Why good design still matters

agardina — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:03:39 +0000

Social media is about conversation, relationships and transparency. Where traditional media broadcasts, new media interacts. Yet, there are several foundational elements these two forms of marketing have in common. One of those is design.

As an Internet marketer, I love good content. However, good content on a bad page might get you ranked high in search engines, but it's probably not retaining your visitor long after that. When I say new media and traditional media require good design, this includes:

Information architecture - website visitors, magazine readers, television viewers - the most entertaining advertisments or campaigns in the world won't have any effect if your audience doesn't get the information they need. Before launching a Facebook Page, sending in an ad or burning to DVD, ask yourself (or someone else) - what's the ultimate goal? Does my audience need to know more about my nonprofit/corporation? Do I want them to go to my website? Make a phone call? Come visit?

Eye-catching elements - A beautifully-worded, eloquent blog post isn't part of an effective campaign unless thare are people visiting your page. Eye-catching doesn't necessarily mean visually stunning - it could include an effective headline or tie-in to current events. Design your content as well as your campaign.

Branding - If you are a nonprofit or corporation starting out on social media, know your brand. The same goes, of course, for traditional media, but it's remembered there a lot more often than online. Know your mission, vision, purpose, stakeholders and calendar inside and out. In design, emphasize your logo, brand colors and personality.

Beyond these elements, good design always considers the user experience and pass-on value.

What does good design mean to you? And, in this world of new and diverse media, how can it endure?

Pay for Play: New York Times and the Definition of Content

agardina — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:16:00 +0000

Everyone's talking about The New York Times' new plan for metered charging. In 2011, the newspaper will begin charging users for content beyond a certain (and, as of yet, unspecified) amount of articles. Blogs are buzzing, Twitter is (ha!) a-twitter - and people are all asking the same question: how much will it cost? But what they should be asking is, for what content?

As far as The New York Times is concerned, they do have one of the richest online newspaper sites. Video, audio, photo galleries, blogs and the Sunday Magazine set them apart from the crowd of "let's just move the print product online." The question is, when the Times says they'll charge after a "certain number of articles" are viewed. Are these "articles" text? Video? Photos? What about articles that go for multiple (sometimes more than 7) pages or posts that just come through a news wire?

I think that the Times has opened up a bigger can of worms than they expected. They'll be fighting a battle on several fronts: against those opposed to paying for online content and a fight to decide what their content really is and what it's actually worth. I've said before that I would (gasp!) consider paying for richer, more interactive articles & media. However, in this situation, it seems like the Times is just trying to charge for each page of the paper you flip (turn the page, you wash your hands...).

They're trying to monetize traditionally in a new media world. You can see it in their Q&A on their own site: "You will still be able to read individual articles through search sites like Google, Yahoo and Bing without charge." There are just too many factors to consider for this plan to be effective.

What do you think? Would you pay for online content?

alyssagardina.com - new media

Why good design still matters

Pay for Play: New York Times and the Definition of Content