I was surprised at the IBM Software Group zone’s performance in our latest siteIQ evaluations. Once upon a time, this site ranked first among all enterprise software comers by virtue of its huge portfolio of content & features, and competitive usability scores.

Fade out two years later and the story is much different. This site dropped to third among the 5 enterprise software sites we study and stands in 11^th place on the siteIQ eBusiness Index. (You can download a free IBM Software Group scoring summary here).

Today, CA.com and Oracle.com are the sites to watch. Between the two, I vote for CA.com. Beyond some stabs at Web 2.0 behaviors, Oracle.com’s design and content needle hasn’t moved a whit over the past two years. CA.com, on the other hand, recently launched a brand new site with a blizzard of bells and whistles. It’s worth a tour to see the site’s highly efficient product marketing click streams.

There are many reasons for IBM Software Group’s slide down the rankings. For starters, industry marketing ranks last among competitors; CA.com hands it its head in services marketing; and search features are inadequate to the task (ranks fourth).

And what does the IBM Software Group site do well? At the top of the list is the site’s integrated support portal, which is the best in the business, hands down. This site also has the best call to action behaviors in the form of consistent and persistent contact modules on almost every page. Generally, the site’s usability performs in the Good Practice range.

The Bottom Line

The IBM Software Group site does a yeoman’s job of organizing and presenting its massive portfolio of software products and related offerings, but seems to have missed the memos on Web 2.0, Web 3.0, and social media behaviors that define best-in-class Websites.  It is a perfectly serviceable site circa 2008 — but offers little inspiration for Web teams trying to push on the design and social media envelopes.

Evaluation Criteria: 1,177 types of content, features & capabilities; 119 usability metrics

Related Report: 2010 Enterprise Software Website Rankings

I faithfully read Seth Goden’s blog every morning. One reason is that it’s blissfully short [memo to self]. The other reason is the golden marketing nuggets he brings to the table.

This morning is such a moment – and one that speaks to why so many LOB execs and stakeholders constantly push back on dotcom Web teams pitching new designs or the latest industry trends.

They don’t think they have a problem.

Face it. From most stakeholders’ perspective, dotcom teams come in two flavors: the “borg” [you will be assimilated] and the “butterfly” [this is the latest trend and we need to capitalize on it].  Neither are focused on a problem from the stakeholder’s point of view.

But what if a dotcom team saw its stakeholders as customers?  Like any good salesperson, the team would help stakeholders identify a problem and explore its cost or impact on the LOB.

In other words, dotcom teams should sell the problem.

Until stakeholders agree that they have a problem, the solution doesn’t count. That’s why so many projects end up in chaos.  In pushback, deliberate inertia, and stakeholders who spend their time deliberately coloring outside of the lines.

In case you haven’t noticed, CA.com recently launched a new site. As is our custom, we’ve delayed our deep-drive about six weeks to let the CA.com team find snafus and work out the bugs. Now it’s time to put the site through its paces. Here’s our Cliff’s Notes analysis: (siteIQ clients can read the complete analysis here. (log in required)

Pros

CA.com has retained its product marketing “snacking architecture,” which is one of the most powerful in the business. If you haven’t seen this in action, pick any CA product and follow the bouncing ball.

CA.com is one of few sites that know how to craft marketing content as a set of questions that speak to visitor objectives. If you need inspiration, CA.com is the place to start.

CA.com’s new design is consistent across the site; not many page owners missed the memo. CA.com is yet another example of the iterative design strategy we discussed in a recent post.

CA.com makes great use of tab-top organization on its product level pages (shades of Sun.com, yikes!). Overall, a tab-top tour de force.

Neutral

CA.com’s play on mega-menus brings it into the fold, but these menus are much less impressive than those deployed by Cisco.com and Juniper.net. Close, but no cigar.

Cons

CA.com just couldn’t resist the “eye candy” factor on its home page. In this case, it’s those revolving boxes that use type fonts that are a Mr. Magoo moment at any screen size – and whirl at the drop of a hat. Here, CA.com gets a B+ for visual impact – and D- for usability and relevance.

CA.com got hijacked on its way to the Web.2.0 ball. Although most videos are easily accessible, CA.com wraps its badly aging “On Demand” Webinars in draconian registration and access processes that will deter all but the most intrepid visitors. Let’s just say that CA.com gets a D- for its “on demand” promise.

This site pops more windows than a high rise in a hurricane. Most links pop a window without warning which, in turn, requires the visitor to stumble through their browser tabs to find the starting gate. Overall, a messy process and a very fractured experience.

