Is a website really necessary?
Posted: March 31st, 2019, 3:41 pm
Having noticed that my website 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 medium to 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. Generally, people regard a website as essential, a no-brainer. But I'm not so sure. I operate in the B to B market, providing a professional service in the commercial property market and the content on my site is information only. Before I had a website, I managed perfectly well to attract a vast amount of work simply by circulating my printed brochure and a printed regular newsletter. Since deciding to concentrate upon my website, which is now over 500 pages, I ceased a printed brochure and newsletter as well. Unlike my printed brochure and newsletter which was distributed to my target market - recipients readily found - the website attracts a different type of reader/enquirer because on-line I have no control over who visits. Since inception, the site has been listed amongst the top 5 searches so SEO is not an issue. But whether on balance I am better off for having the ‘connection’ aspect of my marketing 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 an online brochure having any number of pages. Prior to the web (for my use, that it), I used to change my brochure (a few pages at the most) regularly - probably the most successful was the opening line 'welcome to the right way of thinking' and all content right-hand justified.
With SSL and its requisite renewals via my 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 from an operational perspective. 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, also my task to ensure that each paying customer comes back for more whenever in need of more advice. So arguably the really hard tasks are nothing to do with Google or the website developer/software or the site hosting company (all of whose costs and requirements need to be met without any certainly of response).
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 in packing, to approximately 2000 recipients. My measurable return on capital was usually 10 times total cost. Non-measurable is the value of repeat work and recommendation. Having a website has also made me lazy. The whereabout of my target market is readily identifiable. 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. Via my website, I don’t think I’ve attracted anything like the same calibre of client that my printed newsletter achieved. I don't think that's a content issue, more likely a website is not the first port of call for the calibre. Instead, 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. (Amongst the information is possibly a unique service: a calculator for percentage changes in the Retail Price Index and applying the percentage to a rent. I had the feature designed to cater for an internal need of mine and thought others might find it useful too: others do, including lots of people who like asking daft questions!
It concerns me too that I am obliged to be more careful in what I write about on my site, lest I inadvertently offend a 'snowflake', as distinct from what my newsletter might've contain: i do not have a comments facility on the site but linking to websites is a feature of social media, unlike a printed newsletter that more likely limited to private consumption. I could password-protect part of the site but that doesn't address the overall issue. Of course, such factors are my style specific but there is I think no getting away from wondering whether to have a website is no longer 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.
BnC
(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. Generally, people regard a website as essential, a no-brainer. But I'm not so sure. I operate in the B to B market, providing a professional service in the commercial property market and the content on my site is information only. Before I had a website, I managed perfectly well to attract a vast amount of work simply by circulating my printed brochure and a printed regular newsletter. Since deciding to concentrate upon my website, which is now over 500 pages, I ceased a printed brochure and newsletter as well. Unlike my printed brochure and newsletter which was distributed to my target market - recipients readily found - the website attracts a different type of reader/enquirer because on-line I have no control over who visits. Since inception, the site has been listed amongst the top 5 searches so SEO is not an issue. But whether on balance I am better off for having the ‘connection’ aspect of my marketing 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 an online brochure having any number of pages. Prior to the web (for my use, that it), I used to change my brochure (a few pages at the most) regularly - probably the most successful was the opening line 'welcome to the right way of thinking' and all content right-hand justified.
With SSL and its requisite renewals via my 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 from an operational perspective. 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, also my task to ensure that each paying customer comes back for more whenever in need of more advice. So arguably the really hard tasks are nothing to do with Google or the website developer/software or the site hosting company (all of whose costs and requirements need to be met without any certainly of response).
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 in packing, to approximately 2000 recipients. My measurable return on capital was usually 10 times total cost. Non-measurable is the value of repeat work and recommendation. Having a website has also made me lazy. The whereabout of my target market is readily identifiable. 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. Via my website, I don’t think I’ve attracted anything like the same calibre of client that my printed newsletter achieved. I don't think that's a content issue, more likely a website is not the first port of call for the calibre. Instead, 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. (Amongst the information is possibly a unique service: a calculator for percentage changes in the Retail Price Index and applying the percentage to a rent. I had the feature designed to cater for an internal need of mine and thought others might find it useful too: others do, including lots of people who like asking daft questions!
It concerns me too that I am obliged to be more careful in what I write about on my site, lest I inadvertently offend a 'snowflake', as distinct from what my newsletter might've contain: i do not have a comments facility on the site but linking to websites is a feature of social media, unlike a printed newsletter that more likely limited to private consumption. I could password-protect part of the site but that doesn't address the overall issue. Of course, such factors are my style specific but there is I think no getting away from wondering whether to have a website is no longer 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.
BnC