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: Accenture.com
Usability & Effectiveness: Accenture.com
Content, Features & Capabilities: Accenture.com

Last week, we took a close look at how classic professional services Websites fare when they are put under the siteIQ microscope–and made some pretty substantial changes in the ways these Websites are measured on the siteIQ benchmarks. The net result is a much slimmer benchmark that hones in on the unique ways these companies do business on the Web.

Since there’s no time like the present to see the impact of these changes, we put the three professional services Websites on the siteIQ eBusiness Index through this new evaluation model. Then we published the results in a new report.

So how did things change?

A lot.

First and foremost, Accenture.com moved from second to first place courtesy of very strong navigational, search, and services marketing scores. Services marketing now rates a Good Practice. As important, Accenture.com’s overall usability beats all comers.

IBM Global Services’ Website ended up in a reasonably close second place. It matches Accenture.com’s services marketing Good Practice, but took it on the chin in the navigation and search categories. Just goes to show you that paying attention to those pesky architecture and cross-site utilities can make a huge difference.

And how did Deloitte.com fare in a rising tide that floated all boats? Ho hum. It still ranks third and gained one star–but missed the Good Practice dock by a mile. This site’s best showing is in (yikes!) online recruiting. On the other hand, every services and corporate marketing category ranks third.

And what about the rest of 2012? We’re betting that IBM Global Services’ slow motion revamp will start to pay dividends by the end of this year. That means that Accenture.com shouldn’t rest on its laurels–and should pay close attention to the cult of personality strategy IBM.com is rolling out.

More scoring details, plus new rankings and ratings, are available in our new Professional Services Report. If you already own a copy of our earlier report, a new copy is on the way to your desktop. Library subscribers can pick up their copy here (you’ll need those pesky log in credentials). If you aren’t a subscriber you can learn more about The Library here.

Overall: Symantec.com
Usability & Effectiveness: Symantec.com
Content, Features & Capabilities: Microsoft.com

Each business software site’s redesign over the past year has caused content and features to shrink on a huge scale. But did these diets help the sites’ usability scores? At least one Website should think so.  Here’s the rundown from first place to last:

1. Any Web team that focuses on site usability should put Symantec.com at the top of its watch list. This site’s usability ranking not only debuted at number 2 on the siteIQ Enterprise Software Index, but held its number 1 position in usability while stealing first place in overall performance from Microsoft.com in the siteIQ Business Software Index. Not bad for a year’s work.
2. Microsoft.com’s site reductions during its rolling redesign took a toll on its performance this year. It is still the ten-ton gorilla in the business software segment, but its third place usability ranking is pure monkey business.
3. Adobe.com’s story is similar to Microsoft.com’s. It is the smallest of the business software sites reviewed—and it got smaller over the course of the year. But unlike Microsoft.com, Adobe.com brings in relatively admirable usability scores. Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to reach any of the brass rings in 2011.

There’s plenty more rankings & ratings – and our take on the evaluation results – in our new Business Software Report.  Subscribers can pick up a copy in the Library. If you aren’t a subscriber you can learn more here…..

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.

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.

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.

Real people, real voices, real time

While the SMB & mid-size market are using social media to just get their name out to the masses, large companies are learning how to use social media & communities in tandem for a whole new purpose. And it is literally changing the face of IT.

Large IT companies don’t need to get their name out there. I mean, who doesn’t know IBM, HP, Apple, or Dell? I would bet that even your grandmother knows the name of one of these companies, even if she doesn’t know how to use a mouse. So, aside from using social media as a slick press release system, how do large companies use these outlets to their advantage?

The death of the faceless organization: For eons IBM has had the reputation of the faceless organization. In fact, it became so faceless that the phrase “blue suits” was coined to describe it. Well, those days are over—welcome the people that are IBM. Over the past 12 months, IBM.com has started publishing the names & faces of the managers & executives who steer IBM—the company, the vision, and the products.  This initiative is supported by its online communities, Facebook pages, and Twitter personas. Now IBM customers & fans can engage with IBMers real time, and hear the perspectives of IBM employees on an ongoing basis. Now IBM has many, many faces & voices—and many of them wear golf shirts.