Finally, no tour is complete without stepping through CA.com’s communities experience.  CA.com’s support-related communities are easily accessible and appear to be full of lively dialogs. Business communities? Not so much.

One reason might be the tortuous path visitors must take, which includes wading through an over-engineered “Second Life”-style destination packed with a talking head, downloadable brochures, and a link to the target community. Given the obstacles visitors must endure, it’s no surprise that CA.com’s fledgling business communities are the size of a newt (largest population is currently 42 members).

The Bottom Line

The new CA.com is a pretty new face that missed the memos on how to capitalize on Web 2.0 and social media marketing. Smart companies will study CA.com’s best-in-class product marketing click streams, and leave the rest to the marketing muses.

I just put the finishing touches on our new eBusiness Index report that profiles how CA.com, IBM Software Group, Oracle.com, SAP.com, and SAS.com fared (and compared) during our recent evaluations.

This was a particularly important evaluation since it’s based on our new benchmark that tracks and measures a ton of new requirements, including online communities and the Web 2.0 and social media behaviors that are now industry requirements. To get a gauge on the impact of these revolutions, our 2010 benchmark almost doubled in size — from 726 criteria in 2009 to 1,177 requirements this year.

As always, there’s lots of gems in the numbers.

For starters, IBM’s Software Group zone (www.ibm.com/software) – the perennial competitive leader over the past few years – slipped to third place based on these stiffer requirements. It faces plenty of challenges this year, including getting its search up to industry muster, fixing product marketing and ecommerce usability, and making its services and industry marketing zones more complete & effective.

Although Oracle.com ended up in first place on a technical basis, it’s really in a tie with CA.com. The numbers break down like this: Oracle.com has more ‘stuff’, but CA.com is more usable.

That’s not a real surprise for Oracle.com, which has always been a mega property (and even more mega after acquiring Sun).  On an industry-wide basis, Oracle.com’s portfolio of content and resources puts it in fifth place overall.  HP.com and the IBM.com mothership both rank #1.

On the other hand, these results are great news for CA.com which continues to have one of the industry’s most effective architectures and B2B click streams. Think of it as yet another example that small but mighty sites can deliver stellar usability results.

This leaves us with the other two enterprise software sites on the eBusiness Index: SAP.com and SAS.com.

SAP.com ranks fourth behind IBM’s Software Group zone. Like IBM SWG, SAP.com’s most important challenges include revamping its search capabilities to meet new requirements, and doing a better industry and services marketing job.

This leaves us with SAS.com, which made its debut on the Index this year. SAS.com is a great example of what you see isn’t necessarily what you get. Our initial review of the site suggested that it was a good candidate for comparison in 2010. 1,100 criteria and 119 usability metrics later, and it’s pretty clear that SAS.com isn’t even playing in the same ballpark as the rest of the sites on the list.  We’ll keep them on the Index for the balance of the year, but there will be a new slot to fill in 2011. (If you want to nominate a favorite, send me an email at martygruhn@siteiq.net)

This brings me to one more ‘aha’ from this round of evaluations. As a group, enterprise software sites have some heavy lifting to do in 2010.

• None of these sites have figured out that ‘just the basics’ search capabilities won’t cut it anymore.
• Industry marketing content is a problem across the board (and don’t even get us started about call to action).
• From a services marketing perspective, the only site that got out alive is CA.com – but that’s faint praise since every other site in the group is so bad it’s embarrassing.

I’ll post a link to this new report when it hits the airwaves. Meanwhile, take a peek at the Website Challenges table in this post.  The bubbles tell the story.

The French have a wonderful phrase “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”. It’s an elegant way to say that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

That’s certainly the case when you consider the complex B2B buying process. Since our last update in 2006, this process remains the same. It’s still dictated by task forces and committees who must wade through 17 steps to get to the finish line. Participants are still purchase influencers, rather than the decision makers companies crave. Websites still influence only 5 steps in the buying process.

But that doesn’t mean that everything remains the same.

What has changed are the tools in a Website’s arsenal. How social media, communities, and Web 2.0 tools and behaviors have changed how content is delivered, shared, and used by task forces who make the final recommendation.

But here’s the big “aha”. New media and tools are rifles, not shotguns. Each plays a different role at different points in the B2B buying process. Here’s brief playbook to consider.

