“..if your experience is mostly in offline marketing and you’re about to deal with the web then you need to understand that it’s a platform, it’s like an investment in software, and it needs plenty of work that you may not be used to.”…

Remember the agile approach: test and learn, tweak and try again… Well it’s back on the agenda this week with a new angle.  Sadly the throw away society mentality is ripe in so many organisations. 

Blame the platform rather than the users of it.  Sound familiar?

Point in case : Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra

After more than a year of agreeing to sponsor the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra (TSO) at significant cost to the employees and shareholders of Future Medium, and not to mention the scheduling delays our paying clients experienced while ‘we did good’ for Tasmania, the website has gone out to redevelopment because it doesn’t meet its targets.  See case study.  Incidentally we won’t be bothering to respond and wish the future supplier good health and prosperity.

So back to an old chestnut: selection criteria for web projects and specifically in this case ’being realistic about expectations within your budget’.  This might seem like a rant and a rave  (ooh a party…) but hopefully this comes across as a coherent reaction to this recent experience.

What makes someone throw a functional website away?

Working with the TSO and witnessing a change in marketing management after site release and seeing some ongoing gaps in terms of utilising the platform (that we built) has given me a very close and unfortunately negative experience with sponsoring an organisation’s web needs.  As sponsors we wrote the brief ourselves and did what we thought mattered (validated of course by TSO staff and external marketing consultants…)

So why does a project just go in the bin after such hard work?  I’ve seen this many times before but typically in state government (possibly because there’s a strange detachment from budgets and commercial return backed with a number of I.T. egotisms)… don’t shoot me for saying what we all know to be commonplace.  Private sector tends to view expenditure as an investment, not a bucket that needs emptying each 1/2 FY.  So where does that leave a charity / not-for-profit in terms of asset development?  Somewhere in between or worse than public sector?

Anyway, witnessing this ‘throw-away’ has reiterated the importance of setting criteria and project goals and building a staff and supplier relationship to keep adjusting outcomes towards emerging / previously unknown goals rather than:

STOP, THROW AWAY, and START AGAIN.

So getting back to setting website project expectations

How do we quantify our selection criteria for a website if we’re a traditional marketer and the web has forced upon us new demands as a business?  And, how do we convert that into a logical and reasonable brief for our suppliers?

I’m not going to to claim that any of this thinking is tested, definitive or even logical but merely a bunch of thoughts about the inside of a ‘marketers’ head when it comes to web criteria.  Notice I haven’t said ‘web-marketers’ criteria:  I’m questioning “what goes through the mind of an old school marketing person when they think web”?

First of all let’s pretend we know nothing about technology, have no grounding in the complexities of data storage, end user devices, or any idea at all how to build a website (‘cos that’s someone else’s issue) but we have been charged with the responsibility of pushing out products & services through the web as one of our channels.

What would our agenda be?

Image (right content, product, and style) + flexibility (ability to change at will and in any way my marketing heart desires)

If we get those right (and our product is desirable) and we use our traditional thinking of getting people to look at it then we’ll get a financial return right? (well maybe not…. but bear with me and assume so)

How important is ‘image’ to my market segment?

Let’s question the ‘image’ criteria; it brings all sorts of things to mind:

• Brand,
• Photos,
• Style,
• Content,
• Copy-writing,
• Dynamism, and
• Interactivity

What does our market segment want? Or what will they accept if I can’t give them all the bells from Christmas or the lights of Las Vegas?

I like to work on continuum’s when I conceptualise something and let’s work from ‘trash-to-great’.  What is acceptable for our market segment?

How much flexibility does my market segment need?

I need to be able to be up-to-date and changing.  My market will typically expect that – remember this is the web - it’s the saviour of all print’s failings in terms of currency of data.  But I’ve got a problem…

Image and Flexibility are inextricably linked

You can’t have a progressive web image without changing to align with market needs, inspiring the market etc., and of course this means flexibility. But poorly managed flexibility will probably damage your image so what’s the right balance?

The Axis of Greatness

So if image and flexibility are inextricably linked and I’m certain that these criteria will drive my marketing effectiveness, and thus financial/economic return, then all that needs to be considered is my investment:

(yes it looks like a penis … I meant that).

So in this line of thinking the more I invest (resources: cash and people time) then the more flexible my solution can be and the better my solutions image will be … OK.  Seems fair.  So really it looks like this:

The website challenge: injecting the right resource skill and commitment to achieve greatness

So if money were no option and I could buy all the resources I needed and commit them to the project could I achieve greatness because I could have a great image and be flexible?  Yes probably, in fact no reason why not if you know how to manage them to that outcome … but for most of us money is an issue isn’t it.

OK so I’m not Microsoft, GE, or Coke … boo hoo.  but there has to be a sweet spot right?

I believe in the law of diminishing returns (heck, I do up classic cars for a hobby and no - the last 1 extra BHP isn’t worth chasing), so somewhere on our continuum from ’shit’-to-’awesome-infinite-love-and-happiness’ (which of course has a relationship to resources) I reckon we can find a way to balance out our suppliers and internal capabilities to get a good compromise … I mean result … sorry.

Defining the sweet spot in resourcing our project to achieve greatness on the web

I want brand integrity, quick time to market, good cost/return ratio and great user interactions.

