To Market or Inform?
Written July 10th, 2007 by Thomas AmesAccording to the 2007 Web Management Survey, most respondents work in a Marketing or Communications department. And for good reason: the organization’s website is often the visitor’s first direct exposure to the organization. The website offers the visitor a look into the organization: its purpose, what it offers, and how it can benefit the visitor. A reasonable question, then, is whether a website should first market its services to the visitor or merely inform her about available services.
The difference between marketing and informing might at first seem like semantics, but comparing each type of content shows glaring differences. Content that informs the visitor is usually dry and static, stating what a service is and what procedures it offers. Content that markets, however, draws the visitor in with adjectives and statistics that encourage further research (which the website provides, of course) and hopefully a referral. Put simply, informing merely tells the visitor what you have, while marketing tells your visitor why she should use your service.
Perhaps a benefit healthcare organizations have with a website is that their audience generally knows what they want. With some exceptions like symptom-related or educational content, a visitor at your website is likely to shop. For example, parents of a normal, healthy child aren’t likely to visit a page on endoscopic craniosynostosis repair; rather, it’s much more likely to be a concerned parent or referring physician. In general, many of our service line audiences are there for a reason, and that works to our advantage.
Because we know that it’s likely our visitors are there to shop for our services, it’s our job not only to inform them that we offer the service they’re looking for, but that we are generally successful in providing that service. It’s my inclination, then, that a service’s main page should serve as an overview with language that markets the service to persuade the visitor to make an appointment with one of our physicians or specialists. The marketing-leaning content, then, needs to establish three things: credibility, trust, and a call to action.
Establishing credibility and trust are very much alike, and one often comes with the other. Credibility can come from stating the number of patients served and the percentage of successful procedures. Even better, if applicable, is a long term success rate. An organization could also flaunt its third-party ranking. This persuades the visitor that your service is not only reputable but successful. Once you establish credibility and therefore trust, a call to action tells the visitor to act on her trust and make an appointment.
Now that we have almost purely marketing content on the service’s main page, it’s important to also establish credibility by providing appropriate educational content. Child pages can serve a hybrid role: marketing the specific procedure to the visitor by establishing credibility and also providing the static information she wants. Still using the endoscopic craniosynostosis repair example, the organization can explain what ECR is and what its benefits are (informs), how successful it has been at providing the procedure (establishes credibility and trust), and finally a call to action to get the referral.
In my opinion, too many healthcare organizations (including my own, which I’m slowly remedying) are providing too much dry, static content aimed at merely informing. But while we ‘Web People’ are often a technical bunch, it’s also important to remember that we are marketing our services, drawing our visitors in as referrals when appropriate. Pure information only serves to educate the visitor, while statistics dressed up in exciting, fancy adjectives persuades her to give us a call. And ultimately, the number of referrals from the web serves as our measuring tape of success not only for the medium but also for our efforts.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I agree 100% that the web is, first and foremost, a marketing tool. The caution, though, is that many consumers are tired and skeptical of too much “marketing” in health care. There’s a very fine line that needs to be walked.
But the bigger issue, in my mind, is the number of entities that have responsibility for the web in IS. My own organization is wrestling with that issue as we speak. I’ve always said that having IS be responsible for your web site is like having the print shop be responsible for your annual report. You can’t do it without them, but imagine how different your annual report would look if the print shop was the group responsible!
July 16th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I like the way you two think … to sell or not to sell. That is the question.
I say sell.
But Neal makes a good point (he always does) … people’s purchasing resistance goes up when the content smells of promotional hype. I think you’re best to stay clear of superlatives. Instead, aim to make claims and support them with proof. Say things other can’t say… in turn, you’re helping the consumer make an informed decision (where they can make their own decision) about their health care.
Fortunately, at our hospital, we (marketing and communications) own ‘what’ we say on our web site and ‘why’ (strategy and the actual content written and created). IS decides how (servers, server softwares, content management system, etc.).
One more note: when writing content for a hospital web site, I think it’s important to keep in mind what you’re actually selling. Jay Abraham once said, “you’re not in the business of selling drill bits… you’re in the business of selling holes.” In the same light, as a hospital, we’re not in the business of selling hospital services (heart surgery, radiation therapy, or transplants)… we’re in the business of selling a patient “a chance to return to the world and enjoy life to its fullest.”
July 17th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I appreciate the comments, and both of you are dead on. Swanie, you’re absolutely correct that superlatives can tip off the visitor to a marketing approach. That’s why I prefer words like “innovative,” “modern,” or, in some cases, “traditional.” Each can be used appropriately to enhance content and not seem too pushy with the marketing-speak.
One thing I did forget to touch on is the use of a patient profile/story to also enhance trust. A patient story coupled with exciting language and impressive statistics can establish enough trust to encourage the visitor to make the call.