10 Harsh Truths About Corporate Websites
We all make mistakes running our websites. However, the nature of those mistakes varies depending on the size of your company. As your organization grows, the mistakes change. This post addresses common mistakes among large organizations.
Most of the clients I work with are large organizations: universities, large charities, public sector institutions and large companies. Over the last 7 years, I have noticed certain recurring misconceptions among these organizations. This post aims to dispel these illusions and encourage people to face the harsh reality.
The problem is that if you are reading this post, you are probably already aware of these things. But hopefully this article will be helpful to you as you convince others within your organization. In any case, here are our 10 harsh truths about websites of large organizations.
1. You Need A Separate Web Division
In many organizations, the website is managed by either the marketing or IT department. However, this inevitably leads to a turf war, with the website becoming the victim of internal politics.
In reality, pursuing a Web strategy is not particularly suited to either group. IT may be excellent at rolling out complex systems, but it is not suited to developing a friendly user experience or establishing an online brand.

Zeldman urges organisations to create a separate web division.
Marketing, on the other hand, is little better. As Jeffrey Zeldman puts it in his article Let there be Web divisions:
The Web is a conversation. Marketing, by contrast, is a monologue… And then there’s all that messy business with semantic markup, CSS, unobtrusive scripting, card-sorting exercises, HTML run-throughs, involving users in accessibility, and the rest of the skills and experience that don’t fall under Marketing’s purview.
Instead, the website should be managed by a single unified team. Again, Zeldman sums it up when he writes:
Put them in a division that recognizes that your website is not a bastard of your brochures, nor a natural outgrowth of your group calendar. Let there be Web divisions.
2. Managing Your Website Is A Full-Time Job
Not only is the website often split between marketing and IT, it is also usually under-resourced. Instead of there being a dedicated Web team, those responsible for the website are often expected to run it alongside their “day job.” When a Web team is in place, it is often over-stretched. The vast majority of its time is spent on day-to-day maintenance rather than longer-term strategic thinking.
This situation is further aggravated by the fact that the people hired to “maintain” the website are junior members of the staff. They do not have the experience or authority to push the website forward. It is time for organizations to seriously invest in their websites by hiring full-time senior Web managers to move their Web strategies forward.
3. Periodic Redesign Is Not Enough
Because corporate websites are under-resourced, they are often neglected for long periods of time. They slowly become out of date with their content, design and technology.
Eventually, the website becomes such an embarrassment that management steps in and demands that it be sorted. This inevitably leads to a complete redesign at considerable expense. As I point out in the Website Owners Manual, this a flawed approach. It is a waste of money because when the old website is replaced, the investment put into it is lost, too. It is also tough on finances, with a large expenditure having to be made every few years.

Cameron Moll encourages web designers to realign their website rather than redesign.
A better way is continual investment in your website, allowing it to evolve over time. Not only is this less wasteful, it is also better for users, as pointed out by Cameron Moll in his post Good Designers Redesign, Great Designers Realign.
4. Your Website Cannot Appeal To Everyone
One of the first questions I ask a client is, “Who is your target audience?” I am regularly shocked at the length of the reply. Too often, it includes a long and detailed list of diverse people. Inevitably, my next question is, “Which of those many demographic groups are most important?” Depressingly, the answer is usually that they are all equally important.
The harsh truth is that if you build a website for everyone, it will appeal to no one. It is important to be extremely focused about your audience and cater your design and content to it. Does this mean you should ignore your other users? Not at all. Your website should be accessible by all and not offend or exclude anybody. However, the website does need to be primarily aimed at a clearly defined audience.
5. You Are Wasting Money On Social Networking
I find it encouraging that website managers increasingly recognize that a Web strategy is more than running a website. They are beginning to use tools such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to increase their reach and engage with new audiences. However, although they are using these tools, too often they do so ineffectively. Tweeting on a corporate account or posting sales demonstrations on YouTube misses the essence of social networking.

Microsoft dramatically improved its image amoung the development community by allowing Microsoft staff to speak out via the Channel 9 website.
Social networking is about people engaging with people. Individuals do not want to build relationships with brands and corporations. They want to talk to other people. Too many organizations throw millions into Facebook apps and viral videos when they could spend that money on engaging with people in a transparent and open away.
Instead of creating a corporate Twitter account or indeed even a corporate blog, encourage your employees to start Tweeting and blogging themselves. Provide guidelines on acceptable behavior and what tools they need to start engaging directly with the community connected to your products and services. This demonstrates not only your commitment to the community but also the human side of your business.
6. Your Website Is Not All About You
Where some website managers want their website to appeal to everybody, others want it to appeal to themselves and their colleagues. A surprising number of organizations ignore their users entirely and base their websites entirely on an organizational perspective. This typically manifests itself in inappropriate design that caters to the managing director’s personal preferences and contains content full of jargon.
A website should not pander to the preferences of staff but should rather meet the needs of its users. Too many designs are rejected because the boss “doesn’t like green.” Likewise, too much website copy contains acronyms and terms used only within the organization.
7. You’re Not Getting Value From Your Web Team
Whether they have an in-house Web team or use an external agency, many organizations fail to get the most from their Web designers. Web designers are much more than pixel pushers. They have a wealth of knowledge about the Web and how users interact with it. They also understand design techniques, including grid systems, white space, color theory and much more.
