embrace a distrib­uted content model – and accept that they’re tethered to advert­ising and syndic­at­ing content within plat­forms, rather than on their own websites.

You have to influence from the outside-​in

This exclus­ive focus on conver­sions, some­times at the expense of build­ing brand trust and famili­ar­ity, is largely driven by how easily meas­ur­able and attrib­ut­able digital chan­nels can be. It’s easy to manage a busi­ness when you can spend money to drive visits, and you can meas­ure and fore­cast the commer­cial outcomes of those visits.

But that meas­ur­ab­il­ity only exists at the end of the funnel, when – or if – the visitor has arrived at your website, or engaged with your ads.

That limits the kind of market­ing and advert­ising that you can do, and optim­ises for attract­ing visits from people who are already ready to buy. It actively optim­ises away from people who aren’t ready yet.

Consider that, as more exper­i­ences occur on plat­forms and are frag­men­ted across many envir­on­ments, fewer and fewer people will want or need to visit your website. That’ll make it harder to directly meas­ure and report on their beha­viour. The people who reach your meas­ur­able plat­forms will be a minor­ity in your poten­tial market; traffic you’ve bought or rented from plat­forms, or those who’ve come direct due to brand recall and pref­er­ence.

Critically, you won’t be able to meas­ure the people you aren’t reach­ing – the people who never entered the buying cycle, never searched on Google, and never viewed your display adverts. These are the people who are happily consum­ing content and making purchase decisions from within their plat­forms of choice. They’ll never hit your radar.

To reach them, you’ll need to sacri­fice owner­ship of the jour­ney, and to shift your focus from conver­sion to rela­tion­ship. You’ll need to change the object­ives of your market­ing and advert­ising from enti­cing clicks back to your website, to enga­ging, convers­ing with and convert­ing audi­ences in situ. Frequently, that’ll be a very differ­ent type of messaging and content than we’re used to produ­cing.

Conventional busi­ness logic suggests that you shouldn’t build value on rented plat­forms – there’s always a risk that external factors can destroy your foundations. But what happens when there are only rented plat­forms, and they’re tran­si­ent, temporal things? Where do you build your equity?

The answer is simple – you build it in your consumers minds. You think outwards, not inwards, and you invest in provid­ing distrib­uted content and exper­i­ences which posit­ively influ­ence the market­place.

You stop obsess­ing about how big you can build your medi­eval castle of a website, and you go out and spend time in the fields, with the peas­ants.

Originally published on theinbounder.com on 21/​03/​2018

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
Windee Tan Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Windee Tan
Guest

Your article provoked crit­ical think­ing in me at a time when I ques­tion my career and what am I doing in digital market­ing. When the world is busy battling the corona virus, here I am rush­ing to put together my long over­due personal blog. Thank you for the gift of inspir­a­tion. Looking forward to more articles like this one.