Business case for deleting content
The more you delete, the more you simplify. The more you simplify, the more you increase the chances of your customers succeeding on your website.
I recently worked with an organization that had managed to delete a substantial quantity of content from its website. It was not an easy process. In fact, it took years of effort to build up an internal consensus that actually deleting content was a good idea.
“You can’t delete that,” people would say, “because you never know when someone might need it.” Even content that had become out-of-date and was now actually misleading was defended. “I don’t have time to review or delete,” was another excuse.
Working with another organization I found a page that was old and contained content that was now clearly wrong and misleading. “You can’t delete that,” the web manager said to me tersely.
“Why not?” I replied.
“It will hurt our search engine optimization.”
It will what? This web manager-to call him a manager, I know, is stretching the meaning of the word-had become a search engine optimization fanatic. (There are quite a few out there.)
Blindly, he believed that the more pages he had, and the more content he had on each of these pages, the more likely he was to get found in search engines. (As if getting found was the Holy Grail of web management.) Bringing customers to a page with wrong content is like bringing customers into a car salesroom to show them your cars that won’t start and have scratches all over the paintwork.
Back to the website that deleted lots of its content. It was hard going. It took leadership. Compromises had to be made. Some content was not deleted but was changed so that it would not be found when customers used the search engine.
The results were more dramatic than anyone could have imagined. Customer satisfaction with the website had remained stubbornly low for several years despite many other initiatives. Well, when they deleted the content, customer satisfaction shot up. Why?
Most customers come to your website to complete top tasks. The more irrelevant and out of date pages of content you have, the greater the chances they will arrive on these pages. There is simply nothing worse than presenting a customer with useless content. It infuriates them, wastes their time, and drives them away from your website like a plague.
Every time I hear the word “redesign” I shiver a little. The website has grown more and more useless because of badly managed and out-of-date content. Management should have mandated the boring, politically difficult and thankless work of regularly removing poor quality content.
Instead, many web managers-particularly the newly appointed ones-want to do a redesign. This is much more fun. It involves hiring latte-drinking, cool-haircut web designers, who will eulogize the brand and dress up the first couple of levels of the website in shiny new graphics.
But the rot of out-of-date, badly organized content remains. The organization feels good because it has ‘done something’. But what has it done? It has engaged in the classic, ever-popular pastime of putting lipstick on a pig.
Alan Charlesworth says:
Added on November 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pmHi Gerry - as per usual, you are spot on the money.
One omission to report, however: Those “latte-drinking, cool-haircut web designers” also always wear those trendy narrow glasses. Plus, they have a tendancy to
1 not even be able to spell ‘marketing’, never mind understand the concept
2 not appreciate that it is the result of said marketing [eg sales] that is the source of the money that, ultimately, pays for the aforementioned latte, haircuts and specs. Without a ROI for the website they will swiftly become unemployed latte-drinking, cool-haircut web designers.
Brian says:
Added on November 17th, 2008 at 1:19 amI agree up to the bit about the web designers — I’m sick of bosses who will pay for project staff and buzzword-compliant websites but not for ongoing maintenance and upkeep. I accept that my web management is better than my web design or project marketing skills, but it’s easier to sell ‘new’ than ‘improved’ (certainly for anything but e-commerce (which means an indirect RoI), notably government websites).
Bob Johnson says:
Added on November 17th, 2008 at 1:21 pmMavelous Monday morning reading.
With the financial crunch for colleges and universities underway in full force now here in the U.S., more attention just might fall to fixing present sites rather than creating new ones that, as you say, spiff up the top layers and never clean the grunge beneath.
Pat McGarvey says:
Added on November 17th, 2008 at 8:06 pmAbsolutely on the mark. The problem is further exasperated by the lack of organization. The majority of our web editors, regardless of pc skill level, put most of their files at the root. This makes clean-ups and bringing new web editors up to speed a very difficult process. Not understanding directory structure is an old problem still very alive in the web world.
Jim says:
Added on November 24th, 2008 at 6:41 pmYears ago, when CD-ROM drives were new, people wanted cheap CDs to put in them. Vendors responded, and licensed old games, photo archives, whole Web sites, or anything else they could find. Somebody coined the term “shovelware” to describe this; shovel anything you have on a disc and sell it.
Some departments in our agency still follow this rule. Every memo, every version of draft documents, even random photos of public meetings get shoveled on the site. And none of it ever gets taken off. The department’s thinking is, “Some citizen will want that and they’ll have to call us for it.” No matter that the site traffic reports show only a couple of visits to that page each month, and those people are probably lost.
But even worse is when the web authors remove the links to a page, but leave all the uploaded files and photos on the server. Not only do they leave a huge mess for someone else to sort out, they also don’t realize all those obsolete files are still in Google’s index and will still be found, useless though they may be.
John says:
Added on November 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am“latte-drinking, cool-haircut web designers”
As the director of a web developers. company with a latte on my desk and an expensive haircut (it’s up to other people to decide if it’s cool), I actually take offence to your broadside against web designers. Your issue should be with those who hire design guys who don’t understand user interfaces, solutions architecture or any of the professional aspects of being a web designer. It is the fault of those who only hire people for the gloss they can provide that they’re putting lip gloss on those pig sites. Instead just build a good-looking site that has well-written content in a well-structured manner. I know you’re ranting in order to create a response, and it’s an old (but good?) marketing technique - you’re just off the ball on this one.
@Alan. If 1 is true then they wouldn’t usually have the money to do the haircuts or latte drinking. And should they be drinking espresso instead? Or tea… or filter coffee?
@Brian. Why don’t you sell ‘I’ll restructure my content so it isn’t in the original mess’ as new? And if you’re working at a company where job satisfaction is so low, have you considered moving?
@Pat. Why don’t you train your web editors properly before letting them loose on content then? I agree its a problem, but proper management (an ounce of prevention) is better than a whole month of cure.
If we live in a world where we approach websites from a coherent perspective rather than making them a marketing ‘or’ content extension, we’ll have much more satisfaction in what we produce.
Francisco J. says:
Added on November 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pmThe more you simplify the more you increase the manageability and dynamism of your website.
Excellent article, even for those too concerned with ROI. Most of the approaches related to web content management have certain “the company wins when the customer wins” feeling, but this is one of those rare occasions where both the company and the customer win immediately.
Jethro Larson says:
Added on December 1st, 2008 at 6:21 pmThanks for the article. It’s one of those things that seems blatantly obvious once you spell it out but that people get wrong often.
I’ll be sharing this with some of the other departments.
Benjamin says:
Added on December 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pmI too took offense at the remarks towards designers. And yes I am one. I was going to post a response but after reading John’s I feel no need to except to say - well said John.