I recently gave a presentation to an eFinancialCareers breakfast seminar about "Making the most of web 2.0". Considering where most organisations are in regards to Web 1.0 let alone web 2.0, I made sure that at the same time as (hopefully) evangelising about the fantastic benefits that you can realise for your employer brand and linking with target talent through such platforms that are encapsulated by the Web 2.0 collective noun (or is that verb?), I also offered pragmatic advice about making sure you were ready for all that stepping into the Web 2.0 mass communication and contribution arena potentially brings with it.
If you’re in any doubt as to what opening your brand to what Web 2.0 can mean then can I direct you to Dilbert. Very recently (I think over the weekend) they’ve moved from their normal site to a beta one thatis more of a Web 2.0 style platform. Well as if they ever did – and so the debate goes.
Only 4 other words for the change: BRING BACK OLD SITE!
I really don't like the new website at all. I'm going to find a different site that aggregates the comics without all this flash garbage.
close to zero % positive feedback must be an industry first! you might be on to something there, scott.
I only signed up to get the daily strip in my e-mail. I don't think I will ever come back to this site; it's a marketing hell of pop and fizz.
The only reason I've signed up is to say how awful the new site is.
So what might we take from this:
1. Although it’s dressed up as Beta (which is kind of modern web parlance for “this excuses us from making a complete arse up of the new site”) there’s still no escaping they’ve made a royal mess of trying to take the site on a step. BAD
2. There is no getting away from the fact that Dilbert has an amazing reach of very passionate individuals who aren't afraid of engaging / being engaged across the web. GOOD.
3. Could they get a worse PR to launch their new site off the back of – there’s no doubt this is / will be right across the blogosphere? (it also fails to fill my Gadget feed for my daily Dilbert fix on my google home page). BAD.
4. The very fact that this is a format that engages with the audience and allows them to communicate with the site ensures that there can be no doubt as to how the new site is being received – and then do something about it. How much, in Web 1.0 days, would that kind of focus group have cost (and then not got right because it would only have scratched the surface of a select bunch of consumers/candidates)? GOOD.
5. Some audiences don’t deal well with change very well – and sometimes they can be very vocal. GOOD & BAD.
So you can look at this kind of event in a couple of ways – but for me. actually the test will be how ready they were / are for the negative feedback they're getting and what they do with it. And that message has to be the same whatever field you’re working in when considering Web 2.0 enhancements. I personally feel the positives still outweigh the negatives even in this extreme case (get beyond the initial shock and some of the enhancements are actually a vast improvement), but only if you’re ready to face the negatives head on, and then put the resource in place to address those and maximise on the positives.
I’ll leave you with this, perhaps the embodiment of a pure Web 1.0 or print based delivery? Maybe sometimes ignorance is indeed bliss:
Comments