Archive for February, 2006

A month or so ago I was asked to review an application that would be used on a website for signing up to a seminar. It was DENSE. I had all kinds of little nit-picky items like may we contact you using the phone? may we contact you using email? may we call you by your name? (that last one was mine. hahah)

They only needed this:

Name
Office Phone
Cell Phone
Time Zone
Email

They had FOUR TIMES this amount on the form, not to mention 18 (eighteen) other navigational elements. When I provided them the simplified form there was a comment from someone who looked at it with us during a conference call. “That’s it? Oh gosh, we could have done that!” …. right.

You see, simple design is not easy. That’s why so many websites, appliances, car dashboards, computers, phones, remote controls, etc. are so hard to use. Apple gets it. Bosch gets it. Google gets it. I try very hard to also get it.

I just got the chance to do some marketing for a cool product called the Frame-Tamer. It’s one of those products that is SO SIMPLE that it cannot be used wrong. It’s perfect. I couldn’t make it any better than it is if I wanted to. Like a hammer. There really is only one way to use it. That’s why I think it’s going to do well ($12.95, by the way, it’s a steal.)

Websites aren’t like this. To make them simple you must give up the notion that “if we pay a lot for this design it better be flashy!”…

Does anyone have any idea how mad vanity phone numbers make customers when you put them on printed material without their numeric equivalent?

I wasn’t totally aware of this until the past six months, [large company here] began publishing their vanity customer service number on emails sent to clients from their billing department. Instead of putting an old-fashioned numeric phone number, they saw fit to put their vanity number, alone, at the bottom. It was like 1-866-[large company here]

My toll free number is one digit away from [large company here]. So at every [large company here] billing cycle, my phone rings off the hook. Folks have misdialed the vanity number. I calmly explain the situation and then I hear how little the customers like those vanity numbers….. “Why the hell don’t they just put the numbers on there.” … excellent point.

So, I thought I’d publish this handy guide to vanity numbers. I’m open to comments as always.

Radio Ad: Vanity Alone
Billboard: Vanity
Website: Numeric
Email Signature : Numeric
Voice Mails: Numeric, then Vanity
TV Ads: Numeric, then vanity
Podcast: Vanity, then numeric
Powerpoint: Numeric
Biz Card: Numeric
Letterhead: Numeric

So, use your vanity when people are likely not to have the ability to write things down right away and need to commit your number to memory. Use numeric when they can visually reference the number. And use both, in an appropriate order, when you’re not entirely sure.

Don’t forget, I’m 1-888-OnTheWeb… oops. that’s 888-668-4393.

David Rittenhouse at Clickz recently published “Behavioral Targeting Is Starting to Look Better” which includes some interesting information nicely summarized from the eye-tracking study done by TACODA with Next Century Media.

There are lots of interesting bits in the article, as David points out, but one thing that struck me was the reports reference to something known as “suprise factor” which describes how behavioral ads do not get the drop in effectivness upon repeated exposures that contextual ads do.

It’s a bit like seeing the same person in several stores when you’re out shopping or the same car keeps pulling up behind you at stop lights. Hey, is he following me? Why does that guy keep showing up?

Could it be that behavioral marketing works because we have a paranoia about how in the hell they knew to show us THAT ad, and our attention follows our fear? Ah…maybe I’m just being paranoid.

I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about how much energy and money has been wasted on “fruify” web development and clueless SEO efforts. Thousands of companies have spent endless dollars on tag-tweaking “search experts” and pixel-tweaking flash animators without a Key Performance Indicator in sight!

Countless thousands of amateur web designers have sold companies on snazzy visual portfolios that distract from business objectives rather than help them achieve it. A lack of business experience combined with an infatuation with the latest graphical gizmo has created reams of useless web pages offering almost zero value to the company they represent.

While these pages sparkle and spin on page 23 of Google, the business sees almost nothing by way of results. I see this dozens of times and it drives me nuts!

When presented with questions such as “What is the exit rate for this page?” or “which of these pages has the best performance”… blank stares dominate. If you (web designers) don’t have business experience, make sure you tell the company you’re working for that is the case. If you are a brochure designer, say so! You may be a very good one, but you should sell yourself accurately. If you do not really know how to tune a site for the search engines, then stay OUT of the business until you do! All you’re doing is over-confusing people on an already confusing topic.

Now, please don’t accuse me of dismissing great visual design or talented SEO. I’m a huge huge fan of those mastering either very difficult art. But part of the art is the business performance. The language of the action. Achieving the goals. The information about that action a business can use to improve. Understanding how the site interacts with the larger Internet.

If you’ve mastered those things, I bow… way down, in respect.