I think having a Facebook Fan page is probably better than not having a Web site at all, but I think there are still too many drawbacks for most businesses. The advantage you describe of having your fans see your updates on their walls is a plus, it’s like getting people to subscribe to your blog’s RSS feed. But it doesn’t allow for evergreen content that people might want to access in the future. One can click the more button or do a search, but otherwise there’s really not a good way to archive and categorize those little snippets we share on Facebook pages. Tools like FBML and Posted Items Pro allow us to more easily customize our Facebook content, but it’s still pretty limited.

For someone who can’t afford to have a site built, I think I’d be more likely to recommend using a self-hosted WordPress installation with a free template theme. This way they can get started with a pretty clean and functional site, then as they grow and have more money they can hire someone like me or Joseph to customize it to better suit their needs. They could still have a Facebook page as an additional online presence and traffic generator, but the WordPress site could serve as a more permanent and adaptable home, complete with analytics, SEO, etc.

I find it interesting that you are seeing such a high bounce rate for social media traffic. I’m getting a high bounce rate from StumbleUpon (82%) which seems logical given the nature of the service, but I’m averaging 35-60% from LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter with those visitors reading an average of 2.77 – 3.81 pages per visit. I think our bounce rate from social media depends a lot on our given social media strategies, who we engage with online, as well as the content we provide.

Having a Facebook page is certainly a good idea, but I’m not sold on having it be one’s primary site. I also agree with Joseph that it’s important to have your own space and not be entirely dependent on a free service like Facebook. As big and stable as it is, it could still go away someday, or lose the popularity race to some new service we’ve not yet seen. I was an avid user of Pownce. In 2007 Pownce and Twitter were perceived by the media as direct competitors. Pownce was more robust, with a cleaner interface, the ability to embed media, create friend groups, etc. It was far more useful than Twitter, but Twitter won the popularity game and Pownce shut down in December. We never really know what the future may hold, even for a heavyweight like Facebook.

For the micro business it’s perfect. I have a buddy who’s a chef and he’s started selling his rubbing salt to anyone willing to pay. He’s got a website but it looks like crap because a buddy set it up for free on GoDaddy and he doesn’t know how to use it. Will, I may have invited you to fan it (Slavo Salt), can’t remember but it’s amazing by the way. Anyways, the site and blog look like crap but the Facebook page is an entirely different story. It’s clean, interactive and easy to customize / add content. It’s also got those viral hooks built in so people get exposed to it.

I’m trying to convince him to focus on the Facebook page and not spread himself too thin with a website, blog and Facebook page. He could do much more damage on Facebook than anywhere else especially considering his technical knowledge.

Facebook has made it much more efficient to connect as “Friends” and if that platform enables small businesses to reach more people more efficiently … well, then that’s big business.

There’s a difference between not thinking it’s the right solution for every problem, and not taking it seriously. I take it very seriously.

Facebook a great platform, but a site that can show something like this (http://twitpic.com/ek4d6) as one of the first things a user sees after login has no business being the homepage for any serious business.

I am merely stating that, with very few exceptions, you can technically replicate the functionality of a web site through a Facebook page. It requires some customization and development, sure, but it is possible. It wouldn’t be for everyone, but I think it is an interesting concept and I’d love to see someone try it.

The way people consume content these days is just different. I don’t believe that you need to have a large, complicated web site anymore. And, i think that social networking is here to stay. I don’t think you can really compare Twitter to Facebook (or even MySpace for that matter). Those sites don’t have the user base of Facebook, or the same type of mature platform. MySpace went after kids (now, they are going after bands) and Twitter can’t get their act together and even keep their site up. I am not sure that Twitter is built for the long haul, whereas Facebook is. I also believe that Facebook Connect is a step towards a unified login and that Facebook will serve as the sign in for all of your essential web services within 2 years.

With all of these things going for it, I don’t see how you can’t take Facebook seriously.

I’m a web developer, so I have a vested interest in this topic, but I can’t imagine why any company would want to do such a thing.

Your first point about the benefits of Facebook pages is irrelevant with regard to making that page your home page, because the benefits you get from having a Facebook page aren’t mutually exclusive. If a Facebook user is already a fan of your company, they’re getting your updates regardless. Making that page your homepage might get you more fans more quickly, sure, but you’re effectively saying the only way someone can participate with you is through social media. That’s just silly.

Your point about the resources to build a web presence is valid, but at the same time, not. It doesn’t cost anything to have a Facebook page, so while it certainly makes sense for most businesses to have them, it makes little if any sense to make that page a company’s home page. What if your company has to offer downloads like support materials? What if your company deals with confidential information, as lawyers do? I wouldn’t want to do business with a company that doesn’t have the time or resources to have a quality website. If I punch in yourcoolbusiness.com and end up on a Facebook page, I’m going to assume you took the easy way out. I don’t want to do business with a company that lacks the resources to put together a quality website.

I’m not sure how your last argument is even relevant to the discussion. Yes, Facebook marketing is effective, both in terms of cost and in terms of conversions. So what? Does making your Facebook page your company home page have any effect on the effectiveness of your advertising *on* Facebook?

I agree that Facebook is a great resource for companies and marketers, but putting all you eggs in one basket is always a bad move (unless it’s Vegas and you just *know* the next card in the deck will give you 21).

It wasn’t long ago that MySpace was the dominant, and Facebook was but an ant. It wasn’t long before that when Livejournal was in Myspace’s position. These applications come and go. Facebook, like Twitter, has yet to make any real money. Why would you put the public-facing first-stop for your company on the web in the hands of such an ephemeral industry?