Group websites

[Iceman]

What are members opinions of group websites? Where are the good ones and where are the bad?

In my opinion if a group goes to the trouble of commissioning a website then the least they can do is keep it up to date. Let's face it, you need information on what's happening - tours, news etc. and sale of merchandise, it all helps to fill the coffers. Nothing more frustrating than trying to find out what's happening only to find it hasn't been touched in 6 months. I understand that keeping a website going is not easy to keep it fresh but if it is only there ' because we ought to have one' what's the point? Same goes for having social media links if you're not going to use them reasonably regularly don't bother it just makes it more frustrating.

Having a particular 'beef' about Camel's website apart from tour dates and news on Guy it's hardly ever touched. They've just done a mini tour so what an opportunity to show pictures, videos, blogs etc, but what do we get...nothing, thanks a lot!

On the other hand the Wishbone Ash website is pretty good and is always keeing you informed of what's currently happening.

Chalk and cheese...thoughts anyone?

[2ndsout]

I remember when the Genesis website was up and running and then was shut down after the 2007 tour. That website was awesome when the 07 tour happened because they had a whole bunch of information on the website and it was just a fun website to cruise around. It would have been nice to see them release some of their much talked aboout Board tapes from the 70s released only through their website....sadly that never became a reality.

I don't go to too many specific band websites- but rather the general and broad music websites that have information on all bands in general.

[JKL2000]

Good idea for a thread!

The one I can't figure out and I've mentioned it a lot so I won't belabor it - Todd Rundgren's site. Awful to use and completely out of date. And the guy's been touring recently, used to call himself TR-I (Todd Rundgren-Interactive), etc.

RE: Camel's site, at least they update it when there's important new info. That's better than a great site that's not updated with the latest info.

I actually don't care that much about some band's sites if they have a good, functioning email list. IMO that's the best way to get news out to fans. For example, Tull's/IA's website is pretty nice and up to date, but although they have a thing to subscribe to an alleged email list, they NEVER use it.

Basically, the Marillion model is the one to follow. The email list is great for news, the website is a great archive of information, including links to information archived by third parties. It's all done right.

I hate the DGM website - so hard to navigate/understand. But I love their homey, fun newsletters!

[Scott Bails]

This is one of those things where the artist either needs someone involved in their "inner circle" - a band member, agent, wife, etc. - who is really into maintaining the website or else it's going to remain stagnant. Bands, I'd think, are kind of like a small business. Some of the really successful ones can cover all aspects of their business, or they know well enough to hire someone to handle it for them. But others really don't care - they just want to play music. The business end of it, the marketing and promotion, gets little to no attention, or they take too much of a "hands off" approach, to the detriment of their fans.

Basically, some just aren't savvy enough to keep up with this stuff.

[Lebofsky]

1. It's actually not trivial to make a website, effort-wise. And updating them is a continual burden with very questionable payback.
2. While it's great to have a uniquely designed website, it has become much easier/faster/responsive to just have a facebook page or the like for connecting with fans or disseminating information.
3. I update www.lebofsky.com constantly as I programmed it entirely myself and am in front of computers all day, so it's easy for me. This happens *despite* the fact that relatively nobody is looking at it. And that's the thing - everybody's web surfing time is mostly spent on forums and social networking sites these days, so less and less effort is being applied to formal, individual web sites. This vastly reduces the motivation to "keep things up."
4. We're a prog rock forum, which means band sites we care about are seen probably 5% as much as other bands - even more reason to expect less in prog rock band web site upkeep.

Bottom line: money and time and questionable payback for money and time spent. I agree stale web sites are lame, but every human endeavor is full of stale web sites because nobody predicted back during the dawn of the web how so terribly annoying and largely pointless it would be to constantly maintain these things.

- Matt

[Man In The Mountain]

They're become less viable extremely quick. Social media like twitter & Facebook go directly to the fans, rather than fans having to come to you. If you want up to the second news on Neal Morse (for example), just join his Twitter account. There is no need to go to his website unless he's selling something directly from there. It's as simple as that. The old forums on those types of websites are like The Walking Dead. I have no idea why some people still lumber around in those, when the various Facebook pages devoted to bands/artists are brimming with activity.

[JKL2000]

I don't really use Facebook much (never tried Twitter) - is Facebook good for a discography with links to further info on each album, a list of tour dates with links to where to buy tickets for each date, etc? I find Facebook to be a big jumble of confusingly presented stuff. It just doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I can't view it at work.

