Not long ago, the common wisdom is that every organization or business must have a website. This site will serve the needs of all users and visitors. There are many reasons for this prevailing predilection. One obvious reason is cost. Websites at least professional websites with features beyond text display, which are very expensive to maintain and program. Another reason was the concern for branding and messaging common. This led to the third concern, control. There should be some control over who has access to change the Web site of an organization. There are other reasons, but these are probably the three great. Are they still valid?
Here are some examples of the problems that arise from a website thinking:
-A department within a large organization is hosting a conference for professionals in their line of work and wish to register online, and participants have some exchange of ideas before the conference. The corporate website, which is designed to be sold and investor relations, could do the job, but the site administrator is reluctant to make changes to adapt to a single department.
-A nonprofit organization has launched a major fund-raising campaign for a new facility. The campaign has its own motto and the mark and would benefit from the public presentation of the website can give them. The campaign was announced at the main site, but lost in the information necessary for the needs of users in the organization of services.
-A small company takes on a new product line and believes that new customers are reluctant to click on a URL name when looking consolidatedcandy.com thermometers. A new site with a new URL solve that problem.
-You want to run new employees through a training program and get them to fill out a feedback form at the end of each step. Their IT department is always an emergency that is more urgent than the need to get these feedback forms on the site.
There are probably hundreds of examples of sites that are trying too hard to be all things to all people when several sites, each targeted at a hearing to do a better job. Why organizations are reluctant to follow this path? Let& 39;s look at some of the reasons. Cost was mentioned in the first paragraph. News flash - Web sites are cheap. Of course, there are still sites that cost millions. But just because his organization has a site of millions of dollars not mean it should be compelled to use it to a simple, short-term function. Setting up a professional looking site may be possible for a few hundred dollars and you may be able to do it yourself before his return to his people call IT. As far as the user is concerned, is there really any difference between clicking on a new page or on a new site?
Branding and to ensure that all communications coming from an organization share common themes, both verbally and visually, it can be a problem. Moreover, it may not be a problem. If the site is for a specific purpose and audience, why not mark adequately for those users, in which case the corporate brand may take second place to mark the event, as an example. Control what emanates from an organization is always a balance between the promotion of creativity and participation of workers and ensure consistency of perception. Setting up a web site may contain some policy guidelines, but it is accepted that the organization can not control what is said in every e-mail or letter. Therefore, to allow multiple sites can be simply a matter of trust similar.
Take another aspect on the idea that a Web site should be all things to all people and look into the idea of creating separate sites for specific purposes and the public in case of need. So before you try to automatically change your site to accommodate all the needs that arose, do a little research on how easy it can launch a new website to meet the new requirement. felton anna
Bookmark it:
No comments:
Post a Comment