Here is your NoSpin Debunker for October 20,
2003
Results of the Live Website Case
Study
Last
Debunker I presented a live case
study dealing with a real life business decision regarding one
of my client's next move with their website. So what did
Company A decide to do next with their outdated website?
To review, here were the choices (and the %'s
that you voted Company A would choose):
1) Do nothing with the current outdated
brochure site. 31%
2) Take down the current site and replace
it with a single page that has basic contact information.
23%
3) Take down the current site and switch
to a self-serve template option and put up contact information
and basic product/services information-themselves. 8%
4) Keep their current site and update
their marketing print content and basic "brochure content,"
only, so that it minimally reflects their new/revamped
offerings. 23%
5) Develop a completely new information
commerce site that both shows and tells about new and revamped
services, updates other critical content, proactively collects
prospect names, is search engine optimized, has a completely
new look -one that will updated on a regular basis. 15%
And their choice was:
#4 with a twist. Company A has decided to
make some minimal website content changes itself-with an
interesting twist: the top guy in company is now taking the
role as copywriter and webmaster in addition to his dozen or
so other roles. No additional help from NoSpin Marketing or
other outside marketer at this point. No search engine
optimization (other than minimal work 18 months ago). No
attempt to generate prospects to the site. No move to an
Information Commerce site. But, of course, no cash outlay by
Company A.
Their stated rationale for choosing #4 (without
using NoSpin
Marketing or anyone from the outside) was
money, but that is not the real reason. They have the cash.
They just choose not to spend it. Given that Company A is not
a believer in Marketing and has no Marketing
infrastructure--and is extremely risk averse in the sense of
refusing to factor in opportunity costs (e.g. of the top guy's
time as webmaster and copywriter, missing out on attracting
more prospects and sales by not having an information commerce
site, etc), the choice of a minimal content update was not
unexpected and not irrational for them. In hindsight, #4 (with
my costs attached) was probably not a good option for Company
A and should never have been presented to them. The right
choice-also reflected by NoSpin readers below was #5 (which
was also presented to Company A), but that was too big a
change in business philosophy and attitude for Company A to
make-at least at this point. Of course, who knows in the
future?
It's unclear exactly what other changes Company
A might still make on its site, but, indeed, it has already
made some minimal updates that better reflect the company's
offerings. There is still too much dated--yet, unfortunately
important-- stuff on the site, and at the time of this writing
one of the most important internal links does not work. The
new navigation is mess, etc. But the site is better in terms
of current services content than it was a couple weeks ago. So
perhaps, at least we've helped in pushing Company A to make a
small move in the right direction. An opportunity lost in not
moving to an Information Commerce site-- but a small move away
from the status quo, nonetheless.
Your feedback:
There was a common theme in your comments.
Here's what a few of you wrote emailed as advice for what
Company A should have done: move to an Information Commerce
site.
"I would recommend #5 if only because of
the tracking, automatic tracking of prospects. Anything less
than the full costs of a sales person should be positive if
they are getting and losing the number of hits that you say
they are. If the new site doesn't even generate more hits, but
only captures and organizes them for sales folk to target, # 5
would be a good deal. They probably won't because of
psychological, cowboy sales mentality andsince they are making
money their own way."
"....if they have no marketing infrastructure,
you should be their outsourced version of, regardless of the
myopic mindset the CEO/financial types might say. They would
reap a great return on investment by doing so and would
probably increase the top line revenue as well. Secondly.
Their current site has gone fallow. Meaning they haven't done
squat to it in 18 months. A $15K investment here would indeed
provide not only an updated look, but with SEO updates,
customers might actually find the site in their lifetimes.
Synchronizing the content seems pretty important as to
position the company's offerings correctly. Lastly, evaluating
how they sell the $ 10k widgets would probably yield some
additional opportunities. Let's face it....buyers today look
first on the internet, then to more parochial forms of
marketing."
"I'd say that they should go with the
information commerce site. Why? Because it's the easiest way
to give clients instant access to your company. A lot of
people won't call in to talk with a salesperson about
products--they'd rather check things out for themselves.
Having an information commerce site would make Company A much
less likely to lose the business of such prospects. I wouldn't
go with number 4 for three reasons: (1) Search engine
optimization has the potential to bring in all sorts of new
business (2) Tracking is invaluable to determining whether or
not one's online marketing investment is paying off, also
helps you figure out what keeps people looking at the site and
motivates them to contact you. (3) Having a full-fledged site
that shows and tells about offerings gets prospects excited
about the company before ever talking to a sales rep--makes
closing the deal a cinch. Simply having the company contact
information is not enough--it provides no motivation for
prospects to contact Company A."
"Having outdated information on the site will
only hurt business because prospects will assume that whatever
is on the site is what Company A offers. And nothing else.
They probably won't call in to ask, "Excuse me, but I was
browsing your site and wondered if there was anything else
that you do?" I have been on the Internet for ten years,
probably browsed hundreds of thousands of we pages, and I have
never made such a call, not even once. If there are
"compelling and unique" offerings by Company A, Company A
needs to let people know about them."
This is my major challenge with most clients-and
probably the challenge that you have with yours as
well.
Indeed, it is a significant leap from having a
so-so, or even quality "brochure" site to a true Information
Commerce (and/or e-commerce) site designed to generate
prospects and sales. Typically, it takes a major overhaul or
totally new site in content, design, and back-end
functionality. It takes ongoing investment in time, expertise,
and money (whether in-house or outside or a combination) for
both your online and offline marketing initiatives-because
they need to be coordinated at all times. It is not something
to merely dabble at, periodically. It requires you to think
and act more dynamically about your products/services,
messages, and your overall business.
Operating a good Information Commerce site
requires change-something that scares most businesses-and the
people that run them. That's why you see so many bad,
ineffective business sites still. It's easier (and cheaper in
terms of current cash flow) to put up a brochure and rarely
change it or one's business approach.
The good news if you have some faith and are
willing to make a reasonable investment and execute, there is
a pay-off down the road. Good information commerce and
e-commerce sites stand out on the web. They generate new
business and complement every marketing and sales effort that
you engage in. And you'll now have a new framework and
discipline for change in your business.
If you run across thirsty horse or two that's
willing to be led-and take that drink, please let me know. I'd
love to help them out.
615.383.7157
