Great Question. Difficult Answers.
June 22, 2009
The question: “Is your website SNOWED?”
The question comes from a post by Jeremiah Owyang–and the acronym stands for “Stakeholders’ Needs Overwhelm Web Experience Design.” For an example of this condition, the post point to this case study:
Take for example the American Airlines website, which was so frustrating to users that designer Dustin Curtis decided to mock up an improvement and write this open letter. One of the designers from AA responded, saying there were over 200 stakeholders involved in the final output of the product, resulting in the jumbled mess of a corporate webpage.
The AA designer’s lengthy response offers a glimpse of conditions that prevail at many large companies, and definitely worth reading. Though the web team understands the requirements of user experience design, their judgments are often over-ruled by pressure from various stakeholders who want prominent page space for this or that message or function. And the letter points out that in large companies, a clean, complete redesign is generally considered impossible. Changes must be made “organically, as the site evolves.” (Which is hardly the best way to replace a bad site with a good one . . . )
Owyang’s suggested solution is “have an empowered Web Strategist” to balance the needs of the user community, the business stakeholders, and the technology conditions. Which sounds like an excellent idea–but not easy to implement at most companies.
The SNOWED problem can be a bit different in terms of the Careers area. For one thing, there may be just one dominant stakeholder (often HR) and there may be a separate web team, or even a separate domain for Careers, and that could provide more design freedom. But on the other hand, the functional demands of content management (job posting, for example) and applicant tracking offer added complication.
The balancing act for Careers could be combining (a) the machinery needed to fill specific jobs with (b) the demands of employer branding and (c) the need to offer focused messaging on certain job types, career paths, benefits, etc. The Careers team may need to create multiple paths to reach multiple audiences in a time-critical way-which can be quite a challenge.
Two approaches gaining increased attention are landing pages and micro-sites. More on each topic in future posts, but in the meantime, here are two quick views from StandoutJobs: Coming in for a Landing and Micro-site Strategy.
(Thanks to John Holm for the gorgeous snow scene.)
Is the Honeymoon over for the iPhone and AT&T Wireless?
June 22, 2009
If you’re one of the many customers who would love to have an iPhone but don’t want to switch your carrier to AT&T Wireless in order to use one, then there may still be hope — albeit slim.
Last week in Washington D.C., FCC Acting Chairman Michael Copps spoke in front of the Pike & Fischer Broadband Policy Summit (read his full speech here). Copps labeled exclusive deals between handset manufacturers and cellular carriers as restrictive to innovation and creating an unfair market of competition. He called for an investigation into the matter.
Let’s face it. From a consumer standpoint, eliminating exclusive deals between handset providers and wireless carriers would be wonderful. Talk about opening up the field of choices for consumers! I’d certainly get an iPhone if I didn’t have to switch to AT&T Wireless!
But how would eliminating exclusivity affect the brands involved? Read more
Hyundai’s Social Networking is GREAT for Business
June 21, 2009
According to the Hyundai’s Assurance Program, if you get laid off from your job, you can return your car and not even have to worry about honoring the rest of the note payable. Really. Hyundai says you can do this, no questions asked, but of course certain restrictions do apply.
The new Hyundai’s Assurance Program has gotten its share of attention on the web from many blogs and websites. A journalist from The Huffington Post gave a well-written review of the program, while another blogger from The Simple Dollar wonders whether or not the idea is fiscally sound. 
What I find interesting is the commercial that I saw about it on television the other night. It seems that they are promoting the idea via Facebook and Twitter. And, they’re asking everyone to buzz and tweet about it. They want everyone to talk about what it is they’re doing, bringing them more business and exposure. The idea of social networking for business exposure is certainly not new. But, in questionable agreement with the Simple Dollar blogger, don’t you have to make money while getting all of that *exposure*? So if (most) everyone is returning their cars if they have undue hardships (possibly many in a shaky economy), then what do you do with that inventory? How do you or can you re-sell an sold car?
Sharing this information on Facebook and Twitter can be a phenomenal plus for the car company’s marketing campaign. Like any viral marketing idea, someone is bound to tell someone else and them someone else. A brilliant way to market a program that works and interests most everybody. Because the program is so necessary and timely for some, I would imagine a marketing strategy like this will take off in a very short amount of time.
How do you think the Hyundai’s marketing plan fits into the social marketing community? Is it buzz-worthy? Will it out-last other car company’s marketing tactics? What do you think?
Small Brand Strategy – Not Just for Electronics Anymore
June 19, 2009
Miniaturizing products has been the hot thing to extend brands in the electronics market for a long time. As we all know, history is cyclical, and therefore, so are consumer demands. For many years, consumers believed “bigger is better” and demanded the largest version of just about every product you can imagine — from SUVs to laundry detergent, and everything in between.
