I like it. It’s a neat proposition that suitably fits the challenges and opportunities that brands are faced with today.  With a digital space that has become less a place where we dip in and out of to achieve isolated tasks, and more a place we exist in day to day.  In true planner style I have a diagram for this:

The surprise here for me is that search, something iCrossing has carved a strong reputation in, is just a component of this.  Connectedness is so much more and as a newbie here I am impressed (and pleased) to see a company striving to help their clients make sense of what this means and how it works.

I augment this slightly ‘teachers pet’ post with some related thought pieces I am a big fan of around ‘molecular brands’ or ‘brand molecules’.  In a nutshell, these theories or concepts introduce the brand as a fluid and evolving form, one that is defined by the context in which it exists and by the users that interact with it. I find this interesting for iCrossing and their Connectedness philosophy for two reasons:

1. Connectedness can be fluid, defined by the common ground between an individual’s life and the brand’s life. So….

• Let’s understand more about these points of common ground in and around the immediately obvious
• Let’s pay full attention to the wider cultural values we want to connect with as well as those of the individual user
• Let’s listen and observe to what the brand means to people in different places, at different time
• Let’s understand how every point of interaction and participation shapes the brand in different ways

2. Connectedness is a brand concept, impacting strategic decisions about how a brand should behave or exist, beyond the implementational elements. So….

• Let’s help brands take the theory of connectedness beyond web traffic and search term performance.
• Let’s explore how every part of connected activity creates a coherent brand story.
• Let’s focus creativity on the design of an overall brand experience.
• Let’s start with core brand values or a brand proposition and build a connected strategy from the inside out.

Arriving as a digital strategist with a brand planning and research background I am quite excited about pursuing these ideas and contributing my take on things.

I’ll keep you posted on how things develop, in the meantime I would love to hear what everyone else thinks about connectedness and brand molecules!



Post from: Connect

Connected brands as molecular brands

If your brand is serious about becoming a publisher – whether on your own site or elsewhere on the web, you can learn a huge amount from the people who are creating and delivering the best content and services on the web.

I’ve asked the members of the Content team here at iCrossing to describe their favourite websites – and explain why it works for them on a personal level. It’s a good way to share our ideas on how to match content delivery to user need and business objectives, which is what content strategy boils down to. So here, then, is the iCrossing Content Team’s Top Websites List. If you’re thinking of getting going with a content strategy in the second half of this year or planning for 2011, it’s a good place to start if you want to understand best practice.

BBC News
Tamsin Hemingray – Content Director
My favourite website is the BBC News site, which has just been redesigned. If your content strategy is going to involve producing a high volume of very topical content, then the design and layout here is worth looking at. It’s impressively clean given the number of individual news stories it delivers from the homepage (30+ stories above the fold from my small laptop screen). I look at it pretty much every day, rarely feeling the need to delve deeper than the homepage because that single page has given me such a wealth of serious, topical and whimsical news.

The editors achieve this efficiency by using careful prioritisation of stories. In the first instance, prioritisation is based on recency, then it’s based on the relative importance of a story – so the “biggest” stories get the most space and the biggest pictures. Further down the page, the information is prioritised on a third level – with regional stories based on my specific location being given prominence. I find all of this makes it really easy for me to get to the information I want almost without a conscious process of selection happening in my own head.

Although the site will be generating huge amounts of attention overall, each given story will enjoy just a short period in the sun, with large numbers of people reading it in a short period of time. Once it falls off the front page, its traffic stats will similarly decline spectacularly in relative terms. Of course they will still get some traffic – as the BBC is an authority site in the eyes of Google, and so ranks well for most topical search queries. For example its story from 15 July is ranking on P1 for a search on “Raoul Moat”. However long term traffic plateaus are not the priority here, so it’s not surprising that the design and build is so clearly built around a “here today, gone tomorrow” delivery of content.

Bird Guides
Charlie Peverett, Content Strategist
I’m a birdwatcher. When I first went twitchy, back in the 1980s, if you wanted to know what rare birds were around, you had to a) be lucky enough to be on the ‘grapevine’ of information (passed from birder to birder – woe betide you fall out with a key node) or b) ring a premium rate phone line, and listen to a lot of information about places and birds that may or may not be of interest to you as your wallet progressively lightened.

Roll on 25 years and I and most other birders in the UK use Birdguides. It’s the UK’s most comprehensive hub for bird sightings info, and does an amazing job of innovating fast enough to stave off the threat of self-organised, crowd-sourced information while operating a paid-for business model.

My bookmark is to the map page. Here you can instantly see whether a Siberian Rubythroat or something less snazzy has turned up and where. This and other top-level content is free to view, as long as you’re logged in. If you want to drill deeper down – directions to the bird, articles, searchable archives and historical records – you need to subscribe, starting at £40 a year.

