Generally speaking, I always think that if you make in direct attributable revenue from a web site the amount you put in to create it then that is a positive return on investment. A naive way of looking at it, and I can't say that I spend vast amounts of time calculating monetary value from a web site, but if your intention is to make money online then that I think is the minimum goal. Anything extra, of course is then profit.
This is quite simple if you are selling directly to someone because the measure of success is purely monetary in nature. The difficulty of course in measuring ROI is when either the product is too complex to sell via the internet or requires alternative methods of communication. What prompted me to write about this is due to a website I created for my brother in law who has started up a tree and garden business in Carmarthen. The site I created for him is simple, I didn't charge him and I spent the odd hours here and there doing it, and to tell you the truth it is no where near finished. Yet since it has been up, he has procured three jobs that would have covered the creation of a medium sized e-commerce site. Now, he knows that the phone calls have come via interest in the web site because he doesn't have any other form of marketing... and they told him that they called him after seeing his web site. Were he to have an alternative method of direct marketing then that phone call is more difficult to trace (other than asking outright where the caller has arrived from).
Harder still is when you are selling complex products like the company I work for, which sells CRM and sales management systems. The greater the investment the longer and more complex the process from sales prospect to close of deal. The corporate site may be one of many factors that a person may encounter in the build up to a sale from enquiring into products, costs and personell. They may visit several times over a period of months, but one thing is certain it is difficult to assess how much the site has played in the process. It is conceivable that they might not have resulted in your product if they had not seen your web site, certainly this is true if they first found you through organic search, but also even if they hadn't, it is also conceivable that if subsequent to a face to face meeting a prospect might visit your site to re-enforce knowledge and further research your products. The corporate site evidently fills different roles and must meet the expectation of every stage of a prospective sales process, but your site may not directly make any money. However, that doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile investment.
So, how do you calculate ROI? In my opinion this is not the right question. What should be asked is how do you calculate the loss of not having an effective web site? And by effective, I mean any way that you would gain any advantage on the web, be it a useful contact, exposure to different markets or just a central resource for existing clients. Take away that site and you open up the opportunity of the web world finding your competitor and having another option other than the one they would have had if they found you.
Let me give you a little insight into what happens when someone asks about webdesign. Most people today have a web site, especially businesses, so the majority of corporate web work that I get professionaly is companies that have existing web sites. Now, this might seem obvious, but a webdesigner when they get an opportunity to critique a current web site is always going to look for problems in design and coding that he can exploit if you like, the opportunity of getting work. This is natural, and before you take offense to the word "exploit", the difference between an objective critique and an "rob you blind" critique is all about ethics not motive. Every web designer/developer is out to gain business, the difference between some is that they can justify the need to change or rework a site through necessity not just cosmetically.
I for instance will look for tell tale signs of 'old fashioned' design, for instance the over reliant use of tables or javascript making the code of the website run like a monk reading the magna carta. My boss has a particular bug-bear and will always look for 'mailto' tags and then invariably sigh in disgust as all too often he finds them. He alludes to it in his blog article on 'business web design' and the point we are really looking for is whether the current design is relevant and can handle the rigours of modern day business objectives.
'Mailto' tags have been around since the middle ages of webdesign and are an archaic form of contacting someone that is tantamount to waving ones arms, jumping up and down and requesting the spamming world to supply you with a lifetimes supply of viagra, with a side order of plastic surgery for various appendages. If a site has this as a part of it's web strategy (and you will be surprised how many have) what hope have you in the rest of the design. Similarly, there are still sites (and I mean business sites, not personal) who grin and impressively show off their brand new site designed in flash. I design flash sites as part of my portfolio, but I don't do many, and if I do I expressly make sure the client knows exactly what they are getting into and that they are in effect making themselves blind to search engines. In fact I make it a priority that I will not design a site in flash unless a client definitely isn't bothered about search engine optimisation. For a business site, flash is a no-no of the highest order.
Basics I know, but you will be surprised at how many people are still getting sites designed like this...
I apologise, this diverges from the remit of what I intended to write on this blog...
