The annual siteIQ eBusiness rankings just hit the airwaves. This year’s report is a whopper. 95 pages, 108 graphs – and our usual politically incorrect take on what it all means.

Here’s how some of the 2011 rankings shake out.

Overall Performance.  IBM.com and Cisco.com share the winner’s podium.

2011 was the year that IBM.com transformed itself from a large, aging duckling into a swan to be reckoned with (at least above the water line). There’s been many a late night for the IBM.com team—and the “wow” factor inherent in its new design has gone a long way toward keeping it in the top slot this year.

It’s been many a moon since Cisco.com had its overnight makeover—but this team’s intrepid iterative design strategy keeps this site fresh and innovative season after season. Cisco.com has building a better mousetrap down to a science—and that’s why it bumped IBM.com over and shares the #1 spotlight this year.

Usability & Effectiveness | The best hold their own

It’s no surprise that the overall winners—IBM.com and Cisco.com—also aced the usability & effectiveness tests. Both teams have been busy performing some pretty substantial site facelifts over the past year—and their high wire acts paid some nice dividends.

CA.com, IBM Software Group and Symantec.com complete the top five usability roster. CA.com held its own (third place), IBM Software jumped into fourth (from 6^th), and Symantec.com — last year’s usability darling — slipped from third to fifth.

Symantec.com’s fall from grace sounds like bad news for the team, but it’s actually a bit of high praise. After all, most of the Symantec.com site hasn’t really changed much over the past 36 months. That’s a virtual lifetime in Internet years. Staying in the top five is a testament to all of the hard work that went into this site’s base design and architecture. But times are changing—and it will be interesting to see if Symantec.com can keep up.

Content, features & capabilities | The same dance continues and Dell finally gets its bragging rights.

Mirror, mirror on the wall. Which is the biggest Website of all? Once the mist in the mirror clears, you’ll be looking at HP.com. In fact, this year, HP.com succeeded in getting the top spot all to itself by bumping off its long-standing 80 pound rival gorilla IBM.com. If you squint real hard in the mirror, you’ll see Cisco.com quietly making the donuts in third place.

While IBM, HP, and Cisco executed their complex kabuki dances, Dell.com was busy thumping some other sites down the Index. This year, it took the top spot in the online support category after watching HP and IBM toss the winner’s baton back and forth. We’ve always challenged Dell.com’s self-proclaimed assertion that its support was the biggest & best in the business. Now it’s (partially) true.

Subscribers can pick it up in the Library right now. If you’re not a subscriber you can pick up a copy from the site here.

Subscribers Login Here. Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

This got me thinking about what makes up a best practice. Here’s my take:

Best practices don’t accidentally happen. They are the reward gained from identifying a goal, developing or implementing the best tools, behaviors, or ideas that achieve that goal, and executing them.

Identifying the goal is important. It is the single spark that causes improvement to happen. But a goal must be changed based on resources and circumstances. Flexibility sustains momentum.

The tools and behaviors implemented don’t have to be revolutionary. They don’t even need to be new. But they must achieve the goal in the most efficient and graceful way possible. Innovation is extra credit.

But execution is the one absolute requirement. Ideas that aren’t executed don’t exist. It doesn’t matter if the final product is borne from inspiration or imitation. What matters is that it makes something better than it was. It moves the ball down the field. It achieves the goal.

Overall: Oracle.com
Usability & Effectiveness: IBM Software Group
Content, Features & Capabilities: Oracle.com

With two companies performing complete site overhauls–and one nudging its site into place over the past year—rankings were bound to change in 2011. So which sites were the major movers and shakers over the past 12 months? Which ones are the sites to watch through 2012? Here’s the rundown from first place to last:

