So I headed to the KLIIK website. At the homepage, you are asked to select between a Flash or HTML site. No matter which one you select, a popup opens, and this now serves as the website. That is, however, until you select the catalog. This selection opens a new window in the original browser. Talk about bad UX.... To top it off, you can only view 4 of the hundreds of frames they offer unless you have a login and password.

I do not understand the thinking behind this. The entire collection does exist on the website, so no added production work is needed to let the customer browse your entire collection. And, this is not the type of purchase normally made online, so sharing this information would not alienate the dealer. Customers will still need to head to a dealer to try the glasses on, have measurements made, and to place the order.

Consider the money KLIIK spent on the Flash intro on their website - the models, the photo shoot, and the music. Why not spend a little more time thinking about the "Last Mile", and how your customers will want to interact with your product? 

So the big news in the Flash development world is Google's latest announcement that they have improved their indexing of Adobe Flash files. But what exactly does this mean to developers?

Google has been indexing Flash since 2004

Well, the news isn't exactly as groundbreaking as some first thought. For starters, Google has already been indexing flash files since 2004. Google's spiders have been able to view any static text information since shortly after Macromedia released their Flash Search Engine SDK. The difference with this latest update is that Google's mystical little crawlers can now access dynamic text as well as recognize URLs in that text.

Because it deals with their algorithms, Google is very close mouthed about the specifics of this change. But of the three technical limitations they (Ron Adler, Janis Stipins, and Maile Ohye) cite, two of them stand out conspicuously.

1. Googlebot does not execute some types of JavaScript. So if your web page loads a Flash file via JavaScript, Google may not be aware of that Flash file, in which case it will not be indexed.

2. We currently do not attach content from external resources that are loaded by your Flash files. If your Flash file loads an HTML file, an XML file, another SWF file, etc., Google will separately index that resource, but it will not yet be considered to be part of the content in your Flash file.

No JavaScript?

The first isn't too bad at first blush, but it raises quite a few questions. Best practices for embedding Flash has involved the use of JavaScript for years now. Most developers use scripts like SWFObject to do the dirty work and take care of IE's old problem with Eolas and the ActiveX warning. So does using this method cancel out Google's new ability? Or would a simple noscript tag be good enough for their bots? And what about libraries like SWFAddress? Which would you choose between, having Flash indexed in this new way, or deep linking, bookmarking, and analytical functionality?

Dynamic without being flexible

The second caveat is much bigger and makes the new indexing possibly pointless, some would say worse than pointless. What is the point of dynamic text if you can't load dynamic data? And does "external sources" cover Json and other text files? How about Remote Objects? Google simply doesn't tell us enough.

What's more, as some of the anti-Flash crowd (I'm looking at you Reddit) have pointed out, is that this might encourage old, bad habits. If keeping your data separate from your presentation loses out to SEO, than the myth that Flash pieces aren't maintainable starts to become true.

And then there's this point:

At present, we are only discovering and indexing textual content in Flash files. If your Flash files only include images, we will not recognize or index any text that may appear in those images. Similarly, we do not generate any anchor text for Flash buttons which target some URL, but which have no associated text.

So does this mean that URLs appearing within the Flash are only indexable if they are spelled out explicitly, or that they need to be labelled? Once again, we simply don't have enough information.

A step towards a more open Flash player

But for me, whether this proves to be a boon or a bust, the big news isn't Google's update, but the change at Adobe that instigated it. In yet another step that may eventually lead down the garden path of an open source Flash player, Adobe opened up the player up to Google and Yahoo in order to facilitate this change.

Adobe has provided Flash Player technology to Google and Yahoo! that allows their search spiders to navigate through a live SWF application as if they were virtual users. The Flash Player technology, optimized for search spiders, runs a SWF file similarly to how the file would run in Adobe Flash Player in the browser, yet it returns all of the text and links that occur at any state of the application back to the search spider, which then appears in search results to the end user.

More to come

And here's the kicker. This is just the start:

We are initially working with Google and Yahoo! to significantly improve search of this rich content on the web, and we intend to broaden the availability of this capability to benefit all content publishers, developers, and end users.

I'm not sure how far behind the curtain Adobe will eventually let us look, but they're not through just yet. Until they do, we're very much in the dark regarding the specifics of Flash's new searchability. If I can find the time, I intend on doing a little experimenting to try and fill in some of the blanks that Google left out. I'll post my results if I do.

But what does this mean for marketers

The jury is still out on exactly how this affects web strategy. There's simply not enough information available to make a judgement call. In the meantime, Flash implementations that were a bad idea yesterday because of SEO, should still be treated like a bad idea today.

