Will Websites Become Obsolete?

[LTK82]

I was having a chat with a London Search Marketing Company today and we got chatting, as usual, about social media. I pondered on whether or not traditional websites might one day become obsolete with social media providing credible alternative.

After all, instead of trying to drive customers to your own website, doesn't it make sense to go where the customer's already are and with social media ticking so many of the online marketing boxes do you think there will come a time when the majority of companies turn away from their own unique presence and turn instead to an existing presence where their customers are already having conversations?

Snickers in the UK, for example, has moved it's entire web output to Facebook - would post the link but I haven't done 15 posts yet.

We live in some very interesting times. Your thoughts ...

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I think you will find that a lot of people will get fed up with Facebook / Twitter/Blogs andthey will slowly fall from grace or at least just be for the teeny boppers

Not Today or Tommorow but next few years

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I pondered on whether or not traditional websites might one day become obsolete

Won't happen.

with social media providing credible alternative.

How do you process sales through social media? How do you list thousands of products in a way that's easy to browse?

After all, instead of trying to drive customers to your own website, doesn't it make sense to go where the customer's already are

Isn't that how you drive customers to your website?

and with social media ticking so many of the online marketing boxes do you think there will come a time when the majority of companies turn away from their own unique presence and turn instead to an existing presence where their customers are already having conversations?

No.

This either/or makes no sense, IMO.

Snickers in the UK, for example, has moved it's entire web output to Facebook

They're a major brand that sells a low price item via retail outlets. Their approach to marketing is going to be very different to that of SMEs or ecommerce businesses.

 

[glimpsemedia]

I'm a Director of a graphic/web design agency so I have seen the internet change for many years. Social Media is something relatively new but changes very rapidly. My Space was huge and now look at it, some people remember Bebo. Facebook and Twitter are the big ones nowadays. Will they become extinct too? I don't know.

But there has always been one thing online which I believe is always going to stay online and that is websites.

Social Media is powerful but only when people use it. I can't imagine people stop using websites, ever.

I don't think moving a website to Facebook is a great idea for the majority of businesses. What happens if/when Facebook dies out? Anyone with the internet can access a website but you would then need a Facebook account to access the site, that little bit harder to access then. But for Snickers I suppose it's okay as they don't need to have a website as they sell the majority of their bars to stores and not online.

Anyway, that's my opinion: No

 

[Banned]

Snickers is just one product line from hundreds produced by an American company. Hardly an example of a businesses moving away from websites.

 

[Uwe (Invoiceberry)]

How do you process sales through social media? How do you list thousands of products in a way that's easy to browse?

I agree with you that it is not easy, but there are companies in the market which are solving this problem. For example: http://www.payvment.com/

 

[lynxus]

it is happening to a degree.

Some people point people to facebook.com/mybusiness
or #mybusiness

This is a good method to get "news" and updated out to your clients.

However...
For anything more than a "notice board" kind of functionality. You will ALWAYS want your own website.

For example:
bbc.co.uk/radio1 - Its a website for radio 1, It has the DJ's news etc etc

However the DJ's always say go to our facebook / twitter.. Its great to get QUICK updates out to everyone where everyone are already on.

However you dont see the BBC removing the website?

Unless tat and updates - Social networking
Sales and anything useful/interactive - Your website

 

[cmcp]

A social media website as an alternative to a website? I don't think that one's been thought through. Social is not a media, it's a type of website. Good complimentary tool for your box.

Why would anyone rely on a third party? We've seen it happen with all social media to date, they go in and out of popularity in cycles. Look at all the big ones in the music industry: mp3.com, myspace.com, now bandcamp.com...

We are seeing the landscape change - the way in which content is consumed means we won;t worry as much about the presentation of information on a website. But that information will always need to live somwhere, on a database on a server and ultimately spat out by a website.

 

[ecenica]

I'm truly amazed when large brands move their online presence to Facebook.

I can only assume the access to the personal information of all people who "Like" the brand, outweighs the drawbacks of giving ownership of all their site content over to Facebook.