At this point I’ll switch out of being the marketer looking for a website solution and tell you specifically what drives each of these:

Integrity: comes from being consistent and of course ethical and transparent - which would involve being ‘on message’ and not pushing other agendas than the one I’m known for.

Quick time-to-market: comes from systematising all known characteristics of business needs using tools, processes and matched resource allocation (maintenance and burst capacity).

Return on investment: is driven by so many aspects and I’ll assume that traffic is being generated, social media is being harnessed to drive qualified leads, and that offline media is busting its unquantifiable, expensive balls to throw a wide net (full of holes),and that with all those things being sorted my ROI focusses squarely on production effectiveness and management prowess.

With all other ducks properly in a row then we get left with the supplier relationship.  It’s a plant in your organisations garden and it needs the same water and nutrients that all your other plants (staff etc.) need.  If you feed your plant (supplier) different food, only some of the food, or give it less light and less water then it won’t be as great as it should be, it certainly won’t be harmonious and well … you get the picture.  You might even create a weed (certainly something you don’t value).

If you want a mushroom then stick it in the dark and feed it poop …  Presumably you don’t want a mushroom so focus on cultivating something greener and more attractive!

Great user interaction is going to need MORE THAN all the market knowledge you’ve got in your office filing cabinet.  It needs the experiences of all your customer-facing staff, it needs independently verified external opinions to give objectivity, yes it needs management input and it needs a committed approach to building the right tools (functions) and keeping it in tune.  This will never be right first time but you can tweak it and keep testing and learning.

Also great user interaction isn’t solely the job of your supplier.  The supplier gives tools to work towards this but if you truly want customer engagement then you’ll need to push your staff to keep this on the boil. Or engage someone to do that as an outsourced channel manager.

So how good are your staff at fulfilling that role?  Remember you’ve got to allocate someone to the job and if you don’t ask a supplier to specifically do that you’ll get a weak outcome.

Summing up

Is it fair to expect image and flexibility to create results or did we miss out on the solid process, planning, supplier relations, and investment required to create a great result?

My point here is that if your experience is mostly in offline marketing and you’re about to deal with the web then you need to understand that it’s a platform, it’s like an investment in software, and it needs plenty of work that you may not be used to.

If you’re aware of your skill gaps then you need to trust your suppliers.  Obviously back to the example of our sponsorship deal with the TSO we didn’t get that bit right.

Anecdotally, in closing, what can we expect from spending little if we’re a not-for-profit?

The grass is always green ‘there’ isn’t it ? Even if you are for-profit?

We all want to love the outcome but are all limited by cost; unless you’re a charity and get sponsored.  If someone sponsors you and gives you the solution you’re in a rare situation and presumably you ‘needed the help’.  Ironically those who don’t pay tend not to value and in this case an investment in the web may not be seen as a platform from which to build on.  Does sponsorship give rise to the luxury to throw it away and ‘dream again’?

When you wrote your project brief and criteria did you think ‘this is the be-all to end-all’ or did you think this is ‘a journey I’m starting on and I’ll keep investing, testing, tweaking my people and my processes to the outcome I want’?

How far does the agile methodology have to reach to get commercial results?  I’ve learnt from this sponsorship deal that both the client and the supplier need to embrace agile from the start.  Not in part or on one side.  And, trust has to be the basis for the working relationship.

In collaboration with the former government Department Environment, Parks, Heritage, and Arts (DEPHA) we wrote a web specification to revitalise the Port Arthur website. 

The specification was extensive and provided great depth on the behavioural aspects of the target audience and the capacity to provide value to the organisation.

Design

The project moved into a production phase where Future Medium provided completed designs back to the department for implementation into a proprietary content management system.

Recently CBG Systems (formerly Colbeck and Gunton),  ATDC (The alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs council), High Performance (including AIM Tasmania), and the newly formed TasBiotech (a division of the University of Tasmania) have all been through our proprietary planning sessions.

A case study of the plans developed for TasBiotech can be found here – http://www.futuremedium.com.au/solutions/view_Social_Network_Plans_15135204/

Larger strategic work has also been undertaken for RACT in the format of a 2012 vision for member (user) engagement.

Future Medium have also developed a number of novel approaches to resolving Agent publicity in the Real Estate segment and have been working with clients to flesh out technical and creative proof of concepts.

The project represents an excellent demonstration of our ability to create a community hub using the open source WordPress technology.  A number of commercial plugins are being utilised to manage secure content for members and shopping cart functionality.

The user engagement strategy is case studied here in our site – http://www.futuremedium.com.au/solutions/view_User-centric_design_15135195/

Disparate units all working from one common framework and lacking the individual attention they need to provide an efficient web offering to the Tasmanian public was an immensely confronting problem.

Concerns about who the target audience was ‘really’ comprised of and how they wanted to interact with DHHS, we engaged a specialist usability firm to undertake focus group explorations for needs, wants, and behaviour. This was supported by a mix of online and moderated testing for information architecture to build and assess the effectiveness of a new content structure.

Combining months of research Future Medium presented a strategy which clearly addressed the following issues:

1. What users wanted and their behaviour online
2. What business units needed and how to match this to user expectations
3. A rationale for a revised design
4. A revised information architecture, content authoring process, and stakeholder management recommendations
5. Comprehensive use cases and associated wireframe design plans; and
6. A structured management plan for the next 12 months.