First there was the rebranding of A4u to PerformanceIN.com which was a clear indication of the company’s commitment to and involvement in the ever evolving industry.  A4U has long been a hub for individuals and businesses within the sector both through the events such as A4u expo and through their website.  The rebrand isn’t a surprise given the A4u awards became the Performance Marketing Awards a couple of years ago and this year saw the company launch in the states with their Performance Marketing Insights event in New York.  I’m sure the company will go from strength to strength, not only continuing their work promoting the industry but elevating it to a new level.

Last week also saw the 7^th annual Performance Marketing Awards, which I was fortunate enough to have been a member of the judging panel for.  The event as always was a who’s who of the performance marketing industry with 1,000 attendees to witness the winner of the 31 awards.  Throw in a few drinks and comedy from Josh Widdicombe and it was destined to be a cracker.

The night saw some big winners including Linkdex, 7Things Media and Net Media Planet who all picked up two awards, Tradedoubler who grabbed four and Affiliate Window who secured a stellar six awards including the coveted Publishers Choice and the inaugural Grand Prix Award for their ‘Making Mobile Count’ strategy.

Anyone who is any doubt about the significant role the performance marketing industry plays in the UK only needs to read the list of companies who secured ‘Highly Commended’ or indeed won a Performance Marketing Award to see what as an industry has been achieved.  Having previously won what was then an ‘A4u’ award and secured two highly commended whilst at RAC, and being a judge, I for one know what hard graft as gone in from all those involved.  Congratulations to all those who did win, it’s fair to say job well done.

Check out the full list of Performance Marketing Award winners.

I don’t believe it’s a surprise, at least not in the UK where they don’t appear to have gained much traction.  However, losing the US offering is a little more surprising given that they are one of the larger propositions (reported to be the third largest after their acquisition of Performics).

Cast your mind back to April 2012 when Google launched the UK network, with the promise of so much.  Tony Nelan, the then Head of Google Affiliate Network, stated:

Google is committed to educating advertisers who don’t currently have affiliate programmes and introduce them to this channel. This in turn helps grow the overall market in the UK.”

One year on and it’s all over.  I guess this is just another example of Google trying something, not seeing the return it wants quickly enough and dropping it like a hot potato.

I’m pretty sure that this will have little impact on the performance marketing industry as a whole, but perhaps it will serve as a reminder of why you should choose the right affiliate network for your business to work with.

The study stated that “shutting paid search advertisements closed one (costly) path to a firm’s website but diverted traffic to the next easiest path (natural search), which is free to the advertiser.”

So is this an early indication that more brands will follow suit and look to cease using pay per click advertising (PPC) in order to save money, relying on natural search to pick up the sales? After all, if it works for ebay, one of the biggest names in the digital marketplace, then surely it must be the right thing to do! I would argue that it is precisely because ebay is ebay, a brand that is so synonymous with what they offer their customers that they can still attract customers to their site, regardless of their visibility in the paid search space.   I doubt there are many other brands that would be in a position to implement this strategy.

There are many large brands who are known for what they do but exist in such a crowded marketplace that if they were simply to cease appearing in the paid search space they may well find that instead of getting those customers to their site, they may well lose them to their competitors. Take Amazon, who in the UK have become renowned not just for selling books, but pretty much any product you may look to buy. On the term ‘buy books’ Amazon are not in position one for either PPC or SEO, but I do expect that for a large number of shoppers, they would have Amazon on their shopping list regardless. Perhaps, unlike ebay, Amazon simply don’t yet have the data to support this theory.

Now whilst I believe in sharing useful insight that can help benefit others within the digital space I’m not sure that the insight shared by ebay qualifies as useful. Yes it can be argued that ebay have demonstrated they are saving themselves a tonne of money by not investing in PPC, and that they aren’t seeing a dip in their overall sales volume as a result.

