Another Example of Unintended Messaging . . .
November 30, 2009
Recently, I went looking for a report on the website of a fairly well-known company, so of course I stopped by their Careers page—and through a series of events, I ended up noticing something that wouldn’t be obvious to most visitors. But even if it won’t be seen by the public, I think it’s important for two reasons: (a) no one caught it in-house, and (b) it suggests a pattern of thinking that seems problematic, even though it’s surely not intentional.
In order to be kind to the company in question, I’ll disguise the specifics, but here’s slightly altered version of “the scoop”:
To get the report I wanted, I had to register. To register, I had to select a “title.” Let’s say my selected title was “Channel Manager.” There didn’t seem to be any special benefit to having a title, but once I had picked one, it followed me to every page on the site. And next to my title at the top of the page was a small picture (it definitely looks like a stock photo, not a real employee) which is presumably meant to represent a “Channel Manager.”
I couldn’t help wondering what the purpose of the whole title idea might be, so I decided to try on different titles and see what changed. Actually nothing important seemed to alter according to my title, in terms of the information presented. But–I did see a different picture every time. And that’s where I noticed . . .
Stereotyping!
If you took a list of the two dozen or so possible titles and had ten random people divide the titles into “gender piles,” I’ll bet the piles would exactly match the pictures on this site. Titles/descriptions that had words like strategy, architecture, or infrastructure got a man’s picture. Titles that had something to do with marketing or managing got a woman’s picture. A couple of exceptions, but overall, a pretty noticeable pattern.
As mentioned, this pattern probably won’t be noticed by visitors, because most won’t try out more than a couple of titles. And if you go straight to the Careers page without registering on the main site, you won’t even have a title, so it’s moot. But if you do register, the title will show up any time you go to the Careers page, and that’s how I got started down this particular rabbit trail.
Once I focused on the Careers page, the plot thickened a bit. Let’s set aside the whole matter of titles, and just assume the visitor came to the Careers page without any previous picture experience. As they looked around the site, they would find (all on a single tab) four employee profiles, each with a real photo of a real person. And all four are men.
I doubt very much that this company is a hot-bed of stereotyping or gender bias. I doubt anyone there even realizes that this unintended message has taken shape on the website. But–that’s exactly the problem.
One other note: The “title” pictures were also somewhat lacking in ethnic diversity, but I left that out in order to focus on the gender point. As for ethnic diversity in the employee profiles . . . zero. So at that point, you really do have to wonder who’s minding the messaging.
Will News Corp and Microsoft Bing Change the Future of the Internet?
November 30, 2009
Earlier this month, I published a post about News Corp’s plan to block all of its content from Google searches. Considering that Google controls more than 60% of online searches, that sounds like a crazy idea. Now, it looks like News Corp has a different idea that involves partnering with Microsoft to provide News Corp content through Bing.
Crazy? Or the first step in redefining the Internet?
The debate is on.
According to The New York Times, News Corp. and Microsoft are discussing a deal wherein Microsoft would pay News Corp to exclusively provide its content through Bing searches. Currently, Bing controls less than 10% of online searches.
News Corp leader Rupert Murdoch has made it no secret that he plans to find a way to monetize his company’s online presence. Having a search engine pay for exclusivity is just one step I assume we can expect to see from News Corp. The question is whether or not anyone cares from a consumer perspective. The world of publishing has changed significantly and offering content exclusively through a single search engine doesn’t sound like the best option for News Corp. However, if the move does mark the first step in redefining online content distribution, then I think the issues go much deeper than consumers are likely to realize in the short term.
I think it’s safe to say that if News Corp. successfully strikes a deal with Microsoft, other news organizations will want to follow suit. Afterall, they want to find ways to monetize their online efforts, too. The challenge for companies like News Corp may be competing against citizen journalists and the social Web where information spreads faster and farther than ever before. It’s not enough to just provide news anymore. People can find that anywhere. Today, news is a commodity.
Brands that are likely to withstand the growth of the social Web and content sharing are the ones that find ways to let their content spread and build relationships with consumers by adding value. Hiding content through exclusive deals runs counter to the lifeline of the social Web. As consumers, we can only hope that the openness of the Internet doesn’t change, but from a corporate perspective, it’s a matter of making money or dying.
The question remains — which company will step up to the plate and find the magic ticket to meeting the needs of both sides of this debate?
Image: Flickr
Walmart or Amazon – Let the Battle Begin
November 27, 2009
The online retail brand battle is on!
- Walmart wants to stop Amazon from growing.
- Walmart wants more of the online retail market.
- What Walmart wants, Walmart usually gets.
There is power behind the $405 billion in annual sales Walmart churns out. Should Amazon (with $20 billion in sales last year) be worried? Walmart hopes so.
Well, let’s look at this from a consumer perspective — mine.
Why do I shop at Amazon.com instead of Walmart.com?
- I can find almost any product I want on Amazon.com within seconds. I can’t say the same thing for Walmart.com.
- I can get almost any product sold via Amazon.com shipped to me for free (as long as I spend $25 and select Super Saver shipping). I can’t say the same thing for Walmart.com.
- The prices of most products on Amazon.com are competitive with other online stores. I can say the same thing about Walmart.com.
- Amazon typically ships my purchases very quickly. I can’t always say the same thing about Walmart.com.