I suspect the big brands will mine the Facebook data for what it's worth and when the Facebook bubble pops they'll switch back to their own sites.

Richard

 

[iBusiness Forums]

There are many predictions about the internet and as a long time user, I have seen so many to be inaccurate. I think the truth is that we don't know what we don't know. When someone has a creative spark, you see things from a different angle and things can surge in that direction. Take Twitter for example. Innovative concept and huge uptake. A more recent example is Pinterest, which has become immensly popular.

 

[123Simples]

I agree with ecenica
Like most things social networking is relatively new and whilst they may be enjoying the fortune of fame, when all is said and done, the power of websites (linked with hard copy advertising) will never really go out of date. In fact the like button is just simply that - a clickable button - any monkey can tap a key on a keyboard but what does that really signify in the end of the day?

 

[10032012]

There is 7 billion people on this planet but only a handful of people that has the vast power to influence it.

Be it fashion and trends... most people just follow, facebook took off quite well, but twitter in the UK took some time to catch on... if it wasn't for a few people forcing it to the many, it would have died in popularity. That is marketing for you.

 

[bdw]

What I have never understood is people on the BBC promoting Twitter and Facebook. People like David Dimbleby never fail to give Twitter a plug during Question Time. Others direct people to Facebook pages.

What's all that about? Why does one of the world's top media companies feel compelled to give a plug to a useless wee system like Twitter, especially during what is meant to be a serious discussion? If they need immediacy of comment or something can't they just direct people to a page on the BBC website?

.

 

[Krash]

What I have never understood is people on the BBC promoting Twitter and Facebook. People like David Dimbleby never fail to give Twitter a plug during Question Time. Others direct people to Facebook pages.

What's all that about? Why does one of the world's top media companies feel compelled to give a plug to a useless wee system like Twitter, especially during what is meant to be a serious discussion? If they need immediacy of comment or something can't they just direct people to a page on the BBC website?

.

The simple answer to this is: User Experience.

A website requires an internet connection, may be even a browser and smartphone.

Twitter works over SMS and is by far more inclusive than a web page.

 

[LTK82]

Well, that caused some debate ... and certainly some interesting comments and a few thoughts in there worth considering.

A point was made about social media being another website and therefore websites won't become obsolete. The point was about delivering your service or product through social media websites (where the customers may already be) rather than having to drive the social media users away from the world they're happy in over to your own website (which is a challenge).

I'm certainly surprised by the number of responses that seem to point to a certain future for the internet and websites in general.

For me, I really don't know. I think the way social media works is interesting, I don't think we have seen even 20% of it's true capability yet and I think there is much more to come in the next 5-10 years. Imagine yourself in 1985 when someone might of said "I think there will be businesses in the future that only trade over 'the internet' - there would have been some similar scoffs at that idea too.

 

[lynxus]

Imagine yourself in 1985 when someone might of said "I think there will be businesses in the future that only trade over 'the internet' - there would have been some similar scoffs at that idea too.

The great thing ive found about the internet is not only has it helped "non internet" companies thrive! Its also created soooo many more business's than its destroyed.

For example, My own business.
Without the internet, There would be no online shops / business's.
Without them, There would be no ecommerce customers.
Without the customers, there would be no need for something like what I sell.

Its an ever change landscape that will continue to change.
One thing for sure is that its certainly becoming a lot more "organised" and evolution isn't quite as erratic as it once was online.

Standards have appeared, A lot of sites "feel" the same and the methods people employ online fit most sites.

Back in the "day" , Websites were a mess. No one followed any rules and evolution was a complete nightmare.

 

[serverhouse]

I guess the question is, what is a website?

Very often I find the website.mobi to be better than the app, but if its not I'm still using the app to talk to a web based server somewhere so it's just a website without the HTML.

Trends have and will change, I'd like to see Google places get some traction, there is nothing more annoying than not having 'local knowledge' i.e knowing of someone doing something in your area or when they're open etc.

