When it comes to efficacy, a Web site is much like your home. Sure you have one, but is it working for you? Does the design of your house speak to who you are? Is the layout appropriate? Do the appliances appeal to the user and work as expected? For houses and Web sites alike, all of these questions are important. They help determine if there is a need to do a major renovation (major Web updates), or get a new house entirely (a full redesign).

Well, there are a number of things that indicate if a site is working as it should. Here are a few questions to ask yourself and your Web team:

Does the family come over for dinner very often?

In this context, your family is your users. It is important to examine the Web statistics and make sure they are using the site as expected. Do they come back often? Are they visiting pages you expect and interacting in the ways you intended – or are they sleeping on the sofa? It could be that what you have to offer isn't quite what your user needs now. The bunk beds may be out of date.

Do the drapes match the carpeting? (I'm going to flog this metaphor to death.)

We're talking branding here. As Web sites mature, the tendency is to add things you need at the moment, but didn't fit into the original design. This is only natural, but if the branding has drifted, if there are too many things inconsistent with the original idea, then it is time for an interior decorator or renovation contractor.

Can Grandma get up the stairs?

This speaks to usability. If the site contains information and functions that only appeal, or work for, one type of user, make sure that it is your key user. Even so, specialized sections of a site stand out as negative aspects of the site. Instead, consider redesigning around the core applications. If you are running an e-commerce site, makes sure that all of the core functions are geared toward making the process easy for customers to make a purchase.

Additionally, be careful of new technologies. For example, even if a new technology is cool and cutting edge, the good impression may be at the sacrifice of usability. If only 8% of your users have the plug-in, it isn't something to implement in your core functionality.

Does the floor plan make sense?

Finally, can the family even find the kitchen? What about the bathroom? Examine your key services and make sure the utilization makes is high enough to reflect a significant portion of the core user base. For example, at least 75% of users who place items in the shopping cart should complete the purchase. If this number drops below 50%, it is time to call the contractors.

The key to understanding the effectiveness of your Web site is to examine your expectations, your preferred user paths, and the actual outcomes. It is critical that all of these are examined. The Web stats and visit trends tell us only so much. Users can find the house, but will they sit down for a spell? If so, they are more likely to come back?

For more information, check out "How to know when it is time for a redesign".

There are certain nuts that are hard to crack even with a fifty-pound sledge. Social network marketing is just such a nut. The technique takes more finesse and a deeper understanding of just to whom you are talking.

Social network marketing is the utilization of social networking sites such as Facebook, Ning, and MySpace to reach customers. Companies see the amazing popularity of these sites and have been struggling to come up with effective marketing campaigns to cash in. However, this aspect of Internet marketing is still very new. On the map of Internet marketing there is a caption next to social marketing – "here there be dragons".

The initial idea most marketers have is to build and maintain their own presences on these sites. This is what companies such as Pepsi, Volkswagen, Wendy's, and even the US Air force have done. The results are dismal. Anthropomorphic food items, unbelievably stereotypical (not to mention insulting) characters, and sites that offer nothing more than links to product sites.

The central problem with this approach is that the users of these sites, the elusive 16-28 social networking user demographic, recognize these sites to be exactly what they are – shameless propaganda. If the user feels like they are being marketed to, they feel alienated. This is harmful for all concerned.

The key to effective social network marketing is to use the medium more like a traditional channel. Remember who you are, and respect the user enough to meet them on an acceptable level. That is, speak to the users in a way they understand without the pretense of being a user. As long as the efforts aren't duplicitous, they will be well received.

A good example of this is the marketing Secret has been doing with recording artist Rihanna. Visiting MySpace.com/secret (an address marketed through other channels), takes users to a page that is branded for Secret Body Spray. The content, however, is all about Rihanna. Visitors can download free wallpapers and MP3's, watch an exclusive video performance, and enter a contest to meet the artist. There is no pre-roll on the MP3's, no Secret logo in the corner of the wallpaper. It is just good content. While true fans aren't likely to confuse this with Rihanna's actual MySpace page, the site offers something for every fan.

The trick to good social network marketing it to respect the user, give them a reason to stay for a bit. Even better, give them a reason to pass it on to their friends. That's hard to do with a fifty-pound sledge.

