The Importance of Stupidly Simple Web Sites

By Mark Evans in Advertising/Marketing 5 Comments Tags: , ,

When it comes to Web site design, there is one important rule to remember: Keep it simple, stupid.

While simple may seem unsophisticated, uninteresting or frill-free, it is also an approach that drives a Web site’s accessibility, usability and effectiveness.

Since starting my consulting business, it has been amazing and troubling to see many Web sites feature too much information, poor navigation and ineffective messaging that they make it difficult, if not impossible to be used.

Rather than pulling in people to read more content, get more information, register or make a transaction, these Web sites drive people away because they they seem too complicated, intimidating or not user-friendly. In other words, they don’t make things simple for people to use.

So why does simplicity matter?

The harsh truth is Web users are lazy and time-strapped. As a result, they want Web sites to be delivered on a silver platter. They don’t want to think about what they should do; it has to be blatantly obvious and intuitive. And it needs to be obvious with seconds, otherwise people will quickly click to the next Web site or search engine.

Many companies fail the “keep it simple, stupid” approach because they buy into the idea that by showing or telling as much as possible, it will provide visitors with a variety of options to make a decision.

Unfortunately, this approach doesn’t work.

It’s like going to a Denny’s restaurant with a menu featuring dozens of choices. It can make ordering an agonizing process. An easier option is going to a diner that only has a handful of items on the menu. It’s easy and quick for people to order because less (fewer choices) can be more (quicker choices).

So how can a Web site be simple yet effective? There are three key considerations:

1. The overall design, which takes into account the use of colours and whitespace, graphics and icons, etc.
2. The navigation, which needs to be intuitive, dead simple and obvious. People shouldn’t have to think about what to click on next; instead it has to be straightforward and easy.
3. Messaging, which means having text that effectively articulates what a company does and its benefits, as well as nomenclature that is easy to understand and intuitive.

Coming up with a good-looking, well designed and easy to use Web site can be a major challenge, which explains why so many Web sites are, at best, mediocre. In many cases, it comes down to money because effective Web site isn’t a cheap proposition.

But I believe that it’s an attractive investment that involves short-term pain but long-term gain.

If Users Want to Pay, Let Them

By Mark Evans in Startups 1 Comment Tags: , ,

While on vacation in Quebec this week, we stopped a campsite at a national park had featured wonderful showers.(Note: When you’re camping, any shower is wonderful!). So it was with some excitement I headed towards them with a vision of rustic luxury.

Sadly, the showers required two quarters to work. Sadly, I was standing there with $1 and $2 coins, and there was no change machine that could spit out the quarters. If if was possible, I would have paid more than 50 cents in a heartbeat.

So what’s this post about other than remembering to bring a bunch of quarters next time I camp?

Well, it reminded me of a struggle I had with a client who insisted on offering a completely free online service, while I was advocating he also provide a premium option because there are consumers who actually want to pay for something.

After much back and forth, the client prevailed but it didn’t dissuade me about the fact there is a segment of consumers happy to give you money if you let them. You don’t necessarily have offer a rich set of features but enough to convince them that upgrading to the premium version makes sense.

The thinking behind my “if you let them, they will pay” thesis is grounded in the idea that expectations are higher if you pay for something as opposed to getting it for free.

For some consumers (and I stress some) there is comfort in knowing that paying offers them not only additional features but other considerations such as better customer support and knowledge they are providing the company with money so it can continue to provide the service.

And I don’t think these consumers expect significantly more features than a free version of the product. There only needs to be a small set of features that offer more performance, convenience and usability.

This is the reason most startups should build in premium services into their service rather than coming out with a free service, and then looking to create or launch a premium service down the road.

The problem with only offering a free service initially is while it can attract customers, it can be difficult to effectively introduce premium services later. Why? It has much to do with setting expectations. If you come out of the gate with a free service, consumers may have a difficult time seeing you as anything other than free.

If, on the other hand, there is also a premium service with a few more features, expectations has been established from the start. The premium services may need to be overhauled or tweaked but they will already have a place at the table and, as important, consumers may decide to pay, which will provide much-welcomed revenue.