• An active presence on social networks, mentions in heavily trafficked “expert” blogs, high ‘news’ visibility on popular search engines, and traction on the growing number of news aggregation sites are the tools companies need to move out of the shadows and make it onto the “long list.”
• Making the “short list” requires an additional set of tools that educate buyers, including video data sheets and customer testimonials, short podcasts and on demand Webinars, and a variety of company-operated communities.
• Once a company makes it into the finalist circle, the big guns come out. Interactive demonstrations and product tours (usually video). Live Webinars that allow task force members to pose questions. Try and buy options and short-term SAS subscriptions. Sales chat and other call to action behaviors that encourage task force members to engage with the company’s sales force.

If you look at Websites today, it’s pretty clear that most companies fall into one of two buckets. Those that are ignoring these innovations because they can’t figure out how to use them — and companies that are throwing them out willy nilly under the assumption that something is sure to stick.

I vote for the few and the brave in the third bucket. Those that understand the real power of these cool new tools, have mapped them to the B2B buying process — and end up getting the deal.

Related Research: How They Buy. Creating B2B Websites that outsell the competition and reduce the cost of sales. (Report excerpts & podcast.)

Click on this graph to see a lightbox of all best practices in this post

Five Websites are setting the pace

It’s interesting how something starts to hit a tipping point on the IT Web. Mega-menus are one of these designs – and fat footers aren’t far behind them.

In the mega-menu race, there are two main strategies in play, and some good and best practices worth considering.

On the strategy side, we have two basic approaches in evidence these days: mega-menus targeted at straight navigation – and those that add product marketing, corporate marketing and call to action dimensions.  In every case, there are great examples of both approaches on the IT Web.  Here’s some places to start:

• Novell.com delivers a great basic mega-menu and is a “must see” for teams considering this approach;
• EMC.com, Brocade.com, and Novell.com are upping the mega-menu ante with great call to action behaviors — and Brocade.com gets extra credit for some very savvy registration behaviors.
• Juniper.net has ushered in the era of mega-menus as a marketing medium. Look for more of this behavior from other leading sites in 2010.
• Don’t bother to follow Microsoft.com. Among the sites we reviewed, it is the least interesting or innovative.

• Dell.com currently has the best designed and most effective fat footer in the industry. Although there are 3 other major sites that use this technique, the one to watch is Dell.com.

I’ve just posted a new executive brief with more analysis about how Dell.com, Novell.com, Brocade.com, Juniper.net, HP.com, Insight.com, NewEgg.com, and EMC.com are setting the pace in these two new advanced navigation categories, plus plenty of screen shots of best practice examples.

Since nothing is ever as easy as it looks, I’ve shared 11 rules Web teams should consider before designing and executing these advanced navigation techniques. This brief is available to siteIQ clients in the siteIntelligence Research Center. siteIQ clients can access this review here.

So what do you think of mega-menus and fat footers? Sound off in the comments area below.

We’ve mixed up the siteIQ eBusiness Index for 2010. In some cases the decision was based on eliminating Websites that haven’t improved over the past year and don’t provide any good or best practices worth tracking. In other cases, sites have fallen off our list because they don’t exist anymore. That would be EDS.com which was integrated into HP.com — and Sun.com which went off the airwaves last week.

In both cases, these sites are a loss to anyone who cares about good and great practices. Don’t bother to follow them to their new homes. Their presence inside of their new parent’s sites is nothing to write home about.

Here’s some more about the new sites added to our roster – and why we’re singing “auld lang syne” to others. (If you are a siteIQ client you can read more about what we expect from these and other leading sites in 2010 in our new executive brief in the siteIntelligence Research Center).

IBM Software Group (zone): We’ve been evaluating and tracking IBM.com’s software zone for years as part of our custom client programs. This year it’s time for this zone to move onto the eBusiness roster. It should be interesting to see how this aging and oft cluttered design fares against competitors who are adopting new, highly efficient designs and Web 2.0 features that play directly to the B2B buying process. Don’t even get me started about communities — which are a blooming mess (tag: enterprise software)

SAS: We decided to replace Microsoft’s Dynamics zone with SAS.com this year for a simple reason. We’ve been tracking Microsoft’s enterprise software zone for years under the assumption that it would eventually figure out how to sell to large enterprises and step up to equal footing with the big boys. That never happened. This zone has been a step-child on this site from the get-go and it’s essentially invisible today. This year we decided to take off our miner’s helmets and replace this zone with SAS.com.

