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.

So much for conventional wisdom.

For the most part, I’d rather have a root canal than use most support Websites.

Search for information and you end up with a list of a bazillion documents with truncated descriptions that read like Sanskrit.

Want to take a different path? Try ferreting your product out of a laundry list of every product the company ever made.

Or try the “follow our logical links” scenario—where you end up drilling to China.

At the end of all of this wonderfulness is the real insult. Support content that either requires an engineering degree to understand—or a wad of general purpose instructions that dance around the problem and miss the issue by a country mile.

Finally, don’t get me started about most site’s support program content. (You know, the stuff that explains why you have to pay to play.)  First, you can’t find it. When you do, it’s packed with so many superlatives you need a dictionary to figure it out.

Honestly, you’d think support teams would get it after doodling on the Web for 16 years.

Drum Roll, Please

Given my opinion of support on the Web, I was surprised how much the 2011 support evaluations reflected my opinions of these support sites. Most of the sites we evaluated deliver half of the content, features & capabilities deployed on best-in-class support sites. With the exception of four sites—Cisco.com, Symantec.com, IBM.com and the IBM Software Group site—every site’s usability misses the Good Practice mark.

I’d probably throw a bone to Dell.com, EMC.com, and Microsoft.com for coming close—but the rest are simply not up to snuff.

I’ve just finished putting the finishing touches on our new 2011 online support rankings and ratings report which published today. Here’s some of the more interesting things in this new report.

IBM, Dell and HP have all the goodies

IBM.com’s, Dell.com’s and HP.com’s monster-size support sites handed them the top rankings this year. If you want to create a world-class support size packed with every bell and whistle, you don’t have to look much further than here. Among the players, Dell.com is the biggest, but IBM.com puts its goodies together to better effect (its usability ranks third; Dell.com ranks fifth).

This brings me to the real tail that wags the dog.

Cisco.com proves an important point

When usability is the issue, we’ve always said that small can be mighty—and Cisco.com proves the point. Cisco.com’s support site took first place usability honors—which is a testament to all of the hard work we’ve seen on the site this year. If you are a siteIntelligence Case Studies Library subscriber, you can see Cisco.com’s best-in-class innovations here: https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blog/1088332/view/bytag/cisco (Category: support, Tag: cisco). (Have your login info handy).

From a usability perspective, Cisco.com has the most complete roster of support information that is easy to find. To see why, take Cisco.com’s site search engine for a spin and pay attention to post search filtering capabilities. Then check out the support zone’s fly-out navigational panel. If you want to learn why these matter, check out Cisco.com’s best practice case studies here: https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blog/1088332/view/bytag/cisco. (You guessed it: subscription & login required.)

Finding support content on most sites is a "Where's Waldo?" moment. Only 5 sites hit the mark.

Not so fast. The winners should cancel their victory lap.

So where are the pleasant surprises? Put Brocade.com, EMC.com, and Symantec.com on that list.

• Brocade.com has the most complete & thorough support program information (a Best Practice) -– and does the best job of encouraging visitors to take the next step.
• EMC.com’s support program information is easier to find—and does the best job of providing program contact information.
• Symantec.com delivers the best support click streams, which generated the highest Good Practice rating for all of its hard work.

And what about the rest of the pack? You know, those other 13 support Websites on the evaluation list?  Let’s just say there was another interesting surprise.

Earth to enterprise: what are you thinking?

With the exception of IBM Software Group, enterprise software sites need to up their usability game. From my perspective, their rankings are downright embarrassing.

CA.com ranks 11^th, Oracle.com ranks 12^th and SAP.com brings up the back of the pack in 15^th place. The only support sites that are worse than these triplets are reseller sites (CDW.com, Insight.com and Newegg.com) –and they don’t provide much, if any, support on their sites. Yikes!

So how does IBM Software Group stay out of this industry ditch? IBM.com’s highly integrated support portal is the wind beneath its wings. To see why this portal delivers a bit of online support nirvana, check out our case study in the Library: https://siteiq.centraldesktop.com/sirc/blogentry/5334686/. (Yep, you’ll need that pesky login information).

Dell.com support is really a tale of two cities.

Finally, no analysis is complete without taking a look at the conventional wisdom corner; in this case the prevailing belief that Dell.com operates the biggest and best online support site. This may (or may not) be true behind the Dell Premier firewall—but it’s a mixed bag if you are on the public side of the equation.