1. This year Oracle.com retained its title as the content “big foot” on the siteIQ eBusiness Index (1)—and this footprint worked to deliver it the first place ranking. On the other hand, a broader look at the enterprise software industry shows that Oracle.com doesn’t have any room to rest on its laurels. Now it has CA.com gunning to be an enterprise software Goliath and IBM Software is upping the usability bar. To compete in the future, Oracle.com needs to up its game.
2. Incremental change was the name of the game at CA.com. That’s not to say there were any major splashes or “ta da’s”. Just a series of re-launches and endless tweaking that ended up creating a noticeable transformation. On the other hand, one look at CA.com’s scores and rankings shows that change isn’t always a good thing. CA.com lost its #1 usability ranking (dropped to third)—and is the only site that registered a net decrease in its usability & effectiveness score.
3. IBM Software’s latest site redesign is part of IBM.com’s Centennial revamp that is trying to change all of the rules. Here, The IBM Software team’s hard work—and CA.com’s tumble—delivered it the first place usability & effectiveness ranking and the only Good Practice rating in the group. The site’s renovation also delivered more content & features—but the real story is the site’s impressive string of 13 “Good Practice” usability ratings. The fact that its online communities are now visible on the site didn’t hurt either.
4. We didn’t add Symantec.com to the enterprise software mix this year because it’s selling large, complex software solutions. We added it because the enterprise systems “big wigs” are continuing to move down market with SMB and SaaS solutions that rely on the kinds of marketing and eCommerce capabilities that have long been a Symantec.com forte. So how did Symantec.com fare when compared to its mega software brethren? On the one hand, there’s no doubt that Symantec’s content & features are the size of a newt (relatively speaking). On the other hand, Symantec.com proves that small can be mighty. It usability & effectiveness debuted at second place—which proves that it knows how to capitalize on every single asset.
5. In April the German giant SAP.com unveiled a ginormous make-over that is still a work in progress. But if early scores are any indication, this new site is likely to give other sites a run for their money. Within a month of launch, this partial implementation was already moving the site’s content and usability & effectiveness scoring needles in the right direction. It ranks fifth to be sure—but its strong showing tells us that SAP.com will be a serious competitor within the next 12 months.
6. SAS.com’s scores paint a picture of a site that is running hard to stay in place. Here, substantial corporate marketing-class additions and improved communities visibility delivered the largest increase in overall content, features & capabilities scores—but burning the content midnight oil didn’t move its usability & effectiveness scores one whit. It ends up in 6th place (that’s dead last) with a 50.96% score and two stars (below average).

There’s plenty more rankings & ratings – and our take on the evaluation results – in our new Enterprise Software Report.

(1) Note: Oracle.com’s hardware product areas (a.k.a. Sun Microsystems hardware & systems) were not reviewed for this industry segment.

Subscribers Login Here.
Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

Kenna Dian: Don’t Bother

Intel.com’s latest redesign is like buying an exotic car. It is visually striking, can be fun to drive, and has more bells and whistles than other cars on the road. But going exotic has tradeoffs. Choosing to pass on getting the full options package can leave the driving experience far less exciting than advertised. In fact, it may even break down–always in inconvenient locations. And the unique controls and design that seems edgy and innovative in the beginning quickly become confusing and irritating.

I really want to buy Intel.com’s exotic new design. But in the end, I simply can’t afford the time, effort and resources I need to invest to make it work. Some of my biggest gripes are:

The product content is like a Chinese dinner. There’s a nice selection of information available, but it is difficult to find anything really substantial in a single location.

Too many things that make you go “huh?” This site presents links, link summaries, and even images, that make no sense, are meaningless, or–at best–make the visitor work to know what they’re for.

Content below the fold is often invisible. Design misfires can make the page appear to be only one screen load when in fact there is much more. Unfortunately, this invisible content is some of the most critical for visitors wanting to buy Intel’s products.

All Flash, no pan. One thing quickly becomes apparent while surfing this site. If you don’t have Adobe Flash Player you won’t just have a mediocre experience—you will be missing information.

Marty:  Don’t Bother (with a couple of moments of brilliance)

I hate to say this Kenna, but my vote is split on the new Intel.com Website. On the plus side, this new design does a great job of pushing the whole negative design, smart search, ubiquitous videos, and mega menu balls down the field. It also had more doodads than a gourmet kitchen. On other hand, it’s also the poster child for some design decisions that should send smart teams right back to the drawing board.

