Comments on: What’s Next? http://www.eministrynotes.com/2007/01/30/whats-next/ A place to record notes on effective web ministry Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:33:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: jerry http://www.eministrynotes.com/2007/01/30/whats-next/#comment-32965 jerry Wed, 31 Jan 2007 14:03:54 +0000 http://www.eministrynotes.com/2007/01/30/whats-next/#comment-32965 Yes, the graphics on both these sites is definitely vintage 1999, although we updated the EveryStudent.com look a couple years ago. Here is why I don't think it is a major factor on EveryStudent.com. If you have the right marketing strategy, the visual appeal of the site is far less important. Remember, Google brings a majority of our visitors to EveryStudent.com - through simple ads (four lines of text on a white background) or search results on a very plain page. An analogy: Selling fishing supplies in Florida is going to work better than selling fishing supplies in Arizona (at least around the desert). The packaging on the lures is really insignificant next to this consideration. Our conclusion: The effectiveness of online marketing dwarfs other factors. While graphics might affect return visits, EveryStudent.com is not designed for return visits. That is not the goal of the site. So graphic presentation has not been the highest priority on EveryStudent.com, and we have seen consistently strong response. On the other hand, these factors are not as true of startingwithGod.com. And it has also not received much of our attention prior to just recently when we created a team to work on this whole approach (rather than a single person). Maybe this will be a factor we change as we learn about what is effective on this site. Thanks for the comment. Yes, the graphics on both these sites is definitely vintage 1999, although we updated the EveryStudent.com look a couple years ago.

Here is why I don’t think it is a major factor on EveryStudent.com.

If you have the right marketing strategy, the visual appeal of the site is far less important. Remember, Google brings a majority of our visitors to EveryStudent.com - through simple ads (four lines of text on a white background) or search results on a very plain page.

An analogy: Selling fishing supplies in Florida is going to work better than selling fishing supplies in Arizona (at least around the desert). The packaging on the lures is really insignificant next to this consideration.

Our conclusion: The effectiveness of online marketing dwarfs other factors.

While graphics might affect return visits, EveryStudent.com is not designed for return visits. That is not the goal of the site.

So graphic presentation has not been the highest priority on EveryStudent.com, and we have seen consistently strong response.

On the other hand, these factors are not as true of startingwithGod.com. And it has also not received much of our attention prior to just recently when we created a team to work on this whole approach (rather than a single person). Maybe this will be a factor we change as we learn about what is effective on this site.

Thanks for the comment.

]]> By: Jayson http://www.eministrynotes.com/2007/01/30/whats-next/#comment-32829 Jayson Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:15:42 +0000 http://www.eministrynotes.com/2007/01/30/whats-next/#comment-32829 I do love these sites and am whole-hearted at promoting them (mostly ES.com), but they are both in desperate need of a re-design (swG.com moreso than ES.com). One of the consistent holdbacks to me delving very far into a site that I'm not familiar with is a design that is either hard on my eyes or with a user-unfriendly interface. The visual design may be shallow and definitely unfortunate, but I'm sure it's the case for others as well. It would be unfortunate, if that's the case, that students would miss out on the content for the sake of the design. For example, my guess is that more students would be likely to visit the very Web2 design of eBible.com than Bible Gateway even if BG has a more thorough search feature just because of the simple Google-esque design of the front page. I realize that it's less than possible with our sites because of the amount of content, but even some updated stock photos would be a good start. I'm not sure if was you who designed the sites, and if it was I don't mean this to come off harsh at all - they were very good design when ES came out, but aesthetic of the web has changed significantly since then. I'm ranting, sorry. Just some feedback. I do love these sites and am whole-hearted at promoting them (mostly ES.com), but they are both in desperate need of a re-design (swG.com moreso than ES.com). One of the consistent holdbacks to me delving very far into a site that I’m not familiar with is a design that is either hard on my eyes or with a user-unfriendly interface. The visual design may be shallow and definitely unfortunate, but I’m sure it’s the case for others as well. It would be unfortunate, if that’s the case, that students would miss out on the content for the sake of the design.

For example, my guess is that more students would be likely to visit the very Web2 design of eBible.com than Bible Gateway even if BG has a more thorough search feature just because of the simple Google-esque design of the front page. I realize that it’s less than possible with our sites because of the amount of content, but even some updated stock photos would be a good start.

I’m not sure if was you who designed the sites, and if it was I don’t mean this to come off harsh at all - they were very good design when ES came out, but aesthetic of the web has changed significantly since then.

I’m ranting, sorry. Just some feedback.

]]>