However, it can be argued that for far too long ebay have been lazy in their approach to PPC. Ebay have for a long time been the kings of using dynamic keyword insertion within their PPC account, meaning that they literally appear for thousands of products that a consumer could look to buy. In the example,  I searched for the term ‘baby bath’ and low and behold sure enough I got served with a generic ebay advert stating that I can find ‘baby + bath’ for less at ebay. Actually ebay I wanted a baby bath, not a bath that comes with a baby!

One thing is for sure, and that is ebay have certainly had a lot of brand exposure over the last few days for sharing some ‘insightful’ PPC information that actually isn’t as insightful or as useful as it appears on the surface.

So in answer to my original question ‘did ebay prove that PPC doesn’t work?’  No I don’t believe they did, they merely demonstrated that their PPC wasn’t working and highlighted the need for companies to utilise the data they have available to better optimise their online activities.

Headlines in the UK have certainly been dominated by this story for over a month and there appears to be no end in sight as more and more information becomes available.  The dramatic increase in the number of searches being made on the term ’horesemeat’, as on the below graph clearly demonstrates the public interest!

The main discussion seems to centre around two main issues.  Firstly, people’s personal preferences around what meat they choose to eat.  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there is the issue over consumers being unaware of what they have been sold, which undermines their belief and trust in the food they buy and the brands that both manufacture and sell the food.

It’s fair to say a number of brands have lost consumer confidence over the last few weeks; Tesco, Burger King and Findus to name but a few.  One recent article even goes as far as to state it is not that brands have been damaged (perhaps some permanently) by this scandal but the very concept of branding itself.

In the past, consumers placed their faith in the fact that it was a trusted brand they were purchasing food from, and therefore a reliable source.  It now appears that none of these brands were actually aware of what was in their products, leaving them unable to generate any faith amongst consumers that they should have trust in the brand.  Simply put, if those brands in question are unaware of what is going into the production of the food they sell to consumers, how on earth can they expect consumers to have any faith in them?

The Biggest Losers

There have been several companies that have been at the heart of the scandal.  Of the hardest hit segments, it is probably supermarkets that are feeling the brunt of the consumer backlash within the UK.  In part, this is due to the fact that this is where the story first came to light, but primarily it’s due to the number of products and indeed supermarkets that have been involved in the situation.

Of those supermarkets that have been at the centre of the controversy, it is Tesco that has fared the worst.   Their Buzz rating (a net balance of negative and positive comments consumers have heard about a brand), has seen scores tumble from a score of 0.66 on January 11^th (ahead of the contamination story) to -31.62 on February 12^th. This is a rather impressive drop of over 32 points in just one month.

Tesco has also been hit with an influx of consumer criticism, most notably via social media sites due to its mis-management of the situation.  It’s fair to say that whatever the excuse, (apologies if I don’t buy into the official line of we couldn’t stop the automatic tweet) making light of the situation on the day the story broke was not a good move.

Findus, another brand that has been at the heart of this scandal has also fallen foul of misunderstanding social media and the reach that it has.  When they released the below statement, in which they took no accountability for the issues and actually tried to shift blame on a third party instead, again they felt the public backlash.

“We understand this is a very sensitive subject for consumers and we would like to reassure you we have reacted immediately. We do not believe this to be a food safety issue. We are confident that we have fully resolved this supply chain issue.”

Surely, brands in the midst of a public relations crisis need to learn to step up to the plate (so to speak).  We no longer live in a world where yesterdays’ news is used to wrap up your fish and chips and quickly forgotten.  Instead, we live in a world where information is readily available at your fingertips and there is no sell by date on content.

It’s fair to say that in addition to the clearly demonstrated loss in faith in many household brands, the sheer cost implications that these companies will face in terms of  trying to mitigate the damage that has been done is going to be considerable.  If you think back a few years to the Perrier scandal, it’s probably safe to say that the company never truly recovered.

And the Winners Are!

Whilst there have certainly been far more brands that have lost consumer confidence, there are some companies that have seen their fortunes change for the better!.