I met Paul a several months ago at a party and over what could only be a few hours I instantly liked him. he had a sense of humour that I really understood and thought at the time how unlike a soldier he was, not in looks as it was evident that he was a man who was physically very fit (and someone whom you wouldn't want the mistake of starting a fight with), but in the easy going, confident but not over-bearing personality. I realise now that I had a stereotypical prejudice of a soldier and what I expected a soldier to be, Paul was not and cured me of that natural assumption.
I remember then, that I had some trepidation when I learnt that he was due to go on a tour in Iraq, and I remember also my rationale of "accepted risk and a soldiers lot" that I convinced myself at the time. I also remember glancing through the paper and skim reading the Independant this morning and recall the all too regular short paragraph about the "152nd British casualty" of Iraq. I didn't read further and even if I did it wouldn't have registered. It was a shock then that shortly after I got into work my fiance called and said that her friends husband Paul was that person. It was a shock and surprise at how badly I am taking this and a reflection of the impression that Paul had on me in such a short time. It is doubly hard to empathise with the grief with Paul's family whom I met and bonded with at that very same party. It seems very hollow to wish condolensces and prayers at this time, but my thoughts go to them nonetheless.
I am aware of the hyprocisy of the situation. I have read many such headlines over the years and every family that this awful tragedy has gone through has had to endure unimaginable fear for loved ones serving and equally unimaginable grief at news of such tragedy. I have always sympathised when such news appears on the TV but other than a disassociated political anger I have never been moved to do anything about it. Hell, what could I do about it? It is our selfish nature I think that only when personaly affected does anything hit us at all. And though I think that generaly, I attribute that mostly to myself as well. All I can say is that the strong feeling of grief that I have for Paul's loss will affect me deeply, and the same thoughts that go to his family will go to all those who have suffered the same and unfortunately will do so in the future.
To put this into context read the BBC Story of Major Paul Harding and the tributes to his character at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6227978.stm .
In my last bike related rant I said that I was restricted to riding at 70mph. This was due to some severe maintenance issues which included:
- A dodgy chain which were it to snap would have posed some interesting problems on a motorway (hence why I resisted unnecessary speed and staying in the left lanes) and
- a broken rear suspension which feels like a hefty kick in the brussel sprouts every time I ride over a pot hole.
To get to work, I have had to get a bus into town, the timing and regularity of which I think must be ordained by the national lottery. A train journey from Winchester to Farnborough isn't that much more reassuring in reliability, but at least I can pay up the nose for the privilege, and then at Farnborough I wait 20 minutes for a bus to take me to Camberley. The journey takes me just under two hours and over a week I have spent £75 in travel....
Have I missed something here? In a world where carbon emissions is being spouted by every politician on every idealogical divide, doesn't it figure that if you want to cut polution and encourage people to drive less then there has to be an alternative. I certainly don't have any compulsion to volutarily take public transport, though I might want to do my bit for the environment, the facts are quite simple. I spend less and get places much quicker and with far less hassle if I just rode my bike.
It is an absolute disgrace that in an economy that we live in that basic services are so poor and so expensive. When I visited India a few years ago, I traveled a transport system that technologically would not have been out of place in the 30's and yet the punctuality of service embarrasses the shambling unhappy experience we put up with in this country.
I just hope it doesn't take too much longer to fix my bike, I really need a lie in...
Future Mrs. Biker told me the other day that there were only 7 basic stories in the world with only variations on theme that diiferentiate from the masses of stories published. This discussion ensued due to one of my favourite ramblings on the 'unoriginality of Harry Potter' and what is basically a collection of different ideas collected from C.S Lewis to the 'Worst Witch' books that I remember from when I was a kid. At this point, I would add that, though I have laboured to stay true to my principles, I have, like many millions, actually got quite addicted to the books.
Anyway, back to my point about originality. Though I don't have much to back my better half's statement, the idea that nothing is original is rather an obvious one, the more so when it comes to blogging when you add the many millions of people who decide that they have something to say. I read once, that the age of traditional journalism has been superseded by amateur editorial's brought on by the web 2.0 phenomenon and blogging is by far the most journalistic medium that people are using to express themselves. However, what is evident is that a great deal of us can't all be unique and original in what we post.