![]()
Treating designers as pixel pushers wastes their design experience: post from Twitter complaining about being a pixel pusher
It is therefore wasteful to micro-manage by asking them to “make the logo bigger” or to “move that 3 pixels to the left.” By doing so, you are reducing their role to that of a software operator and wasting the wealth of experience they bring.
If you want to get the maximum return on your Web team, present it with problems, not solutions. For example, if you’re targeting your website at teenage girls, and the designer goes for corporate blue, suggest that your audience might not respond well to that color. Do not tell him or her to change it to pink. This way, the designer has the freedom to find a solution that may even be better than your choice. You allow your designer to solve the problem you have presented.
8. Design By Committee Brings Death
The ultimate symbol of a large organization’s approach to website management is the committee. A committee is often formed to tackle the website because internal politics demand that everybody has a say and all considerations be taken into account. To say that all committees are a bad idea is naive, and to suggest that a large corporate website could be developed without consultation is fanciful. However, when it comes to design, committees are often the kiss of death.

Design by committee leads to design on the fly.
Design is subjective. The way we respond to a design can be influenced by culture, gender, age, childhood experience and even physical conditions (such as color blindness). What one person considers great design could be hated by another. This is why it is so important that design decisions be informed by user testing rather than personal experience. Unfortunately, this approach is rarely taken when a committee is involved in design decisions.
Instead, designing by committee becomes about compromise. Because committee members have different opinions about the design, they look for ways to find common ground. One person hates the blue color scheme, while another loves it. This leads to designing on the fly, with the committee instructing the designer to “try a different blue” in the hopes of finding middle ground. Unfortunately, this leads only to bland design that neither appeals to nor excites anyone.
9. A CMS Is Not A Silver Bullet
Many of the clients I work with have amazingly unrealistic expectations of CMS (content management systems). Those without one think it will solve all of their content woes, while those who have one moan about it because it hasn’t!
It is certainly true that a CMS can bring a lot of benefits. These include:
- reducing the technical barriers of adding content,
- allowing more people to add and edit content,
- facilitating faster updates,
- and allowing greater control.
However, many CMS are less flexible than their owners would like. They fail to meet the changing demands of the websites they manage. Website managers also complain that their CMS is hard to use. However, in many cases, this is because those using it have not been adequately trained or are not using it regularly enough.
Finally, a CMS may allow content to be easily updated, but it does not ensure that content will be updated or even that the quality of content will be acceptable. Many CMS-based websites still have out-of-date content or poorly written copy. This is because internal processes have not been put in place to support the content contributors.
If you look to a CMS to solve your website maintenance issues, you will be disappointed.
10. You Have Too Much Content
Part of the problem with content maintenance on large corporate websites is that there is too much content in the first place. Most of these websites have “evolved” over years, with more and more content having been added. At no stage has anybody reviewed the content and asked what could be taken away.
Many website managers fill their website with copy that nobody will read. This happens because of:
- A fear of missing something: by putting everything online, they believe users will be able to find whatever they want. Unfortunately, with so much information available, it is hard to find anything.
- A fear users will not understand: whether from a lack of confidence in their website or in their audience, they feel the need to provide endless instruction to users. Unfortunately, users never read this copy.
- A desperate desire to convince: they are desperate to sell their product or communicate their message, and so they bloat the text with sales copy that actually conveys little valuable information.
Steve Krug, in his book Don’t Make Me Think, encourages website managers to “Get rid of half the words on each page, then get rid of half of what’s left.” This will reduce the noise level on each page and make the useful content more prominent.
Conclusions
Large organizations do a lot right in running their websites. However, they also face some unique challenges that can lead to painful mistakes. Resolving these problems means accepting that mistakes have been made, overcoming internal politics and changing the way you control your brand. Doing so will give you a significant competitive advantage and allow your Web strategy to become more effective over the long term.
(al)


G
February 11th, 2009 5:24 amomg, I wish my boss can read this article.
Max
February 11th, 2009 5:25 amGreat article, this could not be more helpful than right now as we are in the process of redesign! Thanks
Matthew Kempster
February 11th, 2009 5:34 amSome nice tips there Paul
Michelle
February 11th, 2009 5:43 amAmen! There IS such a thing as too much content.
The first company I ever worked for broke all 10 rules alone. As a copywriter my favorite comments back to them were always “do you have such little faith in your sales/customer support team that you don’t want them to EVER be called to answer questions or for more information? Do you want to leave your potential customers searching through your vast website alone?” I left and they called in a high-priced consultant who told them the same thing. :-)
Guer
February 11th, 2009 5:55 amTHANK YOU for finally addressing this issue! I can say flat-out that it’s like you were a fly on the wall at every single meeting I’ve been in for the past three months regarding my company’s (disastrous) Web site plans. Thumbs up for the article and, even more, for allowing my coworkers and I laugh about how incredibly appropriate this post is, because we really needed that chuckle.
Rafael Masoni
February 11th, 2009 6:00 amThis is the most incredible article I’ve ever read!