So for the future, More location based information, but it'll still need hosting

 

[FreelanceScribbler]

SEO people always say that "Content is King" and then they go and throw hundreds of poor quality links at a website. But usually it's because they can't create the great content, or their clients can't.

Well optimised content sites can crush other websites in the google rankings. Just look at the BBC. They could rank 1st in Google for anything they want if their titles were properly optimised and they did some proper quality link building.

So in answer to the OP: No, websites will never become obsolete for the same reason that forums will never become obsolete, because they are sources of information.

Also, mobile browsing doesn't convert into sales as successfully as someone using a desktop PC. Although I'm confident in saying that many young women use their smartphones instead of having a PC or laptop at all because they are less likely to use the internet in the same way as the average user.

 

[ecenica]

What I have never understood is people on the BBC promoting Twitter and Facebook. People like David Dimbleby never fail to give Twitter a plug during Question Time. Others direct people to Facebook pages.

What's all that about? Why does one of the world's top media companies feel compelled to give a plug to a useless wee system like Twitter, especially during what is meant to be a serious discussion? If they need immediacy of comment or something can't they just direct people to a page on the BBC website?

.

Totally agree. It's laughable, hypocritical and short-sighted how the BBC will cough and splutter the moment a brand name is mentioned, only to then say Twitter us, Facebook this, Google XYZ.

Social networks are so ubiquitous these days the BBC should follow the French rules and simply refer to these brands as "social networks" and "search engines".

It's not as if they're even British brands, or companies who have heavily invested in the UK.

Rich

P.S: I do like where Pinterest is heading

 

[amac]

No, websites will not become obsolete. Just as television won't become obsolete with the advance of streaming video on computers. Technology usually happens with advances on existing technology which is to say, it often compliments and doesn't outright degrade existing technology.

Over the long run, it's probably more hard to predict but I'd imagine that websites will always be around.

 

[astutiumRob]

I pondered on whether or not traditional websites might one day become obsolete

Have sales letters become obsolete ?
Have books become obsolete ? or posters ? or radio ads ?

It's just another medium ...

with social media providing credible alternative.

Did you manage to keep a straight-face when you typed that ?

Snickers in the UK, for example, has moved it's entire web output to Facebook

Who noticed or cared ? They didnt appear on the first 3 pages for searches of their own product - so "online" was of no significance/importance to them

Quite why *any* business would spend time driving people to a 3rd party site is completely beyond me ...

 

[LTK82]

Have sales letters become obsolete ?
Have books become obsolete ? or posters ? or radio ads ?

It's just another medium ...


Did you manage to keep a straight-face when you typed that ?


Who noticed or cared ? They didnt appear on the first 3 pages for searches of their own product - so "online" was of no significance/importance to them

Quite why *any* business would spend time driving people to a 3rd party site is completely beyond me ...

Ok, your points in order:

1. No books are not (yet) obsolete. Though Waterstones and WHSmith are showing huge reductions in sales of traditional books. Comparing offline media with online media is not really appropriate either. There will always be times when a person is not online (though Google Specs might prove me wrong in years to come).

2. It doesn't matter whether anyone 'noticed' or 'cared' that the brand moved to social media. The point was, that it did and people are reacting there to it quite normally. If anything the fact that you assert 'no one noticed or cared' only supports the view the social media is fast becoming 'the norm' for this generation.

3. You have completely missed the point on 'driving people to a third party site'. The point is and I make it for the third time in this thread ... it is much harder to drive people to a site for a brand or business people have never heard of than it is to scoop them up where they already are (on social media sites).

As an example, I would never have visited some of the websites behind companies and brands that I have since looked at, simply because when looking at contacts on Facebook and other social media sites they have 'liked' or supported the brand or business.

Social media isn't about driving your customers away to a third party site, it is about reaching out to your potential customers where they already are.

In it's most basic form; if you were told that a million potential customers of yours were sat in a room adjacent to your office, would you go and knock on the door or would you wait for them to knock on yours?

 

[fisicx]

You asserted that traditional website will become obsolete.