I use this site every day, currently as a non-subscriber. Even the non-premium service is useful enough to me that it’s worth a daily check. When I’ve got some spare cash (and maybe more time to act on the information, binoculars in hand) I’ll pay my subs again and make use of more features. But for now the free service is good enough that I don’t bother much looking elsewhere, and they’ll be front of mind when I’m ready to pay for more.

Does the subscription model work for them as a business? I don’t know. But I do know that as a user they’ve kept me loyal with decent usability and judicious distribution of the essential content. A great example of why, for a organisation where the product *is* content, the content strategy *is* the business model.

Red Visitor
Jeremy Head – Travel Editor
I’ve been thinking about destination guides of late.  Airlines, tourist boards, airports, hotels. The web is awash with the things. The end result nowadays is lots of rather generic, sometimes ageing content which is often targetted at search engines and not particularly useful for the user.

So I’ve been hunting for a site that does destination guides really well. And I think I’ve found one. It’s called Red Visitor and it’s in its relative infancy so doesn’t cover that many places

What’s good?

Stunning design. Ok. This is not a pre-requisite, but it certainly helps and the lovely pics and clean, simple design of this site are just great. There’s a nice balance between inspiration and genuinely useful stuff and that’s reflected in the design too which I really love.

Interesting ideas. People are looking for inspiration as much they are hard core info like train times…(Well I certainly am and I think many others are too!) I really like the Travel Ideas tab. If you’re in browse mode rather than hunt mode this kind of stuff is genuinely useful. It’s also easy to navigate using the tag cloud on the right. That’s very nice indeed. Often sites that try to offer you ideas get  the content OK, but screw up the user experience so it’s really hard to find.

Keeping it simple. I don’t want a list a thousand items long. I just want a few judicious choices. And this site does that very well under the experiences tab. For each location it lists the ‘Best’ Galleries, Landmarks, Parks, Shopping etc. Very bite-sized and easy to digest.

Using expert opinion to add more credibility. Who is Red Visitor? What do they know about London or wherever?  Why should I trust their opinion? This is one of the biggest problems for me with on-line content generally. Can I trust it and is it right for me (as opposed to some 10 years younger or whatever)? Using interesting and respected locals to provide insight and opinion really adds a whole new layer to the quality of the content.

Using Video. I’m not a big online video watcher, but I can see why they are a great idea. Very accessible and they’ve been quite tightly edited too. You don’t have to spend buckets on high quality production shoots for online, but you do have to make the edit fast and clean. And again, there’s that veneer of crediblility because the contributors to the video pieces are all local experts

Adding maps. This is totally cool. Want to see where a restaurant they recommend is? Click the view on map link and you get a bespoke google map with all the restaurants on it.

No adverts. Ahh bliss! The design is reason enough to love the site, but the lack of banners with stuff whizzing around and god knows what else interrupting your browsing experience is just lovely. It’s a breath of fresh air. Makes you realise that the web can be a nice place to spend time.

I’m guessing they’ve spent quite a lot of money on RedVisitor already and I wonder how revenues are looking. It’s likely to be a long journey to long term success – I really hope they are successful.

Gilt.com
Trisha Brandon, Content Strategist
One trend that I love is on a site I visited daily in the US: Gilt.com. It’s an online shop that has new items joining the sale daily at noon in limited amounts. They send a daily email at half eleven or so with the brands going on sale at noon, to get you primed. Then at noon the “doors” open. The stock is limited and the site shows you what’s already in people’s basket (so limited stock), so there’s a real incentive/pressure to buy now. Sales typically end after three days or so, if there’s any stock left.

Why do I like it? It’s got an upmarket feel with exclusive and some everyday brands, but it is highly curated to have an intimate feel. When there’s a brand I like on gilt.com, I feel in-the-know and like I’ve gotten a real bargain. Basically, it’s like an online TK Maxx but without having to trawl through all the clothes to find the gem. And because there are just three to four brands per day, it doesn’t feel like I’m taking any time to shop and I’m much more likely to impulse buy. They could do more socially, but there is a real buzz about what’s going to be added. For example, in my old office it was a regular topic of conversation for meetings at noon, like “let’s hurry up, because American Apparel is on Gilt starting at noon.” So they’ve really succeeded in creating a water cooler buzz.

There are others too that have followed this model in the US, Gilt isn’t the only one. Perhaps the UK does something similar?

Facebook
Simon Handby, Editor, News and Blogs
I’m going to be dull and predictable and say Facebook. Its user interface could be better and people seem to find its privacy options baffling, but despite its frustrations I visit almost every day. Why? Because everyone’s on it, and because it’s a good way of staying in touch with people without having to actively do so. They do stuff, you see it, occasionally you’re moved to comment or send a message asking how they are. I like that.