When all of these pros and cons were added up and weighted, I ended up on the “Danger Will Robinson” side of the ledger. Here’s three reasons why.

Intel.com joins HP.com at the forefront of a very tricky (and IMHO dangerous) design trend—flexible designs. These layouts adjust to different screen sizes and resolutions so Websites can adapt to a potpourri of different user devices and platforms. The laptop. The desktop. The tablet. The phone.  Instead of designing a Website for each platform—why not use a flexible design that can act as a “one-size-fits-all” solution? Well, one reason is that it doesn’t always work. [There's more on why in the complete review published in our Case Studies Library--see the link below].

The name of this game is Apple, and it plays by its own rules. Here, the problem lies in the fact that Intel.com’s cool new tools rely on Flash—which is a non-starter on Apple devices.  That means Intel.com is about 150 million devices short of a Happy Meal.

This site is harder to crack than Fort Knox.  Intel.com’s new home page is a pluperfect example of a new genre. Visual.  Edgy.  Spare. Out of the norm. Unfortunately, it also seems to operate under the premise that most visitors want to start their journey by searching for the content located inside the site. I don’t know about you, but conducting a “hail Mary” search without any road signs is my activity of last resort.  Sorry Intel. D-

Read the complete review in the siteIntelligence Case Studies Library. If you are a subscriber, click here to check it out (login required).

If you are not a subscriber you can learn more about this service here.

Other Stuff to do:

Learn about how IBM.com is changing up the rules in the Visions of IBM.com’s grand redesign emerge blog post.

Overall: IBM.com
Usability: IBM.com
Content, Features & Capabilities: HP.com

But the siteIQ eBusiness Index is always about more than just rankings, ratings, and numbers. So what’s the story about what happened over the past 12 months? Here’s the rundown from first place to last:

1. IBM.com lost sole ownership of its first place position–and with that some bragging rights. Although they added another “Best Practice” rating under their belt, they lost three “Good Practice” ratings due to HP.com’s massive site footprint—which only got larger over the past year. Nevertheless, IBM.com still holds its own—albeit by a margin that is half of what it used to be.
2. Believe it or not, HP.com has a lot to crow about. It garnered a first place ranking for Content, Features & Capabilities, making it the most robust enterprise systems site on the siteIQ Index. It also added another “Best Practice” rating in eCommerce, bringing its total up from two to three. However these accolades can’t hide a dismal ranking in site usability, which just happens to be what really counts this year. Just goes to show, just because your site is big doesn’t mean its usable.
3. Not surprisingly, Dell.com spent the last 12 months focused on core marketing and selling requirements: product marketing, online communities, call to action, and eCommerce. This has always been its tactical modus operandi. Overall improvements in corporate marketing areas are also evident—the most notable being a massive increase in its investor relations.
4. Oracle.com added site content and features across every area of the site—except support. Meanwhile usability scores stayed flat. However, the scoring trend shows that Oracle.com tends to do a more with less. In general, areas that had fewer content additions showed stronger usability scores than zones that went through major overhauls.
5. EMC.com’s story of the past year is largely one of treading water. With the exception of its tanking online support scores, all other areas received minor investments in content and features that resulted in minor upticks in its usability scores. Corporate and product marketing areas got the most attention. Corporate blogs made the biggest splash—from being a no-show in 2010 to a score of almost 60% in 2011.
6. In the past 12 months Intel.com introduced the barest glimmer of an eCommerce facility and corporate blogs area. These two additions alone are responsible for virtually all of Intel.com’s scoring increases over the past year. Most other categories registered less than 1% change in content or usability scoring. (1)

To get all the gritty details–star ratings, competitive rankings, and detailed scoring–by category, by Website, and overall–click here to buy the report.

(1) At the time of this post, Intel.com introduced a new Website that had not been launched before the siteIQ eBusiness Index Enterprise Systems evaluations. siteIQ Best Practice Case Studies detailing the Intel.com redesign launch will be available in the Best Practice Case Study Library.

Subscribers Login Here.
Non-subscribers can learn more about The Library here.

