You might wonder why such a question is asked. After all, isn't pride subjective? How can it be measured? What does it have to do with an agency's Web site? Isn't that a "fluff" question open to a lot of meaningless drivel?
I recently gave two presentations about Web site improvement at the EUA-ARIAS annual conference. My presentations included screen captures from agency Web sites that illustrated points I was trying to make. By way of introduction, I apologized in advance lest any of the examples I selected caused embarrassment. The squirming-in-their-seats body language of several attendees indicated that I had hit a raw nerve and that they had hoped a screen capture of their Web site would not appear in the presentation. Following one session, one attendee told me how much she was embarrassed by her agency's site and proceeded to tell me how it came about.
Indicator of underlying problems
In an ideal world, everyone would always be proud of the work they are associated with. Honestly, who wants to be ashamed of the work they do or the projects they produce? Why would any agency deliberately create a Web site the staff could not be proud of and didn't want visitors to see? That would be foolish. But when pride is lacking, it can be embarrassing, demoralizing, and an indicator of underlying problems, many of which can be corrected through education and understanding.
Privately, attendees to my presentations told me why they were not proud of their agency Web sites. Three common themes seemed to emerge: 1) lack of planning; 2) lack of staff input and consultation; and 3) a hastily created Web site devoid of imagination and visitor usability. Not surprising, these three factors are often related.
On one hand I was glad that attendee input had helped reinforce my own conclusions based on looking at nearly 3,500 agency Web sites. On the other hand, though, it remains bothersome to know that the same problems seem to be so widespread.
Towards a solution
Planning: Despite the cliché, failing to plan usually means planning to fail. The visible Web site that users see should be the carefully crafted expression of a significant, planning effort. Plan-ning takes time and effort. Good planning is often a team effort.
If, however, you want to create a Web site very quickly — and it certainly is possible to create one in a few hours — you will probably need to bypass the serious planning phase and avoid the time-consuming input of others.
Staff input: Because a good agency Web site should contain a variety of useful content about the agency and its products and services, the multiple input of several people can be helpful. Rarely is one so knowledgeable and gifted that other points of view and ideas need not be considered. But judging from what several attendees told me, there must be some agency owners whose children and relatives are so blessed.
For most agencies, however, team efforts tend to be useful in building espirit de corps and fostering feelings of pride in a successful collaborative effort, which can also include the agency Web site project.
Careful execution: Web sites are for visitors. If their user experience is unsatisfying, they will quickly lose interest and move on to something else. An ill-conceived, inadequately-planned, and poorly-executed Web presence is a recipe for disaster and Web site failure. Why bother? And how can anybody be satisfied or proud of results like that?
Finally…
Your Web site is potentially the farthest reaching communication tool your agency can devise. The site creates an impression and visitors will make decisions about doing business with you. Assuming you want to favorably impress visitors and attract customers, is there any good reason for not creating a Web site you and your staff can be proud of?
© Copyright 2002 by Sound Internet Strategy. All rights reserved