4 Ways to Make Your Website Work Better

“Make your website work better than what?” you might ask. Better than it has. Better than it will if you decide to make changes or build a new site based on some vague notion that the site isn’t working now.

“Make your website work better than what?” you might ask. Better than it has. Better than it will if you decide to make changes or build a new site based on some vague notion that the site isn’t working now.

1. Define Success

Moving past vague notions means finding out what really is and is not working on your website. Which in turn means defining what the website is supposed to accomplish. Without the end goal in mind, you may as well stick with vague notions, because solid data can only lead the way if you know where you want to go.

2. Dive Into the Data

Once you have defined your goals its time to dive into the data that will provide you the ability to do a real quantitative examination of your site.

For most sites, Google Analytics data is all the data you’ll ever need. I have written elsewhere about the most basic analytics data points to track, so don’t let the overwhelming amount of information stop you in your tracks. (And I’m happy to chat with you if you have questions about diving deeper.)

The data should provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of your website — what areas to double down on and what you need to shore up.

3. Prospect Perspective

Once you’ve established that quantitative framework you have to decide what to do with the data you’ve found. In other words, the quantitative information leads to some qualitative questions. For example, data on how long a visitor spends on your site and how many pages the average visitor views naturally lead to questions about how to get visitors to stay longer and view more pages.

One of the surest ways to increase engagement is to double- and triple-check that your website is written and presented from a prospect’s perspective. Your firm’s internal org chart or product lines aren’t typically going to matter to a prospect. Instead, arrange the information on your site to answer all of a prospect’s questions in one place.

For example, rather than separating services completely from case studies, the services pages should include sidebar links to the case studies most relevant to that service. The goal is to bring they information to the visitor, not to make them figure out your website’s organizational logic.

Be sure that you’re taking into account not just their interests, but also their timing. You’ll need different types of content for prospects who are just beginning their journey and prospects who are much closer to making a decision.

4. Focus on Benefits and Outcomes

Laundry detergent bottles don’t tout “20% more alcohol ethoxylate!” They tout 20 percent more whitening power. You need to follow the same pattern because no-one really cares about the process; they care about the outcome. Focusing on benefits and outcomes is another part of marketing with the prospect’s perspective in mind.

However, the laundry detergent packaging also offers a cautionary tale: nobody believes “better” anymore. We’re so inundated with advertising claims, that even with “proof” in the form of hard data, we’re dubious of all claims we can’t see with our own eyes.

Focus instead on differentiators and you remove the good/better/best evaluation from the equation. You still have to back up your differentiation claims with evidence in order to best your competitors, but building credibility for that comparison should be easier.

Too Big to Fail – But Not Too Big to Suck

On a recent “Real Time With Bill Maher” show, Maher responded to the announcement that Time Warner Cable would merge with Comcast Corp. in a $45 billion purchase. He noted that, combined, the two cable systems represent 19 of the 20 largest U.S. markets; and, apart from suppliers like Dish and DirecTV, they have no competitors in these metros. Further, Maher said, the two companies have the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any cable system. So, as he asked his panelists, where is the value for customers in this merger if both companies are known to have questionable service performance?

On a recent “Real Time With Bill Maher” show, Maher responded to the announcement that Time Warner Cable would merge with Comcast Corp. in a $45 billion purchase. He noted that, combined, the two cable systems represent 19 of the 20 largest U.S. markets; and, apart from suppliers like Dish and DirecTV, they have no competitors in these metros. Further, Maher said, the two companies have the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any cable system. So, as he asked his panelists, where is the value for customers in this merger if both companies are known to have questionable service performance?

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will, of course, have a great deal to say about whether this merger goes through or not. During the past couple of decades, we’ve seen a steady decline in the number of cable companies, from 53 at one point to only six now. Addressing some of the early negative reaction to its planned purchase of TWC-which would increase Comcast’s cable base to 30 million subscribers from the 22 million it currently has (a bit less than 30 percent of the overall market)-Comcast has already stated that it will make some concessions to have the merger approved. But, that said, according to company executives, the proposed cost savings and efficiencies that will “ultimately benefit customers” are not likely to either reduce monthly subscription prices or even cause them to rise less rapidly.