I’ll try to use it when I get into these situations.
bs.kishore
February 11th, 2009 6:08 amnice article and bang on to the point.
Katherine Gaskin
February 11th, 2009 6:10 amAWESOME article! There is not an ounce of lies in this entire thing. I work in the Communications department for a regulatory college and we are re-hauling our website…YOU HAVE TOO MUCH CONTENT!
jameson
February 11th, 2009 6:19 amSo glad to see Paul Boag writing some articles for Smashing! So far, they have been excellent!
Allen
February 11th, 2009 6:24 amGood article and points all around… now the work begins and trying to get C-level suits to see, listen and agree to all these! :)
Travis Fisher
February 11th, 2009 6:25 amDead on. Keep up the great work.
Andrew
February 11th, 2009 6:25 amGood article. You’ve opened up a can of worms with this one. I’d give the readers here a look at our corportate site to see how bad things can actually get, but don’t really need confirmation that it sucks.
Roc
February 11th, 2009 6:37 amThis is fantastic, I’m a freelance designer and often find that we need more information like this pointed at clients, a lot of my clients are willing to learn and understand that they make dumb requests only because they are not aware of the limitations.
As the newer generations come up into management, they are more open to technology and all the “I dont want to know just do it” dinosaurs are becoming extinct. This type of article from a reliable source helps get the point across when they look at us with that “what do you know, you’re too young” face.
Paul Boag
February 11th, 2009 6:46 amWow guys, thank you all so much for the huge encouragement! Glad you found it useful. :)
ozenyx
February 11th, 2009 6:48 amNice article!
thebert
February 11th, 2009 6:51 amNumber 10 hurts. My company has been around a while and we have 900+ pages of information covering about 80 products. While I think it’s good to ruthlessly edit content I think it’s equally important to think about data presentation and effective search tools thus making the information as accessible as possible – sometimes a lot of info is actually needed.
This was a very good article. Thanks!
Vitaliy
February 11th, 2009 6:52 amRight on Paul!
Jessica
February 11th, 2009 6:56 amGreat article! Has a corporate design freelancer, I couldn’t agree more. I understand the whole redesign vs. realign, but in many cases some companies REALLY do need a complete redesign. Now, redesigning for the sake of having fancy graphics is a no-no. A design should of course align itself with all the objectives and goals to doing a “redesign” in the first place.
Cheers!
Marcelo Figueroa
February 11th, 2009 6:57 amGreat article, keep it on guys :o)
Jessica
February 11th, 2009 7:00 amAlso, one BIG truth I think you missed, and one thing many very few companies do well, is many corporate sites (especially those in technology and other serviced-based businesses) don’t properly define their value proposition! Most of time you can’t really figure out what they do or why their different, only that “XYZ Company offers best-of-breed solutions for global operations to increase performance and sustainability across several sectors and agencies”
Umm, what?!
Simon
February 11th, 2009 7:00 amOh wow, you really are someone who has been there, done that! I sit here going yep, yep, yep.
Don’t forget the HIPPO (Highest Paid Persons Opinion) which many of us suffer from. You do sometimes sit down and try to work out why your years of knowledge is ignored. Then later you have to duck for cover when conversions go down and the blame is heading your way even though you knew it was going to happen and tried to stop it.
Patrick Samphire
February 11th, 2009 7:07 amWelcome to my life!
Just about every single one of those applies to where I’ve been working for the last few years. Good article. I’ve emailed it around…
Nommo
February 11th, 2009 7:10 amWe are not alone! That’s so reassuring :)
But – what is it about corp culture that makes this such a common experience ?
Mark
February 11th, 2009 7:22 amNice. More from Paul :)
btopro
February 11th, 2009 7:26 amAwesome article, I’ve been spouting off a lot of the same sentiment. Now I have a place I can point people too to just read it instead of listening to me rant :)
Gabe
February 11th, 2009 7:28 amTotally just forwarded this link to my boss…
Chris
February 11th, 2009 7:32 amabsolutely great!
kjersti
February 11th, 2009 7:40 amsososososo awesome, relevant, necessary. thank you.
Okey Kualana
February 11th, 2009 7:42 amSomebody has to spoil the party, sorry.
10 Harsh Truths About This Article
10. Good points, but obvious to anyone who has been in the business more than 3 months.
9. Only valuable to designers that probably don’t have the vision to do anything but push pixels.
8. Contains dangerous generalities like designing by committee is deadly. A bad process is deadly, but design by single person who thinks they are a genius is just as bad, or worse.
7. Just because some companies are guilty of these well-know pitfalls, doesn’t mean it’s a wide-spread problem, unless, of course it’s your source of income to fix bad websites.
6. These harsh truths don’t have much relevance if you design in the e-commerce field, not because they don’t apply, but because you’re out-of-business if you didn’t already know these “truths.”
5. The article’s tone, voice and illustration all come across as disturbingly derivative of Steve Krug’s work. It is one thing to champion a cause, but this is a little too close to the line of unoriginality claim evangelical status. Take your copies of this article off the wall and buy your boss a copy of “Don’t Make Me Think.”
