Web sites are dead, so, Facebook apps anyone?


(Jon Norris) #1

Days gone by websites were full of pages to click to, lots of content to make people return. Now we need to strip out the unnecessary and give the customer succinctly what they want. Roll on Foundation and Sections, even Screens.

But as web sites become unnecessary for SOME businesses maybe we need to bunk up Facebook pages with extra apps (tabs) and the content built by Rapidweaver, and transferred over in iframes. I’m thinking of builders, entertainers and similar. Many of who would have been typical web design customers now do it themselves via FB.

Anyone thinking along the same lines willing to add thoughts and ideas?


(Mark Sealey) #2

Yes!

Thanks for bringing this up, Jon :slight_smile:

It does seem inevitable that the ‘catch-all’ website is on the way out - if for no other reason than that (this kind of) technology is changing so fast that nothing can last for very long (10-15 years) any more.

I’m not sure that it’s chiefly a question of how much content is made available on websites; but what kind of content… so interactive FB-like personal news and ‘discussion’ will surely gravitate to one type of delivery mechanism; commerce to another; pure information (weather, traffic, news) to another - and so on.

Is the superstructure of websites (HTTP/HTML, CSS, PHP etc) robust and flexible enough to underpin the next wave in the way that OS X Dashboard Widgets used JavaScript?

If so, where would that leave RW?

‘Sitelets’?

App-tunnels?

The trick would seem to be to ensure that content and platform/delivery mechanism - however counterintuitive and whatever the temptations - be decoupled; at least in terms of their underlying technology. And that the media be made as self-standing, independent and amenable of development as possible in whatever environments emerge.

So - Instagram is where folk go to compare and discuss images. Waze to ensure a smooth commute. Twitter to get realtime news etc. Multiply that concentration and ubiquity by 10: that could well be the world we’ll be living in by 2020.


(Jürgen Schulze) #3

It is all about relevance. If the content is relevant and can be found accordingly (not talking about adwords and traditional SEO) then RapidWeaver has the best possible right to live. Putting your fate under control of FB is not any better than putting it under Google. Well, I’d prefer Google. Facebook is a collaborative OS, nothing more. And the dependency is singular. The “open web” has at least some alternatives to Google… It is a philosophical discussion but I would not put my business future into the hands of Mark…One reason is that you have to read their EULA every other day in order to understand what the latest changes and restrictions are.
You can’t dance on all weddings and if you start to kiss all brides, it becomes risky. I mean: Doing one thing perfectly well is better than doing a couple of mediocre jobs.
The combination of a Website with relevant and dynamic content with contextual advertising in FB is a good way.
My 10 cents…


(Jon Norris) #4

Interesting. Its definitely horses for courses! Is anybody using RW to provide the extra pages that can be added (tabs/apps I think they’re called) to FB. You can drag in blogs and apparently anything in an iframe.

Is anybody doing this?

Recently I lost three tradesmens web contracts because they reckonned they got all their business on FB, and also felt more in control using FB themselves. Even though Joes CMS is there on their web sites. They are happy with word of mouth recommendations and FB comments, updating it themselves than having to advertise to get their web address across or having new content added by me to try to chase higher Google placings.


(scott williams) #5

Here’s what I tell people when they want to make the mistake of using only social media:

“Your web site is the heart of your digital presence. You hear a lot of hype about social media, Facebook, Twitter, Google+ etc. but the fact is your web site is the only thing YOU are in control of.
For example; Companies spent huge amounts of money getting Facebook followers only to watch as less and less people were reached when Facebook made changes to their algorithm. Follower reach is down to as little as 8% of what it once was.
Social Media is an important part of your digital presence, but it needs to be used wisely and it needs to be used to drive people to your web site where you are in control.”

Usually get’s them thinking diferently


(Jason Bostick) #6

If someone gets to the point that they can work to capacity on word of mouth alone then, yeah, a website (or facebook page for that matter) is just a window-dressing luxury. Not much you can do (and good for them, frankly).

But that won’t necessary last forever, and having to recreate a website during a down period is not terribly efficient. A website, in my mind, provides some legitimacy for new customers (that a FB page may or may not) and, as @swilliam says, it is something you own and control outright. If they don’t see value in it, though, I don’t know that porting over Facebook related things to a website would change their mind.


(Mark Sealey) #7

And on a parallel track… I took the original post here as speculating about the inevitability less of contrasting the worlds of websites and social media (which - together with the advent of the smart phone - is where the fracture began), than of contrasting the all-in-one website with dedicated apps (way beyond social media) delivering targeted content.


(Jon Norris) #8

Agree with all of this! However my daughter is a pole dancing champion and has built a whole aerial skills school entirely using FB. Getting her to update her website is hells own job but she works at FB several hours a day.

So I take it noone out there is making content for FB using RW.

Figured it might be another way to sell our services other than web sites. These FB tabs/apps/pages are charging $50 a month so hoped somebody here was tapping in and might share the how!


(Brad Halstead) #9

This question is appropriately timed!

Myself, I am trying to get the Chapter away from Facebook, they love their privacy but use Facebook? Contradiction in terms. Secondly, it’s enough to manage email and the website data let alone Facebook/Twitter/etc, I would never be out on the Harley getting bugs in my teeth lol

It’s a tough call and I suppose really depends on use case, just like any other platform of communication… if you need it use it just be aware of the disadvantages/advantages.

Brad


(Jürgen Schulze) #10

They’ll be back. I mean your tradesman…