I read an article on Branding Strategy Insider this week that discusses the hot topics at Reuters Global Luxury Summit this month, and it appears the cycle has changed and smaller is the cool thing again (and that’s not just for cars).
There are a number of reasons why it makes sense to return to focus on small:
- Market conditions: The current state of the economy makes it cost prohibitive for many consumers to purchase products in bulk or to purchase the biggest and boldest option from the hottest envy brand (e.g., a gigantic Louis Vuitton bag).
- Cost of entry: Many consumers are interested in trying a product or brand, but the “larger” versions that dominate store shelves these days are too expensive for a trial purchase. Smaller brand entry versions make testing a product a lot easier and less frightening in this economy. Hopefully, the new customer who tries the smaller version will like it and return to buy the product or brand again and again.
- Global market introductions: If a brand wants to break into a new global market, a smaller version is a good way to do it successfully. Not only are the customers in many markets around the world struggling, but many of these markets are still at the early stages of growth. Consumers in emerging markets are just beginning to learn about making intelligent purchase decisions, determining value, and so on. Offering smaller product versions is a great way to slowly integrate a brand into a new market.
How many times have you considered trying a new brand but you can’t find a small size? Rather than investing a large sum in a large version of a product or brand, you forego it completely for two reasons: you don’t want to waste money and you don’t want to waste the product if you don’t like it.
What does that tell you?
A small brand strategy might be just want your brand needs right now.
What do you think?
Image: Flickr
Standing Up for the Stakeholder
June 19, 2009
Oddly, the Sunday Times ran two separate articles about corporate-speak this week, and though I would happily assign most examples of corporate-speak to the bin, I do want to defend some of it, and one word in particular.
The corporate-speak the ST was decrying falls into three main groups:
- Long-winded and pretentious phrasing, such as:
“High-quality learning environments are a necessary precondition for facilitation and enhancement of the ongoing learning process”
This example is highlighted by the Plain English website, and they translate it as:
“Children need good schools if they are to learn properly”.
It’s best to avoid this kind of writing: it is often intended to impress or to intimidate, and usually ends up with the reader suffering from bad brain fog.
- Management-speak clichés, such as ‘thinking outside the box’ or ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’. These are familiar to all of us by now, but they must have been fresh and surprising at some point.
Now they’re like Christmas cracker jokes, and just elicit a groan. New clichés, please…
- Jargon: language characteristic of a particular group or subject. Examples: ring game; toe-loop; pinking; deboss; and scuppers. (These are from poker, skating, sewing, printing, and sailing.)
And jargon is the type of corporate-speak I want to defend.
Technical term? Provide a glossary
All industries have their own technical terms. If you are deeply embedded in an industry, these terms don’t seem unusual at all, and each so precisely describes its subject that it would be absurd to use any other. Even though outsiders don’t have a clue what you mean. This is why we recommend using a glossary on the corporate website to explain any that might have crept in without being noticed.
And there is a clear need for using plain English wherever possible, at least if you’re trying to communicate with someone who is not within the industry, and therefore couldn’t be expected to know the technical terms.
This isn’t easy. One of the difficulties many website managers are dealing with is how to provide their information in an easily understandable form, appropriate for the audience they are aiming at.
Betting on the corporate website
Take, for example, our use of the word ‘stakeholder’. This word was vilified in both those articles in the Sunday Times this week.
The original meaning of the word was ‘someone entrusted to hold the stakes for people betting against one another, and required to hand the stakes to the winner’. This would have been someone trustworthy and independent, who probably didn’t have a stake in the bet.
Yet today it often means almost exactly the opposite: someone who does have an interest in ‘the bet’ – and probably a strong interest. In corporate terms, it describes people who are affected by, or who can affect, the actions of the business; those who have a stake in the success of the business. We use it to describe people with an interest in the corporate website. Examples include: investors, journalists, job-seekers, analysts, employees, suppliers …
This sometimes happens to words; the language changes constantly. (There’s a fascinating list of changes here, if you’re interested).
Does it matter? Does this change in meaning confuse people?
I don’t think it does, at least in this case. Using the words appropriate to the situation is important. In this case, using ‘stakeholder’ is a useful shortcut for ‘group of people with an interest in the business and therefore in the corporate website’ and will be understood by our primary audience. Avoiding using it will lead to repeatedly using long-winded phrasing; something to be avoided in itself.
What do you think? Is there ever a case for using jargon? Should all the language on a website be suitable for the averagely intelligent, averagely educated 14-year-old, or can some of it be more complex?
Is it even possible to remove all corporate jargon from the corporate website?
Get our updates
 |