4. It is scary to think that so many unqualified designers need the comfort of these “truths.”
3. This article promotes divisional thinking to an audience of mediocre designers working in small minded companies.
2. Announcing that a good idea, executed poorly is wrong, isn’t exactly ground breaking.
1. The author counted the wrong direction. Casey Kasem and David Letterman taught us that to make an effective presentation, a reversed reveal increases audience engagement.
Jeff
February 11th, 2009 7:46 amGreat article. But you’re right. The people who need to learn this information aren’t the people who’ll be reading it.
I work on very large sports league websites for a Fortune 100 company. And I can tell you that the biggest challenge we face is dealing with 20 different divisions all wanting above-the-fold, homepage presence. And they all want their piece to be bold, red, larger, blinking, and higher up the page. (And then, of course, there are 728 x 90 and 300 x 250 ads that have to appear above the fold.) So everyone’s crowding into a 1000 x 660px space and no one’s willing to acknowledge that, y’know, only 1% of the users care about their section of the site. So maybe we should let the homepage attractively deliver the content that 95% of the users are coming for.
No one’s known for everything. Be known for something rather than nothing.
Thanks for letting me vent. :)
Chris Campbell
February 11th, 2009 7:55 amYou’re the man, Paul!
Chase
February 11th, 2009 8:09 amHave you been watching my life? I think I am going to show this to my CEO.
Lennie
February 11th, 2009 8:16 ambegins crying
Crssp-ee
February 11th, 2009 8:20 amMr. Boag steps from behind the microphone, great article!
-t
pete
February 11th, 2009 8:23 amits so true about clients criticising for the sake of it and not trusting your design decisions.
I wouldn’t ever tell them how to do their job if i was a client. I wouldn’t tell a dentist how to fix my teeth so why should they tell me how big a logo should be.
everyone thinks they are qualified to design.
Patrick Samphire
February 11th, 2009 8:28 am“Somebody has to spoil the party, sorry.”
Really, no, they don’t. Don’t like it? Think everyone else here is a loser? Then go somewhere else and stop wasting your time.
Nqy_Nik
February 11th, 2009 8:31 amGreat article, Im in a large company that has every single one of those issues above!!
Aravind
February 11th, 2009 8:35 amtrue, true.. 100% true.. !
savage
February 11th, 2009 8:39 amgreat great great article.
Tim
February 11th, 2009 8:50 amWow, how familiar I am with most of those. Brilliant article! Now – how to get the administration at our university to read it?
Chris Wallace
February 11th, 2009 8:56 am@125 Sounds like you just know it all. Problem is, no one’s ever heard of you. Your opinion, while hilariously entertaining, doesn’t stack up to the advice from an established web strategist like Paul.
Kent Lewis
February 11th, 2009 8:57 amREALLY??? Am I the only reader that wasn’t blown away by the article (besides #125)? If the content of this article is news to you people, I feel sorry for you. I’ve been building and marketing Web sites since 1996, and the top ten are old hat to those of us that have made a living helping companies create a meaningful online presence. A few comments I didn’t notice in a glance at the 135 other comments:
1. Wasting Time on Social Networking is not entirely accurate. Bad marketing is bad marketing, social media notwithstanding. Good social media marketing creates awareness and engagement, period. Just because a company has corporate profiles doesn’t mean people don’t want to hear from them or that it can’t offer value. It’s a communication platform, so why not communicate. There are a variety of reasons to use social media beyond outbound communication: search engine visibility and online reputation management are two reasons our clients use social media.
http://www.anvilmediainc.com/social-media-marketing-optimization-article.html
http://www.anvilmediainc.com/online-reputation-management-article.htm
2. In regards to Too Much Content…we’ll, I agree that bad content is bad content, but in terms of gaining visibility and connecting with your audience, content is king. If it is timely (or timeless), offers value of some kind and is well optimized for search engine visibility (SEO) then there are very good reasons to create content. On a related note, having an SEO-friendly CMS is also important, which is why we love WordPress…it’s great for blogging, and good at managing corporate content, but is bombproof for search engine optimization.
http://www.anvil-media.com/archives/030105/contentisking.htm
Aleks
February 11th, 2009 9:06 amWe are a web team in the marketing department but everyone refers to us as the web department. It’s a great place to be because everyone wants to own us but no one except ourselves know how to manage web.
On the other hand how do we make a business case for #1, that web needs to be a department with a budget and a director and its own staff? THAT is what we need.
Lorne Pike
February 11th, 2009 9:08 amA lot of these points sound sadly familiar to any of us who have worked on a corporate site. The comments bear that out. Of course, none of us are likely to completely redefine how our corporate teams develop their sites. We can, though, start chiseling away at one or two of these points, in the hope of creating some quick changes. If things then start to improve, who knows… maybe it will be the extra credibility needed to initiate further changes.
Great post, and hopefully it won’t be as true if we all read it again in a year or two from now!
@toddlucier
February 11th, 2009 9:18 ammost orgs could benefit by focusing on the web as a stream instead of a pond. Always moving, folks need to focus on the creative communications in an ongoing endless stream.
Wouldn’t want your web presence to dry up.
Markus
February 11th, 2009 9:19 amThis article should be required reading for all Marketing AND Product managers at companies. I guess what seems painfully obvious to us web designers is just to clear and direct for most of them… unfortunately.
mcclept
February 11th, 2009 9:21 amthis is extremely helpful.
