Combine all of these needs and communication breakdowns, and it’s suddenly much easier to realize why web refresh projects, large or small, bog down. Thus, the requirements laid forth in a business meeting aren’t always found in the final digital project. Thus, the artistic layout created by an external party (typically disconnected from the rest of the process) can not be applied to the chosen technology infrastructure in the manner it was designed. And, in the end, the content stays confusing, the navigation isn’t clear, and users still jump out to use Google to find pages on your site instead.

If this situation sounds familiar, it’s because most people involved in any marketing or general web redesign project have seen these issues time and again. This most happens when the process is purely internal and led by a few people with a specific agenda to address their personal needs. This unknowingly overlook concerns or people who need to be involved–people and issues which someone outside the organization could instantly recognize as crucial to the process.

The only way around this impasse is to bring key people from all groups involved early in the process together and discover whether the core working group is capable of communicating clearly. Business, marketing, design and technology can work together. But each role unconsciously assumes the others have an understanding of their operations and only certain details need to be remarked upon. In reality, a much more robust information sharing needs to happen. Technologists are often the worst in this respect, and many in our field must work hard to overcome this deficit.

And if the internal project group can’t do that, punt early and bring in outside help.

1. At what point is it acceptable to abandon or ignore a social media tool?
2. When does it make sense to include a new social media tool as part of your social marketing strategy?

It’s clear that social media is here to stay as a tool for spreading the word about products and services. Facebook has worked hard over the last year trying to make the tool business-friendly. Twitter seems to be business-friendly right out of the gate. LinkedIn was built for business. Each of these tools can be a part of a marketing strategy, but you must first  determine which of the tools is right for your business.

If you are currently on one of these sites, you should carefully review your participation in your company’s pages or general activity on each of these sites to determine if they still warrant your attention. If the participation has declined, you might want to look at your promotion techniques. Are you promoting or posting to your page often? Are you ‘tweeting’ compelling content regularly?

Another factor for decreased participation could be that your target market has moved on to another site… the ‘hot, new’ social media platform on the block. Social media users are far from brand loyal. If a new tool comes along that works better and is more interesting, they are really likely to switch the bulk of their attention to the new tool. They probably won’t completely give up on the old tool (right away anyway), but they will spend less of their available time with it, thereby decreasing the possibility that they will pay any attention to your presence there.

New social media tools seem to pop up all the time, but does it make sense to include them in your marketing strategy? Who are the people that are using the tool? Are they your target? If not, it might be OK for your family photos or posting about your trip to the grocery store, but it might not be right for your business.

Further, the revamped user interface is a huge boon to finding what an author needs quickly.  And on the design side, being able to easily select templates to apply to a page now is a wonderful improvement and helps separate the setup and design part of the site from authors’ needs.

However, it’s not a quick solution for any content management system (CMS) problem.  There are many sites which just won’t quite work on WordPress.  For example, recently a client was discussing whether WordPress could handle their many thousands of pages as they migrated from static hand-linked html. (It was good that they wanted to move to some modern CMS.)  However, the site isn’t really designed to center around blog entries, and their static page count is huge. Both of these factors work again WordPress, despite it’s recent advances.

All we had to show them was how long the single page selection menu would be in the administration to give a good example of some of the shortcomings still inherent in WordPress as a full-fledged CMS.  Even with plugins such as Page-mash, there’s only so much effort that’s been put into general site control that you would normally expect in a modern CMS.  So while we’re certainly very happy with the changes that have come out in WordPress, it’s still not everything for everyone.

If it is necessary to link away from your site, be sure to a) have the link open in a new window so that your site remains live in an open window and b) bury the link if possible. In many cases, if your primary source of content is another web source (such as a news posting site), you can adjust your site to pull the content into your Web pages without showing your valued visitors the exit door.

Unless you are just looking to generate traffic or become a link farm, take the necessary steps to avoid becoming a trampoline site.

The Google search engine is no doubt a powerful thing. Its index of sites is unparalleled. And this creates enormous pressure to be included in the index. If you’re not included, or not included sufficiently, then you’re left out. You don’t have exposure.

Everyone needs to be included. Or rather, everyone feels the need to be included. Yet, if you’re not included, there are few recourses. Google says you can submit a site for indexing… and they might index it. You can request inclusion, and you might be included. There is no clear, straightfoward way to get in the index. Most people do, eventually, but it can take months, especially for a new site.

This leaves you before the law. You desire to pass through the portal, but the silent sentry gives nothing but obscure information and direction.

We’ve seen lots of data about how searchers process search pages. The current rule of thumb is that 50% look at the second page of search results, and 25% at the third page. And almost no one looks at any other pages.

This is probably true, as far as it goes. I believe, however, that there are two kinds of searchers, one of whom is not usually discussed.

The traditional model of searching is that someone conceives a desire, goes the to the search engine, types in their desire, and then processes the results. They pay attention to the earlier results more because they are easier to review. By page 4, they are bored or they have already found what they’re looking for.

There is a second kind of searcher. This kind of searcher does not know if they have typed the right term. So, they have many other steps before they can process the results. What they are doing is optimizing their search. They start with a certain idea of the keywords that are required to produce the results they want, but they are not sure. So, they try a search, and then they browse a few of the search results to see if the results are in the ballpark of what they want. They can determine this by reading only a few entries.

If the results don’t look right, then they adjust their keywords and try again. Eventually, the results are of high enough “saturation” that they feel like they have the right terms. That is, when the results look right, they know that they have hit on the right keywords for what they want to know. Only then will they read past the first page or first few results.

This hermeneutical process is much more realistic than the traditional linear model of searching. Only by understanding the hermeneutics involved can we truly understand user behavior.

Download the podcast

To be sure, some things ought to be printed. That’s already well-argued in my earlier post. Today I’m worried about two factors surrounding printing: price and quality.

Printing is not inexpensive. A good set of well-printed corporate identity materials (business cards, letterhead, envelopes, etc.) can easily cost $3,000. This excludes the $10,000 it could cost you for the design and branding services. Note that I’m not talking about the office store sort of printing or digital copies from an office services store. I’m talking about high-quality commercial printing. Now, of course this cost could be considered to be amortized over the hopefully-2-3-year usefulness of the materials. Nevertheless, it’s a lot of money. Note that technological options have dramatically decreased their hard costs. While it’ll still cost you at least $10,000 for a good Web site, it’ll cost you $20/month to host it. The deployment expenses are much less.

And now think about quality. I said I was talking about high-quality commercial printing. This is supposed to be the best of the best. Yet, in the last 2 years, I have been substantially disappointed by the quality of the product (and the level of service) at many printers. It’s like they don’t care anymore. I know it’s hard to make a living as a printer. And I know that a press can cost over $100,000. Nevertheless, the printing industry seems determined to fulfill its own prophecy of obsolescence.

The result of these problems is that it’s hard for print-fans like me to argue for printing. When I know that a client can hardly expect high quality for a high price, I am forced to reconsider what should be printed. And less gets printed. And the industry declines some more.