When the numbers are rolled up, Dell.com’s support zone’s content, features & capabilities rank #1, but its usability slips into fifth place–right behind the IBM Software Group site. As important, it only ranks first in one out of ten usability categories (a Good Practice for support zone logic). Other than that, Dell.com persistently ranks in second and third place.

The bottom line

So there you have it. The roster of winners based on 138 things support sites should provide–plus ten ways they should help users achieve their objectives. For the top five, I send hardy congratulations. For the rest of the pack, roll up your sleeves. There’s lots of work ahead.

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.

Companies eying new markets should avoid “Marie Antoinette” and “Frankenstein” support strategies. Here’s why.

You can tell a lot about a company’s prime customers by its Website—and even more by how customers fresh from acquisitions and market gambits get lost in the shuffle.

Examine companies like Dell, that has moved from its consumer roots into enterprise markets. Or, IBM’s, CA’s and Cisco’s endeavors to translate historical successes in the enterprise realm into SMB markets. And then there is Oracle’s attempt to execute simultaneous vertical and horizontal market strategies by lashing together its software applications with Sun’s hardware and storage products. There are plenty of examples.

If you think the “tell” of these (and other) companies’ successes or failures are found in their online marketing content, you would be looking in the wrong direction. In reality, the “tell” is found in their support and training zones.

Before support and training Web teams even entertain the hope for a successful market move, they must take these two approaches off the table: 

• Let ‘em eat cake. Some companies assume that all customers are created equal – and simply dump new customers into existing support and training zones. Think of it as the “Marie Antoinette (let ‘em eat cake)” strategy. In this scenario, enterprise customers don’t get the complex answers and training they need – and consumers get lost in messy support & training sites optimized for large accounts. In either case, it’s a bad behavior.

• Watch the birdie. Other companies decide to bolt market-specific support and training sites onto their existing venues. Think of this as the “Frankenstein” strategy. In this scenario, the company’s favored markets get center seat, while new markets and acquisitions get the “oh by the way” links in the right column, or at the bottom of support and training home pages. There’s nothing like an invisible link to tell “acquired”customers that they are second class citizens.

Both of these approaches tell new customers two important things. That (1) the vendor is more than willing to sell them products, but (2) won’t do the hard work necessary to deliver “after-sales” support and training optimized for their needs.

From our POV, two memos should be sent when a company decides to move up or down market.

The first should go to the marketing teams, giving them a heads up that they need to open and populate new product zones.

The second (and arguably most important) should be sent to the teams managing the company’s support and training zones warning them that “Marie Antoinette” and “Frankenstein” gambits don’t work. These teams need to put on their thinking caps, and recalibrate how they view and deliver their training and support sites.

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.

Related research: The eBusiness Index Report.  If you are a siteIQ client or subscriber, click here.

These stats don’t come as much of a surprise since tough times call for more attention to how effectively the company’s Website creates – and more importantly, harvests – qualified prospects. Face it, nothing beats a Website for its global reach and the ability to win and woo potential buyers at the lowest possible cost.

Given these realities, it should be really interesting to see if the sales forces we test have finally gotten eselling religion. I wouldn’t bet on it

This, of course, brings me to an interesting question. Assuming the Website does its job, what happens next? Are salespeople actually contacting ‘anatomically correct’ prospects streaming in from your Website – or is your sales force still playing the same games we’ve seen in previous years? Which leading IT companies are doing the best job harvesting interested buyers? Which companies need to kick their sales force in the pants?

Since selling is the name of the game these days, we’ve decided to launch our 10th siteIQ Secret Prospect study this week. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this study, here’s the basic approach in four easy steps.

1. We create a fictitious buyer with the right title, authority, budget, and buying timeline.
2. We go out to every Website on the siteIQ eBusiness Index, pick one or more products or categories, and test different ways to engage with the sales force. We fill out the contact forms, send emails, and hit the “call me now” buttons. About the only thing we don’t bother to do is request an online chat (previous tests show that these features typically work like a charm).
3. Along the way, we document every part of the process. We identify how many inappropriate questions are required on forms. We note all of the promises made, including when we should receive a response. We check to make sure privacy policies are front and center. After we’re finished, we measure how effectively the company continues to market to prospects and how efficiently it connects them back to the right place on the site.
4. Then we sit back and start the stopwatch. We track when the salesperson calls, when we receive various emails – and how often the company’s sales organization reaches out. After 18 days, we close the study, add up the numbers, and publish the results.