What I don’t like is having so many ‘friends’. It’s partly my fault for accepting requests from colleagues new and old who might be better classed under LinkedIn, and possibly also for not having sorted friends into lists. I don’t like seeing adverts, either: I’m not interested in companies on Facebook, and I’d gladly pay a minimal subscription to filter the paid content. Conversely, when visiting third-party sites, I generally couldn’t care whether my friends like them or not.

Lastminute.com
Natalie Walsh, Senior copywriter / editor
When it comes to great design, slick functionality and high quality, interactive content Lastminute.com gets my top vote. In fact, when working on projects for our travel clients this is one of the sites I point to as a benchmark for success.

It was on the money before we slid into recession – now it’s raised its game with a richer mix of deals for leisure activities home and away, it is for me a primary resource for bargain hunting.

The search and transactional elements are clearly set out and easy to navigate. It’s my first port of call to check out hotel prices which I then compare with other sites such as Expedia.  For city breaks, I’ll usually book my flights and hotels separately and for my latest trip to Barcelona in May, I opted for a Lastminute ‘Secret Hotel’ and got four nights in a four-star boutique hotel (Hotel Soho – a short walk to the Ramblas) for just under £400. That is a genuinely fantastic deal.

On a more regular basis, I check out the restaurant deals. In addition to the ‘Eat out for £10’ offers there are very tempting deals for fine dining at London’s finest – a current example of which is a three-course lunch at Marcus Wareing at the  Berkeley for £38. I’ve booked deals like this several times when I’m organising a birthday meal for friends or a family get-together.

This is a site that understands who its readers are, their needs and how to meet those needs in engaging and innovative ways. Deals and content are clearly presented. Its consistently ‘joined up’ approach showcases the benefits of setting out a clear and dynamic content and social media strategy, and its commitment to high editorial standards is impressive. From its onsite copy to its blog, Lastminute.com delivers engaging, well-written round-ups and posts across a wide range of mainstream and specialist travel destinations and activities and niche/special interest topics.

Mumsnet
Tamsin McCahill Senior copywriter / editor
Despite its ‘bunch of whining women stating the bleeding obvious’ image, I still really like Mumsnet.

I guess the reason for its huge popularity (20 million monthly page impressions, according to the Guardian) is the reason why I like it too. Like millions of others, my mum, sister and mum-in-law live miles away and I don’t have aunts or neighbours to turn to for advice. So Mumsnet is fulfilling a vital role – giving a sense of community that may be lacking in today’s more isolated society.

The site is made up of two parts. The first are the static advice pages with subjects that include sleep, food and travel, plus completely impartial reviews on everything you may ever need to buy for your child.  Unlike most other websites where the advice can leave you feeling guilty that you’re ‘doing things wrong’, the tips here are anything but po-faced. Take this one on cleaning for example: “My second favourite household chore is ironing. My first one being hitting my head on the top bunk bed until I faint.”

The second part is the forums, where you can post questions on anything parent-related. In the past I’ve asked questions on everything from sleep problems to how I can get my lazy baby to crawl. But when posting, you need to choose your words wisely, as it’s here that the site gets its distinctive personality. Some members are amusing, but, as The Times points out, they can be more ‘bitchy’ than supportive.  Take this frank exchange on elimination communication, for example.

But as long as it’s not you that’s getting flamed, it can still be a great place for a bit of banter that you miss out on when you’re not at work. Parenthood is tough and confusing,  with midwives, health visitors and experts all giving masses of seemingly conflicting advice. Mumsnet is an excellent place to get impartial advice from the people who really do know what they’re talking about.

Post from: Connect

What can brands learn from the best digital publishers?

As someone who works agency-side I started thinking specifically about what the implications of Paul’s observations of human social behaviour are for brands, especially those taking part in the social web. Intriguingly, it suggests that social media is a customer retention, not a customer acquisition, game.

Social ties

In his presentation, Paul discusses the established theory that human beings develop two types of connections – strong ties and weak ties. Strong ties are those people closest to us, such as best friends and family. Most people are unlikely to have more than six strong ties in their lives. Our weak ties are those we are less close to but might be in infrequent contact with. It is believed that the limits of the human brain mean that the average person is not capable of staying up to date with more than 150 weak ties at any one time. We might know many more people but we simply can’t stay alert to them all.

What does this mean for brands in social media?

The implications for those who work in marketing are quite profound, but also incredibly useful. It opens up a new level of detail, and in some ways provides a reality-check, to the all-encompassing notion of engagement. It suggests there are limits to just how engaged with people a brand can be. Realistically, a brand is not going to make it into someone’s group of strong ties and should not try to do so. This group is incredibly small and reserved for those closest to us.

Equally, it means that judging Facebook success, for instance, by the amount of people who ‘like’ your brand is flawed. For many of the people who have ‘liked’ you, it’s highly possible that your brand still falls outside the 150 weak ties that they can keep up with. The social web has enabled us to expand our list of connections – people don’t limit their list of Facebook friends to 150 after all – but the human brain is no more able than it was before to deal with them all. And, significantly, Paul points out that Facebook users currently have 130 friends on average.

