The Good Old RFP Process

April 15, 2008 | Written by Yan Shikhvarger

Working in our industry, one gets plenty of chances to participate in the RFP process. The internal debates, creative brainstorms, case studies, last minute revisions, nights and weekends are all part of it. In tough situations like this, I find it interesting to think of many others in these positions and the many others that to be honest have been in much more difficult creative situations.

Actually, the whole competitive request for proposal environment has been around for centuries. Anyone visiting Florence is struck by the design and beauty of the Duomo's cupola. Well, the person that made it happen, Fillipo Brunelleschi in the 1400s, won the RFP process and successfully finished the project. The RFP process would seem familiar to contemporary and past responders. The parameters were:

• Client: Wool Merchant Guild of Florence
• Request: solution to how this particular dome would be built along with the solution to the actual equipment that would be needed (nothing of this complexity has been invented at that point)
• Award sum: 200 Florins (very substantial at the time)
• Time to respond: 6 Weeks (to prepare designs, recommendations, and even physical mockups)

Brunelleschi eventually came out on top after beating out 11 other competitors. He came up with a very innovative yet risky solution and his mockup impressed the judging committee. He also happened to beat out Lorenzo Ghiberti to whom he had lost a previous RFP response for a different project and that must have been especially gratifying. The eventual project execution was a work of genius and the dome remains the largest before the invention of modern construction materials. The whole story is very well written up by Ross King in "Brunelleschi's Dome" and in this article.

And by the way, I guess the lesson is there have been many others working on RFPs for centuries and probably were asked to do tougher things than we are, so it's just part of the job. Oh, and mockups always help.

Comments (1) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

The Line between Personal Beliefs and Company Position

February 25, 2008 | Written by Yan Shikhvarger

This dilemma has very recently come to very close attention, as Bob Lutz, a Vice Chairman of GM, called global warming "a total crock of sh*!." This comment was made to reporters, and as expected the Blogosphere pickup began to mount to a point that Mr. Lutz addressed the issue further on the official GM Corporate Blog. The argument was that personal views have no influence on company policy, as GM is committed to green products and energy efficiencies.

However, it is important to connect with the values of consumers for a company. Consumers have come to see climate change as a very important issue. An October Harris poll found that 71% believe in climate change and this will be a major issue in the upcoming presidential election. Consumers expect a personal commitment to the values that are consistent to overall company and brand values. They want to see a brand and its executives being on the same page. For example, could Steve Jobs make an anti-technology speech? Could an executive at a pharmaceutical company make a speech that disregards patient needs or beliefs?

In a current climate of the Blogosphere, online brand advocates, social networking, an inconsistent comment can easily be disseminated online to millions and spark an online debate that a company will not win. It does seem that publicly stated personal beliefs should be consistent with company and brand values at the executive level. Anything else will be too damaging to any communication efforts.

Related Links:

Original Reuters Story

GM Blog Response

GM's Environmental Commitment Page

PollingReport.com - Environment

Comments (1) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

Got a mobile site?

February 15, 2008 | Written by Yan Shikhvarger

Mobile is very important to consider if we are continuing on a theme on making content more available and accessible. It seems that there is a gap between dedicated news providers such as CNN, BBC and NY Times, NBA.com and other companies/organizations that overlook this need even though they have aspects that are similar. So for example NBA.com has a mobile site (http://wap.nba.com) while a team such as Philadelphia 76ers does not, even though both have similar needs and audiences.

Mobile browsing is becoming more popular. A study released last year by iCrossing found that 30% of mobile users in the U.S. access the Internet on their device and yet availability of mobile sites is still very inconsistent. For example, rarely do corporate news and investor sections or thought leader institutions offer mobile options even though that would add another layer of availability to users. Otherwise users will go somewhere else where they can get needed info yet organizations/companies would benefit from keeping that relationship with the user rather than outsourcing it to something like Goolge Finance, News, or Maps.

If setting out on a path of accommodating mobile users it is best to offer multiple options. A very good example of these options is provided below courtesy of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club website.

Signup Screen

Mobile Site

Comments (0) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

Will There Eventually Be Only One Website?

January 28, 2008 | Written by Yan Shikhvarger

This question is an exaggeration, but it does pose a discussion topic and has to do with two factors:
1) The amount of content being generated on the web is huge and practically overwhelming; and
2) Internet users are getting more and more sophisticated and invested in their usage of the internet for personal and professional purposes

These factors lead to a need and ability to efficiently manage the average online experience. That brings us back to the original question of "will there eventually be only one website?" The answer is no; however, a growing share of online visits may be just to one website that satisfies many needs. Personalization is not new, but usage of sites that allow a complete customization like iGoogle and MyYahoo is rapidly growing as well as development of various widgets that plug into those sites. For example, the hottest growing Google property last year was iGoogle with a 268% growth, to 22.5M users per month (see chart).

