I'm the co-owner of Confluent Forms LLC, a boutique firm providing web design, web development, branding, graphic design and custom software development services. We incorporated in January 2002 and have worked with over 200 clients during that time, many with on-going relationships lasting 5+ years.
I believe that your website should never stop innovating; it can continually be improved upon, learning from your Google Analytics and Google Webmaster tools how it can accomplish more for your business goals. I believe that a strong content strategy, coupled with great design, intuitive information architecture, and a well-developed and managed web presence can be empowering tools to the success of a business or non-profit.
A4. I'm glad you raised the metrics of BuzzFeed, David. Amy and I both commented on a recent blog post, that shared a case study of mobile geo-fencing by Dunkin Donuts, and how it was exciting to see the success.
Yet its "success" was 3.6% conversion - less, actually, when you realize that 3.6% was in itself a percentage of a secondary action. So, the click-through rate was actually something like 1.9% - and this campaign was being lauded as a major success story.
If we're celebrating snack-sized content in the same way, and looking at the cover metrics versus the deeper dive metrics, then is it any wonder so many sites are trying to emulate the BuzzFeed approach?
Everyone is applying all the same conversion metrics to these new methods. But I thought everyone's been crying out all this time saying how amazing social media and blogs are, how the engagement and conversions are so high and so much better than the old ways, and how we can measure it all!
Then they get excited about 1.9% conversion.
Look - if 1.9% is good, then great! I guess it was a success. But if that's good, doesn't that still mean that someone's doing something wrong? Aren't we supposed to be able to laser-focus our efforts instead of throwing spaghetti against the wall?