[JKL2000]

They're become less viable extremely quick. Social media like twitter & Facebook go directly to the fans, rather than fans having to come to you. If you want up to the second news on Neal Morse (for example), just join his Twitter account. There is no need to go to his website unless he's selling something directly from there. It's as simple as that. The old forums on those types of websites are like The Walking Dead. I have no idea why some people still lumber around in those, when the various Facebook pages devoted to bands/artists are brimming with activity.

Why do you post and read here instead of just using the PE Facebook page? When I look there, there's not much to see.

[Scott Bails]

They're become less viable extremely quick. Social media like twitter & Facebook go directly to the fans, rather than fans having to come to you. If you want up to the second news on Neal Morse (for example), just join his Twitter account.

Except that Neal doesn't really tweet that much.

[Scott Bails]

I don't really use Facebook much (never tried Twitter) - is Facebook good for a discography with links to further info on each album, a list of tour dates with links to where to buy tickets for each date, etc? I find Facebook to be a big jumble of confusingly presented stuff. It just doesn't make much sense to me. Also, I can't view it at work.

Jeez, Jed. I'm surprised that you've even heard of Twitter and Facebook.

[Lebofsky]

I have no idea why some people still lumber around in those, when the various Facebook pages devoted to bands/artists are brimming with activity.

I tend to agree, but the truly sad thing is that websites are actually capable of unique voice and design and interface. The fact that effectively all artist/fan connection is filtered through the completely arbitrary, ugly, constrained design filters of facebook/twitter/bandcamp/etc. makes me want to puke. To make a pre-internet analogy, it's like your only option as a band is to sell CDs through Walmart - and you can't succeed in setting up your own shop, because nobody goes to the mom-and-pop shops anymore now that the big stores have taken over. And who has the resources and willpower to fight all this?

You try and set up your own web site, nobody cares, but you already paid for it for the next N years so you might as well just let it sit there instead of taking it down and admitting defeat in the battle of worldwide indifference.

- Matt

[JKL2000]

Jeez, Jed. I'm surprised that you've even heard of Twitter and Facebook.

Actually, over the years I HAVE used Facebook pretty much - just not much over the last couple of years. But I have it, really - I still don't understand a lot about it, and the whole timeline based thing is pretty annoying. I just find it hard to see what I want to see, especially if it goes back more than a short time.

[Chain]

If the front page has a pic of the band leaning against a brick wall. Click off.

[ronmac]

They need to have a good website, period. You cannot go without one, because not everybody uses FB. Social media outlets aren't enough. In fact, their role is to drive people to THE WEB SITE to get informed, bookmark it and, hopefully, buy stuff.

I have always maintained that the music industry does a pretty crappy job with their web sites. Of course, there are many great ones. But, the missed opportunities far outweigh the memorable ones. Many are simply created by the publishing companies and, essentially, forgotten.

Yes, they require some maintenance, but so does every other part of the business. But, it's not that big of a deal. In fact, social media requires much, much more maintenance than a site. But, they are all important to have. It comes with the territory.

I always found it ironic that Rundgren went from pioneer to just another lazy, outdated site.

The official Hendrix site was always a great one. Dylan always had a great site.

[Paulrus]

They need to have a good website, period. You cannot go without one, because not everybody uses FB. Social media outlets aren't enough. In fact, their role is to drive people to THE WEB SITE to get informed, bookmark it and, hopefully, buy stuff.

I have always maintained that the music industry does a pretty crappy job with their web sites. Of course, there are many great ones. But, the missed opportunities far outweigh the memorable ones. Many are simply created by the publishing companies and, essentially, forgotten.

Yes, they require some maintenance, but so does every other part of the business. But, it's not that big of a deal. In fact, social media requires much, much more maintenance than a site. But, they are all important to have. It comes with the territory.

I pretty much agree with this, though the importance of social media should not be discounted. In this day and age without the support of radio and big labels social media is the best way for bands to stay connected with their fan base and make sure they don't wander off.

That said, web sites do some things social media isn't good at, like deep dives of information, archival content, and the presentation of visual media. And for those not interested in Facebook and the like a web site is where a fan can sign up for email notifications, e-newsletters, etc. Lastly, a web site can be uniquely branded and customized to reflect whatever the band wants to promote, something that's harder to do on a platform like Facebook.

The bottom line is that like all marketing tools, web sites and social media outlets should be used together. In the prog sphere I've always been impressed with Steven Wilson's handle on all this stuff.

[ronmac]

I pretty much agree with this, though the importance of social media should not be discounted...

Which is why I was careful that I didn't. I agree, they are all important. In harmony, of course, with everything else.