Death of the URL?

18th Nov 2009 A passion and truth by Rebecca

Photo by dan taylor

The role of URLs in advertising has come a long way. First, the use of AOL keywords disappeared, then we dropped the http://’s, then the www’s, now some brands are dropping URLs altogether. How far should we go in deleting the URL in favour of directing the viewer to follow-up online via their favourite search engine?

I remember the first time I heard a campaign on TV which, rather than referencing the entire campaign’s web address simply stated “search online for ‘ACT on CO2’”. Since then, a plethora of brands have used this approach, from Orange’s ‘I am’ campaign to Channel 4’s More4. After all, you might say, why not? If you’ve done your SEO homework properly (and adding PPC if necessary), it certainly gives the viewer less to remember to call to action. 

However, it’s not always that easy unless your domain is inextricably linked to the campaign keyword(s). Some also argue that this strategy gives an open invitation for competitors to bid for your keywords and gain your traffic. The ACT on CO2 campaign for example is Government-funded and has come under fire for wasting tax payers’ money for its’ PPC spend on its' own keywords due to the competition opened up with the coverage of the associated TV campaign. The Government campaign is currently ranked at number one on natural listings anyway for the advertised search term which makes it harder to justify the spend, especially when given the fact that non-commercial content looks more credible in appearing in natural listings than sponsored links.

There is no arguing that delivering the URL as part of a TV or print campaign is the best option, if it can be done in a brand-fitting and easy to remember way; think comparethemarket.com and moonpig.com where the jingles are as relevant as they are memorable.

Last week was the first time I spotted a mainstream TV advert cross-referencing the benefits of Twitter, YouTube and MySpace. The ad, which uses real life musicians to build a brand experience, is part of the new T-Mobile campaign by Saatchi (and follows the legendary flashmob TV campaign which went viral).  This URL-specific campaign is one which encourages viewers to follow the journey of Josh Ward on his quest to create a ‘superband’, starting with a tour of London in an open top bus and open auditions that kicked off in Birmingham’s Bullring last Saturday.

However we communicate the campaign call to action, the influence of integrated social media and need for information at the fingertips without making the audience have to think or do any research must remain key in modern advertising, with or without the URL.

Share ♥

Found in Trend watchingSEO

Rebecca Coldicott

Posted about 10 months ago at 20:55 on 19th Nov 2009

I agree Adam, the Orange example would appear to be a good demonstration of not being able to get the ducks in a row before launching the campaign. In this case I would have also expected that they launch with the full domain name and only once the campaign keywords were established in search results and recognised by the audience, then the promoted search term could be cut down.

It's also interesting how peoples' online behaviour is changing; I just found a stat which said multi-tasking is increasingly common, with 36% of UK broadband users (aged 16-55) stating they have both the TV and Internet on in the same room every day, (TNS/YouTube Media & Audience Study (broadband users aged 16-55).

Whether viewed separately or both through a computer, it should now be easier for the viewer to follow-up online with immediate calls to action, if the advert can command enough of the viewers' attention!

 

Adam Lucking

Posted about 10 months ago at 09:39 on 19th Nov 2009

A fantastic article that highlights this type of campaign becoming more popular. However what is essential is getting the basics right first!

The Orange "iam" campaign for instance.

When this originally launched, i remember doing a search for the phrase "iam" and the first result was not even orange, infact orange were around number 9 in the SERPS!. The site that came up first was a site that is totally unrelated to Orange and was all about finding things to do for people who are bored. Not a good result for what is essentially a brand related search and key to the success of the campaign.

Orange actually used Google Adwords to get the number one spot. Did they use this because their SEO company let them down? Did their SEO company not quite realise the task that lay ahead in order to dominate that phrase?

Surely it was a bad decision to let get people to search for "iam" when they were not at least in the top 3 on Google?

It would have been better to "coin a phrase" that was unique to their campaign and not so competitive or tell people to visit www.i-am-everyone.co.uk to start with!

That's my two pence worth! Does anyone else share a view on this type of marketing campaign?

Adam

 

What's your view?

1. Your name *
2. Your email *
3. Your website
4. Comment