So there you have it. As the mother of 5-year old triplets, I do a lot of shopping online (don’t get me started on the hassles of trying to shop at a brick-and-mortar store with triplets). I’m a fairly good representation of a power online shopper. The first site I check is always Amazon.com. Typically, I do some comparison shopping once I have my base price from Amazon. Since there is always something I could get from Amazon’s wide selection, it’s never a problem for me to hit the $25 minimum for free Super Saver shipping. The only time it’s a problem is if the product I want is offered through a third party retailer via the Amazon site which does not participate in the Super Saver shipping program. With Amazon, I don’t have to visit coupon sites looking for free shipping coupons or discounts. The price + free shipping is usually very competitive. My shopping is done within seconds through Amazon and the price is usually similar to that offered by other sites which require coupons to be competitive.
Of course, that’s just my experience, but if you ask me, those are the factors Walmart needs to consider if they truly want to compete with Amazon. Give me a huge selection with great prices. Make your Web site easy to navigate. Give me free shipping without the need to search for coupons. Oh, and if you give me extra loyal customer discounts, I’ll start checking your site first instead of Amazon.
What do you think? Will Amazon be the brand to continue to dominate online retail in the future or can Walmart catch up and become the brand to beat both offline and online?
I have to admit, it would be great for consumers if Walmart could become a viable competitor to Amazon.
Image: Flickr
Quick Take On: Benefits, Bushels, and Business Blogging
November 26, 2009
Creative perks can go a long way to boost the employer brand. They improve employee morale, attract publicity, and entice passive candidates. But only if people know about them!
Recently I was reviewing the website of a fairly well-known company. They have a nice set of benefits—definitely above average—but the goodies aren’t given an effective presentation on the site. Instead of being highlighted with bullet points, bold type, etc., so they would jump out as the reader scans the page, they just sort of trail along in a lifeless list.
Lights under a bushel. But that’s not even the whole of it. One of those hidden highlights is genuinely novel and delightful: onsite music lessons!
Not every potential candidate will be as excited as I would be—but most would recognize this as a creative idea. And since the company is not in a creative business (really, not) that in itself is a plus. So why not give it feature status?
Turning to another gap, we have a company that focuses on employer branding and online communications. What do you think is on their own blog? As of this writing: two entries, the latest of which was posted two weeks ago.
This company is actually a specialty group owned by a name brand in media—not a start-up or a niche wannabe. So this seems like a really big miss! If there’s a cardinal rule for business blogging, it’s “Content, content, content.” Start with plenty, add often.
To see a lively, content-rich business blog, drop by Lion Brand Yarns. And for benefits well displayed, check out Starbucks–not flashy, but nicely defined, and supplemented with a very thorough downloadable brochure.
Last thought: I see a lot of missed opportunities and “incomplete passes” when I visit sites. I think this often happens because an idea seems fairly simple–like adding a blog or putting some content on the website—so no one is tasked with thinking it through and following up to ensure the implementation is both excellent (not just adequate) and complete.
Or it may be that whoever does have the responsibility is ill-suited to the task, over-burdened, under-supported, not incentivized, not empowered, or (for whatever reason) not willing/able to prioritize the task. But even simple ideas have to be executed well! And when they are not, the best-case scenario is a missed opportunity, while the worst is a glaring fumble.
A New Logo Will Save AOL – PERIOD!
November 25, 2009
That’s Aol. now, not AOL. Just ignore what spellcheck tells you.
In a bizarre and grammatically incorrect move, AOL has rebranded as Aol. — yes, the period is included and is intended to represent confidence and completeness (as a New York Times article explains, “Aol. is the place to go for the best content online, period.”).
The new Aol. logo will use the Aol. name in a new, consistent typeface, but the background will change to suit the brand’s mood.
Okay, I’m kidding about the background changing to meet the brand’s mood, but that’s actually closer to the truth than you might expect.
The Aol. wordmark will appear in front of a variety of backgrounds (hundreds have already been created and anxiously await their debuts) to represent what The New York Times refers to as “the breadth of Aol.’s content.” Backgrounds include Aol. in front of a Polaroid camera (why?), a View-Master (again, why?), a high-heel shoe, a head-banging rocker. a kissing couple, and every other random background you can think of. You can see several of those logo variations here.
Not convinced that the new Aol. branding is going to knock anyone’s socks off? Perhaps this quote from The New York Times article will help:
“Many backgrounds involve objects that float or fly: a leaping dog, balloons, a butterfly, a falcon. That is apt because Aol. is eagerly seeking a way to soar as it did during the 1990s, when it was a premier, pioneering service provider.”
I guess we’ll have to wait to see the new brand identity in action to truly understand if it will work in revitalizing the struggling brand that represents little in consumers’ minds other than outdated Internet access that never worked well when it was one of the few options over a decade ago. Remember when people used to get the free AOL CDs in the mail? Yep, that’s how long it’s been since AOL has been relevant.
Well, there is no doubt that AOL is in a precarious position. The brand is outdated and irrelevant. I’m not sure if a bizarre rebranding will do the trick and help save Aol. or not, but I’d hazard a guess that the company’s problems go a lot deeper than a simple brand band-aid will fix.
Your thoughts?
Oh, and just for fun — check out the new Aol. brand identity preview video below.
Get our updates
 |