Giraffe Forum

I so thoroughly disagree, although I see the point being made and I think the idea of all sorts of fragments building up to evidence and the role of web 2.0 in that as perfectly valid.

Lets take a different situation - the outdoor ladies pond at Hampstead Heath in London by way of comparable illustration. This is, without doubt, the most beautiful place in London for women, a sanctuary open to all, in which a few hardcore ladies are willing to swim all year round. The Corporation of London which maintains the ponds has tried, over the years to make a case for value for money based on socalled evidence. Value being bums in water. But this entirely misses the point of the role of the ponds as a dream, even for those who don’t swim every day or through cold snaps; as a place to be social for older ladies who might otherwise be isolated at home through the winter; as a place of celebration and community, even if it’s shuddering past someone and giving them a comradely glance as you totter on frozen feet back to the changing rooms and they stride, flipflopped, to the steps.

There’s no evidence here - just a special transformational experience open to all which a lucy few are able and willing to take the plunge in.

And I feel the same about so called evidence on the web. I’ve written papers myself and blogged, and borrowed a little in the process - I’ve certainly been quite superficial in references I’ve borrowed at times, not read the whole book, summarised inaccurately. And these borrowings and opinions, however sloppy, quickly get borrowed in their turn - there’s a mix of hard challenge, supercilious challenge and superficial borrowing that goes on that can propogate half-baked things which shouldn’t constitute evidence. I do it too. I’m not setting myself above this. There’s neither enough considered challenge, nor enough disicipline about what gets borrowed and linked and how for me yet to consider this an evidence-based process. It could be. But it’s not yet.

Hey Gerry / Nick - you are my most read, most quoted/quotable pair when it comes to web content : no bickering please.

Surely there is a before and after aspect to this?

Nick – totally agree, some of the best sites are those written from the heart, I can even live with [just] bad spelling/grammar when the writer is giving over their experience/enthusiasm/knowledge of the subject - as is often the case in small business [isn’t that their USP over big business].

That said, there is no reason why that content should not be monitored to see if is working - as suggested by Gerry. And from a marketing stand-point, the ultimate answer lies in what individual users are looking for to meet their needs.

My example of this would be in sport. I’m in the UK so I’ll use football [soccer]. The club web sites are [normally] written by an employee. They are factual, well presented, well written. But they are ‘dry’ – a lack of soul. The ‘fanzine’ type site, on the other hand, is written by a fan. Not professionally trained, not part of the club’s corporate-communications team – but they put their heart, their opinion, their belief into their content. And of course, like most supporters, if I want team news, players’ injuries, re-arranged fixtures etc – I go to the official site. If I want an opinion on who is playing well, who had a stinker on Saturday, and which new players we should sign – I go to my favourite supporter’s blog.

But then the blogger isn’t looking to meet any marketing objectives or raise income through advertising.

Obviously, this is not an issue that can be fully addressed in a blog entry and a couple of replies.

Charles, don’t worry. Gerry and I don’t bicker, and we agree on 99% of issues. Victoria, I love your use of the Hampstead Heath Ponds as an example. And I agree about the “borrowed” evidence.

Let me say a couple more things about evidence.

Recently, over the course of 12 months or so, I had the opportunity to immerse myself in a vast quantity of data and metrics, all drawn from online testing. Some fascinating stuff, much of it useful. But the other thing I discovered was that while the test data was sound, people’s analysis and interpretation of the data was not. I saw huge, unwarranted assumptions being made, time and time again. What test data actually “proves” is usually very, vary narrow. However, the publishers of this data are often tempted to make assumptions and broaden the scope of their findings, way beyond what the test actually demonstrates.

This “evidence” is then distributed across the web and taken as gospel. It is quoted and requoted. And all too often, it’s nonsense.

The more I speak to those who conduct testing and research online, the more I hear about their growing misgivings about the true validity of much of what they publish.

This is a problem, because marketers are lazy. Instead of thinking for themselves, they grab the latest published “evidence” and use it to support their next marketing presentation to their managers.

To create exceptional products, services and web sites you need a little more courage than that.

By all means, gather together all the evidence you can. But be critical of it. Don’t assume it is all accurate. Do your own thinking.

And yes, listen to your gut.

Nick

A debate that has no end… Of course, interpretation of data is an essential element after its been collected and in that interpretation, “gut” instinct will play a role since the data does not always give a definitive path to follow.

That said, what scares me are people who are so self-confident that they know the right path that they feel no need to look at any data at all… particularly anything that might conflict with long-held cherished beliefs.

The best people to work with are those with a reasonably open mind, who do want to see the data before making their next marketing move, including how to present website content to various audiences. I’m convinced that a rather large number of people don’t like data because the reality it often introduces makes decision-making more of a challenge and sometimes contradicts earlier decisions.

Not long ago I was working on a Carewords project with a university client that had just removed the words “distance learning” from the website from a belief that those words were academic jargon not used by the public… and replaced them with “online degree programs.” A quick use of Wordtracker showed that while “online degree programs” was often used in searches, “distance learning” was used more than three times as often. And when the client’s potential students completed the Carewords survey, “distance learning” was at the top of the response list.

The conclusion… use both terms in the marketing effort. A conclusion that, without the Wordtracker and survey evidence, might never have been taken.

Data can’t replace informed judgement. But making decisions without data really is pretty silly, particularly when the data, as in a Carewords survey, isn’t that difficult to get.

Nick : re ‘marketers are lazy’ – I’m sure you are right, but I would add that they are too lazy to learn the ‘science’ of interpreting data. I’ll go further and suggest it is a forgotten skill in marketing education – often because it involves an element of maths and that is seen difficult by students so they either opt out of it or fail it. Sadly such is the nature of the funding of UK Higher Education that subjects that produce ‘fails’ are withdrawn because fail=no funding [and btw, don’t worry, you’re not the first to call me Charles!].

Bob : as the ‘distance learning’ story is close to home, it’s a great example in more than one way.

Jennifer : re ‘great direct marketers’ – Claude Hopkins’ Scientific Advertising is compulsory reading on my e-marketing modules. Ignore the blatant sexism and the brands/organizations that are long gone, and I think the book is a guide to Internet marketing.

Now, I really must go and convert some more business students to the importance of good marketing.