The limits of our ability to maintain any more than 150 weak ties also brings into question the value of campaigns that require you to ‘like’ the brand in order to take part, such as competitions. Here, you are creating one-off relationships that will be difficult to build upon.

Instead, it seems a more realistic, and strategically astute, decision to focus digital marketing efforts on making sure your brand is a valued weak tie in people’s social networks. This is even more sensible when we consider that if we can only ever handle 150 weak ties at any one time then each person’s ties are likely to be at capacity already. A quick look at the brands I have ‘liked’ on Facebook suggests that, other than those that have a work-related purpose, most are ones that I already had a connection with outside of my use of that site. It wasn’t their presence on Facebook that established the connection; the connection already existed.

What should the strategy be?

The suggestion here, as made by Paul in his presentation, is that social networks don’t actually enable the creation of additional connections, they just make our existing connections more visible to us. This of course somewhat belies the common marketing notion that there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people just waiting to fit your brand into their lives. In fact, for most people, their lives are likely to be full already.

The possible outcome of this, somewhat controversially, is that much of a brand’s effort in a social media space such as Facebook should be given to maintaining existing ties rather than establishing new ones; to forging deeper relationships with those people who are already positively predisposed to your brand.

Of course, social media activity is still likely to result in your brand creating some new weak ties – after all, our social ties are not static, permanent connections. That said, if it is predominantly a retention game then the likelihood is that you’ll have to be interesting enough to bump out an existing connection in order to enter someone’s network of weak ties. And of course, if you’re not proving to be interesting enough yourself then you might be the one that gets bumped out.

If all this is true then we are indeed in a relationship-based customer retention game, not a numbers-based acquisition one.

You can find Paul Adams’ original presentation, which provided the inspiration for this post, here. It’s lengthy, but in a good way, and comes wholly recommended.

Post from: Connect

Does human behaviour make the social web a retention game for brands?

New Look
The most obvious difference is the look of the search bar which has been modernised. I thought it looked a bit like a “fake” Google branding attempt, but with time I seem to be getting used to it.

I think the new look is better than the old interface and it almost makes the rest of the SERP, which has not been updated, look a little dated.

At the bottom of the SERP, the related links are now listed in two columns of four, rather than the previous four columns of two.

A prominent left hand navigation with different search options has now been introduced to the SERP. The majority of these search options in this panel have been available for some time, but were only visible once “show options” has been selected, so it is likely that they may appear new to a lot of users.

You can see here all the search options which are available in the left panel, not all are initially visible and there are links to expand the list to view all. The top half of the panel displays different mediums of results within a SERP and the bottom half of the panel filters the standard SERP.

Depending on the search query different search options are displayed without needing to expand the option list. Looking into this with a variety of search queries it is becoming apparent that for a high percentage of searches the top half of the panel reflects the types of universal results within the SERP. For example if a search for ‘hotel in London’ displays normal listings as well as news results, a map and images then the panel will automatically show the filters for those types of results and the filter for blogs, books and updates etc are only visible once the “More” expanding list is selected. The bottom part of the panel also reflects the type of results which are displayed, if there is a recently indexed result then usually something within the “Any time” list is displayed. The “Standard view” section of the left panel however has foxed me for the time being.

The ‘pages from the UK’ radio button that was once under the search query field is now in this left panel and the navigation options at the very top right hand side of the page can now also be seen in the left panel with visual icons.

I believe that the new left panel will increases users knowledge and use of other Google functionality rather than just the basic search function.

New functionality

My favourite new functionality feature includes Google ‘Updates’ which is streaming micro blogging from Twitter, FriendFeed, MySpace and Facebook. Google introduced real time search by adding Twitter to its SERPs for highly topical search queries at the end of 2009, but this is available for all search queries as far as I can tell. It will save users having to go into twitter directly for the most up to date Tweets on particular subjects, but is unlikely yet to replace apps like TweetDeck as I can’t see anywhere that you can set up feeds to automatically push the tweets to you.

Although not new, another good feature which is now more visible is within the Google image search. The image search filters are now more obvious to help find the image type you are looking for, with ability to specify for faces, photos, clip art or line drawing.

A search for ‘cruise’ returns mainly pictures of cruise ships, but if I change the search funcitonality option to faces it returns pictures of Tom Cruise!

The universal results are behaving differently too and you can now see the related searches at the top of the page as well as at the bottom, an example of this can be seen here:

Searches for destination now not only return a map but a selection of images of that location alongside the map with a list of quick links to sights and things to do at that location:

These changes should further inform of the average Google user of functionality at their disposal which they may not have inititally been aware of. It is likely that we will see an increase in the number of Google power users which might affect the search queries that people use and the terms that deliver traffic to our sites.