Looks pretty simple, but the results can sometimes be damning. I’ve provided a peek into how companies like Oracle, IBM, HP, Adobe, CA, Microsoft, Symantec, Cisco, Nortel, Accenture, and EDS fared in our last test in the siteIntelligence Research Center (siteIQ clients can log in here). From a big picture perspective, here’s how the industry’s biggest players tend to behave.

• Getting a response across a company’s product groups is largely the luck of the draw. One product group will respond within minutes, while others fiddle around for days (if you are lucky).
• About half of our requests go into a black hole. Meanwhile, sales chat almost always delivers the goods, while request a quote and email requests are hit and miss at best.
• Handoffs to partners almost never work (typically a function of incompetent handoffs, plus partners who apparently don’t like the vendor’s leads).
• Finally, few companies follow up on prospect requests unless the prospect calls back – and almost none use email (cheap, fast, and effective) to keep prospects warm.

Given these realities, it should be really interesting to see if the sales forces we test have finally gotten eselling religion. I wouldn’t bet on it. After nine of these tests, my bet is that we’ll see the same old dysfunctional behaviors. On the other hand, I’m ready to be pleasantly surprised. We’ll be posting real-time results in the siteIntelligence Research Center — and will publish the winners and losers here in April. Stay tuned.

Insight.com and Newegg.com both receive scores that place them in a league with IT industry leaders — and well ahead of one of their major partners — HP.

When I rolled up the first quarter 2008 usability numbers this week, a couple of interesting facts jumped out. First, Newegg.com’s product marketing score is nearly 71%, which puts it on par with the eBusiness Index average (71.38%) — and places it in close proximity to enterprise systems heavyweights in the effectiveness rankings. Second, and more important, all three reseller sites — Newegg.com, CDW.com, and Insight.com — earn e-selling-related usability scores that are well above the eBusiness Index average, and actually rival those of the ultimate online channel — Dell.com.

Admittedly, these are two bright spots in an otherwise checkered usability landscape for these companies.  Website design and navigation & architecture scores average around 60% — well below the target 75% score. Corporate marketing comes in at an embarrassing 44%, and services marketing & support scores sit in the mid 30% range. To add insult to injury, these sites clock equally appalling training & education scores that average around 30%. Community/industry marketing scores are the true disappointment, however. Here, the mean usability score doesn’t even crack 25%. So much for Web 2.0 among leading reseller sites.

Despite these bumps in the road, I have to give the teams managing Newegg.com, CDW.com, and Insight.com credit for focusing on “Job One” in their universe: making products easy for visitors to purchase online, and delivering persistent call to action elements that encourage visitors to become customers. These behaviors, combined with competitive pricing that often meets or beats the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, are undoubtedly partially responsible for the growing popularity of these (and other) reseller sites.

It’s my contention, however, that the real reason these sites are selling record numbers of their partner’s/supplier’s products is an architectural structure that facilitates forward momentum based on customer specifications and/or requirements. At these sites, visitors dictate the context in which they view products, and no matter the route taken, pricing and the ability to begin the purchasing process are central elements of the click stream. In fact, in contrast to some enterprise-class sites where purchasing the exact same product often requires navigational gyrations through  mountains of poorly organized content, these leading reseller sites make online purchasing a breeze.

What I found is that CA.com’s new support site does, indeed, have online support forums, and they are fairly well marked. The reason it didn’t receive a score from our evaluators was because customers must provide their email and a password not only participate in CA.com’s support forums (which is SOP for all forums) — but to view them as well. This, of course, leads one (or at least me) to ponder why a company would hide its forums behind the proverbial firewall when the industry convention is to allow visitors to freely peruse support forum entries.

One potential reason is obvious. We have not run into a single company who likes seeing its product flaws and mis-steps broadcast across the Internet for all to see. Most shudder at the prospect of company (and product) naysayers and cranky customers airing their grievances on support forums. Despite this, most have slowly acknowledged that operating an open support forum that allows customers to exchange solutions and comments is more important than their desire for secrecy. In fact, some (like Dell.com’s Idea Storm) have transformed forums into a perfect opportunity to listen to the market and develop better products that fit customer’s needs. This leaves companies clutching at the last straws of secrecy standing out like sore thumbs — which also makes them look like they have something to hide.