Thank you
PR Flack
February 11th, 2009 9:26 amGreat article and true. But you need staff to do this well AND you need to have solid proof that you are selling more products as a result. No analystics, no staff. Without a staff, it is physically impossible for either IT or mar/com or a separate department to create and evolve a good site given all of their other responsibilities. The result of all the technorati chatter about interactive websites (plus other web 2.0 tactics) is senior management requiring them without adding either staff or money or understanding whether they will reach their audiences effectively with these tactics. It’s like saying you need a great marble statue to sell your product and assigning the quarry man to carve it. I think we need to back off on some of this and figure out how we will really reach people in their decision making processes.
And what planet are you living on where a company will create a new department????
coolwebdeveloper.com
February 11th, 2009 9:26 amGreat article. I just forwarded to everyone on our team.
Ralph Whitbeck
February 11th, 2009 9:27 amGreat article!
As a developer working at BrandLogic whose client base is Fortune 500 companies we run into every single one of the truths mentioned above.
I wanted to comment on a couple of truths.
1. Separate web division – this has to be weighed on a case by case basis. Is the division capable of updating and maintaining their site. Do they have sound needs for a separate site or are they just looking for control of something they won’t control?
If it is determined that a division needs a separate site then they need to work with whoever the overall company web owners are to ensure that there is a company Brand look and feel and that they are communicating in the same Brand message. If the division is to much out on their own how are customers going to tie them to the parent company?
5. Social networking – this is an excellent way to spread your brand you message to a lot of people. The important aspect of social networking is that management needs to communicate guidelines to their employees on how to act what they can and can not talk about. These guidelines should be easily accessible and can be updated easily. At BrandLogic we offer our clients BrandEnsemble which is an internal tool for corporations to communicate how employees should present their companies brand to the world. From how to use logos to tone of voice in written communications to guidelines in the social networking space.
9. CMS not a silver bullet – It is not a silver bullet no. We’ve done both CMS sites as well as HTML sites for our clients. In each case the training the maintainability and the initial coding are all easier with an established CMS. Our BrandEnsemble product is a CMS that was build to be flexible in setting up templates and design to meet the challenges of the content and the brand that are brought to the forefront in the initial phases of Discovery and strategy in our process with our clients. With effective planning our CMS tool is a efficient tool for our clients to use in maintaining their own site with ease.
Martin
February 11th, 2009 9:34 amabsolutely brilliant, great article!! Thx Smashing Magazine
Kyle
February 11th, 2009 9:34 amFantastic article! Imagine my surprise when I showed up in a screenshot o.O
I’ve since graduated from “Pixel Pusher” to “Aesthetic Engineering Asset,” however. It’s no more significant, but requires more work.
/bookmarked for great reference
Okey Kualana
February 11th, 2009 9:35 am@Aleks
In item #1, Paul points to a very good article, at zeldman.com, in his post that might help in your situation. You’ll also find the zeldman article comments enriching (not just replies like “cool” and “me too”)
Good luck!
Tom Wentworth
February 11th, 2009 9:51 amRegarding the “Design Committee” observation, I agree that there is nothing that kills website performance like speculative design. Even worse, Design Committee’s often suffer from the “HiPPO” syndrome where it’s the “HIghest Paid Persons Opinion” that drives important design decisions. User testing and focus groups are better but they are still quasi-speculative- you’re still relying on a small group of people to help design the site.
The best way to design a site is to experiment and let your site visitors tell you what works. For example, Google runs experiments all the time to figure out the best user experience for the Google homepage.
There are lots of website testing strategies- ranging from simple A/B/C tests to complex multivariable tests that allow you to test millions of versions to find the best one. The best part about testing is that at the end- you have statistical proof of which site design worked, which ones didn’t, and why. Tools like Google Website Optimizer, Omniture Test&Target, and Interwoven Optimost (my employer) help manage the testing process.
doug
February 11th, 2009 9:53 amfantastic article. So good, I just got it tattoo’d on my back.
Simon Ljungberg
February 11th, 2009 9:55 amGreat article!
I’m currently in that number seven-situation. My client tells me exactly what to do and it’s really frustrating that they don’t want to utilise my expertise. “Make this less useable” is pretty much what they are saying and they won’t listen to my arguments on why that’s a bad idea.
What to do? :P
Paul Pennel
February 11th, 2009 9:56 amGreat article Paul.
Love the podcast too. Keeps me inspired to keep on working on new things.
- Paul
Mudassar Ijaz
February 11th, 2009 10:09 amNice Article!
@SM TEAM – You guys need to consider changing comments layout of Your blog. It is little confusing ( picture , commenter name and content alignment, comment number repeat etc ) and hard to distinguish between two comments ( some kind of separator will be easy on eyes) , Author/Admin’s comment difference is also not there ( i guess ). Hope you got what I am trying to say here?
William Waldon
February 11th, 2009 10:16 amIt’s about time larger companies realize this fact. I’ve worked with some LARGE corps in the past and they usually contract me out to do the tasks that their internals should be doing. I don’t mind because I get work, but it should be up to someone internally to do the right thing for their web site.
Tom
February 11th, 2009 10:48 amDefinitely Smashing!