The only original content that bloggers really can aspire to providing is unique knowledge of which there is little going around. The successful bloggers in industry are usually in places where they have access to important knowledge, so people like Vanessa Fox, Matt Cutts etc. have a healthy position to base blogging on. The rest of us have to base our blogging on conjecture and debate and where a person is without a source of unique knowledge of interest to others, their success is based on interpreting, debating and cogitating already known fact in ways that appeal to other people.
The sign of a good blogger really has to be in the ability to read and then formulate new ideas. Since I started blogging, the greatest time that I have spent is in reading other people's work, and that I think is one of the secrets to being a successful blogger. Time will tell if this experimental blog will become popular but I know the direction that I should be going.
Came accross this while blog wandering and couldn't help find it amusing. Ever since I've been a kid, I have been one of the biggest Star Wars fans (and truth to tell, still am.. but not the new films). I am not a typical 'geek' in the fact that I am rather technophobic (ironic as I am a web developer), I don't spend 23 hours a day on a computer and I can't stand gimmicky 'cool' sites like Facebook and Myspace. However, the whole Star Wars thing really is a serious step towards geekdom. I take solace in the fact that in biking gear most people will be too intimidated to stress this point.
Anyway, anything that makes me smile is good in my books and I liked quite a few cartoons in the serious so, I strongly recommend checking it out if you haven't already done so.
Reading Andy Beard’s article on the reasons why people link to each other, I realised that I did actually fit into quite a few categories when it came to linking and commenting on peoples blogs. This isn’t something that I am ashamed of, I link to Andy’s blog because I regularly read it and feel by linking to his blog I am showing a relevance to what I write about as well as showing a resource that readers might not have known. Similarly, I would be inclined to link to people who comment regularly, and certainly would link to people I know, besides I link to my work blog which isn’t a selfless act.
There are many reasons that people link to each other and all of them are selfish (I don't think Andy is cycnical here, just a realist). Just as I don’t work for a living giving away my services for free or product vendors don’t sell their wares at cost prices there is one thing that is prevalent in society in general and that nothing is free. There is nothing in the internet world or the real world that offers something for nothing. The next time Tesco are offering a 2 for 1 offer, they aren’t doing that for their own welfare, these loss leaders are intended to raise awareness and pull in extra customers to spend on their other products. So, in most cases there is no such thing as a selfless act, there is always an agenda.
This is not to mean that everything that we do has a seedy motivation. The very idea of social interaction and networking in any environment is to gain knowledge to achieve ones ends and gain new ideas to overcome obstacles that may present in everyday life. Blogging is only an extension of ways in which we can gain that contact with other people. The next time I link to someone it is going to be a selfish act. The selfish act is most likely to involve gaining new ideas and contacts, promoting conversation so that I can learn new things and contribute to other dialogues and exchanging knowledge. If there was no benefit to me in the long run, then I wouldn't do it. It's as simple as that.
I was talking to the future Mrs. Biker the other day about blogging and she turned around and said to me "I don't get blogging, it's just filled with millions of useless, childish uninteresting ramblings. I hate reading the mundane trivialities of people who have nothing to say".
I replied that a great proportion of blogs are just like that and most within a few weeks just stop and give up because they realise that after the one or two things that they really wanted to say, it was in fact quite difficult to continue writing interesting material week in week out. However, there are blogs out there that are useful and popular and if you have the material and the dedication then it is worth attempting.
She wasn't convinced. And then it occurred to me that there was an analogy that is quite appropriate to blogging. Here is what I should have said to her..
Do you remember the first time you went to secondary school at 11 years old. Usually this is the biggest move a child makes and entering a huge building filled with people you don't know is a daunting place. I remember the first break time wandering around the school yard filled with thousands of people who scared me witless. I will admit that I didn't enjoy my first day at the bigger school.