Morrisons was one of the first brands to realise the potential in this space, and launched full page colour press adverts highlighting their use of British beef within a couple of days of the story initially breaking.

Whilst taking an obvious moral high ground and clearly pointing out the difference between themselves and competitors, initial results have also demonstrated that this is a tactic that is working for them.

According to one report, Morrisons has seen an 18% rise in the sale of non-frozen meat products since horse DNA was first identified in Tesco value beef burgers.  According to a company spokesperson “fresh beef burger sales have jumped 50%, fresh pork sales are up 124%, beef mince is up 21% and lamb rose 15% over the past two weeks, compared with last month.”

Compare this with a poll by Retail Week magazine that found that 45% of shoppers would avoid the meat aisles of the chains found to be selling horsemeat labeled as beef.

Morrisons sources meat through a variety of local farm communities, which means the company has closer knowledge of their supply chain, reportedly tracing their produce ‘from field to fork’, unlike other large supermarket chains!  During the horsemeat scandal, they have simply had to remove the branded products they sell from companies such as Findus.

By comparison, many of the other supermarket chains within the UK have taken to advertising non-beef products. Aldi are featuring 100% pure British fresh chicken and pork, highlighting that this produce has earned the ‘Red Tractor Symbol’ thereby demonstrating the necessary standard of animal welfare and traceability in their press adverts.

Others, including Tesco, have run extensive advertising throughout the crisis as a means of apology to the British public and to try to help restore a level of faith in the British meat industry.

It has also been reported that independent butchers and farm shops in some areas have seen a 75% increase in sales following the horsemeat scandal.  As an avid believer in buying local and a regular at my local and trusted butcher, this increase in trade can only be a good thing.

If there is to be a positive outcome from this, it must be to see the small independent butchers finally see an increase in trade after suffering during the recession. In a time where consumers are seeing budgets stretched and the cost of living increase, the phrases ‘you get what you pay for’  and ‘less is more’ ring truer than ever.  I for one, would rather eat less meat of a higher quality than be inundated with deals whereby you can buy frozen lasagne for 99p.

Whilst having a strategy in place is core to the success of any business, it is also important for that strategy to be flexible enough for brands to react as required. Furthermore, it is important for brands to have the ability to be as nimble as possible when an unforeseen situation arises. In an ideal world, companies should prepare for unpredictable and unforeseen events and proactively react to the situation – proactive reactivity! This is something that is becoming ever more important and impactful given the social world in which we live.

Take last weekend’s Super Bowl; without a crystal ball to hand, who would have foreseen a black out? Not many! Who would have predicted that a brand could be up and running with a tactical response to the black out before the powers that be got the lights switched back on? Probably no-one.

It is true that the Super Bowl comes every year and it is well known as the biggest day for advertisers in the US, so arguably brands spend a whole lot of time, money and effort to get the most of the sporting event of the year. However, I bet there are a few brands that are more than a little bit impressed by Oreo’s forward thinking approach, ensuring they were ready to react whatever the situation!

By having their design agency, social media team and management team together and prepared to respond to whatever happened on the night they were able to design, caption and approve an ad in minutes. An ad that they tweeted resulting in 12,000 re-tweets in just 2 hours, which is social media gold dust. Yes, they had to ensure the right people were in place and ready to go, but compared to the price of a TV ad in the Super Bowl, we’re talking peanuts.

Having previously worked in the finance industry in the UK, the idea of being able to get a tactical piece of marketing out of the door in minutes seems unfathomable to me. I cannot imagine that the relevant people from marketing, social media, brand, legal and compliance and the SLA’s to which they may work would be able to do it.

I do believe that brands now, more than ever, really need to cut down on the red tape wherever possible, so that they can be more responsive, as there is simply no point responding once the moment has been and gone.

I appreciate that there are rules and regulations that brands must adhere to (and in some industries these can be quite restrictive) but cutting this down as much as possible is going to become increasingly important.

