Not too long ago, the common wisdom was that every organization or business should have one website. This website was designed to serve the needs of all users and visitors. There were many reasons for this prevailing predilection. One obvious reason was cost. Websites, at least professional websites with functions beyond displaying text, were very expensive to program and maintain. Another reason was concern for branding and common messaging. This led to the third concern, control. There must be some control over who has access to change an organizations website. There are other reasons but these are probably the big three. Are they still valid? Here are some examples of problems that arise from one website thinking: - A department within a large organization is hosting a conference for professionals in their line of work and would like to register participants online and have some exchange of ideas prior to the conference. The corporate website, which is designed for product sales and investor relations, could do the job, but the Webmaster is reluctant to make changes to suit just one department. - A nonprofit organization has launched a major fundraising campaign for a new facility. The campaign has its own slogan and brand and would benefit from the public exposure the website could give them. The campaign is advertised on the main site but is lost in the information necessary for the needs of users of the organizations services. - A small business takes on a new product line and finds that new customers are reluctant to click on a URL named consolidatedcandy.com when they are searching for thermometers. A new site with a new URL would solve that problem. - You want to run new employees through a training program and have them fill out a feedback form at the end of each step. Your IT department always has an emergency that is more urgent than the need to get these feedback forms on the site. There are probably hundreds of examples of sites that are trying too hard to be all things to all people when several sites, each targeting a distinct audience would do a better job. Why are organizations reluctant to go this route? Lets take a look at some of the reasons. Cost was mentioned in the first paragraph. News flash web sites are cheap. Sure, there are still sites that cost millions. But just because your organization has a million dollar site doesnt mean you should be forced to use it for a simple, short-term function. Setting up a professional looking function site may be possible for a few hundred dollars and you may be able to do it yourself before your IT people return your call. As far as the user is concerned, is there really any difference between clicking on to a new page or on to a new site? Branding and making sure that all communications that come from an organization share common themes, both verbally and visually, may be an issue. On the other hand, it may not be an issue. If the site is for a specific purpose and audience, why not brand it appropriately for those users, in which case, the corporate brand may take second spot to the event brand, as an example. Control of what emanates from an organization is always a balance between encouraging employee participation and creativity and ensuring there is consistency of perception. Setting up a web site may involve some policy guidelines, but it is accepted that organization cannot monitor what is said in every email or letter. So allowing for multiple web sites may be simply a similar matter of trust. Take another look at the idea that a website should be all things to all people and look into the idea of setting up separate sites for specific purposes and audiences when the need arises. So before you automatically try to change your site to accommodate every need that arises, do a little research on how easy it can be to set-up a new site to meet the new need. |
Main Page