Each of the case studies focuses on a different design or content best practice—but for my money, the “cult of personality” discussion is a compelling moment of brilliance. It looks like the IBM Smarter Planet team has actually cracked the code on how to marry social media behaviors with the company’s core business propositions. Here’s a thirty second summary of Kenna’s POV.

For the bulk of its 100 years, IBM has been the icon of the monolithic, faceless organization. The Machine. The Man. The System. This reputation was so entrenched that is employees were endowed with a unique nickname: “the blue suits”. Thus, it’s surprising – no shocking – that IBM should be the first company to successfully transform itself from a corporation into a clan. And its Website is playing no small role in its metamorphosis.

The strategy is brilliant because

• It leverages IBM’s core sales model (building relationships), gives it the golden opportunity to demonstrate expertise and passion, and translates a faceless corporation into actual people who are experts in their fields.
• It works by using photos, dynamic profiles, and links to start conversations.
• It wraps these attributes in a savvy design that takes advantage of new less is more white space trends and short, snappy & relevant content that is second to none.

And then there are the graphics. Relevant charts with factoids. Eye catching video panels. Moments of visual whimsy and delight (my favorite is the carrot that illustrates how long it takes to get from the farm to a store in California). This from that old stuffy IBM?

Library subscribers can read more about how and why this site works, view a video, and download these case studies at http://bit.ly/eOMKjU. Have your log in credentials handy—or contact us if you’ve forgotten them.

I don’t talk about Oracle.com much. In fact, I speak about them so little that one would be lead to believe that I hold a grudge against them. Sure, they unceremoniously erased one of the best enterprise systems sites from the Internet–Sun.com. But, I won’t hold that against them. No, I don’t write about them much for one reason:

My Mother taught me if you don’t have something nice to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.

There’s a litany of issues I have with Oracle.com ranging from design to innovation (or rather a lack thereof). But today, my rant is about Oracle.com’s content.

With communities and social networking becoming a requirement for IT Websites, product and service marketing content is becoming more focused on visitors’ needs. The prose tells them how the company’s products and services will solve their problems and help achieve their business goals. Some connect their technologies and benefits with real-world scenarios that visitors relate to. The best of the best even make it downright engaging to read.

The new message: “It’s all about you.”

Let’s compare this content approach to that on Oracle.com. A review of over twenty hardware and software product pages showed that Oracle’s name is mentioned a whopping 5 times more often than the words “you” or “yours” on a single page*. On some that number increased to over 10 to one. Combine that with page layouts that always begin with essays about “Why Oracle” and articles about its industry leadership, and you only get one message:

“It’s all about Oracle.”

But Oracle is not alone

HP.com also suffers from the “all about me” disease. HP.com’s ratios almost perfectly mirror Oracle.com’s. Product page content often mention HP five times more often than “you”. This increases to 10 to 1 on pages that provide lists of links to its products or related documents. HP.com does have one saving grace. Its page layouts mix up the content so it’s less obvious that HP is tooting its own horn.

The Bottom Line

The fact is people buy products because they have a problem that needs solved—not because the company is (or thinks it is) fabulous. Tout the product. Relate it to visitors’ needs. If they can understand this and it solves their problem, they will buy it.

What to avoid:

• Sentences that begin with the company name: if there is more than one, there is too many
• Listing the company name before actual product names: if visitors are on the company site, they know what company made the product.
• Topics that only speak about the company: this includes “Why [insert company name]?” content that runs more than 3 sentences.

How do the other enterprise systems sites fare?

IBM.com (software and hardware products) | The ratio of the usage of “IBM” to “you” or “yours” was a surprising 1:1 on many IBM Software page. In fact, on some pages the word “you” was used twice as much as “IBM”. IBM.com’s hardware product content does not fare quite as well with a ratio of 3 to 1.

Intel.com Business | The Intel.com site did not fare quite as well as IBM.com. On average Intel’s name was mentioned 3 times more often than the word “you”.

*Navigation panels were not included. Product names and links located in the body of the page were.