Post from: Connect

Google Gets a Facelift

The queen of content strategy Kristina Halvorson wrote this post in February which argued that: “Content strategy is more or less on the same trajectory as social media was three years ago”.

There does seem to be a growing interest. Google trends data show search volumes for content strategy and related terms in March 2010 running at about twice the rate as January 2007 (taking into account the growth in overall search volumes). Searches specifically for “online content strategy” have risen 70% during that time.

It’s a compelling story. And being honest, as Content Director at iCrossing, it has really helped when talking to people about what we want to do with content to help them to reach their business goals. No one wants to be missing out on “the next big thing”, do they?

But this post isn’t about the “sellability” of Content Strategy as a project or service.

It’s about the idea that this is a new discipline.

Charlie Peverett and I went to a stimulating and well-attended event last week in London’s fashionable Shoreditch. Content Strategy, Manhattan Style invited attendees to meet “three of New York’s finest content strategists… for an evening of informal discussions, socialising, and perhaps a little drinking”. Most interestingly for me, the event blurb suggested that this was “the place to be if you want to learn more about the business value, opportunities, and practical application of this emerging field of practice” [my emphasis].

A web editor by any other name would spell as well

We had a long chat on the way to the event discussing this. I put my theory to him that content strategists are, in fact, the same thing as a “web editor in chief”. Here’s my little story that explains why I think this (and I admit it is based very heavily on my personal experiences of working within the discipline of online content creation):

Once upon a time, the internet was invented, and soon there were loads of websites and random bits and bobs and fun stuff to do and it was all really exciting. Companies who wanted to make money out of the internet got really excited too, and started building websites to join in.

Quite quickly they realised that they needed someone to run the website for them and make sure stuff looked right and there weren’t spelling mistakes and broken links everywhere. So they hired Web Editors. These people were a bit unusual – they knew about html and stuff and could also use Photoshop and write properly and fiddle about with content management systems. There weren’t many of them about. So they paid them LOADS of money.

Then, one day, a bubble burst somewhere and the companies decided that maybe the internet was rubbish and you couldn’t make money out of it. So loads of the websites got closed down and the Web Editors got made redundant or went and joined agencies and got jobs as producers or writers or Information Architects or UX guys, or they took massive pay cuts to hold on to their jobs and then got pretty much ignored to death by everyone else in the organisation.

Time passed.

Then, suddenly, the internet was back in fashion again, and quite a few companies had found that they COULD make money just by selling stuff on it directly. Then along came social media and everyone wanted their websites to be really cool and shiny again, and they wanted loads of content that did clever stuff and was really engaging and useful. So they hired Content Strategists to work out how to do it. Little did they know that these Content Strategists were in fact the self same Web Editors of yore. But that didn’t matter because the work got done and everyone got paid. And everyone lived happily ever after.

Charlie and I decided to put this theory to the panel at the event. Unfortunately, our question didn’t get chosen, and I got distracted by a different conversation about whether adding a blog to a client’s site can fix a rubbish content strategy [another blog post for another day].

So I was really pleased to see this post by fellow Brightonian Lauren Pope asking the exact question we had wanted to: what’s the difference between a content strategist and a web editor? Like Charlie and I, she has picked up on the fact that the overlap between the responsibility of a web editor and a content strategist seems to get ignored by the Content Strategy Superstars of Manhattan.

I’d add to this that there is a very strong focus on onsite content strategy with these guys that seems not to acknowledge the fact that content strategy in the social age has to cover offsite spaces where you have little or no control at all. [Again, another blog post for another day.]

The final part of the puzzle?

My belief is that content strategy isn’t an “emerging field of practice” at all. Actually it’s the remembering of what anyone who works day to day with content from the pre-dotcom days to right now this second knows: if content is queen [and, since the internet is content, how can it not be?] then you’d better get your content strategy sorted or you’re doomed to failure. And the best person to do that is the person who is creating, managing, curating and moderating it – and conversing in fine detail with users – day in day out.

However, the sad truth is that in most organisations, that person – the post-dotcom web editor – is rarely in an influential position, if they exist at all. That’s annoying, but there it is. So enter the Content Strategist: the next big thing and therefore, presumably, someone that gets listened to.

If you’re a web editor, don’t feel threatened or over-shadowed by a content strategist – see them as your ally. They are the person who is going to take a long hard look at content provision, user needs, technical barriers, business goals, and support you to deliver content that really hits the spot. It’s been a long time coming – but perhaps it is just part of a natural progression. It feels to me that over the last 15 years there has been an ongoing process where we’ve all been working to create websites that look nice, that are sensibly organised, that are really easy to use, that are easy to find, and now we’re finally considering building websites that have stuff on them that people want and like.