So why is this a problem? After all, if a company doesn’t want to air its “dirty laundry” on the Web, who says it has to? The answer is simple. Hiding forum entries behind a firewall gives prospects the impression that there are problems with the vendor’s products it wants to keep under wraps. What’s worse, prospects don’t know if there is a problem with one product or every product the company offers. In this case, silence ends up painting the vendor — and its products —with a not-so-positive (and probably inaccurate) brush.

Next, let’s add the fact that this behavior doesn’t pay the expected dividends. Face, it, there are few secrets in the IT industry — and even fewer on the Web. If there is a problem with a product (or a company), there is no doubt that competitors already know about it (and use it), and it is probably being discussed in black and white elsewhere on the Web. Put simply, the facts are probably out of the bag — and are in forums where the company has little or no opportunity to counter the information or present its point of view.

Am I saying that it is better to play follow the industry convention and bow to the pressure created by competitors? Not necessarily, Rather, I’m saying that companies need to be careful about the messages they inadvertently send when they buck a common convention — especially when that decision makes prospects ask the wrong questions. At the end of the day, it is better to have public support forums that are positioned as a way for customers to help the company build better products — and encourage communities — than to create a deafening silence that allows prospects to fill in the wrong blanks.

Oracle.com doesn’t bother with sorting by company size; on Oracle.com it’s every company for himself

I was in a meeting the other day with a client providing a readout of their most recent siteIQ results. Our diagnostics analysis was around the site’s community marketing effectiveness—and the conversation turned to the  problems that crop up when a company doesn’t clearly identify how it defines small business vs. medium-sized businesses on the site. I was astonished when I receive push back on this notion and a suggestion that small business and medium business definitions were pretty much standard across IT companies on the Web.

What Web are these folks looking at?

If you cruise around the IT Web, the one thing that is obvious is that there are few standards, and even fewer IT vendors identify who fits in what bucket. Just for giggles, consider this:

IBM.com operates separate small business and medium business zones; presumably enterprise customers have full run of the site. HP.com divides its site into Home/Home Office, Small & Medium Business, and Enterprise. Dell.com sorts by Home/Home Office, Small Business and Medium & Large Business zones. No standards here and definitions are blissfully absent from these sites.

Want to play with software? CA.com offers Home and Home Office, and Small and Medium Business zones; like IBM.com, enterprise companies are presumably left to wander around the site. Symantec operates separate Home/Home Office, Small and Midsized Business, and Enterprise Solutions zones. SAP limits its community play to a Small Business Solutions zone; I guess medium and large businesses have to fend for themselves. Oracle.com doesn’t bother with sorting by company size; on Oracle.com it’s every company for himself. When you roll all of these behaviors up, its pretty clear that standards in the software industry are nonexistent. Of the companies discussed, only Symantec.com bothers to provide any definitions.

Finally, no run is complete without some quality time in the networking pen. Cisco.com operates Home & Home Office, Small & Medium Business, and Large Enterprise zones. Nortel limits its coverage to Small & Medium Business and Enterprise zones. Novell limits its audiencing strategy to a Small Business zone. No standards here either.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, there are no community marketing standards in the IT industry. Picking the wrong community marketing approach can also create additional work

This of course, brings me to the point. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there are no community marketing standards in the IT industry. Picking the wrong community marketing approach can also create additional work. Of the options on the board, organizing your communities around Home & Home Office, Small & Medium business and Enterprise Business creates the least confusion. These categories are self-evident for most visitors and it’s unlikely that a visitor will pick the wrong category and end up wandering through the wilderness into another zone.

On the other hand, if operating separate small business and medium business zones is your cup of tea, telling visitors how you define these segments is critical to success. Sans that information, visitors will end up staring at your community list wondering if they are a bigger than a breadbasket or smaller than a kumquat. If they make the wrong decision, they get a fun-filled hour of pogo-sticking between these zones trying to ferret out which one serves their needs.

As for approaches, that’s a mixed bag as well. Based on our research, employee headcounts make the most sense. Here, the very loose rule of thumb seems to be that small businesses have less than 100 employees. Medium businesses, on the other hand, are a nightmare to define. Depending on the vendor, the high end for these companies can range from 1,000 to 10,000 employees. At 10,000 employees, of course, this definition begins to bleed into the enterprise business category—which is a whole ‘nuther Oprah I’m not going to touch.