Having noticed that my site now shows up as ‘not secure’ I am contemplating whether to bother with a website at all. In the short term, I have to get an SSL and that’s in hand. It’s the long-term that I am thinking about.
(I am not a techie so “?” means if that’s the right word/terminology)
I have read the need (?) for https and the overt objective is all very noble. Assuming I understand correctly. the intention is for each site? to have a unique IP address, not shared.
As this is? a Google-oriented initiative and we know that Google makes its money from advertising and more particularly targeted advertising, I am wondering whether the intention is first to rid the www of all not -secure sites (a process made easier by encouraging visitors to treat not secure with suspicion and avoid) and then to concentrate upon extracting for advertising purposes as much saleable content from secure sites and IP end-owners.
Effectively by pruning the www of what are categorised as ‘not secure’ sites, Google can carry on including all sites in its search engine whilst simultaneously deterring anyone from visiting them all.
Whether to have a website depends upon what you do. I provide a professional service in the commercial property market (UK) and the content on my site is information only: I do not sell anything directly off the site. Before I had a website, I managed perfectly well to attract a vast amount of work simply by circulating my printed newsletter. Since deciding to concentrate upon developing my website, which is now over 500 pages, I ceased a printed newsletter as well. Unlike my printed newsletter which was distributed to my target market - all recipients readily found - the website attracts a different type of reader/enquirer because on-line I have no control over who visits. But whether on balance i am better off for having the ‘connection’ aspect of my marketing effectively done for me rather than doing it all myself the old-fashioned way is a moot point.
To my way of thinking, a non-transactional website is simply an online brochure. Aa a long-term RW customer, I have had my fill of wasting money on experimenting with third-party developer ideas/add-ons. Novelty having worn off, i am happy with my site theme and Will Woodgate’s services. With SSL and its requisite renewals via by ISP, not to mention the ISP’s hosting renewal costs, etc. it is apparent that the expense of a website is rising. So too is the loss of privacy. With a unique IP address, a search engine is more? able to pin-point the IP addressee?
Having a website and the impression it forms and leaves is, in my view, only really necessary for attracting the first-time visitor. It is my task to convert a visitor into a paying customer and my task also to ensure that each paying customer comes back for more whenever they are in need of more advice. So arguably the really hard tasks are nothing to do with Google or RW etc.
As I have said, it very much depends upon what you do and the role of the site, It used to cost me about £1000 ex VAT a year to print and distribute my quarterly newsletter, excluding the time-involved, to approximately 2000 recipients. My return on capital was usually 10 times the total cost. With my website, I don’t think I’ve attracted anything like the same calibre of client that my printed newsletter obtained. On the contrary, because the information and advice that is freely available on the site is so useful, I receive a steady flow of enquiries all of which have to be processed even though four out of five enquiries are pointless from my point of view.
Having a website has also made me lazy. Whereas in the past I would contact direct someone I thought might be interested in my services, I now wait for people to contact me. It concerns me too that I am obliged to be more careful in what I write about on my site, as distinct from what my newsletter used to contain. Of course, such factors are me specific but there is I think no getting away from the fact that whether to have a website is not necessarily such a good idea. Especially nowadays when the cost of circulating a printed newsletter could be reduced by email distribution.
I’d welcome your comments.