Henry Winkler once said, "Assumptions are the termites of relationships." Of course he was speaking of relationships between people; however, if a recent MediaPost's Online Video Insider post by Gregory Wilson is any indication, it applies just as well to brand relationships.

In his post, Wilson tells an interesting anecdote about a CMO of an undisclosed company speaking about quantifying relationships via online video. Wilson quotes the CMO:  "If we can measure how long someone is engaged in my advertising, then we can start to get a handle on how well my branding is working." The parallel drawn here is that a relationship between a customer and a brand is comparable to a relationship between people.

In general, this may be true. However, while it is possible to have this meaningful exchange between a person and a brand, it isn't enough to assume that a positive relationship exists simply because there has been time spent. There are two reasons for this.

First, there is the issue of what constitutes a relationship. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word relationship as "the state of being related; a condition or character based upon this" (OED 2008). There is nothing here that says anything about the nature of the relationship. Thus, a mouse may be said to have a relationship with a hungry cat. A tonsil may be said to have a relationship with a virus. A failed skydiver may be said to have a relationship with rapidly approaching concrete.

Secondly, there is the communicative issue. Productive relationships involve an exchange on an intellectual or emotional level. That is, one person can't do all the talking in a true relationship. There are countless ex-wives who will attest to this. In the relationship between a person and a brand, the conversations tend to be one-sided, with the brand doing all of the talking. Only when a person actively and positively engages with the brand in what at least feels like mutual communication will the relationship feel productive.

Thus, the key is to engage the customer in a positive and mutually communicative way over time. This is why in-the-box questionnaires, coupons with purchase, and sweepstakes surveys on receipts are so good at building brand relationships. The more the customer has the opportunity to interact with a company and feel as if they are participating in the relationship, the stronger the relationship becomes. Because the Internet is primarily a communication tool, the opportunities expand astronomically with Internet-driven promotions. (And that's a subject for another blog post.)

Recently, a client asked me what about the lifespan of a Web site. I was so happy he broached the subject. Often clients wait to be told when it's time to do a redesign of their Web site.

On average, a Web site should undergo a major redesign every three years. (How long this may seem is indirectly proportional to your budget culpability.) Because the Web changes constantly, users expect something new, different, exciting, and relevant each and every time they get online. Users tire of even their most trusted sites if they aren't occasionally presented with something new.

Redesigns are expensive, of course. It often means completely tearing down the old site and rebuilding it with the same content in a different presentation. It should be much more than that, of course. The new design should reflect the needs and desires of your users, while still promoting your brand in a meaningful way.

The reasons for doing a redesign are more than temporal. A redesign may be called for whenever a serious change happens in your business, organization, or in your goods and services. Here is how to tell if it is time to consider a redesign.

It has been three years since the last one was launched. You should already be working on the next redesign before the last one launched. That's part of the lifecycle. All those great ideas that couldn't be executed the last time should be finding a home before they become stale and irrelevant.

New branding efforts can be an exceptional reason for doing a Web redesign. Users will be presented with new creative from other channels. Your Web site should reflect this. However, less comprehensive marketing efforts shouldn't prompt you to do a redesign. It should be the other way around.

Too much tinkering in the old site can be an indication for the need for a redesign. If you are constantly making updates to the code (I assume you are always making updates to the content), creating new pages that do new things, or revising pages that have been up since the first Clinton administration, then it is probably time for a redesign.

If you change your main navigation then you most certainly should consider a redesign of the entire site. You spent quite a bit of money on the structure of the site the first time around. If you are monkeying with it, then you have come to realize how your visitors need something else. It's time to take a step back and reevaluate how best to address your audience across your whole site.

Your site contains any of the following phrases: "Under Construction", "This site is best experienced using browser XXXX", "Please set your monitor to XXXX resolution", "the Net", "information superhighway", "sign my guestbook", "XXXX hits today!", "Web Page Design by XXXX" or "book your flight on Pan Am".

Recognizing these indicators may help you determine if you should freshen up the place, or tear it down and build anew. Web users are a fickle crowd. It is best not to torque them off.