The case for SAS.com comes more from its industry presence than its Website footprint. It’s a perfectly mediocre site that seems to have missed the memos on Web 2.0 and social media marketing behaviors. If nothing else, it should be interesting to see how it stacks up against the other big boys in the enterprise software industry. If you are looking for a new leader though, I wouldn’t hold my breath. (tag: enterprise software)

EMC.com: EMC.com is new to our roster in 2010 and we’ve put it in the enterprise systems category. It’s a bit of an odd fit, but we think this is the segment that best matches its strategy and focus. Needless to say, EMC.com has come a long way over the past few years and it’s another example of a site that is maximizing Web 2.0 elements and creating standards for high impact designs. From a first blush perspective, it’s a small but mighty site in the spirit of Adobe.com.  It will be interesting to see where the site excels – and where it misses the mark in 2010. (tag: enterprise systems)

Sun.com: Last week, Sun.com went off the airwaves and was stuffed into a few pages on the Oracle.com site. Thus, ends the life of one of the IT industry’s most innovative and useful Websites.

To see why, let’s look at just a few of Sun.com’s industry “firsts.” It pioneered communities on the Web; embraced Web 2.0 when it was just a spec on the horizon; was the first to deploy tab top designs to consolidate content into manageable bites; automatically discounted prices in its (public) ecommerce system based on the customer’s contractual relationship; pioneered dashboards that allowed customers to customize information to their needs: operated the industry’s largest (java.com) and most diverse range of developer portals; and designed the industry’s first contextual search engine that organized results by objective, type, or role. Oh, and one thing else. It did all of this while ranking #1 in usability over the past 6 years.

All in all, a stellar run for the record book. It’s too bad that the company’s business strategy (and the CXOs that ran it) weren’t as effective as this site.

Intel.com: Intel.com is one of the industry’s most interesting studies because it marches to the tune of a truly unique drummer. Instead of marketing Intel’s products and services with sales as the end game, this site is focused on conditioning markets to prefer (and preferably demand) products built on Intel technologies — and then reward companies that sell Intel-based products by driving buyers directly to their Websites or retail stores. In simple terms, Intel.com isn’t chartered to sell Intel’s chips; it’s responsible for making sure that Intel is the buyers’ preferred brand.

From this perspective, Intel.com has always been one of few pure play ‘brand’ Websites. It’s also one of the first sites to effectively harness communities and Web 2.0 behaviors to start a conversation with users and buyers. For these and other reasons, we’re glad to welcome Intel.com to the 2010 eBusiness Index. May the best brand player win.

Brocade.com: Has anyone else noticed that the network systems industry is consolidating like a cardboard box in the rain? If not, spend some quality time looking for a fourth network systems Website (we also evaluate Cisco.com, Nortel.com and Juniper.net twice a year.  that has any best practices and is larger than a newt. After we spent some quality time considering the candidates, we flipped a coin between Brocade.com and Enterasys.com. Brocade.com won the toss.

We’ve got some real hope for Brocade.com in 2010 since it boasts a bevy of Web 2.0 behaviors, uses the same mega-menus as Juniper.net, and operates communities that show some promise. Of course, the devil’s in the details. Stay tuned for the results from our first evaluation which will be available in Q2 2010. (tag: network systems)

Deloitte.com: Deloitte’s inclusion on the 2010 eBusiness Index roster is due, in large part, to EDS.com riding into the sunset. Quite frankly, we’re glad to have a reason to shake up the professional services sites we cover. Most of them have been skating on the innovation and design fronts for too many years.

Deloitte provides a much needed breath of fresh air to our professional services roster. It’s built on a well crafted design and its lively first person voice takes much of the voodoo out of the consulting services conversation. All in all, we expect Deloitte.com to raise the bar for Accenture.com, and especially IBM Global Services. It should be interesting to see how those sites stack up now that there’s a new deputy sheriff in town.  (tag: professional services)

Here’s the rest of the sites we’ll be evaluating in 2010. If you are a siteIQ client, you can read more about these sites’ strengths and challenges in our new executive brief in the siteIntelligence Research Center.

• Adobe.com
• Microsoft.com
• Symantec.com
• CA.com
• Oracle.com
• SAP.com
• Dell.com
• HP.com
• IBM.com
• Cisco.com
• Nortel.com
• Juniper.net
• CDW.com
• Insight.com
• NewEgg.com
• Accenture.com
• IBM Global Services (zone)

What do you think of these sites? Sound off in comments

Web 2.0 and 3.0 can and will deliver real value to site operators and their visitors and prospects in 2010. Communities? Not so much.