But after a few days you make friends and start hanging around with people you do like. That school yard is still filled with thousands, and you can't hope that you will connect or befriend all of them but having a few friends makes this all irrelevant. Similarly, the playground is full of different kinds of people, some will not like you, some are indifferent and some will openly like you when you meet them. Being a child in a playground is all about finding a small network of people that relate to you.
Blogging is no different, it is filled with a multitude of people and it is unrealistic to assume you can connect with everyone, but after a while if you persevere you will have your own little circle of people who relate to you. It is realistic to assume that you will encounter many more people who may or may not like what you do. Blogging isn't always about shouting to absolutely everyone in the world, but is more about finding a network within the multitude so that you can connect with people who relate to you. The other's whom you don't connect with are not important.
I think I'll try this with her.
A client comes to me requesting a quote for a web site to be built. The first thing I ask is what do you want your web site to do?, and invariably I will get the answer on the lines of "I want my web site to pull in clients from searches as well as showcase my products and services". OK, so in fact you are looking at your site as a lead generation tool or in some way to fill a sales need. Yes.
So I go away and and map out what I think would be a good model of site that over time could be effective in achieving these needs with all the work involved by both client and myself in getting to that level. When I explain what is involved, the client looks puzzled and replies "all I was looking for was a six page website with a little bit about the company, a nice design and a products section with a list of our products with pictures next to it... oh and when you click the picture it opens up a larger version of that picture so that they can look in more detail".
Usually at this point, I am trying to keep calm...
You see, working for a company that specialises in sales and marketing, I have learnt a lot more than new methods of web development, but also a good deal in the principles of sales cycles and buying cyles. In this situation, the client already has a firm idea of what kind of product he is looking for, the fact that the product he is looking for and the initial statement of intention he made don't match, are immaterial. Selling anything requires a meeting of minds in what is expected at the completion of a contract. There is no use me offering to mow someone's garden when they might only need some hedges trimming. Unfortunately, when selling abstract idea's or services, clearly defining what the product is, can be a difficult process.
There are some clients who can never be convinced of the merits of a certain action, and with SEO, blogging, social media, internet phones etc. there will be a certain percentage of customers who cannot be persuaded of the merits of it's uses. I have clients today, who are satisfied with six page web sites. I knaw my own thumbs in exasperation when I look at some major industry companies who have web sites dating back to the 90's. Sometimes, in my job, I succeed in convincing a client that his idea of a product and a product that will pay dividends in the future are different, sometimes I don't. I am still happy to take work designing sites that won't work if they are adamant, but I will fight hard in trying to convince them of the proper ways.
There is a maxim "The customer always know right", and it is a maxim I am not always fond of, because they don't. However, what this maxim does point out, is that in any sales based system to sell a service or product the customers expectations are the critical factor in making a sale. You can't sell an all singing all dancing search engine optimised site if the customer wants something else..
I started a thread in a forum about six months ago asking "What good design was?" which was based on a curiousity on my part initialy to see what kind of web sites people associated with 'good design'. I got varying answers ranging from things like good content, to any thing that made a site work well. Not one, said that web design involved making a site look good. Why is this?
Web sites serve a purpose, and today with everyone seemingly obsessed with Search Engine Placement, web traffic, keyword density, conversions etc. the thing that most people really want a web site to do is simply to be successful, whether it is getting subscribed readers on a blog to selling items on an e-commerce site.
When I started web design some years ago it was towards the end of the 'flash' generation of sites where everyone had to have a flash site to show off their design. This proved a huge turn off and the internet bubble collapse can, I think, be laid in some part at designers who viewed creating sites as an extension of a portfolio of ones ego. This in turn has lead to a shift in perception in designing for the internet away from aesthetics but more towards usability and effeciency. What people don't realise is that the two are integral. Why don't people think web design is about making a site look good. Because they don't notice. The art of designing for the internet is making a design of the site that complements usability, effeciency and every other SEO technique that you are going to implement BUT also makes a site look nice without detracting from the main purpose of the site.
