Why internet sites don't make sense for every product

Marketing - 26th January 2001

Long gone are the days when a client would say "I need to be online because, well, I need to". We've thankfully also past the days when a client might say "We need to be online because, well, our competitors are online". Although I was privy to another agency's pitch document recently that did say, effectively (well actually ineffectively!), just that.

One of the things I do when I get the chance is lecture at the Institute of Direct Marketing, teaching about e-marketing and such. I love teaching. I thoroughly enjoy the Q&As, and the occasional rampant heckle about my (occasionally blue) hair. Thinking on my feet about how my specialist subject dovetails with someone else's specialist discipline can be very rewarding.

But I got a question the other day that completely floored me for a minute. Coming up with a coherent answer on the spot was tough - I'd never considered it directly before. It was an eminently sensible question from someone who didn't make the assumptions that anyone in my industry might make. So here it is:

"How can you justify spending the same amount on a web site as you do on a TV ad, and call it a success because you gave away a few thousand Peperami sticks?"

Wow. Missing the point or what, I thought. Bloody research types. Who needs numbers anyway? Well, you know me, always quick to voice my opinions... but for once I completely saw his point. People might not understand. My assumption that new media is common sense (which it is, really) does not necessarily mean everyone has thought it all through... myself included.

So how to explain it, on the fly and in about a minute, before I moved on to the next slide in this lecture about getting your new media agency and fulfilment house talking to each other about delivery mechanics and scheduling...

Well, it's like this. Your product, and we'll use Peperami as our example, has TV ads seen by millions - and they are awesome ads, believe me; rolling in the aisles stuff. The web site attracts only tens of thousands. The answer's in the strategy. We created a site that seeded the idea of an underground secret society of Peperami activists. We deconstructed the TV ads to 'show' how the Animal uses secret hand signals to communicate important dates for anti-veggie direct action.

We knew that anyone visiting the web site was pretty pro the brand in the first place. They are fans. So we came up with a strategy based on inclusive exclusivity - a veiled invitation to join the cult of Peperami. Not because we thought that four million 15-34 year-old males would want to join and as a result buy a stick, but because we wanted to create a mystique that the target audience would hear about through word of mouth, that would create interest in the brand, that would create a desire to become involved with, rather than just consume, the brand.

It works for all sorts of brands online - think of the Jif (now Cif) 'Bloke in a Bath' site, which achieved a 50% response rate to outbound questionnaires, and a 66% tell-your-friends rate.

Common sense tells us that the web cannot have the reach of the TV advertising pound. It doesn't, directly. But what it does do is create fanatical brand advocates, and set the scene so they can justify their advocacy. And you can research these people, gain all those insights into how your communications strategy might work direct from the loyal consumer. So my heckling friend at the IDM got his answer, and he got justification for his profession out of it. Which is, thankfully, exactly what I got out of the exchange too.

Felix Velarde

comments?