What goes around comes around: Large companies are made of people, and people want to hear what others are saying about them. This is where the social networking part of the equation comes into play. Forums like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter offer companies a view into the opinions, wants, and needs of its potential buyers and customers like never before. Just type IBM, HP, Dell, or Apple into the Facebook search engine and see how many pages show up. Or cruise these Websites for links back to their Facebook pages or Twitter profiles. These companies are learning that these forums are more than places to meet & greet. They are the largest-scale, lowest-cost testing forums and CSAT studies they could ever want.

To err is human to deliver spin control divine: Strategies that didn’t pan out. Products that don’t cut the mustard. Far reaching visions that never came to fruition. All the major companies have them, only now social media gives them the platforms to take wrong turns into new directions. Executives use blogs, Webcasts, and Podcasts to subtly shift their company’s visions to accommodate an ever changing business landscape. Meanwhile, product managers use blogs & forums to announce “new & improved features” (or in other words, “fixes for glitches”) in an upcoming product update—or in the worst of cases, fall on their swords. But no matter the topic, issue, or intent, all these social mediums give companies the flexibility to shift, craft, and hone their visions and image to align to current realities.

What do all of these strategies have in common? The power that social media gives people to change a company’s image, direction, and products—whether it is the company’s executives, product managers, customers, or prospects. The benefits of these strategies & forums are not limited to only the mighty few. Any company that is willing to use social media to open a dialog and listen to what people say can become the flexible and responsive organization that potential buyers and customers crave.

One of the things Web teams constantly struggle with is the ying and yang between centralized governance and the wants, needs, and demands of stakeholders and line of business (LOB) managers who operate different parts of the site.

Over the past few years, I’ve seen these dynamics play out many companies – and in different ways. The most memorable are:

The inmates run the asylum

Here, I’m reminded of a huge software company who belatedly realized that competitors were selling their low cost software online – and they needed to get with the program.

To achieve this, the dotcom team spent weeks confabing with line of business marketing managers and stakeholders to get their buy in and identify requirements. Then they consolidated the feedback and developed a working project plan.

Three months later, the dotcom team was ready to launch the company’s first foray into ecommerce. The platform was built. LOB marketing managers were trained. Then everything went off the rails.

Why? Because the most influential LOB pulled its support for ecommerce at the last minute. I was in the room when the project manager got the call – and then watched her bang her head on the conference room table as the ecommerce strategy (and all of the hard work) went down the tubes.

And what’s the lesson? Websites don’t do well in a matrix management organization where one “no” vote can stop the presses. If you have one, make sure that LOB executives are driving the strategy down through the troops. They won’t salute you – but they sure will salute their bosses.

The vision hits the “what’s in it for me?” brick wall

Here, I’m reminded of a huge computer company that has decided to embrace social media whole hog and use it as a competitive game changer. New, smart executives were hired to develop and evangelize a strategy based on the future of the Web. Minions were added to execute the vision and gain buy in from the troops working in every line of business.

The problem? The strategy requires two things. A cult like belief in a fuzzy future and a fundamental change in the company’s culture – including increasing the load on beleaguered marketing managers who are already up to their eyeballs in management fire drills — and are measured based on revenue generation.

Thus, the grand strategy devised in one corner of the corporation collides with the beliefs & business realities everywhere else.  The net result is plenty of “do you get it? I don’t” whispers around the water cooler, and push back from LOB executives who can’t see how this foray into the great unknown will improve their bottom line.

And what’s the lesson? Grand visions – especially those that can’t be linked to revenue — don’t translate well in large, complex organizations. As important, if the vision requires a fundamental culture change, you are probably throwing yourself against a brick wall.

The Bottom Line

After working with major corporations for 15 years, I know the following things about the Web:

1. Visions and strategies that can’t generate revenue are doomed to fail. As important, if it can’t be measured, it doesn’t exist. After a grace period, expect executives to pull the plug.
2. Web strategies that rely on a culture change will end up on the cutting room floor. This is especially true in today’s business climate where layoffs mean people have to do two or more jobs. If your strategy relies on culture change, put it on the back burner for at least 3 years.
3. Bold promises aside, the jury’s still out on whether social media is a passing (and very expensive) fad —  or a new era on the Web. Lots of companies (like the example above) think it’s a game changer. The rest can’t quite figure out what all of this lurking and listening means for the bottom line. My POV? Tread carefully and spend wisely. Bet that the future of social media is captured in item #1 above.