Ask yourself this question, can you remember the music for the last Oscar awarded film score? I can't, usually because film music is meant to be so subtle you don't notice it. Watch the same film without the music and the same effect isn't achieved. The same is said for a web sites design? If you like a site, then chances are they have spent a great deal of time thinking of designing it to achieve this effect.
It is sometimes difficult to comprehend that it has been over twelve years since Google first came out with the answer to spamming in the form of the 'nofollow' tag. This in internet terms is a very long time, so it is doubly surprising that people are getting quite upset about it now, and for good reason. With the proliferation of blogging around the world, more and more people are getting to terms with SEO and the importance of inbound links, this in turn has resulted in a tidal wave of dubious methods of obtaining links, spam comments being one of them.
Now, I have always developed and designed sites specifically for hosted servers and the SalesVision blog that I regularly contribute to is also hosted on our servers, so I only came accross this problem very recently when I decided to dabble with a personal blog on blogger. The problem as I see it, is that free blogging software is open to abuse, but is also the only option available to someone who cannot afford to host their own blogging platform or server space. Yet, that doesn't mean that those people's voice or opinion matters less than someone who can host their own site.
Spamming is an increasingly big problem and terribly annoying but the answer is not to cut every person's voice. Nofollow is in effect social censorship in that in order to prevent one part of a community from breaking the rules, everyone suffers. I don't doubt the intentions behind the action, but the internet is a place where ideas are shared and networks and communities are created. I know that without the incentive of creating relevant linking then discussions themselves will evaporate. I for one am more than willing to cope with some spam or look for other methods of dealing with it than preventing social commentary.
I am terribly new to 'no follow' and I would like to thank Andy Beards list of nofollow remedies which in turn pointed me to webstractions blogger 'nofollow' removal tip . I would also highly recommend the bumpzee nofollow community where I found all this information.
It didn't take long but here is my first bike related post which I promise won't outway any possible useful material on this blog in the future.
Let us just say that 70mph has been forced on me for reasons that I will not divulge. I travel day in day out on the M3 to get to work, and I have decided that 70mph (the legal speed limit just in case you forgot) isn't at all safe, especially for a biker. The reasons for this include the following:
- Cars of the business class variety who think that travelling 70 is holding them up and that it is ok to drive 30cm behind me to let me know this fact.
- Cars in general. Next time actually try driving at 70 and see what happens. You will be the slowest vehicle on the motorway barring some (but not all) lorries.
- Stopping distances. People in cars don't think stopping distances apply to them. The false sense of security you get while driving a car means that even if you hit someone you have a steel shell to protect you. Guess what, bikes don't have that. I ride with a stopping distance in front of me because if I hit someone, I am likely to suffer a severe form of death. The space in front of me is NOT an invitation to pull in front of me.
Over the past few years SEO has become one of the most popular buzz words with regards to online marketing and web design. You can't really travel far online without bumping into some kind of Search Engine expert, and don't get me wrong, there are plenty of them out there. I personaly don't believe that SEO is anything that requires a masters in quantum physics to do, and I have read and studied with great enthusiasm the latest trends, opinions and debates that rage alll over the world about the latest happenings. I have success in applying SEO techniques in web sites designed specifically for optimisation and I advise clients on strategies that should be taken. However, one thing I will never do, and that is declare that I am any kind of expert.
To explain, I will draw on a footballing analogy. Teams win and lose and enjoy periods of highs and lows, when a team is in the ascendency their football fans crow over their triumphs, which antagonises their opponents. One thing is always true, and that is nothing stays the same and eventually those tables will turn and those who crow the loudest when their team are winning are usually the ones feeling the silliest when they are losing.
With SEO the same can be said, the only people who know exactly what is going on is the lab guys in Google et al. Every other SEO expert is only applying knowledge that reacts to what search engines do. Therefore, changes in search engine algorithms can seriously affect the performance of ranking with little prior notice. There is nothing sillier than someone who boasts about ranking high one day only to find that further along the line their site is languishing in no mans land.
I suppose that goes with most things though, I don't think that I like or listen to anyone who boasts about how good they are in their profession, because usually they aren't. That is why I am unlikely to do so when it comes to my own profession.