Content professionals – take heart. If Kristina’s stats are right, we’re the next big thing! For individuals, organisations and brands who seek to engage and trade digitally it’s even better news – because your websites and your social media activity is only going to get better.

Image by Flickr user Sirkullay, reproduced under Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 CC License.

Header Image by Flickr user 10ch

Post from: Connect

Content strategy: the new social media or the old web editing?

Brands spend budgets on building websites where pages get optimised for search engine rankings and then spend more on delivering paid search campaigns across brand, generic and competitor terms. The user’s journey begins in search and then continues through the landing page and deeper into the site where the end goal is completion of the task in mind.

What is that task in mind? Clues are provided by the search term used – if it’s a brand term then that user may already have a level of knowledge about the brand that may also include a certain amount of trust. A generic term may imply a level of interest or curiosity in the subject matter with a view to finding out more about the subject. A competitor term may mean that the brand needs to work harder to pull this user away from the competition’s proposition.

These three broad groups of search terms provide at least three different scenarios and combined with any other available customer demographic data will also suggest personas to base a user centred approach when reviewing the complete journey from search term right through to the final task completion. The foundations for holistically reviewing are solidified by adding into the mix a Useful, Usable and Desirable scorecard. Attributes for each of these core elements include the following;

Useful

1. Does the landing page(s) provide evidence that user goals can be completed? Is the task ahead clearly signposted?
2. Is essential function available where needed?
3. Are essential content and function given priority in the display?
4. Do location cues orient the user? Is navigation straight-forward, can the user easily pin-point their location within the application?
5. Does site functionality provide clear feedback in response to user actions? When the user clicks a button or link, does the application immediately inform the user that it has acknowledged the user action and is about deliver its response/
6. Is contextual help available at key points?

Usable

1. Is the task flow efficient? Does the website deliver a streamlined route to the end goal?
2. Is the wording in hyperlinks and controls clear and informative? Do links use informative alt tags? Are controls clearly labelled?
3. Are on-site keyword-based searches comprehensive and precise? Are the results relevant and targeted?
4. Does the site use graphics, icons, and symbols that are easy to understand? How much jargon is there?
5. Is text legible, and does text formatting and layout support easy scanning?
6. Do interactive elements behave as expected? Are all links working? Are images and headings consistent in their interactions?

Desirable

1. Does the site communicate brand attributes that are meaningful to users in a manner that’s relevant to those users? For each scenario does that user leave feeling positive or negative towards the brand?

Desirability really only contains this one attribute – what is the overall User Experience of the  Graphical User Interface (GUI) with particular attention paid to the context of use (scenario).

Scoring the attributes

The GUI or site is checked for each of these attributes and scored from -2 (major issues) to 2 (very good), further detail provided below:

Working through this step by step leads to an aggregated score for each of the core elements of Useful, Usable and Desirable that can then be used to evaluate the client’s site when the user comes in from search and/or to benchmark it alongside the client’s main competitors.

The aggregated scores can be plotted allowing visualisation of the review and combined with the scorecard allows the client to easily see how the site is performing, where improvements may be made and, just as importantly, enables the client to follow the reviewer’s thought processes in detail and to question these if required.

Providing this level of detail to the client sets a level of trust where the transparency in the process as well as the amount of time and effort in recording all scores and reasons for these scores is appreciated by the client and maintains a sound working relationship. The approach of combining metrics and visualisation resonates with business audiences and provides a data-set that can be referred to for comparison studies once recommendations have been incorporated.

With this in mind, how useful, usable and desirable do you think your website is? Are you ticking all the boxes?

Post from: Connect

How useful, useable and desirable is your website?

Cutting out the middle-man

With publishers increasingly looking to advertising and sponsorship deals to replace lost revenue from dwindling newspaper sales, the Guardian has effectively cut out the middle-man to provide a useful service for its readers. Given the choice I, personally, would much rather a dedicated area within which I can browse a number of brands and ’shop the look’ championed in this week’s style section, than sidebars full of promotion boxes for brands I may have no interest in.

Indeed, online retail analysis has suggested that people shop for fashion online in a different way to how they might shop for other products. Most clothes shoppers know what stores and labels stock what they’re looking for. So, rather than searching for a particular item, they would look for their favourite clothing brands and then search for the item within the brand’s site. As the Guardian Fashion Store offers the choice to search by brand, it fits with this shopping model much more snugly than side-bar advertising could.

Mutual promotion

Many online retailers now create editorial, discussion or community areas on their sites to help build context for their products. But by tying its style editorial in with the Fashion Store, The Guardian has turned the tables somewhat, using products to promote its content.

With items that compliment editorial pieces featured on the home-page or ’shop-window’ of the online store, users can link through to an article to find out why they should be buying this look – promoting both the relevance of the editorial and the products. And such timeliness is intrinsic to the fashion industry.

Link-happy?