Try to book a holiday using facebook or renew you car-tax with twitter or get the address of a lawyer using google plus or even help with your maths homework using stumbleupon.

Social media can be a great place to share information or get suggestions but they will nearly always lead to a traditional website. If I asked for recommendation for a local plumber I might get suggestions but I'd still want to see his website to check.

My daughter is on FB all the time but most of the sites she visits aren't SM.

 

[LTK82]

You asserted that traditional website will become obsolete.

Try to book a holiday using facebook or renew you car-tax with twitter or get the address of a lawyer using google plus or even help with your maths homework using stumbleupon.

Social media can be a great place to share information or get suggestions but they will nearly always lead to a traditional website.

My daughter is on FB all the time but most of the sites she visits aren't SM.

The question isn't about today it is about tomorrow. It was will websites become obsolete not are they. I have also never asserted that websites would become obsolete. Starting a sentence with the word 'will' generally indicates a question posed to others. I have though asserted in posts on this thread that I am not sure what the future holds for social media but that I think it might be going in the direction posed in the question.

 

[fisicx]

No, they WILL not become obsolete.

You said:
"I pondered on whether or not traditional websites might one day become obsolete with social media providing credible alternative."

confused.com is not going be replaced by a facebook app any more than amazon will sell books on twitter.

The UI may change as will the structure of a website but SM is not a credible alternative to all websites.

As an aside, SM is nothing new. Newsgroups have been doing it for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

 

[bdw]

Postman just delivered my copy of the National Geographic!

.

 

[LTK82]

No, they WILL not become obsolete.

You said:
"I pondered on whether or not traditional websites might one day become obsolete with social media providing credible alternative."

confused.com is not going be replaced by a facebook app any more than amazon will sell books on twitter.

The UI may change as will the structure of a website but SM is not a credible alternative to all websites.

As an aside, SM is nothing new. Newsgroups have been doing it for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

I agree SM is not particularly revolutionary however the scale has changed dramatically.

 

[LTK82]

Postman just delivered my copy of the National Geographic! .

Enjoy! It's a timeless journal.

 

[makemoney]

It will go the same way as the Sony walkman, video machines, cross ply tyres,. History shows us that the media itself will change. When a quicker, better way becomes available we will all move to it. I know a OAP typewriter mechanic and a London Docker who both thought they had a job for life…

 

[bdw]

Yeah right! I once thought the same when I worked for Polaroid!

.

 

[maxine]

Actually I am going to go against the grain of this discussion here and say yes, I do think that in some cases social media platforms will negate the need for a website.

I am seeing this already for some very small businesses and clubs or hobby businesses.

For example a Karate instructor and a dog groomer client have both moved all of their activity over to their facebook page. It makes sense for them. They go where their customers are and it's less effort to maintain than traditional websites.

I'm not so sure thought that larger businesses will do this as it's usually a mixture of marketing and social media that works better for them.

 

[TimS]

As many have already mentioned, Websites will not die, and Social Media is just a way to build rapport and then draw people to a website.

But, my main point is that with Facebook and others, you have no control over the account. If you do something that they don't like, they'll shut you down! (I've seen it happen!). But they can't do that with your website.

Also, it has been mentioned that you can't sell off Facebook - this is not true, you can sell through the Facebook tabs interface, however you do need a website to link to Facebook!

 

[FreelanceSoftwareDeveloper]

Actually I am going to go against the grain of this discussion here and say yes, I do think that in some cases social media platforms will negate the need for a website.

I am seeing this already for some very small businesses and clubs or hobby businesses.

For example a Karate instructor and a dog groomer client have both moved all of their activity over to their facebook page. It makes sense for them. They go where their customers are and it's less effort to maintain than traditional websites.

I'm not so sure thought that larger businesses will do this as it's usually a mixture of marketing and social media that works better for them.

I'd agree with your points but then i'd say the kind of businesses you mention have probably never really benefited from a web presence anyway. It would depend on the area but I would say here, in a medium/large town having a website for a very small business is not really a great investment, i'm sure more people have lost money to web companies and directory services than have gained. I would expect that to be different in a city environment though.

