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.

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.

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.

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.

Oracle.com has been the big Kahuna in the enterprise software industry for the past couple of years when it finally slipped past IBM’s Software Group site, which has been stuck in idle since early 2008. Then it decided to change the rules of its own game.

In 2009 Oracle bought Sun Microsystems in a quest to graduate into the business of selling hardware, software & services to the enterprise business set. Along with its red, white and black cap and gown, Oracle now gets to compete with the likes of IBM, HP and Dell. The question is, of course, how well does the combined Oracle.com & Sun.com sites perform against competitors that have been marketing & selling complex products online for well over a decade?

The answer is: not very well.

Oracle.com sets the pace in the software industry

In fact, Oracle.com’s graduation into the enterprise systems set means that it gets to start at the back of the pack. When these tough cookies are the issue, Oracle.com’s only claim to fame comes in the corporate marketing categories (big surprise). Meanwhile, HP.com, IBM.com & Dell.com beat Oracle.com’s product, services and industry marketing hands down. All three blow Oracle.com’s ecommerce off the map.

But now it gets to start at the back of the pack

While these results are likely to set off celebrations in some quarters, there’s a more sobering story here. Oracle.com inherited Sun.com, one of the most usable & effective sites in the IT industry. Rather than working this site’s good and best practices into its own landscape (and learning some invaluable lessons along the way), Oracle.com simply threw out the baby with the bathwater.

The net result is that Oracle.com + Sun.com has ended up to be much less than the sum of their parts – and that’s why Oracle.com gets to start at the back of the pack.

Related Reports: Website Rankings & Ratings: Enterprise Systems Websites, siteIQ Review: Oracle.com.

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

Of course, gone is not forgotten on the Web. Sun.com’s award winning usability & effectiveness and trendsetting best practices will be available online via the Wayback archives for years to come. For our part, our decade of work with the Sun.com team has generated gigs of best practices reviews. Although I can’t predict exactly when the Sun.com site will become the newest Borg within Oracle.com’s red and  white collective – I know that its forward thinking designs and best practices will be part of our analysis for years to come.

My hat is off to these professionals. Oracle’s loss is certain to be someone else’s gain.

OK, it’s official. Oracle will acquire Sun Microsystems by the end of the summer. Although I have to give Oracle kudos for a brilliant strategic acquisition (and tweaking IBM’s nose for good measure), flipping the Sun.com site into the Oracle paradigm won’t be as easy as its other acquisitions.

I’ve watched Oracle for about 30 years as an industry analyst — which means I’ve had a front row seat for all of Oracle’s growth, and most of its acquisitions.

When acquisitions are the issue, the script has always been pretty much the same. Oracle announces its intent to purchase an IT industry firm, engages in various firefights with a bevy of aggrieved CEOs and shareholders, occasionally spends some quality time with the SEC, finally closes the deal — and then takes the acquired company’s Website off the airwaves about two nanoseconds after the ink on the deal dries.

Generally, the first iteration of this process is a bit ham handed. Forget preserving the acquired company’s Web prowess & knowledge, brand, share of mind, or easing customers into a new parent organization. The acquired company’s URL is instantly directed to a landing page deep inside Oracle.com that announces the acquisition, positions the company’s products within Oracle’s strategic roster, points visitors to support, and  waxes poetic about Oracle’s commitment to existing customers who have, more often than not, been in the nail biting, front row seats of a less-than-friendly acquisition. Nothing like a bit of drama to create customer angst.

To Oracle’s credit, its “cut to the chase” Web techniques have worked well for the company. How many of you can remember J.D. Edwards core value proposition or market segment? Stumped? How about PeopleSoft or Siebel? OK, let’s try BEA. The lesson here is, of course, simple. There’s no percentage in delaying the inevitable when a company becomes part of bigger parent’s portfolio.

Sun — a horse of a different color

To date, Oracle.com has successfully integrated software companies that are leaders in secondary (albeit attractive) markets that map to Oracle’s strategic product & market growth objectives — and, in relative terms, are the size of a newt. That’s not Sun Microsystems. At $13 billion, Sun is neither the size a newt — or a pure play software company. Rather, it is a purveyor of boutique-class, high performance servers and storage systems that appeal to a loyal and highly vocal constituency (think Apple, here), services that support these systems — and a portfolio of software applications that are open source-centric, nominally priced (think Open Office), or can be downloaded for free (not Oracle’s business model). Add to the mix a community of developers and partners who are committed to Sun’s vision of the industry as it should be (rather than where it is or is actually going), and you have all of the elements of an acquisition built on oil and water. And that just one reason why the Oracle.com team has its hands full.