Compared to promotion boxes that link out to retailer sites, hosting a site-contained fashion store should mean that users have less incentive to leave the guardian.co.uk to shop the look championed in online editorial.

However, at the minute they could be missing a trick by failing to link to the store, or specific items, within editorial. Of course readers would soon become cynical if all editorial solely featured items sold on the site, but in cases where it is relevant and appropriate to mention such items, user experience may be improved by being able to link straight through to and buy or browse products.

There is a delicate balance between banging the sales-message drum and being useful, and it is this power struggle between advertorial and editorial which sees the publishing landscape change shape so frequently.

What do you think of the Guardian’s online Fashion Store – has it got the balance right?

Post from: Connect

The Guardian Fashion Store – a healthy balance?

An interesting new study by the guys over at Catalyst Group shows that although users like Microsoft’s new search engine Bing, they are unlikely to switch.  From a usability focus group of 12 (expected to capture 80-90% of issues), after using both engines 8 said they preferred Google while 4 said they liked Bing.  That being despite the fact that 82% preferred Bings design, 64% preferred Bings organisation of features and another 64% preferred Bings refinement and filtering options.  With regards to relevance of results, the majority of users thought both engines preformed equally well.  I think  this goes to show how entrenched Google has become in our thinking when it comes to search.  Even though Microsoft won 3 out of the 4 tests and tied the last, two thirds of users were unprepared to switch.  After all, we no longer search for something, we Google it!

What I found particularly insightful, was in seeking out participants for this study the researchers were unable to find anyone who hadn’t heard of Google, but none of the participants had heard of Bing.  Granted it’s a new engine, but it just goes to show the marketing mountain Microsoft has to climb if it wants to even get close to knocking Google off the top spot (although I’m sure having $100 million to throw at the problem won’t hurt!)

When it came to paid ads (searching for ‘digital cameras’) it seems that again Bing came out top with users spending 150% more time looking at the ad space at the top of the page (4.9s vs 2.0s), possibly due to the refinement options available at the top of the page.  With Google fairing a little better when it came to ‘Hotels’ search (2.7s vs 1.7s).

(Click image for larger version)

One of the more innovative features found in Bing is its ‘quick preview’ option that lets you get an additional snippet of information on a site without having to visit it.  However this feature was only discovered by 1 of the 12 users (and only by accident).  When told about this feature, most users felt it wasn’t very useful and didn’t place much value in it, citing the information was not always representative of the site and often simply copied the information already presented in the search results.

What all of the above shows is that although Bing is far better than its predecessor, with so little to choose between Google and Bings search results and the fact that Google is now such a household name it is unlikely that people will switch in the droves that Microsoft would likely hope for.  Unless Bing has a few extra tricks up its sleeve don’t expect Google to be dethroned anytime soon.

Catalyst Group Bing V. Google Usability Study -

Image Credit: Google Lego Logo – Sean Kenney

Post from: Connect

Users prefer Bing but unwilling to switch

1)    Optimise your page titles
Eh?  A page title is the part of the page right at the very top of the screen, it contains a brief description of the page contents and is used by search engines when deciding how to rank your site/page in search results.  It’s also part of what users see in the search results so it’s important to get this bit right.  You want to make sure you have words and phrases that accurately describe what is on your page and are also terms that people are searching on.  You can use keyword volume estimator tools such as Google Adwords to show you how much search there is on each word and choose the best ones to use.  Although it may be tempting to only use super high volume words, remember you’re unlikely to rank for competitive terms such as “football”, so try more specific phrases such as “Football news UK”

2)    Links links links
This bit isn’t so easy, but massively important so it’s worth paying attention.  Many of the popular search engines use the number of inbound links you have to your site as a measure of popularity, therefore the more links you have the better you will rank.  While there are many underhand ways of gaining more links, the best way is to promote yourself in a non spammy way and great content is a good way of doing this…

3)    Quality content that attracts attention
Having high quality, timely content that naturally attracts links is what all search engines seek to promote and ultimately reward. Having a blog on your site is a good way of creating fresh content and if your posts are good, hopefully attracts links.  Also the ability to comment on posts creates user engagement on your site which helps you connect with the users of your site, creates a sense of community and ultimately return visitors.

4)    Optimise site copy
Along with optimising page titles, it is also important to optimise other parts of the site such as H1 tags and the articles on the site.  There needs to be a delicate balancing act done here so that you don’t ruin all your articles by trying to squeeze in as many keywords as possible, but subtle changes such as changing soccer to football shouldn’t ruin the flow and will better match search queries. Jeremy explores this in depth here.

5)    Make sure your site is indexable and accessible
Search engines cannot read the text within images, and although it’s getting better at reading text content within Flash you should provide text only alternatives or the search engines will not know what search terms to rank you for. You also have to make sure  your content is accessible, i.e. outputting text content using a JavaScript function will mean search engines cannot access the text.

