Photo by David Muir
I spend a lot of time telling organisations they need to be on the web.
But, you know what? I should spend more time telling them NOT to develop a website.
Am I CrAzY?
For a long time getting the web into a communications budget was hard work. Oh boy. We had to “sell the internet” to so many people. Eventually some of them got it and started to fund useful sites.
Success has its drawbacks
Over time the web has become a “line item”, a “check box”, a “budget allocation”.
A lot of internet managers don’t have to justify their funding any more. They get budget by default. Especially in government.
And let me tell you “Have web budget, must spend” does not lead to good websites.
Oh no.
Such “line item” sites have:
- No clear goals
- No clear audiences
- No metrics to measure success
Beauty is skin deep, ugliness goes right to the bone
In short, these sites may look great, but they don’t work. They are pointless and a waste of money. Taxpayers’ money. Your money.
The money spent on such sites would be better spent elsewhere. On printed brochures, on newspaper ads, on door-to-door visits, on sky writing aeroplanes, on anything. But not on the web.
I make websites.
But, a word in your ear – if the only reason you are starting your web project is because “we got the budget” … STOP.
Ask the right questions
Is this really right for the web?
Can the web really help?
Would this money actually get a better return if spent elsewhere?
Sure, I can make the website for you if you insist.
But, you know what? I’ll feel bad for you.
July 18, 2009 at 3:20 am
I agree and disagree with you. I think everyone can benefit from having a web site but it’s how you execute it. I recently did a web site with my company that I detest… any time they call or email to do an update I cringe because it’s the worst site I’ve done in several years.
There’s no content. The company failed to give us anything. We made it all up. And then they wanted a second web site… oi.
July 20, 2009 at 11:53 am
I disagree – I don’t think having a dedicated, time-based web budget is the problem. The problem is misapplication of the budget to projects that don’t deliver measurable, incremental benefits, and to be honest when web/ux companies don’t offer enough insight and leadership to confound an uninspiring brief. It’s easy to deliver value when the client is knowledgeable, focused on delighting users and returning value – it’s a real challenge to take base metal and turn it into gold.
July 20, 2009 at 11:59 am
Good post. It’s the same as with many things in business and life, you’re not going to put the effort in it’s not worth wasting energy on. The whole ass or none approach as they say.
Though please Shane, enough with the capitalised middle letters (CrAzy). They’re crimes against the English language.
July 20, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I guess the point of my post is “value for money”.
Sure the web can deliver some value in most cases – but in some cases more value can be delivered by other media.
As regards government, my worry is that they’ll spend on the web in ALL cases – even when it is inappropriate – just cause they got the budget.
The reason is that they don’t feel the pain of Opportunity Cost in the same way as business.
For example, a business will regret spending money on a website that converts less customers than a newspaper ad. Government won’t because performance is not scrutinised – and so does not need to be justified – in the same way. As such, spending on poor value for money websites will continue.