There has been a lot of talk this week about Neilsen's decision to switch its reported Web metrics from page views to time spent. Many in the industry (such as Robert Gorell), have decried this change as being "...like firing a mummy and replacing him with a zombie…" The switch feels antiquated at best. It is not a viable statistic for most Web sites.

That isn't to say that time spent on a site is a poor statistic. It is a key indicator to what developers used to call "stickiness". It can show how interested a person in what your site has to say or sell. Sites such as YouTube and Flickr hinge their business model on this type of user behavior. The thinking is the longer the user browses through the site, the more likely they are to click on a banner ad or other paid link. This falls right in line with the revenue generation model for these sites. Of course they want people to stay for as long as they can.

However this doesn't work for everyone. Time spent may not be the best thing for an e-commerce site, nor for a site that sees itself as a providing a reference or resource for example. These sites may want a high number of page views, or a high number of unique visitors depending on their business model. The fact that people spend an inordinate amount of time can mean that visitor have trouble finding what they want in a timely manner.

In the beginning, the big metric was "hits". Everyone wanted as many as possible. This was quickly found to be a poor measure since viewing a single page normally generates dozens of hits. So, something new was required.

This is where page views came into play. This was a more accurate way to view the usage of a site since it weeded out the images, style sheets, etc. that go into making the page. In many cases, this is still a viable statistic for many sites as described above. It give an indication of how interesting (high-number of page views), or helpful (low number of page views) a site is. Again, this depends on the purpose of the site.

Recently, the movement has been toward number of users. This is where unique visitors (and unique page views), have come into play. Web stats record the IP addresses of visitors over a set period of time. Since a single user can switch IP addresses within this time, and may view a page on more than one Internet connection, it is still a less than reliable statistic when considering specific numbers.

So what statistic should you use? Well, all of them! It is critical that the Webmaster understands what is going on behind the scenes. Here is a run-down of the basic information these statistics can provide.

• Hits give an indication of what kind of traffic your Internet connection is taking (and not much else).
• Page views give an indication of the number of pages viewed as a whole. If your business model involves giving the user quick access to information, this number should be low; if you want them to browse, this should be higher.
• Unique page views are another measure that can be helpful. It shows how often a page gets accessed by individual visitors. This can tell you which pages are the most popular portals for a site.
• Unique visitors measures how many people actually come to your site. Again, this may seem more accurate, but the nature of the Internet environment (switching IPS, multiple computers over multiple connections, etc.), means that you shouldn't bet on the exact figures.
• Time spent the site (often reported as time spent per visit), shows how long people like to poke around your site. Again, these numbers go way up if people have a tendency to open your site and just let it sit there. Consider what this statistic would be for a weather radar page compared to the front page of Google and you can see how this statistic can be skewed.

The flower smelled like a rotting corpse. I'd spotted the headline in my Google portal page and was hooked. Since I was at work, I was way too busy to read the story. Fortunately, they had video. "Great!" I thought. "I can listen to the video and code at the same time."

I clicked "play video" and minimized the window. Rather than hear about this unique botanical event, I was treated to a fifteen second spot for Staples. It was a vicious pre-roll!

Advertisers are looking to take advantage of the booming online video phenomenon. But like the Web of the nineteen-nineties, they just aren't sure how to cash in. Pre-roll is a popular technique that has some consumers fuming. It inhibits the user from getting to the content, hurting both the advertiser and the content provider. In fact, the technique is just as annoying as pop-up windows, with the same woeful long-term repercussions.

That isn't to say that advertising in online media can't be done to great effect. There are two techniques which online audio and video providers are finding increasingly successful.

The first is post-roll. Online video habits have changed remarkably over the last decade. Rather than segmented watching, users tend to follow content to its finish; a change having largely to do with increased bandwidth and video availability. Because of this, most users do not skip over post-roll. This is especially true in cases where the final frame of the video includes navigation such as YouTube.

The second method is taken straight from the world of public broadcasting; announcements. These spots have more the flavor of an underwriting spot than a television commercial. The idea is to let the viewer/listener know who is bringing them the content, or at least who paid the bill. If you've listened to Car Talk or This American Life - both programs with a devout following - you'll understand how effective this can be.

The point is to make the spots brief, to the point, and as unrestricting as possible. This allows the deeply interesting, if odiferous, content to add value to your message.