Brian
February 11th, 2009 10:51 amYou hit the nail on the head! Nice!
Robbie
February 11th, 2009 11:05 ambest post ever.
Navdeep
February 11th, 2009 11:44 amAmazing.. this is RAW truth!!!
Abbie Kendall
February 11th, 2009 12:03 pmNice recap of fundamentals. However, #1 is dangerously off base. Marketing is responsible for the brand and the conversations with the outside world.
Marketing is the leader and responsible for all corporate communications. Strategic and effective marketers recognize that outsourcing web development, updates, and maintenance is the smart choice. Web strategy and development is not a core competency of corporations. Making and selling products and services is.
Outsourcing is more cost effective; it eliminates harassment of developers by divisions clamoring for more; gives more flexibility (Need a new web partner as your company grows? Go get one.) And, it provides better creative as the designers will have much broader, deeper experience from working on a variety of projects. Of course, the developers work with the marketing IT experts to ensure smooth implementation and site security.
In companies with effective and successful web sites, marketing owns and leads the web.
Marketing makes the final decisions on content, creative, updates, etc.. And, truly smart companies eliminate web bureaucracies and higher costs by outsourcing to trusted expert partners.
Matthew
February 11th, 2009 12:04 pmAn interesting read is Steve Krug’s “Don’t Make Me Think” – I’ve worked on large-ish corporate an educational sites and one thing that I find is that most people just want to feel some sort of ownership when it comes to their online presence.
It’s true that there are some people who have the natural tendency to push their view or idea on web projects, but I have also found it true that many designers and web producers have an elitist view that causes them to lash out against those who are without the same expertise or experience level.
I always try to accommodate that desire for ownership by preemptively giving resources or asking for opinions of those involved. This accomplishes several things, one of which is you can subtly define the roles of those involved while at the same time giving them resources to learn from without engaging in the “who’s the expert here?” discussions.
The end result is a better product with better informed participants which in turn should lead to a more successful site over the course of it’s life-span.
I realize all of the above is idealistic, but I think it’s a good starting approach.
Doug Vanisky
February 11th, 2009 12:07 pmGreat post. I found all aspects to be quite on point.
B. Friddy
February 11th, 2009 12:10 pmAbsolutely amazing! These are the best points I have EVER read in regards to website development.
*clapping*
cd
February 11th, 2009 12:22 pmI am working at a client right now that does have a web department. But there is still a turf war over who that department reports up to. Right now it is the CMO, but of course the CIO thinks it should under his domain.
I could interpret this article as suggesting that there should also be a CWO, or chief web officer. That may make some sense at some companies, but not most small or medium businesses. I think that my vote would be for a web department to report to the marketing organization. Organizations just need to figure out how to matrix in IT personnel to make it a collaborative effort.
cafeine
February 11th, 2009 12:32 pmVery nice article. But I have a question about what I deal with every customer:
How do you make them give you the texts and pictures fast? Cause I actually have to beg them to give me what is necessary for their site… This is so annoying cause sites finish in months and I get paid after months ….Any suggestions ?
Ted
February 11th, 2009 1:02 pmJebus F. Christ! This article is so friggin’ true. But I’d dare not pass it on to clients!
joshbootz
February 11th, 2009 1:10 pmexcellent post.
Are you planning a follow up with examples of companies doing it right? Not to say that what’s right for one org. would be right for everyone, but solid examples to reinforce the concepts.
Tim
February 11th, 2009 1:25 pm@158 #1 could be the basis of the next article in itself. The author is absolutely correct, the marketing department should have nothing to do with the web department.
I’ve worked for organisations of all sizes and frequently, the marketing people I’ve encountered are knowingly overpaid, spineless dinosaurs whose field of ‘expertise’ is clumsily trying to keep up with the web phenomenon (just observe these w*nkers flailing around on Twitter) and whose qualifications are woefully irrelevant as a result. Often they are former PAs whom grateful bosses have promoted to Marketing Manager for years of loyal service, agreeing with what they said and doing a nice job managing the office redecorations. The younger, inexperienced ones are usually corporate ladder-climbing eye-candy. With too few welcome exceptions, they are often risk-averse, ignorant, uncreative cronies incapable of proposing anything even mildy contentious to the stakeholders, let alone debating aspects of a concept.
Ideally, abolish marketing and establish separate offline and online creative communications departments and suppliers who can deal exclusively with the main stakeholders.
Mark
February 11th, 2009 1:29 pmWell, that is possibly the best article I have read in the last 12 months of Smashing Magazine! Well done guys 5/5. Extremely true, and useful stuff!
Aaron
February 11th, 2009 1:52 pmHa! That was awesome…I especially loved #8. Definitely true.
Check my portfolio: http://www.awmcreative.com
Jonas
February 11th, 2009 1:55 pmHAHAHA! You’re writing out of my soul. I’ve sent this post to my boss. Keep you fingers crossed, that I am not surfing to Smashing-Jobs tomorrow .. =:)
JR
February 11th, 2009 2:01 pmThanks Smashing!
This is my everyday battle!
Tim
February 11th, 2009 2:05 pmWell done, Paul. If I ever interview for a corporate/not-for-profit job, then I now have a list of questions to ask/ponder.
