Thread Intelligence Article

April 24, 2003
By Dirk Knemeyer

There is no one-size-fits-all “best practices” for web development. Each project needs to adopt a different approach to content, graphics, architecture and experience design. This is because the business goals pertaining to each client situation need to be successfully navigated, both in the big picture and for each individual website.

Most sites carefully balance multiple goals. The two primary goals for any business website are the same goals that shape everything pertaining to business: to increase income – which can be addressed in many different ways, from branding to online purchase opportunities – or to decrease costs, most typically accomplished through improving communication and maximizing data storage and retrieval.

The weakness of a specialized approach

In our experience, many companies that produce websites are heavily focused in specific niche disciplines – be it flashy creative, or a very systematic focus on simplicity and architecture, or brilliant application development. The focus is on the “great tools” in which the firm specializes, not the business goals and organizational needs of the client. Then, even if the specialty provider does focus on business goals and producing a solution outside of their firm’s strengths, the final product is likely to be less successful than the client deserves.

For example, let us consider three different companies that want to invest in their websites, each with the same, relatively straightforward business goal: to increase profits through driving sales and marketing, with a focus on brand building. For this hypothetical example, imagine that these companies are Nike®, The Wall Street Journal® and Amazon.com®.

In order to build a credible brand, these companies need to speak to somewhat different audiences, in dramatically different ways. More, drilling down to the technology and the medium, Nike’s brand strategy is likely to include an emphasis on innovation, style and urbanity. The Wall Street Journal’s brand strategy is likely to include a focus on intelligence, stability and prosperity. Amazon.com’s brand strategy is likely to focus on selection, ease of participation and security.

A web development company with a background and competencies in the work of branding would likely be a good choice for Nike. A web development company with backgrounds in journalism and Jakob Nielsen-style “usability” would be sensible for The Wall Street Journal. A web development company with top programmers and application developers would be a sensible partner for Amazon.com. The needs of each client – sharing the same business goal – are dramatically different.

Appearance versus content

While many different things go into strong web design, at the end of the day, the main tension is between the content – the words and information – and the appearance – the graphics and visual elements. Assuming even an average level of quality for all elements, the proportion and juxtaposition of these is vital.

For a client like Nike, which invests many millions of dollars into mass brand building and image development, appearance must not be sacrificed for content. While strong content should always be a goal, for a client like Nike, image is in fact everything.

By contrast, The Wall Street Journal’s website must be driven by content. After all, their product is content. If the content is not properly positioned and emphasized, it impacts their brand and weakens the product itself.

Different yet, Amazon.com’s site must have a relative balance. Content is certainly important as the web is the primary medium through which they provide information. However, so is a visual presence that differentiates them from other retail product providers. Because their very storefront is online, they need the maximum amount of “curb appeal” in this precious, limited opportunity.

Determining the correct balance and proper design is something that should not be left to graphic designers or information architects – it is the unique playground of Information Designers. It requires a generalist perspective, driven solely by business goals and well-versed in all elements of successful development but with a bias toward none.

The shiniest toy on the block

We all naturally gravitate toward things that we perceive as better. This inherent tendency has made countless futurists and technology professionals fabulously wealthy. But, while it might be “cool” and “fun” to allocate major budget dollars to enterprise application development projects, is it really a good business decision?

A salesperson can make anything sound like it will really help your business. But will it? Just because we can automate your internal global communications infrastructure does not mean it actually makes sense for your organization – no matter what type of fancy charts, graphs and statistics the sales person trots out.

Developing the right application is far less expensive than developing the best application. Salespeople try to sell the best application: it is easier to sell because it is so impressive, plus the income and profits it generates will better line their pockets. But the most important question is being ignored: Is it the right application for the client’s unique business needs?

Going back to our three examples, the latest and greatest enterprise application might well be a real asset to Amazon.com, a company that relies on their online application for their very existence. By contrast, the business goals of Nike or The Wall Street Journal would almost certainly dictate a more incremental approach.

One of my favorite stories to tell is about the time an important client asked my company to develop a state-of-the-art interactive CD-ROM to support their sales efforts. The client had earmarked over $100,000 for this project. Knowing their strategic business situation, I came back and told them to transfer the budget over to their research and development group, knowing that the biggest hurdle to their closing sales was not the absence of a shiny new CD-ROM but the absence of a product that could be credibly sold. They took this advice and spent little money with our company in the process. However, when they want to work with a partner they can trust, a partner who looks out for their best interests, they are going to call the Information Designer in Toledo, Ohio.

The right application is often not the best application. The right application is sometimes no application. Our clients rarely need the shiniest toy on the block; it is about time that more of us have the vision and ethics to acknowledge that.

Repeat it until you accept it: business goals, business goals, business goals

The business goals of your client are all that matter in the relationship. Forget what they want; deliver what they need. Nowhere is this more important than in web development, where the work we do can touch the business needs of our clients in so many rich ways.

This is where an Information Design partner is so valuable. By virtue of understanding, respecting and equally supporting the myriad different potentialities of web design, an Information Design partner helps to determine the best possible business solution for your unique business situation and successfully deploy it. There is no question that the recommended solution is the best one, for an Information Design partner has nothing to gain by advocating one tool or approach over another.

Editor – Wendy Kadens

  Download PDF file (27k)