 

 

Generally the public and those in the media outside of the advertising and marketing world latch onto snippets of what we do every day and think they "get it" because they know a bit of the terminology. In the 80s and 90s it was "desktop publishing" - why should I hire a real design firm when I can get PageMaker and do desktop publishing myself? In the early days of the web, it was about "hits" - how many hits a website received raised it above its peers.

The concept of Web 2.0  is soon, if not already, going to be at that same place. The mainstream media has heard the term but generally doesn't get that it's more than just big shiny buttons and simple social networks.

How refreshing, then, to see an entry today from BusinessWeek of the 10 Commandments of Web Design that pretty much gets it right. Their Biblical hyperbole not withstanding, it's a good list that will introduce to a wider audience the sentiments and approaches we've been preaching for years.

 

 

 Had lunch with a good friend I hadn’t seen in a while and we spent a lot time talking about the Pokémon trading card game. I don’t know a thing about Pokémon, but what “Joe” told me about how the game works posed some interesting questions about the concept of the “wisdom of crowds”.
Joe has been mad for card trading games for years. And while Pokémon is aimed at kids, he’s a serious player and competes in the “senior” category. According to Joe, game play is pretty simple—a player assembles a “deck” and competes in a sort of rock, scissors, paper way. Each year, Pokémon issues a new series of cards and there’s a season ending in an international tournament every year.

Players from all over the world share ideas about strategies and figure out what combinations of cards are the most effective. In other words, they create a global “evolutionary” environment where many, many players are constantly making tweaks and figuring out winning combinations. The result is an unbeatable “super deck” that, if played well, virtually guarantees a winning result.

Joe told me he’s been expecting to meet an individual player who’s better at assembling a deck than he is, and he’s not found one yet. But he can’t beat the super decks. He’s a very smart guy with a strategic mind, but as he said, “I’m not smarter than the internet.”

I asked him, “But where’s the fun, just in the winning? If everybody’s playing the proven performer, where’s the suspense, the fun, of competing?” But he told me there’s a catch. Typically, most of the players that make it to the finals are playing the super deck, but that is often not who wins. Even though “the internet” has created the super deck, it’s often the individual who’s come up with the combination that beats that deck that takes home the trophy.

I think this example has interesting implications for the nature of social networks. There’s no question that a large number of people contributing to finding a solution to a problem can often lead to a really smart solution, a solution that’s “smarter” than you are as an individual. 

But we shouldn’t forget that there is still that potential out there for a scary smart individual to beat the crowd, and do it consistently. To rely only on the wisdom of crowds would be a mistake—whether in investing, research, politics, etc. Potentially, relying on the crowd misses the opportunity for a contrarian or an original thinker to produce a world-beating idea.

Now that social networking technologies are linking more and more “crowds” together, do we risk becoming lazy about challenging assumptions and looking for the best solution? When is it appropriate to challenge the wisdom of a crowd? Is it more efficient to go with the almost best solution to a problem, even if it means sacrificing the very best idea? When should we kick over the conventional wisdom, even when it’s proven to be effective?

As companies gather more and more information on the customers and prospects, analyzing this data has become tedious, time consuming and expensive. In many cases conclusions come too late and applying learning based upon analytics is no longer of value.

Pivot+Levy has developed a reporting approach that provides dynamic and graphical analysis of any demographic or psyographic inputs from online forms. These may include information or subscription requests, or summary data from ecommerce transactions.

A client comments: "What once took weeks and a dedicated staff resouce, has been entirely automated. Critical prospect and product preference data is now available to key decision makers in real time." – JoAnne Foist, Fleetwood Homes.

Purchase Timeframe/Lead Counts & Age Data (Chart is dynamic, and reflects data collected from consumer form submissions). 

Most leads plan to purchase within one year. 7-12 months is the purchase horizon most often stated, followed by 4-6 months, and 0-3 months

Saturday, June 7th. No wind, fifty plus boats drifting towards the starting line. The action may not have been on the water, but was found in the spirit of contribution leading up to the regatta and through to the end of the evening fundraising event. Overall, $180,000 was raised. Those sailing aboard Zöe, plus family and friends ashore, raised $7,625 as "Team Eagle Spirt" in honor of John Crane who is currently undergoing treatment for Luekemia. 

Thanks to all who contributed, volunteered and participated in the 2008 Leukemia Cup Regatta.

In today's Seattle PI, June 11, 2008, Mary Swift writes.

 

"It's a Jeep thing. You wouldn't understand". You have seen it before, most likely on a beat up old Jeep's windshield behind you at a stop sign. Jeep owners, with CJ's and Wranglers in particular, are a family of sorts. They wave or nod to each other in the streets, signaling a mutual sign of appreciation for each other. This extreme brand loyalty is unique to Jeep among modern car manufacturers.

