|
|
to women on the web
Jodi Turek on the value of talking with, not at
By Jeremy Schlosberg
With the Hearst-backed women’s site Women.com now earmarked for de-listing by Nasdaq, the time has come to wonder whether the first generation of women’s web sites—epitomized by iVillage and Women.com—got it all wrong. Does it make sense to approach women as a niche when in fact women now outnumber men on the web? And even if women can sometimes be targeted as a group, does it make sense for web sites to try to do so with an approach that mimics traditional print magazines in terms of style, content and outlook? One media veteran who questions the women’s-site business model as attempted is Jodi Turek, president and co-founder of Womensforum.com. Launched in 1996 as the Women’s Forum, it started as a network linking 13 independent, grass-roots-style content sites by women for women, with partner sites sharing services, resources and ideas for growing their businesses. Membership has grown to 100 sites; in February of last year, a hub site, Womensforum.com, was introduced in which member sites are organized into 15 category channels. Turek is a former television reporter and talk show producer. Womensforum.com attracts 3.8 million unique visitors a month, according to Media Metrix.
The most well-known sites for women on the web so far have pretty much taken what women’s magazines have done in print and have tried to expand it in a vaguely interactive way onto the web. Do you feel the print model for presenting content to women is suited to the web in the first place?
The internet is a fabulous tool for
encouraging women of all backgrounds and interests to express their views
in an environment that fosters, and is based on, diversity.
Most print publications' editorial often dictates
how a woman should live, look, raise a family, develop her career, et
cetera. Viewpoints shared on the web, on the other hand, are just
that--viewpoints--and are based on the premise that when a woman is
sharing ideas or advice it's from her perspective, with the understanding
that the sharing is an exchange of her own personal experience--not a
declaration of how any other woman should live.
This is something completely unique to the web. It cannot be fostered in a publication that does not allow for real-time feedback. The closest I've seen to it in other media is in call-in radio or TV talk format.
I do believe that print content has a very real place on the web. However, it seems to me that the best way for traditional publishers to build a loyal community around that content is to take those features to the next level and make them interactive and community-based.
If a viewer cannot react to, respond, or interact with it, why put it on the web for its own sake?
I'm not saying that information by itself has no value. But look at the depth of community you can create when you give someone an opportunity to react, share related experiences or get more information in an interactive setting.
At Womensforum.com, our actual content as well as our look and feel is not reflective of a publishing model. Our content is not about "This is how you lose 50 pounds" and "This is how your house should look."
We don’t set agendas in that sense. Whether our sites are about decorating or cooking or child-raising, the content is being created by these individual women. So it’s somewhat different. We don’t follow the traditional print model of telling women how they should live or what they should look like.
Anyone with the passion and interest can make a web site. Does this change something deeply if subtly about old media assumptions of how content is created and distributed?
The opportunities for women today--all afforded by the
advent of the web--are incredible. Any woman with great ideas and passion,
the ability to create and publish quality content and features, and a
genuine desire to work as part of a grass roots community, can become a
publisher or CEO in her own right.
There is so much efficiency in this model: low
costs and barriers to entry, a never-ending supply of viewers, an
opportunity to network with other like-minded site owners to share traffic
and resources, and the willingness of viewers to publicize a site they
like by word of mouth are all cost-heavy expenses of traditional
publications. They’re called overhead and marketing and editorial
staffs.
Is there a danger that people will end up pointing to Women.com’s failure and say, "Well, see, web sites for women don’t work"?
I don't see the issue as women's
sites or ad-supported sites "not working" or being viable.
Women continue to make the web a primary resource
for gathering information, sharing experiences, conducting business and
making purchase decisions. This will only continue to increase over time.
Significant revenue has already been generated to reach this most valuable
audience.
The struggle for many has been that it has far more
expensive to
develop the content and acquire an audience than the revenue generated.
Ad-supported business models marketing to women not only can survive they
can be major successes if they cost less to build and operate than the
revenue they attract.
I think Womensforum.com has already built all of that
into its business model as a network of already established and successful
web sites. Prior to coming to Womensforum.com, partner sites already have
quality content and a sizable loyal audience. So at Womensforum.com, the
greatest costs involved in building an online business--content
development and traffic growth--are eliminated through cooperation,
contribution and sharing, under a single network partnership.
Do you think there’s a future in ad-supported content on the web?
I genuinely think that marketers will
continue to come onto the web—if nothing else because of the growing
numbers of women online. And there are companies that have always looked
to reach them. I think marketers have been slow, but I think they were
smart. Because the measures and the matrixes that have been used on the
web so far—well, how reliable are they really? "I click, therefore
I’m a customer"?
Web sites are going to have to give marketers
some real return, which begins with knowing very specifically who visits
the site and then offering advertisers the ability to genuinely integrate
into the site.
To advertise successfully on the web takes a lot of planning, and a lot of willingness to get beyond CPMs. I think a lot of us are still very stuck on CPMs and CPCs.
Of course if you’re looking to cause a specific action, there’s nothing wrong with banners or creatives based on click-throughs and performance. It’s measurable, it’s definable. But if you’re really looking to make an impact, to get your message in front of women, you’ve got to give them information that’s helpful, show them ways to do things better—and put it in a place where they can find it again and again. It doesn’t have to be a banner.
-Jeremy Schlosberg is the senior editor for new media.
Printer-Friendly
Version | Send
to a Friend
Cover Page | Contact
Us
© 2001 Media Life