Did you hear that the blue jean giant The Gap announced a new logo? Yeah, it didn’t create a blip on my radar either. I work in the tech biz, and I don’t shop at The Gap.

But what did get my attention is how it’s re-branding effort bombed (and was subsequently pulled) solely based on the public outcry on social media outlets.

There are many blog posts and news outlets weighing in on The Gap’s misguided design decision, and the stunning influence social media can have on corporate decisions. Some blogs even present the intriguing (if not a bit far-fetched) hypothesis that The Gap’s social media strategy was actually an ingeniously crafted publicity stunt formulated to increase holiday sales and bolster waning stock performance.

So was the The Gap’s decision to announce its new logo using Facebook and Twitter a public gaffe or social coup? President of Gap Brand North America, Marka Hansen believes they “did not go about this the right way.” Sorry Ms. Hansen, I disagree. To my mind, it is proof positive that when a company employs social media properly—intentionally or accidentally—it strikes gold.

What did The Gap get right?

1. They published the announcement on two different social media outlets instead of one. This lets them “manage the message” by combining Facebook’s robust and flexible platform, with Twitter’s “cut to the chase” schema and vast reach. In social media, two forums are always better than one.
2. They have the opportunity to glean far more information than focus groups and studies can ever deliver. Their study sample is The Gap’s most loyal customers and company watchers. Its demographic is worldwide. The responses are genuine and unvarnished. Best of all—it’s virtually free. If The Gap’s number crunchers are smart, they’ll catalog responses that go beyond opinions about the logo. There is gold in them there hills.
3. They quickly responded to public feedback by pulling the new logo and publishing a press release focusing on how their customers influenced in their decision. The company has even offered customers to submit their own designs going forward. Nothing fosters customer loyalty more than showing they are valued.

What did they do wrong? From the tenor of Ms. Hansen’s latest press release, it would seem that The Gap and its branding agency weren’t emotionally ready for such overwhelmingly negative feedback. That’s about all.

Maybe the whole logo idea wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Perhaps the overwhelmingly negative feedback was more than the folks at The Gap expected. But, their social media strategy was a resounding success. It was done with the right intentions—if not a bit fearlessly. It gave them the feedback they needed. They responded with all the right messages. And most importantly—in the face of negative feedback they didn’t pack their bags and head home. Instead, they are gearing up for round two by exploring new ways to harness the power of social media. Now that’s the way to run a social media strategy.

The other day, I was thinking about the latest social media snafu HP.com’s Networking zone recently ran into. Its experience is an important lesson about how dangerous displaying the musings, and sometimes wrath, of the masses can be. This led me to ponder: what questions do Website teams need to ask themselves before deciding to pipe social media content onto their Website pages? Off the top of my head, four major questions come to mind:

What is the objective? Why are you planning to use social media in the first place? This isn’t to say that your Web team shouldn’t consider social media; only that you need to ask yourself some tough questions before you start. Is it to encourage conversation with customers? Generate leads? Master the wisdom of crowds? Prove your company is “with it”? If the latter is the answer, you are going down a dangerous path. On the other hand, if you are really looking for people to tell you what they think, be careful what you wish for. Expect the worst and plan accordingly.

How complex is the topic? This is where choosing the right social media tool is critical. Complex topics require two important things—character space and smart moderators.

Esoteric and incendiary topics, such as strategies, direction statements, or defense of “good ideas gone bad,” require space for participants to fully present their opinions, and for smart moderators to manage the conversation. For these discussions, blogs, forums, and FaceBook provide the best formats.

On the other hand, highly-focused topics that mention a company’s home-runs, such as what customers like best about a certain product or overwhelmingly popular Website features – or link readers to an important article or press release — will require less space and moderation since the posts will naturally be largely positive. In these cases, Twitter is a relatively safe bet.

Who will man the ramparts? Choosing and training the right moderators is the deciding factor in the success or failure of any social media engagement. Although this seems like a no brainer, the Web is littered with endless examples of interns and part-timers being sent in to do a professional’s job.