With such a strong brand following, each new Jeep that is introduced to market faces heavy scrutiny by current Jeep owners. Over the years, Jeep owners slowly accepted the steady modernization of their beloved CJ into the YJ and then the TJ Wranglers. New model introductions, like the Grand Cherokee and Commander, were still true to the Jeep brand promise of being "Trail Ready" and accepted into the Jeep family as cousins.

Then came the new Jeep lineup, and the introduction of the first 4-door Wrangler. It is obviously designed to complete against the FJ Cruiser and Hummer's H3, but has Jeep has gone too far? Does this new Jeep stray too far from the Jeep brand with it's 4 doors and power windows? Or will it’s familiar removable top, slatted grill, and true trail readiness be enough to grant it entrance into the Jeep family?

Only time will tell if this new arrival will be brought into the fold, but the real brand killers come in the form of the Jeep Compass and Jeep Patriot. Both are not built to leave the road and this goes against everything the Jeep brand stands for. Although in the short run these two new models may help Jeep sell a few more vehicles, the potential damage to their brand in a crowded space like the auto industry is not a risk that I would take.

Yesterday, Kevin Johnson, president of Microsoft’s platforms and services division announced that the “Live” brand—Microsoft’s flavor of search and online services—could be replaced.  Given the many millions that have been invested by Microsoft, as well as the numerous iterations of “me to” services that have been added to their online offerings over the years, this is a pretty stunning admission. The failure of Live to really catch on and represent a credible threat to Google’s dominance has been cast as a branding problem, but I think there’s a real user experience issue that lives just below the surface. I also believe that without addressing this, any rebranding effort is unlikely to make a real difference.

Consider the development arc of Google as a brand. From the very beginning, that empty field centered on a nearly blank page made it crystal clear what Google was about—search. The fact that Google, as a word, has become synonymous with search in the public’s mind goes to show just how successful they have been. I think that you can attribute quite a lot of the brand’s success to the truly simple and intuitive user experience Google delivers.

Microsoft’s latest gambit to essentially bribe people to use Live search just underscores how much they have to catch up. And I think a part of the problem is the way Microsoft always seems to want more from the user if they want to play with the toys.

Visit windowslive.com, and one thing is clear immediately, you’re going to have to give up a bunch of personal information and allow Microsoft to install a whole bunch of stuff on your computer. Pretty strong contrast with the elegant simplicity and immediate gratification of the Google search field.

I’m confident that Microsoft will develop a successful strategy, which is a good thing. Google needs a credible competitor to keep it sharp, and we all benefit when really smart people compete to come up with innovative new services and products. When they get it right, you’ll know because they won’t have to be paying people to play.

Pity the poor brand manager--they have to keep track of a million tiny details all the time. But there are times when it pays to sweat the small stuff--one of them being when your brand mark is literally carved in stone. Here in Seattle, the Wells Fargo head office is in a nice skyscraper downtown on 3rd Ave. And if you're at street level, and you happen to be just a touch obsessive-compulsive, you'll notice how the Wells Fargo logotype carved into the stone plaza in front of the building has TERRIBLE kerning. Maybe only one person in a thousand notices, but once you do, it starts to annoy, kind of like getting the Macarena stuck in your head. I'm guessing Wells Fargo has a few bucks invested in their corporate image, so it strikes me a bit surprising they'd let this go in such a permanent setting.

Another example--a local cruise company who has a reputation for going the extra mile when it comes to the details has unbelievably bad kerning for some of its ship names. You may ask, "so what?” but when the name is rendered in four foot high letters that you can see from half a mile away, badly executed kerning really shows. Does this impact their business? Probably not. But when you consider that their reputation is based on delivering a luxury experience, the very name of the ship is sending a subtle message that maybe the cruise isn't quite going to be everything that was promised.

A warm and windy day can always be a excuse for an afternoon of sailing. Better than an excuse, a good cause only comes along once in a while. On June 7, 2008 , the Leukemia Foundation will be sponsoring their annual benefit regatta on Elliott Bay. Two boats from Pivot+Levy will be participating: Barb and Terry Stosser aboard Trofast, their Nauticat 36, and David and Barbara Rogers aboard Zöe, our Fantasi 44.  For Zöe and John's family who will be aboard, this will be special opportunity to honor a close friend, father and husband who is currently battling Leukemia. Racing under the banner of John’s Eagle Spirit, it is our hope to bring awareness and support to John, John’s family and others impacted by this disease.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society is the world’s largest voluntary health organization dedicated to funding blood cancer research and providing education and patient services.