This trend is not likely to go away, and it means that Interactive professionals must always consider more then a single touch point, but also create tools that can be easily plugged into the iGoogles, MySpaces, and Facebooks of the world.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

Joining the Conversation in 2008

January 25, 2008 | Written by Stephen Downs

There is no doubt that popular social networking websites are here to stay. Their ease of use and the effective manner by which they allow communication are connecting people and distributing information in new and efficient ways. Message boards, video portals, podcasts, blogs, wikis, and social ranking are but some of the new mechanisms by which users, not corporate entities, are discussing brands and companies.

Authenticity, collaboration and group participation, the cornerstones of Web 2.0, are ushering this new method of connectivity. A paradigm shift is unfolding as real, first-hand stories, brand champions and honest, sometimes painful, feedback is becoming the norm in corporate counter communications.

Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, naming only a few, are the new watchdogs of corporate sentiment. Content, either real or fabricated, has found its way to the Internet and is shared, discussed, and referenced so that millions of users are engaged. The creation, publication and distribution of information has never been easier, only now, the sources are credible, tangible individuals, with a name, a face and a personality online. They are coming from our own personal network and our ever-increasing community of friends and acquaintances. As Kevin Beacon and the laws of 6 degrees of separation suggest, the world is a shrinking place. Online, social networks are closing that gap even faster and making it easier for users to spread opinions.

No longer do the words of the perfectly articulate, strategically-minded communications manager control the populace's perceptions. User input has filled this position, the effect of which directly connects and empowers corporate reputations within the hands of anyone with an Internet connection. Only now, user input is credible as it is from the mouths of our friends.

From a corporate standpoint, embracing this phenomenon will introduce a level of transparency, authenticity, and credibility into a user's perception of your company. Incorporating social media into your communication programs will effectively allow you to connect with audiences where they are increasingly turning for insights, their online peers. After all, they are probably already discussing you! The growing catalog of online social mediums is the perfect location to begin seeding your online outreach. Effectively uniting, engaging and fueling these disparate opinions with your voice will better promote analysis and informed action.

Up until this point, most corporations were afraid to jump on board. Understandably, the fear of acknowledging the negative, of being berated in the public eye, of breaking conservative corporate tradition are among many of the dangers of involvement. However, all that is about to change.

Just as we sat 15 years ago on the cusp of the online revolution, the result of which forced all entities into the web race, this year we sit at the beginning of corporate communications involvement in social media. To not do so would be an underutilization of perhaps the most important communication tool available.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

ROI Modeling

December 10, 2007 | Written by Yan Shikhvarger

Web analytics have really been in the news lately, even with The Economist covering which metrics are more valuable for advertisers (unique visitors, time spent, or page views). It's nice to see such recognition of the various issues in the space and help to educate clients.

An interesting issue that we commonly face is figuring out how many people we must reach to make a campaign successful. Especially if there is a specific goal to reach such as distribute 30,000 eCoupons or get 10,000 signups...

So the question is: how many must we reach? What should be done is to work backwards from that number and consider possible drop off points. The two drop-off points are at the registration/landing page and the click through from whatever media/viral/etc awareness-generating vehicles are out there.

There are some common factors that can be estimated such as click through and conversion rate and it is even possible to do a conservative and aggressive scenarios. If there is a dollar value of an eventual conversion, then it's even possible get a hard ROI.

The real value of this calculation is estimating how many people a campaign should try to reach in order to set proper expectations and decide if the budget allocated will be enough to reach these numbers. That in turn will even influence the chosen tactics.

See the live spreadsheet here

See the screenshot

Comments (0) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

The NYT:Times Reader a model for success in online news. But will it last?

November 20, 2007 | Written by Stephen Downs

Yes, that's right, the New York Times Times Reader is a successful presentation of a newspaper in a digital format. First off, it is easy to navigate and search. It uses a browser layout, with a home page that is a realistic cross between tangible newspaper and interactive website. Content features are given priority based on their relevancy and timeliness, they are surrounded by beautiful photography and leading stories populated from the various sections of the site. Atop the Times Reader is a navigation scheme directing users to click through to different sections.

So, what is so different from this and the NYTimes, or the Post, or Google news or etc. etc. etc (insert any news based web service)?

Not much! Except for the fact that you have to pay. That's right. At the cost of $15 a month or $165 a year you too can receive this service.

Sure, you will have the following tools available, which are otherwise not on NYTimes.com:

• Graphic representation of stories you have read in comparison to unread stories.
• Right-clicking the headline to display a list of topics covered in the story.
• Text size is adjustable and scalable.
• The ability to highlight text passages, apply and save your own notes to them.
• Right click to open up the story's web edition.
• You can also download the latest version of the paper to your laptop and read it at your leisure, online or off.