At the moment, within your Adwords account, you would have a campaign for your desktop ppc, one for your mobile and one for tablet and each campaign would be optimised individually. Going forward, you’ll just have one campaign that will cover everything.

Google’s reasoning behind this fundamental change is to enable advertisers to target people at the right time, in the right place, with the right advert and the appropriate call to action. According to Google, this is first step to allow companies to more simply and smartly manage their ad campaigns in today’s multi-device world.

Given the number of devices consumers are using today and the impact this can have on a brands’ ability to accurately monitor and attribute performance accordingly, this could make sense.

According to a report by Equimedia entitled ‘Broken journeys and marketing accountability’, 70% of users regularly use more than one device and 22% of customers used one device to research a product and another to purchase.

Furthermore, as the number of devices available continues to grow, the variation between what is a smartphone and what is a tablet blurs more and more. Combine this with increasingly savvy consumers and it becomes more obvious that companies need to adapt.

So what does this mean?

In essence, the current ability to run separate campaigns for different devices will no longer be available. Instead, advertisers will have just the one campaign which will span all devices. Essentially, advertisers are going to have think about their Adwords account in a new, more contextual, manner.

This means managing your Adwords account according to what consumers need in their current situation as opposed to by what device they are using. Say I’m being lazy and search for what I need on my tablet or smartphone at home because I don’t want to get my laptop out, I’m still searching for the same thing. Likewise, if I were out and about having a coffee I may grab my laptop to look for directions to the local market rather than pay roaming charges on my mobile.

What do you need to do?

The good news is that advertisers have until the end of June to move over to the new look Adwords. As with any such change it’s important to take the time and do it correctly as this is a totally new way of managing Adwords.

The key difference will be the introduction of regular bids with multiple bid adjustments which will be made at a keyword level. Your regular bid will be used to determine desktop Ad Rank and you will then use the bid adjustments ranging from -100% (turning off mobile advertising) to +300% (equivalent to 4 times the bid amount of your desktop bid) to optimise your account.

There are other bid adjustments that you will be able to implement including location based and time of day (replacing the existing day parting mechanism).

In layman’s terms, this simply means that you will be able to set up your account within a single campaign and adjust what you are willing to bid depending on your business requirements.

Take the below two examples:

1. You are a local Chinese takeaway who wants to attract more business on Friday and Saturday nights between 9pm – midnight. You will be able to utilise your bid adjustments so that you would be willing to pay more for a mobile click to call within a 2 mile radius (as it happens to be your delivery range) on those particular days and times.
2. You are a national retailer (let’s say Argos) where customers have a choice of shopping online or in-store. You’ll be able to utilise click to call and location extensions for customers who are using their smartphones as opposed to using multiple site extensions and pushing consumers to your e-commerce site when they are browsing at home.

In the new world you will define ads as being ‘mobile preferred’, which in essence gives Google the flexibility of what to display. The onus will be on brands to think about their user.

The Pros and Cons
As with any change of this size, there are pros and cons:

Pros

• Visibility of the performance of individual site links, currently you only get minimal top line information
• Ability to set up ad extensions at ad group levels
• Cross device attribution

Cons

• You’ll no longer have tablet reporting (eventually this won’t be necessary but we’re not quite there yet)
• You won’t be able to run mobile only campaigns
• You won’t have device control (e.g. IOS vs Android)

Is this Google’s way of earning more money or is this a genuine attempt to help advertisers and consumers? I guess time will tell. One thing’s for sure, it’s going to have a lasting impact on search as we know it.

Here’s a video from Google showing what this will mean for consumers.
–

We’ve compiled some of our favourite examples of companies rebranding that probably didn’t go quite as they had hoped.

1. Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No its American Airlines who have, according to some, simply ‘beheaded the eagle’ with their new livery. This was an established logo that people had connected with for over 40 years, so it may take a while for people to get on board with the new image…

1. In 1997 British Airways changed the livery of their planes from the well known and loved Union Jack and as part of this introduced world image tailfins. This was part of a move to demonstrate that they were a global airline as the new tailfins represented the network of routes they flew. In 2001, as a result of much dismay from the British public (and I’m sure the adoption of the Union Jack by Virgin Atlantic), British Airways reverted to using the more recognised imagery.

1. Mind the Gap – or should that be “missed the gap altogether”? If you blinked back in 2010, you might have missed the image that temporarily replaced their long standing logo. The backlash was so strong that the brand reverted back to their original logo in 8 days. Quite an expensive exercise to undertake I’m sure!

1. Abbey National – remember back to the days before Santander? They famously went through several iterations of logos, before it was officially “RIP Abbey” and “hello Santander!”

1. EE – Once upon a time, not only was the ‘future bright’ and ‘the future orange’ but we should also ‘stick together’. I’m sure millions have been spent on launching the brand that was temporarily ‘everything everywhere’ then simply shortened to EE (after all Kevin Bacon can’t be cheap), but are people relating to the brand? As a former Orange customer, I do find it all a little confusing as I still receive a mixture of communications from the various iterations of the old Orange brand and EE.

1. Consigned to Failure – the Post Office has existed in the UK in one form or another since Henry VIII established the “Master of the Posts” so it’s fair to say it is a British institution. I’m sure there are few marketers within the UK who don’t remember the catastrophe that was Consignia. The brand was officially launched on 9th January 2002 by Jon Roberts and was hailed as being ‘modern, meaningful and entirely appropriate’! Consignia was born, a cunning play on words and a mash up of ‘consign’ and ‘insignia’. So with a meaning of ‘to deliver’ and with a tentative link to something royal how could it ever fail? The backlash was unrivalled and it was greeted with scathing reviews. The BBC’s website famously referred to this as ‘the most notorious ever Post Office robbery – that of the name itself.’ Unsurprisingly a massive U-turn was undertaken and ‘Consignia’ was dispatched to the scrapheap and the Post Office was back. Embarrassingly, many in the UK were blissfully unaware that the Post Office had ever changed names.

1. Aviva or is that Arriva? Norwich Union who? Their re-branding in 2009 accompanied a high-risk name change. The TV advertising campaign featured famous celebrities who had also undergone a re-branding.

• Bruce Willis – Walter Bruce Willis
• Elle Macpherson – Eleanor Gow
• Ringo Starr – Richard Starkey
• Alice Cooper – Vincent Damon Furnier
• Dame Edna Everage – John Barry Humphries

The rebrand from Norwich Union to Aviva at a cost of circa £9 million was one of the most expensive of recent years.

However, a poll conducted by Marketing Week saw 67% of marketers deeming the campaign to be successful at communicating the name change. That being said would the public also consider it be successful, or for that matter even care?

The article includes insights from esteemed professionals within the affiliate space, many of whom I’ve been lucky enough to work with over the years.

Do incentive sites drive any incremental value for merchants?

One of the key points of the article was to dispel the myth that loyalty sites simply drive sales that advertisers would have achieved anyway.  So how does an advertiser know whether or not cashback and vouchercode sites are driving sales that are genuinely incremental?

Firstly, it’s important to define what you mean by incremental sales.

To some advertisers, incremental sales may refer to sales from new customers who haven’t previously engaged with any other form of trackable marketing. Therefore, it can be assumed that these customers only converted because you were visible on such sites.  To others, it may be the incremental value derived from increased order value.  Once you’ve defined these objectives, you can begin to understand what role these sites play a role in your overall marketing mix.

Here are some questions that you can ask yourself to help identify if these sales and revenue are truly incremental to your business.

• Would this customer have bought without the incentive?
• What is the value of these customers compared to other customer segments (e.g. via other online channels)?
• What is the life time value of these customers compared to others?
• Do you have a clear view of the journey taken to get to your site? Have they only seen you on a cashback site, or have they had multiple exposures to your marketing activity across other channels?