Recently, I presented how we’re defining Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and communities to several clients, including our POV on their futures in 2010. It’s interesting that these three areas are finally moving beyond all the hype and bright and shiny objects that blinded most Web teams to their real potential last year.

Web 2.0 and 3.0 are finally coalescing into two ends of an important spectrum. Web 2.0 is all about content and information – providing these assets in new forms that make them easier for visitors to digest, use and share. Web 3.0 is actually about changing the interface and how users access these new generations of content. Simply put, it’s about creating adaptive sites that intuit or know why the visitor is there.

From my perspective, Web 2.0 and 3.0 can and will deliver real value to site operators and the visitors and prospects they are trying to woo and win in 2010. Communities? Not so much.

In fact, our in-depth evaluations show that most communities represent a high risk business strategy for companies. Why? Let me count the ways. Most companies:

• Vastly overestimate the real value and allure of their communities to visitors and members;
• Assume their experiences with online support and developer communities provide templates for future success;
• Don’t understand the real culture changes these communities will require;
• Ignore staffing and training investments that are critical to success; and
• Underestimate how much communities will cost, both in terms of corporate treasure and potentially, the company’s online brand.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Of course, some community teams will ignore these realities, preferring to be at the forefront of this cool, new — and very sexy — revolution. For these teams, I offer an old saw: you can always tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs. If communities are your charter in 2010 – and you still believe in TinkerBell — buckle up and grab your flack jacket. It’s going to be an interesting ride.

We’ve received several pings from readers who wanted to hear more based on Kenna’s post about tweeting for business. After three months in the Twitter box, I’m ready to weigh in on my observations — and share four pieces of advice from the peanut gallery.

This isn’t for sissies. Unless you’re a social butterfly by nature, business tweeting gets in the way of your day job. Unfortunately, if you don’t have consistent presence, your company tends to fall off the digital radar. This begs a conundrum worthy of a paraphrase from Hamlet: “Whether ’tis better to have an inconsistent Twitter presence or bag the whole concept?”  For me, the answer lies in the difference between volume and value.

Less is more. Companies that yak ad nauseum creates problems when you are on the receiving side of the Twitter fence. Based on my list of tweeting companies, less would certainly be more. Companies that bombard me with a constant stream of disconnected tweets makes it difficult for me to figure out what really matters to the company – which leads me to my third tweeting gripe.

Tell me something I want to know. The business Twitter landscape is becoming a vast wasteland where companies push “Google-esque” links instead of sharing knowledge or information in a teeny package. I’d rather know, for example, that a company received an award or launched a new product, than being inundated with links to general purpose articles and stories I don’t have time to explore. For business, tweeting should be all about creating the company’s brand one drip at a time, not proving that you can make it through a Harvard Business Review without going into a coma. Simply put, when business is the issue, your personal epiphany doesn’t create my need to know. This, in turn, leads me to my last peanut gallery entry.

Split personalities work best. The most effective Tweeters are those who have a business and personal persona – and keep them separate. This allows me to keep up with the business side of their world, and eliminates getting alerts when their 3 year old is successfully poddy trained. Sure, I appreciate that this is a milestone in their life. For me, too much information.

OK, I could change my opinions after another six months wading through the Twitter landscape — but I wouldn’t hold my breath.  That said, I’ll check in later as behaviors play out. After all, the Web is nothing if not a moving target.

It was a bit of a lark, to be sure. And like many of our larks, it delivered some interesting results.

To see why, take a peek at this graph that illustrates how the communities operated by seven leading IT companies fare based on 32 usability metrics.

First, the good news. SAP and Citrix deliver pretty much what is expected. The bad news for Citrix is that, at a 54% usability score, its community doesn’t look very usable – and it isn’t. At the other end of the spectrum, SAP’s communities appear to be the most usable – and (dismal look and feel aside) they are.

Next, let’s look at the sites that exceeded expectations. That would be Dell. My tour of the community delivered Dell an average 69.1% usability score. At 70.8%, Kenna’s power drive says that Dell’s communities actually deliver slightly more than expected.

This leaves us with the communities that are like an unfortunate blind date. Among these, EMC and Oracle fared worst.

My tour of EMC’s communities delivered good, but not great, usability results (62.4%), but Kenna’s deep dive shows that once you get past the flash, this community is almost unusable.

Oracle also seemed to be a reasonably usable venue if you are just lurking around, and my usability scores averaged out to 60.8%. By the time Kenna finished rambling through the site’s inconsistent behaviors and technical problems, she thought 54% was a gift.