My belief is many start-ups embrace free-only because they’re more concerned about attracting users and/or they don’t have an strong idea about how they will generate revenue. This approach is a mistake for many reasons.

The key is not only creating a cool service that people may want to use but doing the required legwork to discover what consumers want and what they would be willing to pay to use.

It’s a simple proposition but frequently ignored. If a start-up doesn’t think their service is worth paying for upon its debut, neither will consumers – now or down the road.

The Dangers of Loving Google Too Much

By Mark Evans in Google 1 Comment Tags: , ,

With the launch of Google+, there’s yet another reason for people to embed themselves even deeper within the Google empire.

The availability of free services that work well have been an irresistible and subtle attraction and, arguably, seduction for many people. Without fully realizing it, you can find yourself depending on a variety of Google services for your personal and professional lives.

For example, my Google portfolio includes Google+ (although I’m a less than enthusiastic embrace), Google Docs, GMail and Google Apps. Then, there’s my regular use of search, Google Maps and Google Images. I would suspect my embrace would be fairly typical of many people who use the Web on a regular basis.

But there is a price to be paid and danger for dancing with Google.

First, the service may cost nothing but they’re not free; there is a price to be paid. For one, Google has access to a good chunk of your activity, which not only feeds its ability to deliver increasingly relevant advertising but information about your online behaviour.

Second, Google has the ability to lock you out of your services without providing an explanation or justification for “violating” its terms of service. For anyone who has seen their online lives disappear behind the dark Google curtain of death, you know how terrifying it can be.

Sure, it’s a remote prospect but, nevertheless, people need to be aware it is part of the deal they strike with Google to gain access to “free” services. You same “deal with the Devil” applies to Facebook and Twitter.

So what can you do to protect yourself from being too dependent on Google or having Google slam the door on your nose?

Well, you could stick to non-online services such as Outlook and Microsoft Office but that would meaning not being able to take advantage of the cloud. For lots of people that would be fine but for people who travel or work away from the office on a regular basis, the cloud offers the convenience of access any time, anywhere.

Another approach is spreading your online portfolio between different service providers. Perhaps you use GMail for e-mail, Microsoft Live or Zoho for productivity services, and DropBox for collaboration and storage. While it reduces risk, it’s probably not the best or most user-friendly approach given there’s no integration between the different services.

In many cases, it means dancing with Google, and accepting the fact there are potential risks or downsides. Given the depth of the Google portfolio, it is a deal most people are willing to make.

Can Older People Do Startups?

By Mark Evans in Startups 7 Comments Tags: , ,

Dan Morel tossed out an interesting thesis that single people shouldn’t do startups, mostly because it’s difficult to have a relationship, fun or hobbies because you’re so engrossed in running the business.

I don’t agree with Dan because when you’re single, you have things that couples (particularly those with children) don’t have: time, energy, spontaneity and nothing to lose given many younger people don’t have mortgages hanging over their heads.

But Dan’s post did get me thinking about whether older people can do startups, or whether it’s a young person’s game.

Does someone who is more than 50-years-old, for example, have the energy, creativity and drive to devote themselves to a startup? At a time when they might want to be gearing down or, at least, not looking to work long hours, does a start-up make sense personally or professionally?

For many people within this demographic, the above might ring true but I also think there are many older people who are totally startup-friendly. Here are a few reasons:

1. They have a wealth of experience from working with a wide variety of people and companies.

2. They have pretty extensive networks that can be leveraged to open doors for a startup from a marketing and sales perspective.

3. If they have children, they’re probably older so the domestic demands have declined other than the need to spend quality time with their offspring.

4. They may be more financially stable after having had a few decade to invest, buy a house and establish a solid retirement fund.

5. No one really retires so older entrepreneurs are probably just as motivated to succeed financially as a younger entrepreneur.

6. There’s no job security these days so there is less risk in joining a startup than there might have been.

In an ideal world, startups employ people who are young and single, married with children, and more seasoned because they bring different skills sets, attitudes and energy to the mix.

