"Most smart people ignore most advertising because most advertising ignores smart people."

—Bill Bernbach, the legendary 'B' in DDB.

Should you run a User-Generated Content (UGC) promotion on Facebook or a dedicated microsite?

Posted: August 4th, 2010 | Author: | Filed under: Social Media for Nonprofits, Social Media Marketing | Tags: , , , , , , | 24 Comments »

Here’s the deal. In support of an upcoming campaign, we’re considering a UGC promotion. I’m torn whether it should be conducted entirely within Facebook, or if we should build a microsite to host it.

The market is local (Winnipeg), so broad reach is less important than participant’s social influence on each other.

Desired outcomes include brand awareness, engagement, and viral sharing. The lurkers—people who don’t contribute content, but passively receive it through sharing—are almost as important as the participants.

Facebook or microsite?

Facebook seems like fish in a barrel (easier to reach because they’re right there), whereas a microsite seems like fish in the ocean (more of them who travel farther).

What do you think? Is it a better idea to run a UGC promotion inside of Facebook, using the built-in network & functionality there, or would you build a destination to aggregate submissions & let people share from there? Please comment below whether you favour Facebook or a  microsite, why, and if I’m overlooking anything.

Experience Path of a Facebook-based UGC Promotion

Experience Path of a Microsite-based UGC Promotion

Entry Points:  Facebook


  1. Fan Page asks for participation
  2. User sees friends participating
  3. Facebook ads

Entry Points: Advertising

  1. Main company website
  2. Email promotion
  3. Sponsorship partner promotions
  4. Twitter
  5. Print promotion – newspaper, flyers
  6. Local radio promotion

Entry Points: Sharing

  1. News feed publishing
  2. Content upload
  3. Content tagging
  4. Facebook “Likes”
  5. Facebook “Share this”
  6. Facebook comments

Entry Points: Microsite


  1. Blog

Entry Points:  Advertising

  1. Facebook Fan Page promotion
  2. Facebook ads
  3. Organic Facebook (staff status)
  4. Main company website
  5. Email promotion
  6. Sponsorship partner promotion
  7. Twitter
  8. Print promotion – newspaper, flyers
  9. Local radio promotion
  10. Flickr
  11. YouTube

Entry Points: Sharing

  1. Option to “like” Fan Page
  2. Option to email
  3. Option to “Share this” to other social networks
  4. Option to share on Facebook
  5. Option to tweet

Activities:

  1. Click through to Fan Page
  2. Upload content
  3. Tag content
  4. Comment on other content
  5. Share

Activities:

  1. Click through to microsite
  2. Upload content
  3. Comment on other content
  4. Share

Pros:

  • “Forced” sharing through news stream publishing
  • No web development required (faster & cheaper)
  • Viral is built in; all user’s connections are there & are notified when user does something
  • Ads can be very targeted
  • Friends more likely to be local & strong ties, so more likely to be influenced and be from local market

Pros:

  • Users don’t have to be Facebook members; can share outside Facebook easily
  • More sharing options; broader reach of social networks
  • Aggregating content across networks
  • Full branding & user experience control

Cons:

  • Content is locked down
  • Must be a Facebook user to participate
  • Less control over look & feel

Cons:

  • Users don’t have to share
  • Development time & cost
  • Need videos to come from YouTube to avoid hosting & streaming; potentially complicated
  • Social shares go out as a link to content, not published as an action

Facebook or microsite?

Here’s the deal. In support of an upcoming campaign, we’re considering a UGC promotion. I’m torn whether it should be conducted entirely within Facebook, or if we should build a microsite to host it.

The market is local (Winnipeg), so broad reach is less important than participant’s social influence on each other.

Desired outcomes include brand awareness, engagement, and viral sharing. The lurkers—people who don’t contribute content, but passively receive it through sharing—are almost as important as the participants.