Is it the end of Performance Marketing as we know it?

The second key point of this article addressed the question of whether or not cashback sites will eventually spell the end of performance marketing as we know it.

I would argue that the performance marketing industry is continually evolving and that over the years various affiliate types have had the same arguments leveled against them, including PPC affiliates.

It’s fair to say that cashback and vouchercode sites have certainly made an impact on the marketplace. It’s true that for many online consumers, these sites have become an integral part of their purchase process as people are trying to get the best deal they can.  That is only human nature, especially in times of recession.

These sites have also established a strong brand loyalty with their member base, and have invested heavily in above the line advertising. Quidco, Topcashback and vouchercodes.co.uk were all investing in TV advertising in 2012.

That being said, I would argue that companies selling online have played their own role in commoditizing the marketplace.

Take the competitive insurance space for example, there are no less than 30 different car insurance providers currently offering up to £70 cashback on Quidco.

In addition to this, some of the main comparison sites such as Go Compare and Confused are offering cashback simply for doing a quote.  A customer would be mad not to buy via a cashback site for what is deemed a compulsory purchase as they could earn themselves £70 in the process.  If there were only a couple of players in this space, offering  a much lower cashback amount,  then the role these sites play in the customer purchase decision process would be dramatically reduced.

Take another example of broadband and digital TV. Both Virgin Media and Sky are offering in excess of £160 cashback for new customers.  Why wouldn’t you be tempted to buy via these sites?  If these companies were to dramatically reduce the cashback they offer, then they could in fact change the nature of this marketplace.

In essence, I would argue that brands in this space can over-inflate the marketplace by competing for customers by offering best in class consumer offers, often at overinflated rates. By doing so, they are in essence the driving force behind this particular market, and not the loyalty sites themselves!

There are some basic rules of thumb that I would encourage brands to think about when either considering entering this marketplace, or looking to understand any existing activity.

Define what you mean by incremental sales.  This could be new customers, increased order value, driving repeat visits.

Clearly define your strategy and ensure you have the necessary measurement tools in place to monitor performance.  For example cashback and vouchercode sites can be great for clearing old stock (especially if that stock is costing your business money in terms of storage costs).

Don’t look at your own activity in isolation, it is important to be aware of what competitors are doing in this space.  Why offer £100 cashback if your key competitors are offering £30.  Yes you will get a significant share of the market but you could still achieve this at a much lower rate and could be helping to overinflate the market.

Don’t look at cashback or vouchercode customers in isolation; they should be viewed as a clearly defined segment within your overall customer base.

So, is this a revolutionary purchase method that provides customers with a valid alternative to the credit card when making higher value purchases online? Or is it simply another way for short term loan companies such as Wonga to take advantage of consumers during a time when most households are faced with increasing outgoings and less spending power?

According to a Wonga spokesperson, ‘this is just another means of payment for online retail transactions’.  They added that ‘the benefits are its transparency and its convenience’ and that ‘it’s very clear about what you’ve got to pay over three months’.

The Scheme

The scheme works by charging customers an upfront fee of 7% followed by three monthly payments to cover the cost of the purchase.   This sounds great when you first read it but it isn’t necessarily the best deal for customers.

For example, for an old style country kitchen cabinet costing £575, you would be charged a fee of £40.25 followed by the original purchase price over a 3 month period.  Whilst this is only a 7% transaction fee it equates to a Representative APR of 28.3%.

If purchased on a standard credit card, the APR would be more in the region of 19%, so the interest payment would be much less than with the Wonga scheme.

Big, Bad Wonga, or Customer Champion?