6)    Use site analytics to monitor your site
If you don’t know what’s happening on your site you’re dead in the water.  There is no point in attracting millions of people to your site if those same people leave straight away.   Use a simple free analytics package such as Google Analytics to monitor how people use your site.  Which pages do they arrive on, how long do they stay, do some pages perform better then others and why?  You should try to keep bounce rates down, search engines often use high bounce rates as an indication that your site is not well matched to that search query and you will loose rank, it will also affect your quality score from a paid search perspective increasing the amount you have to pay for ads.

7)    Use Paid Search to cover your gaps in natural search
Using paid search may or may not be part of your online strategy however it can be used to cover the gaps where you aren’t ranking for the search naturally.  An effective paid search campaign can often return several times what you put into it and is a lot more responsive then natural search (ie when you turn it on you see immediate results).

8)    Understand your users
Often overlooked by many sites but is unsurprisingly very important.  Many website owners think they know what their users want, or are simply happy to tell them what they want.  “I run a football site and you’re getting football news” rather than asking the people that use the site what they want.  Engage with your users, get feedback from then (e.g. Kampyle) and design your content around that.

9)    Test different versions on your site
No one, no matter how many years of experience will ever know with 100% certainty what will work and what wont, this is why doing some simple A vs B testing on your site can help you optimise your pages.  You may find that people are more interested in “trying” your software rather then “downloading” it, or that red confirm buttons work better then green.

10)    Create a top 10 list (and submit to a social bookmarking site)
Finally if you’ve done all the above, create a top ten list and submit it to a site like Digg or Reedit.  Keep the list short, 7 – 10 should do and keep the content light hearted but useful.  Adding references to popular internet memes such as the Bush shoeing or Rick Astley may help or if that fails simply pay MrBabyMan to submit your article

Post from: Connect

Top 10 ways to get more traffic to your site

From the first day of 2009, Google’s Best Practice Funding scheme (a euphemism for agency commissions) will have ended. Yahoo too will be changing the way it rewards big spending agencies by moving to a tiered scheme. We’ve been thinking hard about how that will affect clients, agencies and the search engines themselves. And the answer is that, for agencies and their clients, there will be real impact. Google, in the meantime can roll on regardless.

Since Google accounts for at least 90% of all UK search spend (and therefore half of all UK online ad spend), we’re focusing here on them but Yahoo’s decision (it will begin to pay back four per cent to spenders of between £50,000 to £100,000 a month and nine per cent to spenders of £100,000-plus) will have an impact too.

BPF was Google’s replacement for direct agency discounts and was pitched as a way to encourage growth and ‘best practice’ among agencies. Where agencies invested the money they saved through the scheme in delivering better search (for example, systems, technology and people), that’s just what it did. But, many used it as their route to margin, particularly the traditional buying agencies that were used to receiving large discounts on offline media.

Under the last iteration of the scheme, agencies that spent more than £15m a year got more than seven per cent of it (£1m-plus) back. That is a large sum of money to remove from whichever line in your P&L account you put it but if you’d been putting it right at the bottom, you now face a real issue with profitability.

At iCrossing, we put our BPF cash into our own search technology and our team, not our bottom line. But, even for us that is still money that will be missed since lost business revenue can only ever be replaced in three ways – reduced investment, higher prices or lower costs. None of those is an attractive prospect and agencies will be looking for understanding from their clients as they look for ways to offset BPF while at the same time increasing (not just maintaining) the quality of their service.

In short:

1. Pitch time: agencies who were simply using BPF to bolster their P & L or passing this back to clients as a point of differentiation to win search accounts are going to be hit hard. Serious, fundamental renegotiation of large contracts will serve as a stimulus for many clients to consider their options and indeed other agencies

2. The experts will win out: those that invested BPF in developing real search expertise and technology, can make natural and paid search work together to develop efficiency, and use ‘native’ digital planning techniques (e.g. linguistic profiling and genuine customer journey insight) will be the ones that deliver real value and therefore should hold on to clients and pick up business in the new swathe of pitches – as long as those clients hire on value rather than just cost.

3. CPCs unaffected: it’s been speculated that CPCs might decrease since agencies will have less to spend on keywords. But, BPF average payout is probably more like 3-4%, rather than 7-8% and individual accounts still represent the majority of Google’s spend (not agencies) so we’ll see little impact in the price of search

4. Google steams on: the sheer dominance of Google as the country’s most popular search engine negates the normal dynamics of buying and selling. Since buyers are unable to choose alternatives, where Google leads, we must follow. That Yahoo has changed its agency commissions too demonstrates this

So, there’s our thoughts, what are yours? Do you think that the effects of the change will be manifest themselves in different ways? We’d love to hear from you. And if you’re interested in any more insight into how BPF might affect your own search campaigns and strategy, give us a call.

Post from: Connect

Google BPF – the fall-out