With the emergence of social networking sites like Linked In, MySpace, Facebook and Twitter offering independent consultants, sole proprietors and 'talent for hire' the opportunity to promote their value proposition and connect with others; do you need a traditional website?
I'm not speaking of medium or large corporate companies who want a permanent destination on the web, but more so of the small practicionar who might not have the budget to fork over $5-$10K to have a professional looking site done up for them.
There are advantages in having a website and it certainly lends itself to more opportunities to create brand awareness, authority building and more opportunities for SEO and SEM tactics and strategies, yet I am wondering if those who have a traditional website where key messaging, contact details, blogs, podcats etc... sit within is really worth it?
It's an interesting thought. How has your website played out for you? Would you be where you are today without it? Would having profile pages on social networking sites and linking up your blogs to them be enough? Does having your own website enhance your business as a one-man or one-woman show? Is it necessary? What do you think?
6 thoughts on “Do you need a traditional website?”
I find that more and more marketeers chose to publish their content on web 2.0 properties such as Squidoo and promote that page the way they would usually do rather than launching their own mini site. At the end of the day its all about security and how much control you really need vs seo and accessibility I guess.
$10 a year for a domain works for me. Social networking and knowing basics of SEO are both great ways to get traffic to your site. A free blog from Blogger or WordPress can look professional for free. Going the free route just takes a lot more time than chipping in $5k.
If you look at CNN, they are not just on television and CNN.com. They are using every single social networking website that is available (Facebook, Twitter, etc.). You can’t go wrong following what CNN does to make money.
From the title I thought perhaps you meant Blog vs a more static site, but that distinction is getting very blurred.
That might make a fascinating test to compare a website to social media marketing alone, although I not sure how you could make it an apples to apples comparison.
I don’t understand what you mean about traditional website. Is it a static or another? perhaps little explanation will make me understand. thank you.
I had the same thought when reading the title. I am now using both static and blog if that’s what you mean. Just think I can not leave the traditional way if it works for me. The blog enhances that old way to make it still alive.
Depends what you sell. I’ve been successful without one.
If you’re a freelancer using say Elance, you don’t need (nor want) a public website. Your profile there counts the most. Same can be said for any social network; it’s whatever they respect and expect from you.
But if you ever hand out a business card, you’ll need a site. It’s the destination that you ask people to go to after you advertise. And handing out a card, just like putting up a craigslist ad or having some social bookmarks, is an advertisement.
I’ve done both and had good results with both.
Comments are closed.