Facebook is a great platform for micro businesses to get themselves known, generally in sectors that people wanting their service wouldn't search the web to find. It's also true that many big brands are now putting their brand after facebooks but I don't think that is anything new, it's been happening with football shirts for years.

Facebook certainly has a place, it's the only social media site I would say is 'more than just a website', I don't think Twitter is anywhere close to that yet or see how it could get there. Wikipedia is one of the biggest most popular websites online, I can't see that becoming obsolete anytime soon.

 

[maxine]

Absolutely agree especially with your point about it not being a great investment but the two examples I gave are where they don't want the emotional investment of a website either. Facebook is something they already know and feel comfortable with plus their customers are there so it's an obvious choice for them really.

Having a website scares some micro business owners whereas facebook doesn't scare them

I cannot see how twitter, linkedin, youtube, or many other platforms would replace websites as a standalone. The only other exceptions for me would possibly be ebay or google+ but g+ has the features it doesn't tend to have a large number of people on it and ebay has it's pitfalls too.

 

[David Griffiths]

It is a bold statement to say that something that has only been with us for a few years will never become obsolete. There are plenty of examples of technoolgy some of which changed the world going out of use in a relatively short period. Think of examples already given plus canals, telex, sundials, and no doubt loads of others.

Something better will come along, something that will do all of those things that people says that only traditional websites can do, and slowly or quickly people will change what they do.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

No mention has been made of money and in particular advertisers money

All sites will at some time try and sell themselves to advertisments, they may start free like Google but slowly they find the hot spots in the system and start charging for them. They then get to the point say like google where its done to such an extent you cannot distinguish what is paid for advertising and what is natural listings and over the years the distinction grows even less

The advertisers will spend where they get the best return and that will almost definatly be where the target audience is, but at the same time the adverts will drive some of the people away

Aint life complicated

 

[Banned]

For example a Karate instructor and a dog groomer client have both moved all of their activity over to their facebook page. It makes sense for them. They go where their customers are and it's less effort to maintain than traditional websites.

Actually that must be commercial suicide. One of our businesses is dog walking & 95% of business comes through the website. How are new customers going to find us with only a facebook page? If we did that we would potentially loose 95% of our new clients.

Facebook etc is generally "preaching to the converted" and surely not the way to gain new business.

 

[Fred_the_frog]

No. Facebook will die out, and it is starting to die now.

Twitter is a better place to start, but no doubt that will die soon too. (Its less likely to die than facebook, because people can stalk celebs on twitter)

 

[maxine]

Actually that must be commercial suicide. One of our businesses is dog walking & 95% of business comes through the website. How are new customers going to find us with only a facebook page? If we did that we would potentially loose 95% of our new clients.

Facebook etc is generally "preaching to the converted" and surely not the way to gain new business.

She is the opposite to you in that she is not concerned with web leads at all as 95% of hers is all word of mouth recommendation and in that regard facebook does this extremely well for her ... people sharing and liking pics of their pooches etc. She is so busy she regularly turns work away and has a waiting list of around 3 months and can hold premium pricing position for her grooming reputation.

The key difference is that people are aware of her, how well she does what she does, and people know this so if they have a need they do not go searching as they already know how to contact the person they want.

She is adamant that right now she doesn't need a website and I can't argue with her She has all the customers she wants, at the right price, there is only her in the business, and she has no hassle and has a regular flow of recommendations to replace any people who leave the area or whose dogs die. That's about as simple as it gets

 

[bdw]

She is adamant that right now she doesn't need a website and I can't argue with her

She is she.
We is we.
They is they.

She/we/they are all different and it's foolish to decide that websites are obsolete because one person manages to run a business without one. It does not matter if you don't want to generate enquiries from a website. Businesses are expected to have one.

Here's a scenario. A business has an enquiry where someone asks if they have a website.

"No but have a look at our Facebook page."

"Facebook? I don't use Facebook. That's for kids. Don't you just have a webpage I can look at?"

"No."

"OK, I'll call you back later."

.