ASBPE Washington, DC Chapter President
During Sunday's Super Bowl, domain registration Web site godaddy.com ran an advertisement that indicated, in a nutshell, that the ad they originally intended to run featuring Indy driver Danica Patrick was deemed "too hot for TV." It then directed viewers to head to www.godaddy.com to see the banished spot.
Whether the powers that be should or should not have let them air the original ad is of no concern to me (I didn't go check it out, so I have no idea whether or not it really was "too hot"). What got me thinking, though, was that the TV ad marketed no goods or services but instead encouraged the viewer to head to the Web. It could be the most effective Web driver ever—or the worst. Was it enticing enough to get people to the company's Web site? Or is forcing folks online to learn anything about you asking too much?
What's this got to do with B2B? Well, it reminded me of a discussion I'd had with some of my editors and publishers last week. We were trying to determine how to deal with three stories that were running longer than expected at the same time there was no flexibility in the magazine's overall page count. We had realized that the articles couldn't be any shorter if they were going to be of value. Plus, all three are recurring sections listed on the editorial calendar, so it is a situation we will face each issue.
Most of us thought the best decision would be to run full versions of two of the three articles in print and save the third for later or to run as a Web-exclusive. But someone argued for the idea of printing all three in much shorter formats and then offering the full version of each article online
Our immediate reaction was "no way." This tack would essentially cut the meat out of the articles, rendering them nearly incomplete and unable to stand on their own. The articles would become a bit of a tease—we essentially would be forcing our readers to go to the Web to get their full value. If they didn't go, they'd be missing out on important details. If they did go, would they do so with annoyance? Would their faith in the value of our print product be diminished?
While we have already implemented many Web drivers into the magazine—including teasers to extra, related content at the end of articles and a dedicated "what's online" box in the table of contents describing online exclusives—this step seemed one too far. Additional article content should be worthy enough to want people to head to the Web, but it should be just that—additional helpful things that are extensions or branches of the material that will enhance the story and help the reader even further. It should not be required reading that if unread would affect their ability to understand the topic first presented in print.
In navigating Web 2.0, one thing I've come to believe is that it's about balance. I think the right recipe is a little flavor of both, mixed together however appropriate. Above all, we need to ensure that what we're providing—in print or online—is achieving what we've always sought to do: to serve the readers and their industry the best ways possible. Print articles, additional Web content, and Web-exclusive features should co-exist, with each able to stand alone while enhancing the other two and building your overall brand.