Remember this. In any social media discussion, the company’s moderators are the voice of the company—in essence, the new PR team. They are on the front lines facing the unvarnished opinions of customers, journalists, investors, general crazies – and competitors who want to spoil the soup.

This complexity means that being a moderator is a tough, and often thankless, job. It is also why it’s critical that people with the right temperament, education, and training are managing any type of social media discussion. Unprepared moderators—or none at all—allow the masses to define the company’s reputation and value proposition. Good moderators protect the company’s brand.

What is the probable (not best case) outcome? Did a product have serious glitches? Did financial projections fall woefully short? Most companies will shy away from social media to manage these events. In reality, social media is actually the perfect opportunity to set the story straight. This is where the executives rally the troops, craft their best “This is our finest hour” speeches, and moderators steel themselves to manage the damage. Planning for the best possible outcome leaves moderators flatfooted. Planning for the most realistic (or even worst) outcome gives the company the opportunity to send the right message and turn the tide of public opinion.

The cost of being cool

Although these four questions are likely to spur a multitude of other issues, one thing is clear. Social media is dangerous, wild, and highly unpredictable. That’s what makes it “cool”.

But, chasing “cool” without preparing for the real world is a costly mistake. Like all things Web, social media requires the types of complicated planning and cross-organizational coordination that can suck the excitement out of a project.

On the other hand, not doing your homework is sure to lead to a social media presence that is a nightmare for your company to manage, and a public venue for the aggravated and aggrieved. When this happens, social media ends up as a “cool” strategy that is very “un-cool” indeed.

When social networking sites hit the Internet, companies spent many, many months watching it with a wary eye. But once leading IT companies (such as Sun, Dell, and Cisco) took the leap, the race to integrate social media into a company’s marketing mix was on. This has led almost every company to declare social media as a major influence—if not the cornerstone—of its future marketing strategies.

Bold pronouncements aside, the reality is this: most companies are scared silly because they don’t have the faintest idea about how and when to use social media to their advantage.

They should be scared.

As a case in point, let’s consider how HP.com’s new “Change the rules of networking” campaign and associated Web page goes off the rails. This page launches the new face of HP Networking using the perfect combination of “hip & happenin’” content. Lightbox videos. Web 2.0 behaviors. Twitter. You name it.  With all these cool new ingredients, where could HP.com possibly go wrong?

Let us count the ways.

True to its new “voice of the market” strategy, HP.com is using Twitter feeds to create rich marketing content. Unfortunately, the “market” doesn’t seem very impressed. With so little space available for people to adequately state their case, the tweets amount to little more than insults and “happy talk” retweets by HP employees. Hardly the rich discourse and market endorsements HP had in mind.

Twitter formats make damage control difficult, if not impossible. It’s easy to hurl insults in 140 characters – and almost impossible to counter them in the same space. Twitter’s disconnected rolling dialogs also make it virtually impossible for any company to start a conversation and effectively connect the dots. The net result? A rolling critique of HP’s Network strategy on a campaign page intended to pitch HP as a change agent in the networking industry.

So much for using “the voice of the market” as the “hip & happenin’” way to create rich marketing content.

Real estate counts. Most companies practice their own forms of damage control by limiting their tweet rolls to a revolving line in the body of a main page (great for speed readers) or stuffing them in the right panel (perfect when you want to look “cool” but don’t really want visitors to read the tweets).

HP.com, in contrast, dedicates half of its page to these ongoing “conversations”. This is a perfect formula when the tweets are happy talk and kudos. Not so much when “market voices” are opining that Cisco is the better choice.

The Bottom Line | HP.com provides a cautionary tale for any company planning to use Twitter as “rich marketing content”.  Twitter is a horrible marketing platform that can slip out from under you at the drop of a hat.  Its 140 character format doesn’t allow people to fully state and justify their opinions, or allow company moderators to respond effectively. As important, these Twitter feeds demand full-time moderators. If they aren’t on your plan, consider it another reason to avoid Twitter like the plague.

And what about HP.com’s Change the Rules of Networking campaign and associated page? Think of this as a prime example of a social media hole—and why HP.com should stop digging.