Re: UKNM: money / drain

[Edd Dumbill]

On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 09:18:09AM +0100, Robin Edwards wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 01, 1999 4:34 PM, Edd Dumbill wrote:

> > To my mind, there's a good reason why there aren't any FMCG sites of

> > any use -- few users would ever want them.

> 

> Hmmm, the old "FMCG's should stick to sponsoring content" argument

> pops up for it's six-monthly spot. A site we produced back in '98 for

> a well known drinks brand was hugely successful in all areas - not

> only in terms of the number of visitors, good PR, top awards etc (the

> client's own measures of success)


Argh.  Why don't clients have proper measures?  Is it the responsibility

of agencies to educate clients as to what a proper measure is? 


> but also in the depth of the user sessions on the site. Visitors did

> truly express a "relationship" with the brand (through emails and

> messages on the bulletin board) and a staggering amount of loyalty.

> This is backed up by some sessions of up to 4 hours, with people not

> just reading stuff and playing the games, but feeding content back to

> us. Repeat visits to the site were also incredibly high. What other

> media could give that level of brand exposure (and it wasn't a subtle

> logo in the corner!!) for that length of time for that kind of money?


I'm prepared to accept it works, given evidence.  Is it possible to put

a figure on what constitutes "incredibly high" etc.   I don't distrust

your experience but find it hard to change opinions based on one unnamed

example.  Emperical evidence (the underwhelming number of responses to

the original question and Azeem's US data) would suggest that a

successful FMCG site such as you have produced is a rarity.


Given that rare take-off rate, one would have difficulty in advising it

as a course of action.


Unless there are more examples out there, perhaps some from 1999 as

well given the rapid changing of the UK net demographic make-up...


> Whilst some people here may question the value/point/interest of FMCG

> branding sites the facts can stack up very nicely for the FMCG

> companies. This is not some blind ignorance on their part, where they

> have ignored all other avenues (content sponsorship etc.) but

> *reality* - creating a hugemonsterinteractivemultimediabandwidthfest

> can easily provide better bang-per-buck than TV for the brand, and

> more fun and entertainment for the user.


Was it possible to identify a tangible benefit to the drinks

manufacturer outside of the kudos of having produced an excellent site?


Is the site still pulling reasonable traffic, or was it reliant on the

feed-in from promotion in other media?


> Anyone who says, "Yes but the sites are boring, the games are silly

> and who cares how the product is made anyway" has presumably not had

> experience of running such a site.


Data is the best thing to base opinions on.  As a counter-point to your

point, anyone who's worked hard on a well-received site will tend to

be biased.


> There are literally millions of

> people on the web who *are* interested and entertained by them.


What you have described is a successful web site, interesting and

interactive.  Even given that, how does one measure the contribution

towards sales?


Edd


-- 

Edd Dumbill ------/ a new media consultant, writer & technologist /--

 | Director, Useful Information Company        <http://usefulinc.com>

 | Internet Director, Pharmalicensing    <http://pharmalicensing.com>

 : UK voice/msg: +44 702-093-6870            UK fax: +44 870-164-0230 

********************

UKNM is sponsored by Excite UK, visit us at http://www.excite.co.uk.

Email Khalil Ibrahimi

khalilexcitecorp [dot] com (mailto:khalilexcitecorp [dot] com)

 to advertise on Excite.

********************

Change your UKNM subscription use http://www.chinwag.com/uknm.html