James, for the first time I have to disagree. I agree with your points on website addresses and twitter – they are great tools but should be linked through the station website. However, I can’t agree with email.

I think people are far more likely to fire a quick email to studio@smalltownfm.com saying hi, love the show or whatever – rather than going to www.smalltownfm.com, finding the “Contact Us” link, realising that’s for sales, going back to the front page, finding “Presenters”, checking who is on air now, clicking on their face, finding the “Send a message to me” button, and finally typing their message. Because, let’s face it, that’s the way a lot of small radio station websites look. (We will of course ignore the quasi-national Heart / Galaxy / XFM websites for now…)

Far easier, quicker, and a feeling of a better experience – wow, the DJ on air actually read my email! – than submitting a web form in my opinion…

Cheers

Paul
–
Formerly of student and hospital radio in various places in the UK and Ireland

your comments appear sound however many people find a ‘contact us’ form impersonal, rather like writing to a machine than a human being, there is a sense that the form may not be read, will it be read by the person i wish to communicate with, will i get a reply to a specific question by using the form?

The perception is an email address is personal where as
a form lacks the personal touch that can influence the listeners decision to write or not.

Bang on, spot on, exactly and all the other phrases that will amount to the fact that James is totally right with this. “You can email me through the website blahblahfm.co.uk” simple. Drives traffic to the site, not just your page, maybe they click a link or 3, enter an online comp, register for your VIP/AAA area whilst there. As I’ve said and heard many times. It’s not rocket science is it?

[...] the last time then: if you’d like to read the full blog post then head over to James’ blog and decide what your views on the subject [...]

You know that I’ve never been entirely happy with web only options. Lots of people have Blackberrys and iPhones for example, and it’s much easier to email with one of those than it is to fill out a tiddly form on a website.

You can easily bounce a reply back to your listeners telling them what exciting fare you have on the site, how you can look at the webcam, catch up with studio Tweets or whatever.

“Email us via the website” also sounds horrible. And the listener just knows that half the time you have to fill out multiple forms, register or goodness knows what.

Every one of those steps means that I’m less likely to correspond with the station.

Now if you want to limit the number of people contacting you, then this is a fine way. But if you want to make particpiation as easy as possible, then email is the way forward (I’m not saying get rid of the web form of course).

Like many others, I’ve wrestled with this one. I can really see your point here James. You’re right not sending people online is a missed opportunity. But whilst I’d agree a stand-alone youtube page or twitter feed that doesn’t dock with website is a no-no I can see that never giving out your email is not always going to work.
Personally, I find it a faff going to the website, finding the page and filling out a form that may well ask me for name, phone number, email, inside leg measurement or insist I register. Email is point and shoot. I don’t think I’d mind getting an auto-reply to say thanks for emailing and by the way the breakfast show is giving away a holiday to Scunthorpe this week. To me, that feels more personal.
Plus I think that ‘email via the website’ is a bad use of English, surely a message in a webform isn’t an email? (OK, that’s semantics but you get my point) There still should be a form for those who use hotmail etc, where a clicky link won’t always work but it ought to be easy, easy to use. The shoutbox idea might work better.

Apart from the fact that a mobile device might not have web capability, your website may not be easily navigable on it, it will cost more if you don’t have unlimited data, and the hassle factor effectively suppresses contributions. An email can be written without a live connection, even on the tube, and sent when possible. Yes you can use SMS, but this is limited and costly.

Also, for someone listening at work, firing off an email is quick and discreet. Browsing your station website is fiddly and obvious to your manager or colleagues if they happen to pass by – in some work environments this would be a problem. Also, in some offices access to station websites may be blocked altogether.

I understand your point James, but I would say that if you want to give your audience every possible opportunity to interact and engage, you should give out a simple, short email address with all possible variants accepted. Interaction should be seen as more than just a revenue generator via sms or ad banners – it helps make your output compelling.

I do not like web submission links my station uses both and when you use the form you are ignored.

email is alot easier and quicker to use and will always be read out. These email addresses presenters use are work email addresses only. Their twitter, bebo, facebook and myspace pages are also their show pages to gain more listeners.

I also prefer email especially when your radio station does not have an easy website to browse. Check out www.tayfm.co.uk and www.tayam.co.uk both websites are in a mess.

They were once easy to browse but now you cant even navigate well via a mobile so i would not waste my time submitting a web form.