Despite this unique functionality, the Times Reader is still not meeting the mark. The NYTimes.com site continues to offer more content, including videos, audio, commenting features, Web 2.0 and the like. The Times Reader has not yet reached this point. On top of which, in an era where WiFi is becoming more and more prevalent, eReaders of this nature are quickly becoming a thing of the past as users can simply link up to any local wireless network.

So, much like its predecessor, the exclusive, subscription-only content of the paid site TimesSelect, I do not believe the Times Reader will be around much longer. In this era of digital piracy, who in their right mind will pay for a digital version of news? Let alone anything. Particularly when it's simultaneously available for free.

There is no doubt that the mobility of information is the future for interactive media. To this point I commend NYTimes in their efforts. However, the paid version of the Times Reader is in effect a road-block to these ends.

A recent insert promoting the Times Reader caught my attention and as a result I decided to sample the free trial.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

I Hope There is More to Facebook's Monetization Strategy (continued…)

November 14, 2007 | Written by Yan Shikhvarger

Last week I profiled a very ordinary example of a marketing program on Facebook. This program that did not take any advantages of what Facebook really is. A different story this week... There is a great example of a Microsoft program that fully takes advantage of the social network.

Microsoft's "I'M" program is a contest to get the most users to join a social cause and to use Microsoft instant messenger program. The first organization to 50,000 members would get $50,000 from Microsoft. The organizations are all well-known and include The Red Cross, Sierra Club, The Humane Society, etc...

The Humane Society reached the goal first and got the prize, but Microsoft got exposure for every cause - not just for The Humane Society. Such a marketing program is a perfectly tailored for Facebook because of Facebook's so called "social graph" approach, which is an incredible awareness-generating tool. If one person joins, then all connected friends see this action and the message goes viral. And of course, Facebook wisely surrounded this with videos, message boards, friends networks, etc...

So not only is this a great example of a marketing program, but it also clarifies its offering vs. a pretty much every other "publisher." Facebook and Google are really in a different league by offering communications/marketing opportunities that are tied to the actual purpose of visiting that site AND these sites also have truly massive reach. You don't really visit other sites to for the purpose of seeing ads and that is also why click through rates have been dropping.

Coming back to the original statement of "is there more to Facebook's monetization strategy," the answer is a resounding "yes!" It is in putting together custom communications programs that leverage what Facebook is and what it has.

-------------------------------

1. Sponsored message that appeared right on my profile

2. Click on the sponsored message explains the initiative and the causes

3. The winning organization

4. Resulting community

Comments (0) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

I Hope There is More to Facebook's Monetization Strategy

November 7, 2007 | Written by Yan Shikhvarger

It seems the company receiving the most positive coverage recently has been Facebook. It is being hailed as the "new Google" and the dominant social network that got 30M unique visitors last month. The only common concern has "what is Facebook's monetization strategy?"

Today, there was a small glimpse of a monetization tactic, which I hope will be avoided in the future. It involves a recent promotion for an upcoming movie National Treasure. It appeared on my personal news feed and invited to "Join The World's Biggest Treasure Hunt." However, clicking on the link simply took me the home page of the movie website. How is this different than any simple banner ad on any other website? There is nothing special about a site that can offer more ad inventory. What is exciting about Facebook for marketers is that it offers an opportunity to create programs that leverage what Facebook is - a social network. That treasure hunt could have been some kind of widget that works within Facebook and allows one to invite friends, send them free gifts, connect to the Flixster widget, etc... That is what Facebook users expect, while a simple banner ad or text link could have been placed on any other website.

Hopefully there are other monetization strategies in the works both from Facebook and from marketers.

Comments (1) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook

404:Error. Problem. Page not found.

November 5, 2007 | Written by Stephen Downs

Perhaps the single most important page in a web development project.

What happens when your tenured, learned and invested consumer/user decides to return to their favorite and often desired page that they have bookmarked? What happens when a relaunch sends all your hard earned, invaluable inward links to a new spot? The answer: What happens is you just created a very annoyed and very lost user, the affect of which can leave your user with a sour taste for your brand. You better believe that if one person is experiencing this, many others are as well.

But don't worry, all is not loss. You fortunatly have one trick up your sleeve: 404.

Four steps to a successful 404 page:

1. Descriptive text: explaining the recent changes on the site. Be upfront, announce a relaunch or reorganization of content - honesty goes a long way in clearing up the frustration of a lost user.

2. A clearly defined link to the sites homepage. By clearly I mean prominent, obvious, in my face. Placed in an area of high prioritization in a web users "F" shaped reading pattern.
Why not add design here too?

3. A link to the full sitemap (which in theory is representative of your complete site offering and is easy to use - more on sitemaps to come) or even include a top level site map on the 404 page

&

4. Perhaps most important and yet little used, is a large area of real estate dedicated to the sites internal search functionality. Afterall, statistically users are accustomed to using this functionality to find their content need why make them find this elsewhere on the page than the main body?

The take away here is provide your users with to tools to get them out of the mess you created, its the least you can do.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious | Facebook