You can view the video, with the nasty pre-roll, at http://www.kcci.com/video/13331455/index.html?source=CNN

Okay, I will admit first and foremost that I intentionally avoided using a particular word in the headline of this blog. That word is diversity. Had I used that word, chances are very good that you wouldn't have made it this far in the blog. The word diversity strikes some media producers right below the patella. This causes a knee-jerk reaction that - if the latest AAAA Media Conference is any indication - propels them out of the room for a cream cheese Danish.

The reason for this is two-fold. First, many media producers have heard the word diversity so many times, it is has lost its meaning. It is on the same level of mental awareness as phrases such as "low-hanging fruit", "customer-centric", "paradigm shift", and "low cholesterol". They simply don’t react to it with anything more meaningful than a stomach growl.

The second reason is that many media producers believe they have already taken diversity into account. They understand that diversity often means "cultural diversity", and they take steps to make sure their advertising crosses cultural boundaries. Many media producers think this is a no-brainer.

What producers often fail to realize is that diversity is a key element to reaching an audience that extends well beyond the normal reach of the message. It also involves more than adding the occasional non-Caucasian to the photo shoot.

It is well and good to speak to the greatest common denominator, but in a long-tail world, this simply isn't as effective a technique as it used to be. There are more diverse elements out there than the sum of the common elements. In this way, diversity is not only important to your media efforts, it is vital.

For example, what about targeting your messaging toward folks who have more than three children, or those that enjoy computer surfing and watching television simultaneously, or are left handed? This sounds like odd demographics to consider, but if you are marketing a mini-van, a wireless receiving device, or a new pair of scissors (respectively), these may indeed be considerations beyond the usual middle-aged, middle-class consumer. Tailoring your messaging to include these diverse groups can really pay off in the messaging.

Let's consider the meaning of diversity. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines diversity as "1. a. The condition or quality of being divers, different, or varied; difference, unlikeness." Notice the lack of cultural denotations in this definition. Obviously, diversity transcends cultural references. It simply means something different or varied. It makes sense that strategies that touch on a variety of demographics, customer interests, as well as cultural sectors are more effective.

The OED also shows us the following definition for the word diversity. This definition comes from the world of radio, circa 1930, but has relevance when approached from our context; "Applied attrib. to a system of reception in which , in order to reduce the effects of fading, a signal is received simultaneously by several channels, the signal or combination of signals of best quality being automatically selected."

With this definition in mind, imagine that your message is sent out in a variety of formats, tailored to particular diverse elements in your audience/customer base. The "signals" which have the most relevance will be perceived to the customer as being of the best quality.

Lately I've been running across quite a bit a material on how to talk to your "Web team." These articles claim that there is a particular way to talk to Web folks. Their supposition is that without the proper approach, there can be no meaningful communication.

My immediate reaction to this is to cry "foul" and point out that we - the self-proclaimed geeks of the world – are people too.  Would you not talk to us as you would anyone else?

But then I look around my office. The Web Team space is filled with toys, mementos, strange pictures, childish drawings, magazine clippings, process documents, canned air, music CDs, and more books than many small town libraries. All of this is interspersed throughout our workspace, amongst the high-tech equipment, with all the planning of a 10 year-old interior decorator with a candy fetish.

What this means is that Web developers actually are different. Not only do we see things differently, we have a completely different way of speaking. We use a different language. Our vernacular is self-contained and interconnected. It can be a very confusing thing unless you are up to your armpits in reference books; as most developers are.

So, in the interest of fostering good communication, here are some examples. (Pardon the pronunciations, as they may have a Wisconsin accent.)

ASP (ay-ess-pee) – A programming language used to build Web pages and applications. It is not a poisonous snake – unless you happen to be an Apple computer fanatic.

Cache (kash) – A magical place in your computer where stuff is stored until it is no longer used. It is not the reason most Web developers do their jobs.

Cascading Style Sheets (see-ess-ess) – An external document which defines how a Web page will appear in a browser. They are not fancy bed coverings.

Feeds (feedz) – Feed is a term used to describe different kinds of scheduled transfers of data. Normally, these are RSS feeds (see below) or Podcasts (see further below). It is only occasionally used to describe buffet lines.