Which tail will wag the dog?

Although Oracle presents its acquisition decision in terms of its corporate strategic advantage in acquiring a company that owns the lighting-fast servers that are the preferred platforms for its database applications, and huge upsides related to owning the powerful Java platform, the fact is that Oracle.com is, and has always been, a site optimized around marketing and selling software applications. Although behaviors are notably better than observed in previous years, Oracle.com is still known for a dearth of product details, over-reliance on contracted third-party endorsements (think paid up white paper mills and analyst opinions for hire), and its tendency to tweak competitors’ noses at every turn.

None of these schemas fit Sun.com’s cultural behaviors that center on customer product reviews, lively developer forums and discussions, community-generated blogs — and more product details than most buyers can use. Think of it as a culture clash between two titans operating in different galaxies — and a battle that Sun.com is likely to lose.

What Oracle can learn from Sun.com

Since ultimate control goes to the victor, what is left are the lessons that can be learned. Given that Oracle.com has never been in the business of selling hardware — much less open-source software that hopefully nudges the converted to the check out counter — here’s four modest proposals from the peanut gallery.

Don’t lose Sun.com’s powerful voice. Although Oracle.com’s marketing voice has improved over time, it still relies heavily on the “we’re great, everyone else agrees, buy us” marketing model. That works when you are one of two 800 pound gorillas in software (the other one being IBM Software Group). Not so effective when you are swimming upstream against other entrenched hardware and storage vendors.

As it turns out, Sun.com has one of the IT industry’s most effective and powerful voices that balances the “geek-speak” technical buyers love with the “big picture” descriptions that ring with business buyers. Oracle would be a fool to fiddle with this voice which has been carefully honed to appeal to Sun’s core buyers.

Use Sun.com’s system pricing and selection schemas to create a competitive advantage. Currently, Sun.com has one of the industry’s most powerful product pricing and sorting/selection schemas — which are notably missing from competitive Websites. It also has world-class configurators and quote systems that are second to none. If Oracle wants to create a product discovery and selection process advantage over competitors (such and IBM and Dell), it should retain and expand these features.

Harness Sun.com’s customer reviews & its crystal clear buying process. IBM.com, HP.com and EMC.com are blissfully unaware of (well, actually ignoring) the power of customer voices and reviews — and the combined Oracle.com and Sun.com can capitalize on this omission. With the exception of Dell, most of Oracle’s new competitors also do a relatively poor job of clarifying how to buy their server and storage products. Here, Oracle can profit from Sun’s fundamental design that encourages visitors to take the next steps — whether that’s contacting a partner, downloading trial software, or signing up to try and buy hardware.

Don’t piss off the natives. Sun has something that Oracle hasn’t encountered with its previous acquisitions — millions of developers and tech heads who are passionate and vocal proponents of Sun’s quixotic (albeit ultimately fatal) vision of how the IT industry should be. That’s not to say that Oracle doesn’t have its own million beanie army. It does. It’s just that its army signed up for the tour of duty and Sun’s got drafted.

Like most draftees, Sun’s developers are in a quandary. Will Oracle discard Sun’s long-standing commitment to open source and industry standards? Which software, hardware and systems will make the cut? As important, how will Sun’s developer communities fare inside one of the industry’s largest and most pragmatic business software entities which values revenue growth and market share over philosophical matters?

If the blogosphere is any indication, there’s plenty of angst to go around. And when developers are uncertain about their future, the first thing they do is stop developing — and the second thing they do is defect.

Although we wouldn’t argue that Oracle’s success hinges on the goodwill of Sun’s developer community, there’s no doubt that these developers are a powerful engine that keeps Sun’s products — including jewels like Java — on the map. Here, Oracle.com (and more precisely the Oracle Technology Network team) could play a vital role in calming the natives.

Rather than following the normal script which calls for Sun’s Java.net, Big Admin, and Sun Developer Network sites to be subsumed into OTN, the smart play would be to lightly re-brand these venues and leave them in place. This approach would avoid dropping Sun’s developers into an entirely new venue that lacks the lively community and Web 2.0 behaviors they are used to and quite frankly, one that performs well below Sun’s developer properties. It would also send a strong message that Oracle values the culture and role of these vital communities — and keep them from defecting to other brands, including IBM.

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.