There’s one valid criticism you should know.

Over the years, Microsites have taken on a variety of forms and been defined a number of ways, which has lead to a great deal of misunderstanding and criticism.

Much of the criticism, however, is based on either straw-man arguments or faults that can be applied to any marketing effort and not unique to a Microsite.

For example, a common complaint is that many of these mini websites are poorly created, don’t deliver results, and therefore, quickly abandoned. Sadly, this is true. Of course, it’s also true for horrific TV, print, radio, and outdoor advertising as well as direct mail, email, and even Facebook fan pages. The marketing landscape is littered with ill-conceived or poorly executed ideas.

Another common critique goes like this: Companies spend thousands of dollars to produce amazing videos, photos, and interactive features which go to waste once the promotion is over. Besides having to conveniently ignore all traditional holiday advertising to make this case, one visit to subservientchicken.com reveals the reverse is actually true. Years after the TV commercials have come and gone, the man in the chicken suit lives on, dancing like Michael Jackson and assuming a three-point football stance while sending traffic to the Burger King website. All at minimal cost.

Perhaps the most valid criticism centers on a Microsite’s impact on search engine optimization, where companies manipulate web pages to try to improve their rankings in search engine results.

For years, companies believed they could game the system by creating mini sites specifically geared to certain search terms. This technique, however, has been generally discredited by Google’s own SEO spokesman Matt Cutts who suggests multiple, independent sites are less effective than combining all the content into a single website that can build up authority and inbound links over time, which proves to be critical for SEO success.

Next: Microsites vs. Facebook »