Pros

• The pay later scheme allows consumers to spread the cost of high-worth purchases using an up-front and transparent method
• It provides consumers who don’t have a credit card an alternative that’s considerably cheaper than most short term loans
• It allows retailers to provide an additional purchase method on their site to try and encourage conversion
• If a customer cancels within the 14 day cancellation period they will receive a full refund for the 7% fee paid

Cons

• The Representative APR is higher than the average credit card
• There is only the 3 month payment option available to consumers, so it may be unsuitable for many shoppers
• There may be extra costs incurred if later payments are not made

It will be interesting to see if more retailers sign up to this in the coming months, and if there is actual demand by the consumer.  The Cotswold Company isn’t reporting a high take-up at the moment, so it may be that the demand simply isn’t there.

As to whether or not this will be a genuine alternative to using credit cards for online purchases, we’ll just have to watch this space…

(It may be worth noting that I don’t necessarily believe peer pressure should be the driving force behind creating new content, but it can definitely work.)

So, to recap, I’ve already stated that the best web content is relevant, unique and generous. It’s also worth thinking about some of the following areas:

Accuracy

This doesn’t just mean getting your facts right (that should go without saying), but making sure there are no spelling mistakes and that it’s grammatically correct is still really important!

I was speaking to a recruitment consultancy the other day that had been in a hurry, and posted a job application online for a Financial “Manger”. It’s easily done, but really doesn’t fill potential candidates (or clients) with confidence in your brand.

Human nature is such that once we spot a mistake, it will make us stop, even if it’s just to think “is that right?” Whereas the aim of your content should be to keep the reader interested, drawing them through to the end. The easier you make it for them, by trying to remove any spelling hurdles, the more likely they are to continue reading.

• Don’t just rely on spell-checker; always get somebody else to read your work. It’s easy to miss basic errors in your own content, as you can be too close to it
• Quote, and where possible, link to your sources. This gives people confidence in the accuracy of your content, and also shows you’ve read around the subject! 

Length

There are lots of recommendations out there regarding the “ideal” length of a web page. However, it should be the content itself that dictates the length. How much information do you need to get in for it to be useful? What’s the purpose of the content? Is it meant to inform, educate, entertain? There’s nothing wrong with a one paragraph blog post if it’s relevant, or entertaining. Equally, I’ve read posts of a few thousand words, which have given some in-depth information that I’ve now bookmarked to use as reference in the future.

• Don’t worry about keeping information “above the fold”. Here’s why
• If you do write a lengthier article, use sub-headings and bullet points to make it easier to scan, and break your article up with images and diagrams if relevant

Accessibility

Accessibility covers a few areas, it’s not just making it compliant with coding standards and Search Engine friendly – although that’s always a good idea.

Consider accessibility in terms of the language you use. Try and avoid jargon wherever possible. I’ve heard a lot of people argue about this, saying “visitors to my site are in the industry, they should know what these things mean”. However, you’re automatically excluding those people who don’t know those industry specific acronyms and terms, and not actually providing any additional benefit to those enlightened visitors. If you can phrase something in a way that can be understood by the majority of people, you’re just widening your reach.

Why exclude anybody from being able to understand your writing?

• Get somebody not in your industry to read your content, they may not find it particularly interesting, but they should be able to understand it.
• If acronyms are relevant, always explain it when it’s first used. So if you mention SEO, there’s no harm in saying “Search Engine Optimisation (SEO)” in your initial statement.

For an article to be accessible, it must also be “findable”. Good content shouldn’t just be an SEO exercise, and therefore it needs to be easy to navigate to on your site. I discovered an article through a search engine the other day, then when I went back to the site a few days later, it was impossible to find via the main navigation.

• Link to the article from various places within your site where it may be relevant, don’t just rely on your blog listing.
• Categorise your blog where possible
• Make sure your internal search functionality provides accurate results

The problem is, that good content takes time, resource and a level of competency. I recently read this great article which says if you don’t have the time to create a great blog, then don’t bother at all, which I couldn’t agree with more.

I’m going to sit back now and wait for the comments pointing out any unnecessary jargon and spelling mistakes…