Startups aren’t a young vs. older person proposition, they’re about good ideas and execution. There’s no age limit (young or old) to make that happen.

Should You Hire a Social Media Consultant?

By Mark Evans in Social Media 2 Comments Tags: ,

A few months ago, Peter Shankman ruffled the social media world with a blog post that proclaimed: “I Will Never Hire a “Social Media Expert and Neither Should You”.

Needless to say, it caused a stir and generated more than 400 comments, which was not surprising given his post featured provocative paragraphs like this one:

“No business in the world should want a “Social Media Expert” on their team. They shouldn’t want a guru, rock-star, or savant, either. If you have a “Social Media Expert” on your payroll, you’re wasting your money.”

As someone who offers social media consulting services, Shankman’s post hit close to home and, after much thought, I’ve come to the conclusion he’s right and wrong. Yes, it’s a Switzerland-like assessment but hear me out.

In Shankman’s support, one of the biggest dangers in hiring a social media consultant is they’re focused and specialized on a particular niche. The problem is that creating a social media strategic plan means having knowledge and insight into all the areas that will have an impact on social media – sales, marketing and communications.

It is impossible to put together a social media plan with any shot of being successful if a holistic view of the corporate landscape isn’t taken. To simply focus on social media tactics is disaster because it doesn’t take into account the key elements of a company’s operations.

This is the mistake many companies make when they hire a social media consultant. They bring on someone who knows the tactics and mechanics of blogs, Twitter and Facebook inside out. But they’re not hiring someone who understands the big picture strategic goals, and how social media can support and complement them. As a result, your Twitter account may be well-run but it doesn’t matter if it’s not driving well-defined corporate goals.

For many clients, the most value I bring to social media consulting assignments is an appreciation of how businesses operate, an interest in what they want to achieve with social media, and a focus on creating great story that can be delivered via social media.

While tactical execution is important, tactics are more blocking and tackling that can only happen if a strategic plan has been put in place.

If you are going to hire a social media consultant, make sure they can bring more to the table than just in-depth knowledge of the tools. It is important they have the ability and insight to understand your business and your goals for social media. If they can then help you with tactical execution, that’s a bonus.

Does Google+ Have Staying Power?

By Mark Evans in Social Media No Comments Tags: , ,

Google+I have a confession: I haven’t used Google+ much since it launched a few weeks ago.

As someone immersed in social media, I should be all over it but I’m not. Why? Perhaps the biggest reason is my social media “plate” is overflowing already with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs. Yes, Google+ has some interesting features but there’s only so much time in the day and only so much social media that can be consumed.

This is a challenge faced by every new social media service that claims to offer something new, different or better than the status quo. Despite Google’s clout, it’s not a social media powerhouse so, in some respects, Google+ is a scrappy start-up battling for attention.

Don’t get me wrong, Google+ has received an enthusiastically wild reception with more than 10 million people registering for it. But as someone succinctly tweeted, Google+ has 10 million “triers” as opposed to “users” – a major difference.

So for all the breathless talk about Google+’s usability and its threat to Facebook, Twitter, et al, it is not going to be easy for Google+ to elbow its way into the social media “party”. For many people, particularly those already into social media, Google+ will need to be so compelling that they will either spend less time with existing social media services or drop one of their tools completely.

In an ideal world, I’d like Google+ to be easier to embrace.

As Fred Wilson mentioned in a recent blog post, one of Google’s most high-profile feature, Circles, should be less work-intensive. Currently, Google+ users have to put all of their contacts into circles they have created. After awhile, this task becomes tiring.

I’ve dabbled with many of Google+’s other features but I can’t say the “wow factor” has been so overwhelming that it has made me want to change my social media habits. Maybe Google+ will grow on me over time but, for now, it sits there in the corner waiting for some love and attention.

Links:
- LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner disses Google+, suggesting there’s no room for it within the social media landscape.
- O’Reilly Media’s Edd Dumbill suggests Google+ is the “beginning of a fundamental change on the Web”.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
1 2 3 4