OK so, if even people inside the organisation haven't made that mental leap to website-as-thing-in-itself, what is it that one needs to do to communicate it to the public?
All I can suggest is bite the bullet and seperate the info/content aspects of the website from the brochure aspect.
As long as they exist under the same roof, so to speak, you will have problems.
Google and Ebay work because their brand was established on the Internet.
Which means you have change from being the ABC website to being a ABC company providing news and other services (that just happens to be a website).
Maybe add an additional front page. With the logo in the center, and going left for corporate information, going right for the news/info stuff. And offering to give people a cookie to make sure that they don't have to do that again.
Also, have you every thought of 'programming' a website?
Website only content, saying to the effect, this week we will feature articles on topic X, and every day at the same time.
Or as the evening news finishes, changing the front page for a half hour afterwards with extended articles based on the news of the night...
The only thing glaringly wrong with the "We are a Public media empire" is the word "Empire". I don't think that term would go down so well!
Absolutely...it wasn't so long ago that we were actually
part
of someone else's empire. Some people think we still are. (The American one, that is. And lately I'm beginning to suspect they're right.)
Also, I don't think you necessarily need a one-sentence summary of what
the ABC
does; 99% of your user base will already know that; what's needed is a one-sentence summary of what
ABC online
does, and the fact that it's a lot more than "loads of info on your favourite shows". Still working on that one...
John, just looking at the front page, the "five second test" tells me it's basically a news portal...is that intentional?
t edit
On second thoughts, feel free not to respond if you're sick of talking about work! Sorry to bring it up...feel free to harangue me about the crapness of academia any time...
It continues to be newsy if you click on, like, the Education->Finance/Economics link. The results are subsites for different shows that feature transcripts of things that aired, and sometimes articles.
John - nice site. It's an interesting problem - this is why the BBC (who are in much the same space as you, eh?) defined their web presence as "BBCi" - as in BBC1, 2, 3, 4. It then becomes a serious part of the strategy, a channel in its own right.
Rebecca - you shouldn't have a sitemap because you shouldn't
need
one - the nav should make the structure of the site obvious on every page. And section titles should be selfexplanatory, so you know where to look.
How do you do fake tags - that message should have ended (/Nielsen). It's a nice idea, but only works for some sites. Incidentally, John, in similar circumstances, I've found that bureaucrats are happier being told about the primacy of the web by expensive consultants - it scares them and they agree!
Jim, try
t /Neilsen
at the beginning of a line.
The mnemonic for that is "t is for tag", by the way.
I hereby declare a moratorium, if that's OK with everyone, on talking about the Big Questions Being Talked About At My (our) Work. Thank you all for your input.
you shouldn't have a sitemap because you shouldn't need one
AH! I can get behind "you shouldn't NEED a sitemap". Just saying "You shouldn't have a sitemap" is a little bad and freakish to my ears, though.
I am amused by all the plotting for John and plasmo's company. I think we should charge a buffista group-mind consultant fee. We could rake in the dough--imagine all the stuff we could consult on! Of course, in John's case, it would be in Australian dollars....
t /mean taunting about non-American money
you shouldn't need one - the nav should make the structure of the site obvious on every page.
Hah. Hah. Also, it's amazing how seldom sitemaps are up to date.