Glenn Murray
February 11th, 2009 2:06 pmI can never figure out why people can’t just disagree without being so aggressive about it. So what if some – even all – of the points made have been made before? The headline of this post wasn’t ‘Ten Never-Before-Told Truths…’ And so what if it’s not really big news to us industry veterans? How much great conversation do you enjoy in your daily lives that simply covers old ground? We do it all the time; it’s the act of sharing experiences that brings us closer together. And like it or not, PART of this thing called social media is sharing and coming together.
In any case, the post obviously struck a chord with its INTENDED audience, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many positive comments.
Jack
February 11th, 2009 2:36 pmJeff Zeldman’s comment, “The Web is a conversation. Marketing, by contrast, is a monologue… ” is wrong or at least poor marketing. For marketing to be successful it absolutely must be a conversation.
Marketing is charged with creating and nurturing customer relationships. Big job. Involves product design, channel management, pricing strategy, along with advertising and other promotional activities. Don’t confuse those advertising and promotional activities with marketing. It’s really a small part even though it’s the most visible.
The internet — including websites but going beyond — is a tremendously powerful tool for marketing. It enables discussion with customer like never before. Nothing nurtures relationships like conversation — the core of marketing.
Kain Tietzel
February 11th, 2009 2:53 pmThat is easily the most useful post I have read all year. I will be referencing your points with my customers in the future. Thankyou.
Adam Gell
February 11th, 2009 4:00 pmThis is my first comment on this site ever, and I have been reading since 2007. I wanted to thank you for this post. This article will really help me educate my customers in the future.
Hannah
February 11th, 2009 4:29 pmThis is quite possibly the best post I have ever seen.
So many of them just don’t understand why their efforts are unsuccessful once web designers deliver the product the client asked for, and this post does a fantastic job of calling the client out on their blunders.
Terrific. I love it.
Rajeev Ratra
February 11th, 2009 4:35 pmGroovy! Lovely article, hits the nail right on the head. Keep up the “smashing” work!
Matthew
February 11th, 2009 5:11 pmThis article is being fluffed up more than Obama. Yes it is good, but to say it is the best all year is just dumb it’s only February. Send the article to people it will affect, not just people like us stuck in a job that doesn’t follow the points. Sitting around agreeing can be nice but changing minds and habit is actually productive.
Emily
February 11th, 2009 5:29 pmI agree with Abbie Kendall, number #1 is dangerously off base.
However, as for outsourcing there can be a great number of risks run with this choice. Such as cost and quality. Sales men do a good job of telling you abc software will be the perfect thing for your company when they are often quite wrong.
What you need is people whether internal or external who know what they are doing. In my internal “IT” department I am the web designer and UI person. Our “IT” is collective of very smart people who have a really good idea about making large corporate websites. There will always be a struggle between design and practically ie “marketing” and “IT”.
Personally “IT” tend to have alot of smart people that have experience in analysing and solving problems which lead to innovative solutions. I think these skills are more important than trying to stuff every shining object marketing see into a website.
KiL
February 11th, 2009 6:23 pmYou’re so right there, but you’re also so preaching to the choir…
Let’s send this out to all managers we know and force them to read it.
Sarah G.
February 11th, 2009 7:43 pmI’m right there with you on this article. At my last temp job, not only was the web management split between Marketing and IT, but there was a single full-time perm position and one temp position to generate all web content, including ad banners and e-blasts. On top of that, the Board of Directors had final say on design elements and how and what content would appear on the homepage.
I agree with the others that #1 is off-base. It is important to unify the brand and the messages coming out of that brand. However, I think the difficulty with housing the web team under Marketing often is that the “team” becomes a single webmaster or becomes an added task for employees who do more than just the web. Rather than separating out the web team, maybe the emphasis should be on giving the web the full attention it deserves.
Peter
February 11th, 2009 8:46 pmWe are in complete agreement that listening to the market and developing the various internet channels does require unique competencies and perspectives. Where we differ is the need to create a unique division to own the strategy. Marketing is definitely *not* a monologue. That’s simply a misunderstanding of what marketing “is”. It is a dynamic process of listening and engaging the market including all of the influencers that ultimately develop brands and drive revenues and profits. What’s required is that the marketing competency needs to understand the capabilities and opportunities of the media and the way that the various channels interface with the company and market. I would argue that however your marketing competencies are structured – it is the entity that sets the business objectives and creates the alignment or manages the internal or external implementation of the strategy. Companies with enough literate leaders can make appropriate decisions about how to design and implement their interactive / social media strategies without creating additional silos and make smart decisions about where the get the resources to do so.
panos
February 11th, 2009 10:27 pmExcellent article and realistic! It is true that useing a cms often you are not so flexible, but on the other hand you can add content easily, especially people who are not so familiar with the internet (>50 years old).
Nag
February 11th, 2009 10:37 pmGreat article….
liz
February 11th, 2009 11:27 pmhave a contract working as a web manager for a large corp. BUT it is semi-part time (only about 30 hours a month!) So they only ever have time for content updates, but so many of their sites are out of date design and code that makes even managing content on them more difficult.