Normalize (nore-mal-eyes) – A database term where data is broken into logical chunks so they can be easily used. It is not what most developers have after two decades of strained vision.

Podcast (pawd-kast) – Audio and/or video distributed through the internet via scheduled RSS (see below) feeds (see above). It is not a whale-fishing technique.

RSS (arr-ess-ess) – RSS is an acronym for RDF Site Summary, or more popularly, Really Simple Syndication. It is a schema (see below) for XML (see further below) that makes podcasting (see just above) possible. It is not… easily describable.

SQL (see-kwell) – A coding language that lets applications and Web pages talk to database. It does not describe the next release of The Matrix.

Schema (skee-ma) – The definition of the elements in a database or data document (such as XML – see below). It is not how we order a clear malt beverage after we've had a few.

XML (ecks-em-el) – XML is a language that it used to describe different kinds of data. XML does not stand for extra medium long. Apparently the men's department at Sears doesn't have that size.

---

As you can see, while Web developers are certainly on a different mental skew than supposedly normal people. Talk to us as you would anyone else you love and respect. If we say anything you can't understand… see above.
Run across a word you'd like explained? Please feel free to email me at johnm@ovationmarketing.com. I'll try and get it into an upcoming blog.

It used to be so simple. Create a nice front door, add plenty of options, and the users would come flocking through. This view of user interaction is becoming rapidly outdated.

Rather than opening the front door, users are looking through our open windows and just jumping right in when they see what they want. They quite often never see the window decoration, the specials taped next to the mail slot. They rarely jingle the bell over the door.

Users seek what they want, when they want it, and where they want it. Rather than coming in through the home page, more often users find what they want listed elsewhere, and then just jump right into the middle of your Web site.

As users, this behavior is so commonplace that we hardly notice it ourselves. Often we aren't even aware that it was a window we browsed through and not a door.

The experiment

Try this experiment. There is a growing sport called disc golf. It is very popular among Midwestern Web developers (it's about the only exercise I get these days). There is even a Professional Disc Golfer's Association that holds international tournaments. Take a moment, open a new browser window, and look up the rules for disc golf. Go ahead. I'll wait.

- | -

Glad you're back. Take a moment and examine at your behavior. What did you do? Did you open Google and search for "rules for disc golf", or did you type www.pdga.com into your browser's address bar and go directly to their front door? Chances are you did the former and put in some search term into a search engine then clicked around until you found what you wanted.

In bypassing the front page, you may have missed information on the upcoming 2006 Amateur World Invitational or their newly-launched endowment campaign.

For a content manager, this can be terribly frustrating. People are missing content they are putting up front and center. How much more evident does it have to be?

The strategy

The fact is that this isn't a problem so much as a growing reality. This behavior is a result of increasing bandwidth, better search engines, and the increasing computer literacy of the general population. It is also a great opportunity. It just takes awareness of user behavior.

An ideal strategy takes advantage of this new behavior and does a much better job of serving the user. Users find what they want, primarily through search (find-ability). When they find what they are looking for, they are also presented with other things in which they may be interested (serendipity). The user then has an opportunity, at their request, to receive more content or product offers on a regular basis (subscription)

Find-ability is paramount these days. It is important to understand how your content can and will be found. Regularly hit your own site through popular search engines. See who is linking to you and what people are using as search terms to find your site. Also, take advantage of professional, trustworthy advice on how to best to get your site's pages indexed by the major search engines.

Serendipity is the next step. As people search your site, they may want to know about the great new turnip twaddler you might be selling (I'll take three). Be sure to cross-promote offers, specials, or even news within your site. Don't just post it on the front page. Many interested customers may not see it.

Finally, make your content available through subscription. Podcasters understand this implicitly because their whole paradigm hinges upon this strategy. If you have an RSS feed, promote it everywhere. If you don't have one, consider putting one together. Internet customers can be fiercely loyal if they feel they have an "inside track" on what is happening in your company. If an RSS feed doesn't feel quite right for your business, an "opt-in" listserv is a great alternative. Better yet, offer both!

The point is, don't panic when you find out your customers are coming in the window. By paying attention to how they access your content, you can better serve their needs. Just offer them something extra and invite them to come back again.