Comcast executives have stated that the value to consumers will come via “quality of service, by quality of offerings and by technological innovations.” David Cohen, their Executive VP, said: “Putting these two companies together will not deprive a single customer in America of a choice he or she will have today.” (Opens as a PDF) He also said, “I don’t believe there’s any way to argue that consumers are going to be hurt from a price perspective as a result of this transaction.” But, that said, he also admitted, “Frankly, most of the factors that go into customer bills are beyond our control.” Not very encouraging.

As anyone remotely familiar with Comcast’s history will understand, this is not the first time the company has navigated the river of communications company consolidation: 1995, Scripps, 800,000 subscribers, 1998, Jones Intercable, 1.1 million subscribers; 2000, Lenfest Communications, 1.3 million subscribers.

In 2002, Comcast completed acquisition of AT&T Broadband, in a deal worth $72 billion. This increased the company’s base to its current level of 22 million subscribers, and gave it major presence in markets like Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Philadelphia and San Francisco-Oakland. In a statement issued by Comcast at the time the purchase was announced, again there was a claim that the merger with AT&T would benefit all stakeholders: “Combining Comcast with AT&T Broadband is a once in a lifetime opportunity that creates immediate value and positions the company for additional growth in the future. Shareholders, employees, and customers alike are poised to reap considerable benefits from this remarkable union.”

There have been technological advances, additional content, and enhanced service, during the ensuing 13 years. But “immediate value” and “considerable benefits”? Having been professionally involved with customer research conducted at the time of this merger, there was genuine question regarding the value perceived by the newly acquired AT&T customers. In a study among customers who discontinued with Comcast post-merger, and also among customers who had been Comcast customers or AT&T customers prior to the merger, poor picture quality (remember, these were the days well before HD), service disruption and high/continually rising prices were the key reasons given for defection to a competitor.

Conversely, when asked to rate their current suppliers on both key attribute importance (a surrogate measure of performance expectation) and performance itself, the highest priorities were all service-related:

  • Reliability of cable service
  • Availability of customer service when needed
  • Speed of service problem resolution
  • Responsiveness of customer service staff

On all principal service attributes except “speed of service problem resolution,” the new supplier was given higher ratings than either Comcast or AT&T. And there were major gaps in all of the above areas. Overall, close to 90 percent of these defected customers said they would be highly likely to continue the relationship with their new supplier. When correlation analysis was performed, pricing and service performance were the key driving factors. In addition, even if Comcast were now able to offer services that overcame their reasons for defection, very few (only about 10 percent) said they would be willing to become Comcast customers again.

Finally, we’ve often focused on unexpressed and unresolved complaints as leading barometers, or indicators, of possible defection. Few of the customers interviewed indicated problems with their current suppliers; however, as in other studies, problem and complaint issues were frequently surfaced for both Comcast and AT&T.

It should be noted that having lost a significant number of customers to Verizon’s FiOS, Comcast has a winback program under way, leveraging quotes from subscribers who have returned to the Xfinity fold. In the usual Macy’s/Gimbel’s customer acquisition and capture theater of war, this marks a marketing change for Comcast. As often observed (and even covered in an entire book, with my co-author, consultant Jill Griffin), winback marketing strategies are rather rarely applied, but can be very successful.

One of the key consumer concerns, especially as it may impact monthly bills, is the cost and control of content. For example, Netflix has agreed to pay Comcast for an exclusive direct connection into its network. As one media analyst noted, “The largest cable company in the nation, on the verge of improving its power to influence broadband policy, is nurturing a class system by capitalizing on its reach as a consumer Internet service provider (ISP).” This could, John C. Abell further stated, be a “game-changer.” Media management and control such as this has echoes of Big Brother for customers, and it is all the more reason Comcast should be paying greater attention to the evolving needs, as well as the squeeze on wallets, of its customers.

Perhaps the principal lesson here, assuming that the FCC allows this merger to proceed and ultimately consummate, will be for Comcast to be proactive in building relationships and service delivery. There’s very little that will increase consumer trust more than “walking the talk,” delivering against the claims of what benefits customers will stand to receive. Conversely, there’s little that will undermine trust and loyalty faster, and more thoroughly, than underdelivery on promises.