I’d love to do a full overhaul, get their 15+ sites all in a CMS and have another part timer on the account – but they just don’t get it.
Jordy Houtman
February 12th, 2009 1:15 amThe comment about social networking reach definately the point. Social networking is a great way in many marketing aspects (not even talking about SEO techniques). I have a lot of assignments where web 2.0 solutions are wanted, but they just want it because it’s a fashion term.
Usually it’s a bit old fashioned companies who try to renew their market position, or want to blend in the “new world”.
I feel instead of letting others fill their website, they should rather just use a twitter account and use RSS to update their site. Minor things like “I am at a promotion party of item X. I think we will order it for our customers. “. With good software, you can let your visitors vote or reply on it.
That’s in my opinion a very good use web 2.0 software, rather then “make my site web 2.0″.
Me
February 12th, 2009 1:24 amWe have a web department full of talented designers and developers. But it’s still marketing and sales that call the shots. And because of this our websites will continue to under perform until our views are respected and we are allowed to do the job we are paid for.
Great article.
maZtah
February 12th, 2009 2:14 amDo not tell him or her to change it to pink. This way, the designer has the freedom to find a solution that may even be better than your choice. You allow your designer to solve the problem you have presented.
Now that’s an awesome hint. Thanks so much for this great article!
Langston Richardson
February 12th, 2009 2:22 amThis is quite interesting. My team had this discussion on this very article in the last day. We took off the “corporate” because this is really about websites period. I personally fight with my colleagues over insights on what is right and what works. That fighting isn’t always bad but Paul #8 is a constant in the development industry. I’ve had to make many executive decisions/professional judgments to stop the Committee Drama with internal and clients.
Unfortunately, most if not any of the warnings/truths mentioned will ever be heeded by organizations until failing to heed these harsh lessons cost people their jobs or their company’s serious lost of business and revenue. To point #8, If the job gets done and the client is happy, the design by committee is validated and the pixel-pushing slaves some call designers who knows better from point #7 starts activities ranging from job searches to combativeness to uninspired listlessness. Indeed, design/marketing/web development/consultancy organizations begin to adopt this last internal cultural trait.
There hasn’t been an equivalent re-ordering/cleansing in the magnitude of the Dot.com meltdown to correct Paul’s 10 Harsh Truths.
As we’ve faced in the last bubble, organizations can get away with having bad design, design by committee, trend following facebook/youtube/twitter feeds, pixel-pushing slavery, and use-ALL-of-the-content-I-gave-you thinking that’s characterize this industry because people believe that they are getting value from the way things are. It’s a commodity.
If our web development paradigm shifts to questioning the value gained, then our industry can correct itself.
We’re not a point where we all agree that web development has the definitive standard of what works like we can say print and TV have. (Print’s Last two paradigm shifts were the printing press and desktop publishing. TV: Cable, HD, PPV, DVD) The web’s multitude of ways has democratized and innovate the communications space in a far reaching way… but it’s still new to people with far more players than Print and TV ever had. Some of these players in this “technoclass” shows the effects of this democracy-imposing a structured order dichotomy. What designers think isn’t the same as marketers think isn’t the same as developers think isn’t the same what clients think isn’t the same as customers and people think and experience. Measurement has brought more opinions to data gathered and not clarity.
What we have today are the top agencies that have the best car salespeople and have organized and cohesive understandings of web strategies and have clients who also understand and have organized and cohesive understandings of web strategies can mitigate the negative consequences of Paul’s lessons. But this is not yet repeatable. History shows that we tend to have 20/20 hindsight.
Langston Richardson
VP, Executive Creative Director / infuz
Langston Richardson
February 12th, 2009 3:06 amadding to the conversations about marketing = or ≠ conversations:
While Marketing only at it’s best, is not a monologue… it is still a far cry from a conversation. Case in point: marketing outside of our circle has reputation challenges. Conversations do not.
Marketing is looking ultimately for a ROI, however long that takes. Conversations are sharing, honestly, and expression. The web has helped with the evolution of marketing to evolve from a shatter gun broadcast the relied on repetition and push to closer to how people really think and share in all media touch points.
Jordy Houtman
February 12th, 2009 4:14 am@Langston Richardson, That’s indeed true. However, expectatons from web2.0 is far too big sometimes. The difference between say a YouTube and a company offering products is a world apart.
The web is a magnificant tool for marketing. However, as you mentioned, it doesn’t cover all the aspects as you name them. I think that just claming any web2.0 related idea cannot succeed in a company profile without having the employees or a dedicated person giving something to talk about first. This post is not a forum, so I am not going ot debate about this now. But there are very interesting points to discuss about this subject I think.
Terry
February 12th, 2009 6:11 amBrilliant outline of what is still an emerging division/discipline in many companies. The creation of the “web division” is necessary but delicate. It is important to give that division authority and ulitmate responsibility but make sure they are not a “island”. The web division needs to be tightly integrated into all sales and marketing efforts.so that all traditional marketing efforts are leveraged and vice versa
Saro
February 12th, 2009 6:39 amTotally true!
Andre Morgan
February 12th, 2009 7:00 amGreat info! Bringing harmony into the web design/development process within large organizations is indeed a task that can be very challenging. It requires not just technical ability but lots of wisdom.